Silver Anniversary http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051103

The assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, marked the end of an American political era: the age of confident liberalism. Lyndon B. Johnson carried forward JFK's legislative legacy, cutting taxes and pushing through landmark civil rights laws. But LBJ's overambitious wars in Vietnam and on poverty were damaging to America and shattering for liberalism. The late 1960s and the 1970s saw skyrocketing crime and illegitimacy, American humiliation in Vietnam, and the tragedy of Watergate.

Finally, with the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the country hit rock bottom: malaise, gas lines, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Blessedly, 25 years ago today, it came to an end with the election of Ronald Reagan and the dawn of the age of confident conservatism. The ensuing two decades saw unprecedented economic growth, victory in the Cold War, and a gradual diminution of the timidity about employing U.S. military force overseas that is known as the "Vietnam syndrome." By the mid-1990s, a Democratic president was even undoing the worst excesses of LBJ's Great Society.

We're inclined to view the presidency of George W. Bush, and especially his muscular foreign policy, as a continuation of the Reagan era. There is an argument to be made on the other side: that conservatism is now in its LBJ phase, having produced swollen government at home and overextended America's capabilities abroad. The left, meanwhile, is as weak, angry and paranoid as the right was in the heyday of the John Birch society--but perhaps one day it will reconnect with reality and resurge politically.

History will reveal itself in due course, but for today let us remember how, on Nov. 4, 1980, America began to reverse its decline by electing a man who shared the country's faith in itself.

http://www.blogger.com/www.opinionjournal.com

Whose profits are they anyway?
Nov 3, 2005by Neal Boortz ( bio archive contact )

It is my considered opinion, backed by 37 years of radio yammering, that 98.4% of the people in this country who use the word “fascist” have no idea what the word actually means. Ditto for “Nazi.” Being in a helpful mood I embark here on an educational effort so that some of us might actually recognize fascism when it truly does rear it’s ugly head, as it did this week from the mouth of Senator Charles Grassley (R- IA), the chairman of Senate Finance Committee.
Grassley has apparently decided that free enterprise no longer works for America. (The truth here is that Grassley discovered that free enterprise doesn’t serve the goal of empowering politicians.) It is Grassley’s view that American businesses must now seek the favor of the imperial federal government of the United States as to just how business profits must be disbursed. No longer, in Grassley’s economic world, will corporate boards decide on the distribution of profits. No longer will the private businessman be the captain of his entrepreneurial ship. Grassley apparently wants the government to have a de facto seat on every corporate board and a share of control in the spending decisions of every private business.
Let’s get back to the “fascism” word. Sheldon Richman writes in “The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” that fascist thought acknowledge(s) the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.” In other words, state approval must be sought before important business decisions can be implemented. I think I can simplify Richman’s definition of fascism so that even Americans educated in state schools can understand: Free enterprise (capitalism) is private ownership and control of the means of production. Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Fascism is private ownership of the means of production, with government control. Private ownership with government control? There’s a somewhat familiar ring to that, isn’t there?
Charles Grassley would have admired World War II era Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. During Mussolini’s fascist reign he moved to virtually eliminate the ability of businesses to make independent decisions, including decisions pertaining to prices and wages. The government became the not-so-friendly business partner … a partner with a gun and the legal authority to use force to accomplish its goals.


