All the history that's fit to ignore

The MSM has been strangely silent on Iraq since the "Surge". The crushing of the insurgency in the "Tikrit triangle", the defeat of the Al-Sadr militia in Basra and the "Anabar Awakening" which drove out the Al Qaeda in Iraq's footholds in that promise were entirely at odds with the MSM narrative of defeat and dispair.

As well, the crushing of the insurgency is a humiliating blow to the US anti war movement and totally overturns the narrative of Senator (now President elect) Barack Obama, who has constantly and consistently been against the Iraq war, and has publicly stated that the "Surge" was not effective and the US would be defeated in Iraq.

How much better if they simply pretend it never happened.

For those of you who do not have a personal memory hole, real reporting of the situation in Iraq has been provided by such independent "blog" journalists as Micheal Yon, and professionals like Robert Kaplan, and can be found on the web.

November 22 should become a new day of celebration for Americans: VI day. Since this conflicts with the "official" narratives and the new Administration, VI day will have to be a private memorial celebrated on November 22 each year by patriotic Americans and their friends throughout the world. Let the Administration and MSM know what you are doing, they may publicly ignore your celebrations but should be hanging their heads in shame (and will if they have any decency left).

Congratulations to the Bush Administration for seeing the conflict through to victory.
Congratulations to the American and Allied servicemembers who made such great sacrifices to bring about victory
Congratulations to the Government and people of Iraq for perservering against all the odds.
Congratulations to the American people who supported their troops during the hard times.

The "Crowd" has spoken as well

I would like to draw your attention to an interesting post. While I posted on the "meta level" that Freidrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises had already passed judgement on the Obama Administration, the markets have done so as well. Indeed, the market predicted and reacted to the impending victory of Senator Obama in September, well before the election occured.

From Doug Ross @ Journal:

Barack Obama and The Wisdom of Crowds

In the early twentieth century Francis Galton witnessed a contest at a county fair. Asked to estimate the weight of a prize ox, spectators and cattle experts alike submitted their guesses on paper.After the contest was finished, Galton collected the hundreds of submissions. He painstakingly added them up to determine the average of the crowd's estimates.He was astounded to discover that the crowd's average was closer to the true weight of the ox than any single guess, including those of the "experts".

This anecdote is one of many related in James Surowiecki's bestselling book The Wisdom of Crowds.The book's central assertion is that a diverse collection of individuals, each operating independently, is likely to offer better predictions and decisions than individuals, even so-called "experts".

Intrade.com, the well-known prediction market, selected the winner of every single U.S. Senate race in 2006. No "talking head" pundit was able to match this record.The largest and best known prediction market is the stock market. A 2007 study by Arnerich & Messina illustrated the stock market's efficiency in stark terms. Since 1994 there have been only two years in which more than 50% of professional money managers were able to beat the S&P 500 index. In 1997 only 11% of managers beat the index.

Over the last year most investors in the equity markets have taken horriffic losses. In September -- just a couple of months ago -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average hovered near 12,000. Today it closed at 7,552, a loss of roughly 35%.

What happened in September? Let's look at the Intrade presidential futures market. The blue line represents the Obama futures while red represents McCain.If we zoom into the September-to-November timeframe, we'll see something very enlightening. By late September it was increasingly clear to Intrade.com bettors that Obama was going to win the election. From 9/28 to 9/29 Obama's Intrade price went from 57 to 61, which represented a huge jump.Note what happened to the stock market at nearly the exact same time. Around September 29th the market began its collapse.

Call it a crisis of confidence. Call it a Fannie-inspired meltdown. Call it what you will, but the markets appear to have reacted to Obama's promises of economic "fairness", "spreading the wealth" and raising taxes on the job creators of society.This thinly disguised form of class warfare, the policies of which many have termed socialism (fairly or unfairly), has had a definite impact on the markets.The markets represent the ultimate collective intelligence engine on the planet. The markets have spoken on the stated policies of Barack Obama. Sorry, folks, there are no do-overs.

Linked by: American Thinker, Gateway Pundit and Vanderleun. Thanks!

With that level of confidence, I predict the next four years are going to be very ugly for investors and producers. "Who is John Galt?" indeed....

Travelling At The Speed Of Light

Bob Rae touting his "experience" in running a government under deficit conditions has got to be the most audacious attempt at rebranding in the history of politics.

Mr Rae would have you believe that since his 4 year evisceration of Ontario and his taxpayer assisted political Seppuku in 1995, and after 13 years of being Grand Pooh-Bah in charge of exactly nothing, that his "experience" of running the province of Ontario into the ground will serve Canadians well.

Good thing it doesn't look like anyone is buying.

