Who Wrote This (reminiscent of the dormant ‘Daily Dixie’):

When the aim of education is the absorption of facts, learning becomes exclusively and exhaustively selfish, and there is no obvious social motive for learning. The measure of success is always a competitive one—it is about comparing results and sorting people into winners and losers. People are turned against one another, and every difference becomes a potential deficit. Getting ahead of others is the primary goal in such places, and mutual assistance, which can be so natural, is severely restricted or banned.

Unlike Dan, I’ll go ahead and give you the answer: “respected” “mainstream” “distinguished professor” “school reform activist” William Ayers (also known as Marxist terrorist William Ayers, who is “friendly” with Barack Obama). Note that all those glowing descriptions of Ayers are from Obama’s ‘Fact Check’.

Who knew that learning “facts” is “selfish” and that “winners and losers” are unnatural?  I’ll go ahead and answer that too, Antonio Gramsci.  Gramsci is credited with the idea of “cultural hegemony“, which addressed the failure of socialism to ignite communist revolutions in capitalist states:

Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a “war of position” and a “war of manoeuvre”. The war of position is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of manoeuvre, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support.

Understanding Gramsci helps explain the mess that is public education, the leftism extant in many institutions, and the bias of the media.

To bring this home, consider this from a “News” article in the UAH Exponent:

…you could always try red: the Socialist Party of America has also announced their nominees. Far from hazy images of Cuba or the former Soviet Union (both of which were communist, not socialist), the party’s Statement of Principles asserts that “The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control—a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society … where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies…

It’s obvious to most people that facts weren’t important to that reporter…  It’s interesting to me that communism has such a bad reputation among today’s socialists that they feel compelled to rebrand their beliefs.  Anybody here think that communism isn’t a form of socialism? Anybody here think that people like Gramsci and Ayers have impacted US education?

James Taranto pointed out this editorial in an Oregon newspaper.  It describes the response of the state’s health care system to a 64-year-old lady with lung cancer.

After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, “Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide.”

The column speaks of how the state “tries to ration health care.”  Health care rationing.  That sounds fantastic.  Remember what happens when you ration something?

In this particular case the cancer drug wasn’t authorized because the patient stood a less than 5% chance of survival, which is the state approved threshold.  This situation provides a perfect “ultimate extension” argument against socialized medicine - the government deciding who gets to live and die.  Actually, this case is worse than what I originally anticipated.  I expected to hear stories about treatments being denied.  “Sorry Fred,” the doctor would say, “but you don’t qualify for heart surgery.”  Instead of simply just letting you die what we’ll actually see is the government offering to just kill you.

With gasoline prices cresting the four dollar mark, President Bush is asking Congress to revoke the federal ban on offshore drilling.  The Democrats predictably refused and chose to offer up a bunch of anti-capitalist clap chap as their rationale.  My only question to Bush is: why not do this when your party controlled Congress?

I’m not completely sold on expanding production myself.  Our nation is, in fact, addicted to oil and the only way an alternative source of energy will be found is for high prices to stimulate market efforts to find the best replacement(s).  Expanding production could kill or harm the efforts of private venture capital investments in new energy - especially if some global event caused demand to drop and prices fell through the floor.

On the other hand, oil is a very good energy source for a number of reasons and it will be difficult to find anything better (let alone anything almost as good).  It has good energy density, portability, and the head start of an expansive infrastructure to support its use.  It doesn’t make much sense to leave known reserves of such a high quality source of energy just sitting underground while energy prices batter us and the market labors to find a suitable alternative, which may take a very long time.  I’m inclined to support expanding production, but it is a decision that should not be rushed or made out of political expediency.

The Democrats offered up their own “solution” to high oil prices: nationalize oil refineries.  Yeah, that should work out just great.  Do we still have to call them Democrats or can we just dispense with the formality and call them socialists?  The line of separation gets thinner every day.

“I am not a Marxist.” - Karl Marx

My best friend called to talk about the primaries.  He is a Democrat and calls himself a liberal.  The Presidential race came up and I stated that I would not vote for Barack Obama, who I described as a socialist with Marxist associations. My friend protested that I was name-calling and that we couldn’t have a serious discussion if I couldn’t get past the labeling. 