So, how does this apply to this fine Republican senator? Grassley, it seems, feels that there is a role to be played by the federal government in decisions relating to how corporate profits must be spent, invested or disbursed. Grassley is now on record as wanting (the rhetorical equivalent of “demanding”) that oil companies “donate” 10 percent of their profits to help poor Americans pay their heating bills. Grassley sent letters to oil companies outlining his request; letters he claims to have sent to “embarrass” the oil companies into contributing to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Embarrass? I don’t think so. The right word here would be “intimidate.” Grassley says “It’s not unreasonable to expect corporations with 50, 75 or 100 percent growth in earnings this quarter to contribute a mere 10 percent of those profits to fund programs that supplement LIHEAP. In those letters Grassley also asked that these oil companies report to him on their recent charitable contributions.
Let’s try to get on the reality train of thought here for a moment. Grassley isn’t asking these corporations to fork over the money. He’s telling them. It doesn’t take much of a businessman to know that when the chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee starts writing letters about “donations” and “contributions” the implied threat of government force and/or retribution literally oozes from the envelope.
While some may be surprised to hear such anti-free enterprise mutterings from the person of a senior Republican U.S. Senator, I’m not. Just chalk this up to another reason why I stopped paying dues to the Republican Party years ago, and started writing those checks instead to the Libertarian Party. No economic system in the history of civilization has done so much to lift so many people out of abject poverty as has free enterprise, the dynamic of a free people working together under a system that protects economic liberty. The Republicans now seem to be less than content with merely taxing the living (insert expletive here) out of the corporations and businesses who fuel our economy, now they want to dictate just how the profits that are left after the taxman leaveth are disbursed! Today it’s a demand for donations to heat poor folk’s homes. Tomorrow we’ll be demanding that America’s homebuilders donate a portion of their profits to build low-income (soon to be trashed) housing. Next automakers will be told to contribute some profits to public transportation initiatives.
It doesn’t seem to be enough to political power players like Grassley that they have billions of dollars in corporate taxes to spend on their vote-buying schemes. The new nirvana will be to control the disbursement of corporate profits as well.
Did anybody hear someone say the “f” word?

Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

On abortion, a nuanced stand

By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON

– If there was any doubt about where US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito stands on abortion, his 90-year-old mother quickly and decisively put that question to rest.
"Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Hamilton, N.J., home.

On abortion, a nuanced stand

Her candid statement may go down in history as the most blunt and honest admission of a Supreme Court nominee's view on the hot-button issue.
But the true test of appeals court judges isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case.
On this issue, legal analysts disagree in their assessments of Judge Alito. Some say he is a conservative ideologue. Others say he is a smart, careful jurist who leaves personal views behind when he dons his black robes.
The best evidence of his work as a judge are his published opinions. They contain a few surprises and some ammunition - for both the left and the right.
For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars.
"That [1995 case] strongly seems to indicate that Alito is not a policy-driven true-believer who's used every possible opportunity to advance one side's preferred outcome, but instead a judge who has indeed come down on both sides, in different cases," says David Garrow, a constitutional historian and expert in reproductive rights cases at the high court.
Senate investigators, legal scholars, and special interest group lawyers are poring over Judge Alito's opinions written during 15-years of work on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. They are looking for clues of what kind of justice Alito might become if confirmed to a life-tenure post on the nation's highest court.
How he may rule in abortion cases is particularly relevant to the inquiry since President Bush has named him to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter and defender of abortion rights.
If Alito holds a different view on that issue, his vote could shift the balance of power on the court. His four abortion cases include:
• A 1991 challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify their husbands before seeking an abortion. The court struck down the restriction. Alito dissented.
• A 1995 challenge to a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking to use Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to report the incident to law enforcement officials and identify the offender. Alito provided the decisive vote striking down the abortion restriction.
• A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.
• A 2000 challenge to New Jersey's ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Alito struck down the law based on a recent Supreme Court decision.
Analysts are divided over the meaning of Alito's votes and his various writings while on the bench.
"I don't think these cases tell us anything about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or not," says James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life. "Nor do they tell us whether he supports pro-life as a value."

Real nice.

'Party trumps race' for Steele foes
By S.A. MillerTHE WASHINGTON TIMES November 2, 2005

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy." Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. "Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people." During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore. In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark. "That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."

Courtesy of Ad Age:
Trade paper AdAge.com reports that American workers would waste the equivalent of 551,000 years during 2005 reading blogs, online web diaries and gossip sheets, which have exploded in numbers in recent years.
About 35 million workers - one in four of the labour force in the United States - spend 3 1/2 hours, or 9 per cent, of their working week on blogs, the survey found.