Looks like there is more of a difference between shit and sunshine than their relative speed of travel after all.

Two Prophetic Passages

Now referring to Ayn Rand as a prophet is sublimely ridiculous to anyone but the most ignorant provocateur, but doing a little light reading last night I came across these two passages in the essay titled "Egalitarianism and Inflation" in her book "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" and though not a prophet, Rand, in championing real, true and unhindered laissez-faire capitalism certainly seems to have glimpsed the troubles we find ourselves drowning in today...

"While the government struggles to save one crumbling enterprise at the expense of the crumbling of another, it accelerates the process of juggling debts, switching losses, piling loans on loans, mortgaging the future and the futures future. As things grow worse, the government protects itself not by contracting this process but by expanding it."

Sound familiar?

How about this?

"It is at a time like this, in the face of an approaching economic collapse, that the intellectuals are preaching egalitarian notions. When the curtailment of government spending is imperative, they demand more welfare projects. When the need for men of productive ability is desperate, they demand more equality for the incompetents. When the country needs the accumulation of capital, they demand that we soak the rich. When the country needs more savings, they demand a "redistribution of income." They demand more jobs and less profits-more jobs and fewer factories-more jobs and no fuel, no oil, no coal, no "pollution"-but above all, more goods for free to more consumers, no matter what happens to jobs, to factories, or to producers."

Those who don't/can't/won't listen to reason are doomed.

Freedom Bridge.

In October this old covered bridge joining the communities of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner in New Brunswick was burned to the ground leaving only a treacherous hilly road joining the two. The residents were outraged as it appeared that this old covered bridge, like so many others, had been the victim of arson.

Now the residents of Upper Stone Ridge are outraged once again, the government of the province has decided that the dangerous road link will provide sufficient ingress and egress from the tiny community and the bridge will not be replaced.

Now as petty as the Government of New Brunswick appears to be in this case, $275,000 being a drop in the proverbial budget bucket, what annoys me most is that not a single resident has suggested that the residents or the business's of the town get together to build the bridge themselves.

I grant that in our heavily taxed society that we as citizens ought to be able to expect that government would provide such a necessary link (otherwise why are we paying them so much money), but obviously we can't. The reason is simple political economics, the government doesn't give a rats ass about some tiny backwater village, it won't cost them the election next time around and therefore the wishes and requests of that small minority are unimportant.

Sorry, those are the facts, that is the deal our social contract has become. Big = important, small = ignored.

So what are these people to do? Apparently the choices they have accepted as of now are.

1. Suck it up
2. Bitch and moan and in the end suck it up

So what happened to option 3? The one that says when the government won't provide then the private sector or private funding will? Like they used to do it in the old days.

Apparently that idea hasn't crossed anyone's mind. But what if it did...

Could the people of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner pool their resources and build their own bridge? Sure, why not it always used to be done that way. In the old days it was the need for the thing that was the impetus to get it done, not the will of government.

So for arguments sake lets say that they did build the bridge, well then they would have to pay for it, and the most sensible method of payment would probably be by toll. Now seeing that the bridge would in fact be private property then no police car, ambulance, fire truck or any other vehicle would be entitled to cross without paying the toll...

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Right. All those agencies which according to the article claimed that "the bridge wouldn't affect the service given to the public" would have to spend more money to go the long and dangerous way around or pay to use the private bridge.

In the end it's up to the people of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner to see if the idea is workable, if it is viable or even preferable. But given ownership of some suitable land, the construction of the bridge ought to be the choice of those people affected, and outside of the power of government to dictate.

My advice to the people of Upper Stone Ridge and Morehouse Corner is to build it. Take charge of your own lot in life, and when the government comes calling, when Constable Joe or Postal Worker Jim want to use your bridge tell them to pay up or piss off.

And if you build it... I'll definitely go out of my way the next time I'm in that part of New Brunswick to pay your toll and salute your claim of freedom

Picture courtesy of New Brunswick Covered Bridges Blog

Some common sense from a politician (for a change)

From the Wall Street Journal. If he represents the "new wave" of Republicans, along with Governor's Palin and Bobby Jindal (among others), then maybe the Republican Party has the nucleus of a new team. Give them until 2012 to clean house internally and build a new platform on "Classical Liberal" principles like freedom of expression, property rights and the Rule of Law (or in the American idiom; "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness") and they will have a winning combination. The chaos and economic uncertainty of the next four years won't hurt their chances either:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122670755063129989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Don't Bail Out My State
South Carolina's governor says more debt isn't the answer.
By MARK SANFORD

I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.

