Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Happy Anniversary to my Bride
I Love You so Much
Here we go...Script Flipped: 97.8% of Mass Shootings Happen in Gun-Free Zone...
Memo Reveals George Soros-Funded Social Media Censorship Scheme to Silence All Dissenters From Democrat One-World Communist Agenda
Orwellian Big Brother Facebook Rates Users’ ‘Trustworthiness’ Under Guise of Fighting Fake News, Mirrors Communist China’s ‘Social Scores’
Bruce Ohr and the Anti-Trump Election Meddling of Obama Regime Officials — What Will His Testimony Reveal?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/21/bruce-ohr-and-anti-trump-activities-obama-officials-what-will-his-testimony-reveal.html
You Can't Argue against Socialism's 100 Percent Record of Failure
After more than two dozen failed attempts, Socialism has proven itself to be a disastrous philosophy.
Kristian Niemietz
Kristian Niemietz
Socialism is extremely in vogue. Opinion pieces which tell us to stop obsessing over socialism’s past failures, and start to get excited about its future potential, have almost become a genre in its own right.
For example, Bhaskhar Sunkara, the founder of Jacobin magazine, recently wrote a New York Times article, in which he claimed that the next attempt to build a socialist society will be completely different:
This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote—and have faith that people can organize together to chart new destinations for humanity. Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. […] [I]t seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives.
Nathan Robinson, the editor of Current Affairs, wrote in that magazine that socialism has not “failed." It has just never been done properly:
It’s incredibly easy to be both in favor of socialism and against the crimes committed by 20th-century communist regimes."
When anyone points me to the Soviet Union or Castro’s Cuba and says “Well, there’s your socialism,” my answer […] [is] that these regimes bear absolutely no relationship to the principle for which I am fighting. […] The history of the Soviet Union doesn’t really tell us much about “communism” […]
I can draw distinctions between the positive and negative aspects of a political program. I like the bit about allowing workers to reap greater benefits from their labor. I don’t like the bit about putting dissidents in front of firing squads.”
Closer to home, Owen Jones wrote that Cuba’s current version of socialism was not “real” socialism—but that it could yet become the real thing:
“Socialism without democracy […] isn’t socialism. […] Socialism means socializing wealth and power. […]
Cuba could democratize and grant political freedoms currently denied as well as defending […] the gains of the revolution. […] The only future for socialism […] is through democracy. That […] means organizing a movement rooted in people’s communities and workplaces. It means arguing for a system that extends democracy to the workplace and the economy.
And Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig wrote an article with the self-explanatory title It’s time to give socialism a try:
Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.
Despite differences in style and emphasis, articles in this genre share a number of common flaws.
Socialists insist that previous examples of socialism were not “really” socialist, but none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently.
Flawed Arguments
“Socialism without democracy […] isn’t socialism. […] Socialism means socializing wealth and power. […]
Cuba could democratize and grant political freedoms currently denied as well as defending […] the gains of the revolution. […] The only future for socialism […] is through democracy. That […] means organizing a movement rooted in people’s communities and workplaces. It means arguing for a system that extends democracy to the workplace and the economy.
And Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig wrote an article with the self-explanatory title It’s time to give socialism a try:
Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.
Despite differences in style and emphasis, articles in this genre share a number of common flaws.
Socialists insist that previous examples of socialism were not “really” socialist, but none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently.
Flawed Arguments
First, as much as the authors insist that previous examples of socialism were not “really” socialist, none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently. Rather than providing at least a rough outline of how “their” version of socialism would work in practice, the authors escape into abstraction, and talk about lofty aspirations rather than tangible institutional characteristics.
“Charting new destinations for humanity” and “democratizing the economy” are nice buzzphrases, but what does this mean, in practice? How would “the people” manage “their” economy jointly? Would we all gather in Hyde Park, and debate how many toothbrushes and how many screwdrivers we should produce? How would we decide who gets what? How would we decide who does what? What if it turns out that we don’t actually agree on very much?
These are not some trivial technical details that we can just leave until after the revolution. These are the most basic, fundamental questions that a proponent of any economic system has to be able to answer. Almost three decades have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall—enough time, one should think, for “modern” socialists to come up with some ideas for a different kind of socialism. Yet here we are. After all those years, they have still not moved beyond the buzzword stage.
