May 11, 2011 | Politics
Writes Richard Salsman over at Forbes:
President Obama deserves a modicum of praise for finally allowing a
team of U.S. Navy Seals to kill mass-murderer and al Qaeda kingpin Osama
bin Laden last weekend, but only disdain for delaying the operation for
so long, and harsh condemnation for extolling “extraordinary sacrifice”
at his Ground Zero visit. Like his feckless predecessor, Mr. Obama
deserves the lowest grade for continuing to appease political-militant
Islam, as evidenced by the tender care and deep respect he bestowed on
bin Laden during the burial at sea.
“Shameful” is the only word fit to describe a U.S. foreign policy
that did nothing to bin Laden after 2005, when he first occupied his
conspicuous compound in Abbottabad, just 30 miles from Pakistan’s
capitol and close to the Pakistan Military Academy, which counted among
its notable visitors U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral
Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pakistan’s foreign
minister Salman Bashir told the BBC recently that in mid-2009 his
nation’s intelligence services (ISI) told the Obama regime about bin
Laden’s not-so-secret hide-out.
The CIA and Pentagon gave Mr. Obama a specific raid plan last August,
yet he dithered and remained reluctant to take military action. In time
it’ll likely be revealed that Mr. Obama gave the go-ahead only because
he feared leaks would reveal him to be weak and appeasing.
Of course, Barack Obama isn’t the only U.S. president who hoped to
give bin Laden a pass.
Read the rest.
May 7, 2011 | Education, Politics
Another brilliant op-ed over at Forbes by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand Institute:
[...] The truth is that Ryan actually proposes increasing government spending in the coming years–just at a lower rate than current projections. So why are Ryan’s critics so up in arms?
Because Ryan’s plan dares to touch (albeit, merely to scratch) the
untouchable entitlement state. Ryan’s plan would, among other things,
trim and reorganize Medicare and Medicaid and reduce federal support for
education. To the plan’s critics, this amounts to “reverse-Robin Hood
redistribution,” as former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Blinder put it.
“[A]bout two-thirds of Mr. Ryan’s so-called courageous budget cuts
would come from programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans,
while the rich would gain from copious tax cuts.”
The “reverse-Robin Hood” line suggests that Ryan’s plan robs from
“the poor” and gives to “the rich.” But cutting entitlements is not
robbery–and cutting taxes isn’t a gift.
Entitlements are essentially government handouts: the government
takes money from some people in order to finance other people’s
retirements, doctor’s visits, and whatever else the government deems
worthy. They are unearned benefits. It is shameful that in a
civilized society we have to say this, but getting less loot is not the
same thing as being robbed.
A tax cut, meanwhile, is not a government handout–it is a reduction
of how much of your income the government takes. Whether you’re a
millionaire, billionaire, or an ambitious stock boy, a tax cut means you
get to keep more of what you earn.
In this context, consider president Obama’s recent budget speech,
in which he criticized Ryan’s plan for implying that “even though we
can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow
afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.” When
Obama speaks of what “we” can afford, he is obviously smuggling in the
premise that all wealth rightfully belongs to society and that the
government–as society’s representative–will dole out that wealth as it
sees fit.
We reject that premise. On our view, you earned your wealth and it
belongs to you, and no politician has any business talking about how
much of your money he can “afford” to let you keep.
Read the rest of It’s Time To Kill The ‘Robin Hood’ Myth.
May 6, 2011 | Politics
Reports Bloomberg in Schools Find Ayn Rand Can’t Be Shrugged as Donors Build Courses on John Allison, former chairman of bank holding company BB&T Corp's strategy to spread Ayn Rand's laissez-faire principles on U.S. campuses:Allison, working through the BB&T Charitable Foundation, gives schools grants of as much as $2 million if they agree to create a course on capitalism and make Rand’s masterwork, “Atlas Shrugged,” required reading.
Allison’s crusade to counter what he considers the anti- capitalist orthodoxy at universities has produced results -- and controversy. Some 60 schools, including at least four campuses of the University of North Carolina, began teaching Rand’s book after getting the foundation money. Faculty at several schools that have accepted Allison’s terms are protesting, saying donors shouldn’t have the power to set the curriculum to pursue their political agendas, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its June issue.
So donors should give their money "with no strings attached" to causes that support some professor's own political agenda that the donor opposes?
“We have sought out professors who wanted to teach these ideas,” says Allison, now a professor at Wake Forest University’s business school in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “It’s really a battle of ideas. If the ideas that made America great aren’t heard, then their influence will be destroyed.”
What about the possibility of giving money to professors who share your agenda?
Allison, who promotes Ayn Rand’s writings, will likely
generate more conflicts on campuses as he seeks to expand his
foundation’s gifts to 200 schools nationwide. [...] As private donors gain more power on campuses, it’s just
the kind of shift away from state control that Rand would
applaud.
That some anti-reason, anti-capitalist professors despise Ayn Rand and have banned her from their curriculum (whether out of malice or in many cases pure ignorance) only reveals their academic bias. Ayn Rand's ideas are part of the conversation over the battle of ideas.
Thanks to John Allison students who are interested will now be able to study Rand in an academic setting and come to their own conclusions.