Yes, unfortunately, my friend is that predictable - Daily Kos, Keith Olbermann, HuffPo, etc. I don’t understand it (the liberalism), because he’s a smart guy and I’ve known him almost my whole life. The labeling argument, or social reaction theory, is a liberal technique used to disarm critics by preventing them from using stigmatizing terms (just like Marx then - he was above it all, and just like Obama now).

Note Obama’s associations with Trinity Church and Liberation Theology (Marxist), his association with Weatherman terrorists (Marxist), his embrace of the New Party (Marxist) in his first State Senate campaign, and his mentor Frank Davis (Marxist), the ‘Frank’ mentioned in Obama’s book Dreams of my Father.

This pattern of associations shows a high level of comfort with radical socialist ideas and people that I find repugnant and dangerous.

Here’s a nice tidbit from the ‘New Party’, on their website Chicago Democratic Socialists of America:

…the NP’s ‘96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude… Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

It bothers me that many people have been demoralized and brainwashed to the point that they won’t acknowledge a fact if it kicked them in the ass. Like the Old Moor himself said: “I am not a Marxist”.

Did House Democrats kill the Colombian Free Trade Agreement to help Marxist FARC terrorists?

It looks like some of them might have…

The Economist, in The FARC Files: Just how much help has Hugo Chavez given to Colombia’s terrorists?, reports that “Interpol has now concluded that the huge cache of e-mails and other documents recovered from the computers of Raúl Reyes, a senior leader of the FARC guerrillas killed in a Colombian bombing raid on his camp in Ecuador on March 1st, are authentic and undoctored.”

Batches of the documents have been seen by The Economist and several other publications. They appear to show that Mr Chávez offered the FARC up to $300m, and talked of allocating the guerrillas an oil ration which they could sell for profit. They also suggest that Venezuelan army officers helped the FARC to obtain small arms, such as rocket-propelled grenades, and to set up meetings with arms dealers.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the links between FARC, House Democrats, and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in A FARC Fan’s Notes:

A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia’s most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.

House Democrats killed the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in April.  The American published a good overview of the FTA process in The Fast-Track Trade War:

By a vote of 224 to 195, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership pushed through an amendment that eliminated rules requiring Congress to approve or reject the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement…

President Bush charged that “the message the Democrats sent today is that no matter now steadfastly you stand with us, we will turn our backs on you when it is politically convenient.”

Suffice it to say that there is little disagreement on the economic payoff: it is largely a one-way street. Since 1991, most of Colombia’s exports have entered the United States duty-free under the Andean Trade Preference Act. The FTA would provide reciprocal duty-free access for almost 90 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia within five years, and it would ensure total free trade within ten years. (NOTE - this means good for the US)

The special congressional rules for ratification of trade agreements were established in 1974…  Under the “fast-track” legislation, after a trade agreement is sent to Congress the House must vote on it within 60 legislative days, without amendment; then the Senate has 30 days to complete action, which means the whole process must occur within a 90-day window.

FARC’s friend Rep. McGovern was instrumental in killing the Colombian Free Trade Agreement: 

Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) had discussed the option of stripping time requirements from the fast-track process since January. When the administration signaled that it would forward the agreement even without a sign-off by congressional Democratic leaders, Slaughter and McGovern seized the opportunity. On Tuesday, April 8, the president formally sent up the agreement and supporting documents; that same evening, Slaughter and McGovern presented the deadline-stripping plan to Speaker Pelosi, who, after meeting with other members of her leadership team, the next day backed the changes in a larger Democratic caucus. And on Thursday, as noted above, the House Democratic majority rammed through the amendments to House rules, effectively gutting the fast-track process for the Colombia FTA. 

More:

…there seems to have been no serious discussion of the far-reaching implications of overturning three decades of U.S. trade policy.

…powerful U.S. foreign policy and security arguments fell on deaf congressional ears. There could be no starker example of a beleaguered U.S. ally, flanked by regimes (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia) increasingly hostile to U.S. interests, than Colombia.

…the speaker of the Colombian House of Representatives described the U.S. House action as “colonial treatment.” 

From the Tax Foundation:

The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski’s plan would do the following:

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.

While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski’s ridiculous proposal.

A “Reasonable Profits Board”?!?!  This is insane.  We should encourage people to make money in this country, not threaten to punish them.  The potential to make money stimulates capital investment.  That yields things like jobs and wealth that the government has absolutely no capacity to create.  Before you reply that the government hires people just think about how they get the money to pay them - from individuals that make and sell things.

Good news Republicans!  John McCain is absolutely no better.

Aside - I’d never heard of Paul Kanjorski before today and now I’ve written two posts on him in the span of an hour.

Hugo Chavez’s experiment with socialism in Venezuela has piqued the interest of numerous lefties here in America recently.  It has been hailed as a “major source of interest for social visionaries in the United States.”  The only problem is that no matter how you bundle up socialism you always get the same results.

Venezuela’s top food company has accused troops of illegally seizing more than 500 tonnes of food from its trucks as part of President Hugo Chavez’s campaign to stem shortages.

The leftist Chavez this week created a state food distributor and loosened some price controls, seeking to end months of shortages for staples like milk and eggs that have caused long lines and upset his supporters in the OPEC nation.

You mean price controls cause long lines and shortages!?  Who would have guessed?

Business leaders say shortages of these products are caused by strict price controls, which have lagged inflation that is Latin America’s highest.

Latin America’s highest inflation - that is a feather in your cap, Hugo.

He announced an increase of more than 30% in the retail price of milk in an effort to ease shortages that have created headaches for consumers of all social classes.

He also threatened to expropriate companies selling food above regulated prices.

For those of you who didn’t take advantage of your government funded education “expropriate” means the government steals private property.  I shudder to think that anyone could be comfortable with such a heavy handed government that would steal the property of businesses who dare charge prices that individuals are willing to pay.  I’ve said it before, politicians have no idea what products should cost.  Only the market can set prices.

I just can’t bring myself to add the “Socialism Council of Alabama” blog to my list.  The drivel on that site really isn’t too far removed from what you might read on the average lefty blog, though.  Who knew there was a “Socialism Council” here in Bama - even if it is just one guy?

I’m not one to call for boycotts and such, but I did notice that the pet supply company Doctors Foster and Smith is listed as a sponsor.  As the owner of two dogs and one cat (although I maintain that the cat is my wife’s) I will not be sending any of my money to a company that sponsors socialism.

Who would have thought that marginal tax rates of 63% for people making around $70,000 would encourage people to move to another country?

Denmark is the home of “flexicurity,” the catchy name given to a system that pays ample unemployment and welfare benefits but, unusually in Europe, imposes almost no restrictions on hiring and firing by employers. The mixture has served Denmark well, and its economy barreled ahead in 2006 by 3.5 percent, one of the best performances in western Europe. The country is effectively at full employment.

But success has given rise to an anxious search for talent among Danish companies, and focused attention on émigrés like Sorensen. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is based in Paris, projects that Denmark’s growth rate will fall to an annual rate of slightly more than 1 percent for the five years beginning in 2009, reflecting a dwindling supply of a vital input for any economy: labor.

The problem, employers and economists believe, has a lot to do with the 63 percent marginal tax rate paid by top earners in Denmark - a level that hits anyone making more than 360,000 Danish kroner, or about $70,000. That same tax rate underpins such effective income redistribution that Denmark is the most nearly equal society in the world, in that wealth is more evenly spread than anywhere else.

Aren’t “just” societies where resources are distributed not primarily on the fruits of your labor, but on your mere existence just grand?

The Danish model is the living proof of why socialism doesn’t work.  The capable will eschew the system and try to find ways around it - like moving - while the remainder loaf about enjoying the free ride bankrolled by the hard workers who foolishly stay.

From Down Under:

A British man who moved to New Zealand has been told by officials that his wife is too fat to join him.

Why, you might ask?  Because New Zealand has a fantastic government health care system.

Richie Trezise, 35, a rugby-playing Welshman, lost weight to gain entry to New Zealand after initially being rejected for being overweight and a potential burden on the health care system.

His wife, Rowan, 33, a photographer, has been battling for months to shed the pounds so they can be reunited and live Down Under but has so far been unable to overcome New Zealand’s weight regulations.

This is the kind of story that should set off alarms in your head when you hear some modern day socialist talking about the “common good” and demanding “universal health care.”

BTW, “universal” health care is a stupid phrase.  Any politician elected in this country could, at most, impose a national health care plan.  He/she couldn’t even thrust upon us an international plan and most certainly not a “universal” plan, which would presumably cover all life forms in the universe that we haven’t even discovered yet (or should I say that haven’t discovered us yet?).