Secondly, the authors do not seem to realize that there is nothing remotely new about the lofty aspirations they talk about, and the buzzphrases they use. Giving “the people” democratic control over economic life has always been the aspiration, and the promise, of socialism. It is not that this has never occurred to the people who were involved in earlier socialist projects. On the contrary: that was always the idea. There was never a time when socialists started out with the express intention of creating stratified societies led by a technocratic elite. Socialism always turned out that way, but not because it was intended to be that way.
Contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere.
Socialists usually react with genuine irritation when a political opponent mentions an earlier, failed socialist project. They cannot see this as anything other than a straw man, and a cheap shot. As a result, they refuse to address the question why those attempts have turned out the way they did. According to contemporary socialists, previous socialist leaders simply did not really try, and that is all there is to know.
They are wrong. The Austro-British economist Friedrich Hayek already showed in 1944 why socialism must always lead to an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state, and why the idea that this concentrated power could be democratically controlled was an illusion. Were Hayek to come back from the dead today, he would probably struggle a bit with the iPhone, Deliveroo and social media—but he would instantly grasp the situation in Venezuela.
Thirdly, contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere. They talk a lot about how their version of socialism would be democratic, participatory, non-authoritarian, and nice and cuddly. Suppose they could prove Hayek wrong and magically make that work. What then?
Economics Matters
Contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere.
Socialists usually react with genuine irritation when a political opponent mentions an earlier, failed socialist project. They cannot see this as anything other than a straw man, and a cheap shot. As a result, they refuse to address the question why those attempts have turned out the way they did. According to contemporary socialists, previous socialist leaders simply did not really try, and that is all there is to know.
They are wrong. The Austro-British economist Friedrich Hayek already showed in 1944 why socialism must always lead to an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state, and why the idea that this concentrated power could be democratically controlled was an illusion. Were Hayek to come back from the dead today, he would probably struggle a bit with the iPhone, Deliveroo and social media—but he would instantly grasp the situation in Venezuela.
Thirdly, contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere. They talk a lot about how their version of socialism would be democratic, participatory, non-authoritarian, and nice and cuddly. Suppose they could prove Hayek wrong and magically make that work. What then?
Economics Matters
They would then be able to avoid the Gulags, the show trials and the secret police next time, which would obviously be an immeasurable improvement over the versions of socialism that existed in the past. But we would still be left with a dysfunctional economy.
Ultimately, the contemporary argument for socialism boils down to: “next time will be different because we say so.”
Contemporary socialists seem to assume that a democratized version of socialism would not just be more humane, but also economically more productive and efficient: reform the political system, and the rest will somehow follow. There is no reason why it should. Democracy, civil liberties, and human rights are all desirable in their own right, but they do not, in and of themselves, make countries any richer.
Contemporary socialists seem to assume that a democratized version of socialism would not just be more humane, but also economically more productive and efficient: reform the political system, and the rest will somehow follow. There is no reason why it should. Democracy, civil liberties, and human rights are all desirable in their own right, but they do not, in and of themselves, make countries any richer.
A version of East Germany without the Stasi, the Berlin Wall, and the police brutality would have been a much better country than the one that actually existed. But even then: East Germany’s economic output per capita was only one third of the West German level. Democracy, on its own, would have done nothing to close that gap.
A version of North Korea without the secret police and the labor camps would be a much better country than the one that actually exists. But even then: the North-South gap in living standards is so vast that the average South Korean is 3–8cm taller than the average North Korean, and lives more than ten years longer. Democracy would not make North Koreans any taller, or likelier to reach old age.
Ultimately, the contemporary argument for socialism boils down to: “next time will be different because we say so.”
After more than two dozen failed attempts, that is just not good enough.
Reprinted from Capx.
Dr. Kristian Niemietz is the Institute for Economic Affairs' Head of Health and Welfare.
Culture Warrior Morse: Weinstein and Archbishop McCarrick Both Believed They Were ‘Entitled’ to Sex
Dr. Kristian Niemietz is the Institute for Economic Affairs' Head of Health and Welfare.
Culture Warrior Morse: Weinstein and Archbishop McCarrick Both Believed They Were ‘Entitled’ to Sex
AP/AFP ImagesThe founder of the Ruth Institute, a pro-family nonprofit that teaches about the “poisonous consequences” of the Sexual Revolution, says disgraced Hollywood magnate Harvey Weinstein and Archbishop Theodore McCarrick have both lived by the “sexual revolutionary creed.”