But I suspect I'm not entirely alone, as there are a lot of taxpayers who aren't pleased with Christmas coming early for politicians. And I hope these taxpayers make their voices heard before Democrats load up the next bailout train for states with budget deficits.

Several questions led me to oppose bailing out the states. They are worth asking, even if you supported bailing out Wall Street.

Who bails out the "bail-outor"?

Washington is short on cash these days and will borrow every dime of the $150 billion to $300 billion for the "stimulus" bill now being worked on. Federal appetites may know no bounds. But the federal government's ability to borrow is not limitless. Already, our nation's unfunded liabilities total $52 trillion -- about $450,000 per household. There's something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.

Do you now have to be a financial "bad boy" to win?

Community bankers tell me that they are now at a competitive disadvantage for being careful about who to lend to, because others that were less disciplined will get a federal bailout. This is also true for states. Those that have been fiscally responsible will pay for or lose out to the big spenders. California increased spending 95% over the past 10 years (federal spending went up 71% over the same period). To bail out California now seems unfair to fiscally prudent states.

Was the economist Herb Stein wrong when he said that if something cannot go on forever, it won't?

Medicaid grew 9.5% annually over the past 10 years. That's unsustainable. But if Congress opens the checkbook now, there will be no reform.

Isn't government intervention supposed to be the last resort and come only when it can make a difference?

In 2008 bailouts became the first resort. Over the past year the federal government has committed itself to $2.3 trillion (including the tax rebate "stimulus" checks of last February) to "improve" the economy. I don't see how another $150 billion now will make a difference in a global slowdown. We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.

However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security's REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.

Based on what I saw in Washington, the bailout train is being loaded up. Taxpayers will have to speak up now to change its freight, tab or departure.

Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pronounce judgement on the Obama Administration

Should we really prolong the death struggle for those countries, whose ruling intellectual caste is dependent on the resources that the capitalist west provides for its socialist experiments?
Friedrich A. Hayek

That which generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade -- and currency control, devaluing, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is the philosophy of war.
Ludwig von Mises

We will live in interesting times

Remembrance day

The ancient Greek statesman Pericles gave an oration for the Athenian war dead ("The Funeral Oration"), which is speaks to us today as much as it did to the Athenians in the winter of 441 BC. When he discusses the ideal of citizenship, he speaks across the centuries to the same impulses which drove our citizen soldiers throughout Canada's history:

What I would prefer is you should fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and fall in love with her. When you realize her greatness, then reflect what made her great were men with a spirit of adventure, men who knew their duty, men who were ashamed to fall below a certain standard. If they ever failed in an enterprise, they made up their minds that at any rate the city would not find their courage lacking to her, and they gave to her the best contribution that they could. They gave her their lives, to her and to all of us, and for their own selves they won praises that never grow old, the most splendid of sepulchers- not the sepulcher where their body is laid but where their glory remains eternal in men’s minds, always there on the right occasion to stir others to speech or to action.


Lest we forget

Still Not The Prime Minister

Yes, that means you Jack

"In the first case, it's going to be a speech from the throne that will be a confidence motion, and we've set out today the five fundamentals that we must see ... for us to even consider supporting it."

What part of fourth place don't you understand?

Un-equalization...

"This reliance on handouts makes governments and voters too dependent on other people's money and less willing to make innovative policy decisions to spark job creation."

Indeed...

Pope Signs Death sentence

Apparently the meaning of the word donation is more important than saving a persons life.

"buying and selling of organs ... would go against the meaning of donation"

In Canada according to this article 46% of patients waiting for a Kidney died in the average 2.4 years they were followed for the study. This is in spite of the fact that a person can live with just one kidney.

The article is chock full of tidbits like this...

"A relatively small proportion of patients received a transplant: 10.6 per cent for those receiving a kidney from a deceased donor and 5.8 per cent for live donors."

I wonder, how many people would voluntarily exchange a kidney for a suitable cash payment...

Meh, it doesn't really matter, because once again, the church proves it is all about suffering, it's more interested in some ethereal piety and altruistic nonsense than it is in you, your life, the ones you love and your/their continued existence.

My hat is off to the propagandists of the church though... That they continue to be able to convince people that it is better to die than to pay for a service is amazing. The two Joe's (Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin) must be prostrating themselves in the grave at the thought of it.

An Army of Brownshirts?

Senator Obama has proposed a Civilian National Security Force with the same "power and funding" as the Armed Forces. As a student of history, this doesn't sound very comforting; since most totalitarian regimes developed parallel armed forces to the military (think of the Soviet MVD "Ministry of the Interior" troops for a simple example). While creating an army of Brownshirts or Stormtroopers may not be the reason for a Civilian National Security Force, we need to know what, exactly, it is. (I note that we potentially have lots of integration issues considering how our forces are intertwined through NORAD, Northern Command, NATO etc.)

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/01/civilian-national-security-force/

Civilian National Security Force
BY Herschel Smith

So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles - Civilian National Defense Force).

Truth in Advertising

Pulling a Ragnar Danneskjöld

Instapundit recently published a blog post asking if it is time for Americans to pull a "John Gault" and go on strike against a prospective Obama administration and Congressional Democratic supermajority. For the few readers who may not understand the allusion; John Galt withdraws from a socialist society and convinces other thinkers and doers to do the same. The United States is crippled not only because of the redistributive policies followed by the various State and Federal governments, but because the very people who's productivity and effort provides the funds and motive power to the State are no longer there.

Ragnar Danneskjold is one of the strikers, who takes more positive action, rather than passively withdrawing from society, he becomes a pirate and actively destroys "gift ships" that the United States sends to the various People's States around the world (although he makes a point of avoiding confrontations with the United States Navy and Coast Guard, since they are performing their proper roles). This is direct action against the philosophy of "spreading the wealth" by preventing it from being used to subsidize or otherwise support other "looter" regimes. In on of the great scenes of the novel, Ragnar Danneskjold seeks out one of the non strikers; Hank Rearden, and offers him some comfort as the looming forces of the State increase the pressure on him. As partial restitution for the hardship and suffering Rearden has suffered at the hands of the State, Danneskjold offers repayment in gold of Rearden's income taxes.

We can do the same. If governments or the State want to "spread the wealth", it is quite reasonable to ask; "why not to us?" Readers are urged to think of the example of Ragnar Danneskjold and use the various mechanisms the State has or will offer to request your income tax back. If the State offers funds to start a new business or hire employees, plug into that program for the amount of your income tax. Rebates for going green? How green can you go (up to the maximum amount of your taxes). American readers will have somewhat different calculations to make, income taxes might not rise initially under an Obama administration, but withholdings like FICA will go up, and probably by dramatic amounts.

Here is how another correspondent puts it:

A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."

Piracy may be profitable and fun during the Obama administration. With luck, we can strike the "Black Flag" in 2012.

A radical approach to dealing with the financial crisis

WRT the economy, I think the various notions being floated or practiced now are dangerous nonsense. Nationalizing the banks or debt will further distort the economy and lead to inflation. Given the sordid history of State intervention in the housing market which caused this mess in the first place, I would be very reluctant to accept that further direct intervention in the economy can "help". Someone needs to take the lead with a more radical approach that restores liquidity and confidence without breaking the bank. For a Canadian solution I propose:

a. Eliminating business income tax entirely. Business does not pay tax anyway, but simply passes on the costs to consumers. Dropping the tax will free up massive amounts of resources to retool, pay off debt or whatever else the owners see fit, and give the overall economy a huge boost. The political criticism from the "Progressives" and regional interests can be deflected by pointing out that every business and every region will benefit without prejudice or special favor, and the amount of funds released into the productive economy will create many new jobs. The $50 billion in business tax cuts that Jack Layton wanted to take back is the resources to create 1,000,000 new, full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables.

b. Institute a single tax (AKA Flat tax). Eliminating all loopholes, exemptions etc. will make revenue collection much easier, and also deflect criticism from the "Progressives". As a bonus, a single tax can free up about $3 billion after tax dollars a year in compliance costs to taxpayers and business; more funds that can flow to the productive economy pot.

c. Eliminate corporate subsidies as a partial payment for "a". Corporate subsidies cost an estimated $19 billion per year to the taxpayer, probably a lot more if regional funds, special initiatives to "selected" industries, agriculture, arts and culture etc. are included. Since the business world receives a huge boost from eliminating business tax, dropping subsidies is a fair trade off, and since the elimination of business income tax will assist all business, calls for corporate subsidies to "selected" industries and regions can be muted.

Can such a plan be implemented? Prime Minister Harper has demonstrated a great deal of skill in handling a fractious parliament in the past. The plan can appeal to both the business wing of the Liberal party (by helping business nation wide) and the "Progressives" of all stripes by providing resources to create new jobs across all sectors of the economy and all regions. Careful explanation and stickhandling through parliament will be needed to get this passed, and I am not sure that even a global financial crisis engulfing the Canadian economy like a tsunami will cause politicians to drop petty partisan differences for the greater good.

Still, forward this plan to every person and media outlet you can; discussion can only increase the number of options that can be considered.

