Obama the socialist

Yes he is no matter what his friends think.  Read this.

Maggie's Farm's special post

So, you think it's pretty cool that your favorite singer has two different singing voices?

How about three?

In the same song?

Listen to how she starts off in what might be called her normal singing voice, then, as the volume increases, listen to how she starts using her 'throaty' voice here and there, weaving back and forth between the two. Then, during the quiet interlude, listen to the 'little girl' voice she uses, then back to normal, then back to full-bore throaty. It's really something.

And the magic.

You would had to have been there, watching "Divas Las Vegas", to understand how truly special this was.  For the previous hour, the stage had been hogged by the usual screeching divas, all singing at the top of their lungs, filling every micro-second of air time with their self-adored, self-adulated voices.

And then this precious thing walks onto the stage.

Public Service unions

Tim Cavanaugh of Reason Magazine does a short analysis (of sorts) on the comparison of right-to-work states and those who permit unions for government employees. He makes the case there is little difference between those states that don't allow unions and those that do in terms of overall budget deficits, but still thinks the new Senate bill requiring all states to unionize is a bad bill. His analysis is weak since since there's no discussion of states that do not allow unions but in fact have them because they allow local option, for one thing, and he doesn't compare employee budget costs of unionized vs non unionized states, nor provide any information on ratio of state and local employees to population, and probably other considerations I haven't thought of yet. There can be unusual factors in play that obscure the impact of public service unions like, size and nature of population, recent loss of major industry (mid-west) etc. There are several links in his piece to other columns on this subject.

Smearing Andrew Breibart

The video below shows clearly the left's strategy to undermine Breibart over the Sherrod affair. Media Matters representative speaks the left's party line that will be repeated many times over the coming days.

It's stlll a pig

This business of utilities, as promoted here by Michael Lind, is just another version of socialism, creeping socialism maybe, but socialism nevertheless.  Lind argues for a regulated utilities approach to healthcare and the financial industry on the grounds competition simply doesn't work in these activities.  His healthcare example that someone suffering a heart attack can hardly be expected to "shop" for the best price among various hospital offerings.  It appears his argument for financial regulation has to do with credit being too important for the lifeblood of business to be left to the free market, that fixing cost of capital, etc, would assure no small business goes without.  Wonder what planet this guy is from.  He basically slams deregulation and yet we just experienced a quarter of century of the most dynamic expansion ever largely because we deregulated the financial industry and the airlines industry, etc.  Does he not remember the stagflation of the "70's and the deregulation under Carter that began the creation of a more competitive free market for all kinds of goods and services?  Doesn't this guy understand that the government clogs the system, petrifies innovation, suppresses freedom of entrepreneurs to do their thing an get the economy going?   .  I particularly liked this passage from Lind:

"Liberals believe that some goods and services could be provided in a purely competitive market but should not be. Instead, these goods and services should be provided to citizens by an industry organized as a publicly regulated utility, which in the terms of ownership can be private, public or a mixed private-public enterprise."  


Sorta like Fannie and Freddie, or maybe TVA (which provides electricity to rural Tennessee for about double private companies), or the post office maybe?  Get real! If is the best "progressives" can do then they really ought to start over, or maybe read Adam Smith.  Back to the books for this guy.

More on the meltdown causes

Raghuram Rajan, the highly regarded economist from India, weighs in on the causes of the meltdown.  Same old same old -- government intervention in the credit system.  He rightfully goes back to Bush and all the predecessors who were captivated by doing for the poor through affirmative action credit.  The banking system was corrupted by the government, plain and simple.  His take is here.