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. writes at National Catholic Register that it is irrelevant that Weinstein prefers female sexual partners and McCarrick prefers male. What they have in common, she asserts, is they are both “powerful men who believed they were entitled to use people sexually.”
In May, Weinstein was arrested and charged with rape and sex crimes some eight months after his once-powerful career crashed as it also triggered sexual assault accusations across industries and the global #MeToo movement.
McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, DC, was removed from ministry following allegations he sexually abused boys and engaged in sexual misconduct with seminarians.
Morse contends the root cause of the sexual abuse problems of both men is the same:
Men like Archbishop McCarrick and Weinstein think they are entitled to sex. And they both have (or used to have) enough power to take whatever they wanted. The fact that Archbishop McCarrick’s preferred sex partners are male and Weinstein’s are female should not distract us from this most basic point. Both men live by the Sexual Revolutionary Creed:
Sex is a private recreational activity with no moral or social consequences. Everyone is entitled to the sex lives they want, with a minimum of inconvenience. Any sexual activity is morally acceptable, as long as the participants consent. Believing all this is called being “sex positive.”
Morse says that, of course, the “creed” is “a sham,” and that both powerful and influential men have been able to “manipulate the terms of ‘consent’ out of all recognition.”
“The sexual revolutionary ideology creates cover for the predator, especially the well-connected, powerful predator,” she writes, adding that it is the ideology itself that caused the #MeToo movement to stall.
Morse notes the starlets who criticize the exploitation of women, but who still endorse the ideology that objectification of women is acceptable. She observes how many actresses wore black dresses to the Golden Globe Awards to protest sexual abuse toward women, yet many of those dresses were very revealing.
These women “want to keep their pills and their pornography and their view of themselves as progressive,” she notes. “They want to be ‘sex positive’ and never be caught in the predatory trap that the sexual revolutionary ideology makes possible.”
Urging Catholics not to make the same mistake, she says living by the true teachings of the Catholic faith in terms of sexuality and marriage – even when bishops and priests do not – is what is needed for lay people to effectively eradicate the “poisonous consequences” of the Sexual Revolution within our culture.
Morse asserts bishops and priests who are discovered in sex abuse scandals or in covering up such abuse are enjoying “worldly double-lives” in which they have not only brought immediate harm to their victims, but are also likely failing to teach the Church’s doctrines from the pulpit.
“Their silence has been a contributing factor to the advance of the sexual revolutionary ideology throughout society,” she writes. “Their corruption undermines their brother priests who are living godly lives. And the scandal of the predatory priests casts a cloud of suspicion over innocent priests.”
Because of the failure of these Church leaders to teach the faith and its doctrine on sexuality and marriage, Morse asserts the Church is no longer the “guardian of traditional sexual morality.” Instead, “the Catholic Church has become a symbol of hypocrisy or worse.”
Urging Catholics to take matters into their own hands – even if bishops do nothing – Morse teaches the way to do this is to stop watering down Catholic teaching in their own lives in order to be politically correct:
Let go of any part of the sexual revolution that you are holding on to. Maybe you agree that abortion is wrong, but you think contraception is OK. Maybe you are one of those parishioners who complain if the pastor preaches on pro-life topics. Maybe you are one of the parents in a Catholic high school who thinks the “gay” gym teacher shouldn’t be fired just because she married her same-sex partner in a public ceremony.
“Let’s go all in for the full truth,” she urges.
As Trump Visits Mountain State, Key Jobs Group Breaks From Manchin
West Virginia Coal Association endorses Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey after twice backing incumbent Democrat
By Brendan Kirby
Email
As President Donald Trump comes to West Virginia on Tuesday to campaign for Patrick Morrisey, a powerful coal trade group announced its support of the Republican Attorney General’s bid for the Senate.
The West Virginia Coal Association, which represents more than 90 percent of the state’s underground and surface coal mine companies, had backed Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in 2010 and 2012.
“I’m truly honored to earn the endorsement of West Virginia’s top defender of our state’s coal miners and coal companies,” Morrisey said in a statement. “I’m proud to work alongside the leadership of the West Virginia Coal Association to stand up for West Virginia coal jobs and communities across our great state.”