"I am a free Canadian" -- election day blogburst

"I am a Canadian,
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship God in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold
for myself and for all mankind."

h/t: five feet of fury
Small Dead Animals

Men, not Law

I was visiting a Conservative Party candidate at her open house when it was crashed by several people "protesting" the deportation of American servicemen who have deserted and fled to Canada.

Now, while I support free speech, I most certainly don't support the position of these people. The servicemen volunteered to serve the United States, expecting to receive pay, benefits and training, but failed to maintain their end of the commitment. The short description of their action is desertion, and is a crime against the American government.

These servicemembers claimed refugee status in Canada, and have made various arguments such as being real refugees (in danger of persecution by their home government), contientious objectors (a legal process which American servicemembers can claim within the American military, but which these servicemembers either did not claim or failed to prove their case) and various other claims. They were provided with access to the Canadian legal system, and went through the legal process and lost.

The people who support the American servicemen and want to stop the deportations are explicitly attempting to overturn the Rule of Law in Canada. Their ideal state was inadvertently revealed in London Ontario on October 10, when several thuggish "War resistor supporters" pushed a women into traffic for disagreeing with them. (Luckily she was not injured). I wonder if these "War resistor supporters" have contemplated what sort of society they are advocating for, or how they will fare against larger and more organized groups that disagree with them in such an anarchistic state?

And What Exactly Is That?

Stephane Dion said...

By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.

What activities are those? What is a "non-productive, pollution heavy activity"? Anyone? Anyone? Behuler?

The only two I can think of are Question Period and the CBC...

Non-productive, pollution-heavy activities... that's almost as sketchy as Commie Jack Layton's one liner about "The real economy", which is nothing more than socialist double speak for the miraculous creation of jobs without any corporate involvement (because they've all been taxed into receivership or moved to Mexico, where they have some rights).

Babies, Bathwater and Bail-outs

The current market blowout is being heralded by government and the media as a failure, no, as a direct result of capitalism. Blame for it is being laid at the feet of corporations and banks and business’. This is a lie.

This lie is being told by government and is reinforced by a simpering media who neither understand, nor in any way wish to protect the one and only system of commerce that allows them to function independently and freely. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Capitalism, and when I say capitalism I mean true lassiez faire capitalism could not have created this mess. I want this to be understood, this is not a claim that it wouldn’t happen but a flat statement of fact that it couldn’t happen.

Under laissez faire capitalism there is a complete separation of economics and government. So the initial causal factor that led to this market instability, namely the long line of corporate bail outs would never have happened and this would have fostered an ideal of fiscal prudence in all business sectors. Sure, perhaps the stock market would have risen slower than it did, but it would have risen on actual, hard economic indicators and financial data, not false and whimsical governmental vagaries.

The demand from the US government to that nations banks that a percentage of mortgages be given to people who would otherwise not qualify would never have happened either.

Why? Because any banker in a system of laissez fair capitalism would know two things for sure.

1. That his policies and his lending practices were his responsibility and his responsibility alone. A foolish gamble on persons who would most likely not qualify for a pay-day-loan much less a $200,000.00 mortgage would in all likelihood cost him his job. No ifs, ands or buts.
2. That it would be impossible for government to save him or his bank from the result of stupid lending policies.

Another thing that could not have happened were capitalism to truly reign is that Banks would never have loaned money out at a rate lower than the established interest rate. Sub-prime rates are a government construct, which allowed banks to lend money to unqualified persons at a rate lower than what it cost the bank to borrow that money in the first place. The Bankers initially ordered to make the loans possible and then led to believe they would be bailed out by government saw, a win-win proposition.

Was there greed involved? Certainly, but it was not the cause, it was an all too predictable by-product of a system that had been gamed, designed, manipulated and constructed to appear to be real, solid and safe when in actual fact it was built on the vagaries of governmental policies, divorced from any real economic principal, and the worst self-serving political promises.

Capitalism didn’t fail us, the government did. Laissez Fair economics didn’t fail, they were never a part of the equation in the first place.

NB. Mark the intentions of those who claim this is a failure of capitalism. They are not throwing out the baby/capitalism with the bathwater/the market system. No, they are throwing out the bathwater and attempting to strangle the baby in its crib for good measure.

With every bail-out and every subsequent market shock, and every bad news story hyped to fever pitch they get closer to their goal. That goal is nothing less than the state ownership of the worlds banks, and that is nothing less than a stranglehold on the wellspring of capitalistic production… our money.

Why fund the Arts?

Watching the BRAVO! "election special on the arts", I was struck by an even greater sense of unreality than usual (and after sitting through a "Woman's Issues" all candidates debate, that is saying a lot...)

Two points in particular struck me:

1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.

2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.

If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?