Privacy

(CBS) Whose life is it anyway? That’s what an increasing number of American workers are asking. Their bosses are replying: Whose business is this anyway?

More and more that cigarette, or drink at home, that political candidate you supported, even your eating habits, are coming under the scrutiny of your boss. If he doesn’t approve, it might even cost you your job, which is what happened to two Michigan women, Anita Epolito and Cara Stiffler. Anita and Cara were considered model employees at Weyco, an insurance consulting firm outside of Lansing, Mich., both having worked at the company for years. The women sat side-by-side, sharing workloads – and after work – sharing the occasional cigarette. But at a company benefits meeting two years ago, the company president announced, "As of January 1st, 2005, anyone that has nicotine in their body will be fired,” Anita remembers. “And we sat there in awe. And I spoke out at that time. ‘You can't do that to us’ And then he said, ‘Yes, I can.’ I said, ‘That's not legal.’ And he came back with, ‘Yes, it is.’” And it was legal: in Michigan, there’s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period. Weyco gave employees 15 months to quit, before subjecting them to random nicotine testing. If you fail, you’re out. Kara says she did try to kick the habit. “I tried to quit smoking. I took advantage of their program, the smoking cessation program. But I was unsuccessful.” Anita also says she has been trying to stop smoking. “I'm trying every way to cut down, quit. Gum. I'm trying. Yes. On my own. But I don't need an employer to do that.” “I pay the bills around here. So, I'm going to set the expectations,” says Howard Weyers, the boss and some would say tyrant of Weyco. “What's important? This job? And this is a very nice place to work. Or the use of tobacco? Make a decision." Anita says she asked Weyers whether her 14 years of loyal service meant anything. She says he said “Sorry, Epolito, No.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main990617.shtml

This Can't Be Real

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:View of a fourteen year old, October 31, 2005
Reviewer:
Samantha Achanzar-Mendaros (Morgan Hill, CA) - See all my reviewsI am only fourteen, but I'm pretty confident in saying that The Fountainhead shall remain one of my favorites throughout my lifetime. I'm tired of reading reviews that state, "It's about a guy who loved buildings more than people," or "He dynamited a building because he disliked the ornamental facade." (I even heard a review denouncing the book because Ayn Rand was ugly...pathetic excuse for not having the capacity to think of the actual meaning behind the book.) It's more than that. It's about individualism as opposed to collectivism. It's about a man who lived by his own standards, instead of those set by others. It clearly depicts Rand's contempt for altruism and its dedication to "serving the public good," through whatever means, and how if one does something altruistic, he is the most virtuous. Altruism professes human sacrifice for the common good, that the undeserving deserve rights to the product of another, simply because the "need" it. (Like Robin Hood, the ultimate altruist, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. He stole what did not belong to him and gave it to people who had no right to it simply because they "needed" it. But his theft was declared a virtue because of its altruistic motive. Yes, I HAVE read Atlas Shrugged.) What kind of doctrine is that? The Fountainhead is about a man who struggled against the great adversary of public opinion, who was deemed an egotist because he would not give in to the demands of others, fought against society to give form to his truth...yet triumphed when the truth of his speech was heard by the masses. It's about an individualist who won. To me, the book had deep meaning. Even if one does not agree with Rand's philosophy, how can one deny that she was a powerful writer? She had talent, and certainly no one could write a forty-page monolouge like she could. Her stories are convincing, her books timeless. I, as you might be able to see, believe that Objectivism holds truth. I might not fully understand this philosophy as others who have dedicated years to studying it, but I can grasp that her books have truth to it. She pretty much put words to my thoughts, though her explanations are more complex than I could have imagined. I, for one, cannot find evidence to refute her points. There is a reason The Fountainhead has lasted for over 60 decades. With its brilliant, ingenious writing, thrilling story line, complex philosophical meaning, controversy, and sense of truth, I understand why editor Archibald Ogden put his job on the line to see this book published, though at the time, the manuscript was not even finished. It's because he knew that The Fountainhead was one of the great ones.