Morrisey (pictured above)fought former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan in court. The legal challenge, which involved energy companies, industry trade groups and attorneys general from more than two dozen states, resulted in a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2016 blocking the regulations from going into effect.
Morrisey (pictured above)fought former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan in court. The legal challenge, which involved energy companies, industry trade groups and attorneys general from more than two dozen states, resulted in a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2016 blocking the regulations from going into effect.
“Since he took office, General Morrisey has been a tireless advocate for West Virginia’s coal industry,” Coal Association President Bill Raney said in a statement. “He fought for us against the Obama Administration, which was using every tool available to try and end coal mining in the United States. We know Patrick Morrisey will continue to fight for West Virginia coal as a member of the U.S. Senate, working in tandem with President Donald Trump.”
The Obama administration touted the Clean Power Plan as crucial for reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change and comply with the commitment that the United States made as part of the Paris climate accords.
I'm honored to have earned the endorsement of the West Virginia Coal Association. Alongside President @realDonaldTrump, we are undoing the damage Obama did to West Virginia coal. https://www.wvcoal.com/latest/coal-association-endorses-morrisey-for-us-senate … #WVsen
But Trump announced last year that he would pull out of the Paris agreement. On Tuesday, the administration unveiled a replacement to the Clean Power Plan. Dubbed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the regulation would give states more authority to craft their own plans to regulation greenhouse cases from coal-fired plants.
The president is scheduled to appear Tuesday evening at a campaign rally in the state capital of Charleston. He is sure to highlight his administration’s efforts to boost domestic energy production.
Since Trump took office, employment in the mining and logging sector has risen by about 89,000 workers. The recent rise follows a period in which jobs contracted by 28.5 percent from a peak of 904,000 in September 2014 to the end of the Obama presidency.
In West Virginia, where coal mining is vital to the state’s history and economy, employment in mining and logging has risen by 1,800 jobs since Trump took office.
The Morrissey campaign hammered Manchin as “no friend to coal,” and cited his support of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton despite a gaffe in which she said she would “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Said Morrissey in his statement: “While we had victories over Obama’s EPA at the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect West Virginia coal, Sen. Manchin was supporting Hillary Clinton.”
West Virginia was Trump’s second-best state. He won 68 percent of the vote and carried every single county.
Despite losing the endorsement of mine companies, Manchin still counts the support of the United Mine Workers of America, along with a host of other labor unions that were once major powers in West Virginia politics.
Manchin long has been a top Republican target for the 2018 midterm elections. But the incumbent is a crafty politician who has won a number of elections in an increasingly conservative-leaning state by positioning himself well to the right of the national Democratic Party.
Manchin leads Morrissey by 7 percentage points in the current RealClearPolitics average of polls.
BOMBSHELL: Illegal Alien Arrested For Murder Of Mollie Tibbetts
BOMBSHELL: Illegal Alien Arrested For Murder Of Mollie Tibbetts
Mug shot/Gov handoutLaw enforcement officials revealed on Thursday that they arrested an illegal alien man and charged him with the first-degree murder of Mollie Tibbetts.
The Associated Press was the first to report that Iowa officials confirmed that the suspect was being held on a federal immigration detainer.
KWWL reported that the suspect is 24-year-old Cristihian Bahena Rivera, who lives in Poweshiek County, Iowa.
The local media outlet reported that authorities confirmed that Rivera is "an illegal alien."
First degree murder charged in Mollie Tibbetts disappearance. 24-year-old Cristihian Bahena Rivera, 24. Rivera lives in Poweshiek Co. Authorities confirm "he is an illegal alien."
DCI Special Agent in Charge Rick Rahn said that the suspect is believed to have lived in the area for four to seven years.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/08/www_21.html
Related Posts :
'Hey Arnold!' Creator Craig Bartlett Charts The Path To 'The Jungle Movie'
Nicktoons UK To Premiere 'ToonMarty' On Saturday 9th December 2017
Nickelodeon UK To Premiere 'Lip Sync Battle Shorties Holiday Special' On Monday 11th December 2017- WWE's The Miz Filming Project In LA For Nickelodeon
- Craig Bartlett Reveals That Helga From ‘Hey Arnold!’ Was Inspired By Childhood Photos of Frida Kahlo
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment