Illinois politicians, including the present President of the United States, have wrecked one of the country’s potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies — and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state’s distress.
But other than that, it’s great. And California’s pretty much in the same boat.
The sociopolitical heritage from Spain and the post colonial experience of Latin America has engendered in the Hispanic-American population an understanding of the role of government significantly different from the principles of limited government and imprescriptible rights embraced by the Founding Fathers. Thus classical liberalism, or libertarianism in the contemporary American coinage, does not come naturally to Hispanics.
In a recent American National Elections Study, in answer to the question: “Which of these two statements comes closer to your opinion, (1) The less government the better, or (2) there are more things the government should be doing;” 47.4 percent of the white non-Hispanic population responded “the less government the better.” In contrast, only 17.9 percent of Hispanics responded similarly.
In a question regarding preferences for free market vs. government solutions, 35.8 percent of white non-Hispanics opined that the free market can handle economic problems whereas 83.3 percent of Hispanics expressed that a strong government involvement is required. The political philosophies of classical liberalism that limit the role of government and place the individual in center stage are not nearly as ingrained in Hispanic heritage as they are in the American sociopolitical discourse. In some measure, this undermines effective pluralistic participation in the civil institutions of free societies.
This is a real problem. And it’s made worse by our terrible school system.
Has Al Gore’s life been completely in vain? Actually, perhaps we should thank him for his hyperbolic support of his cause — it helped us to kill it off.
And then. Oh. My. And then you are suspended in the largest open space you can possibly imagine, flying. Over a forest. Under a bridge. The wind is in your face and you cannot see yourself attached to anything and the disorientation is utter and complete. I thought: well, this is everything I hate, isn’t it? So enjoy.
It was nothing I would ever willingly do, and it was spectacular. My God – you crashed through roofs, were spat upon by spiders, blasted by a dragon, something big like the limbs of a tree reached for you, and the spectacles moved with such speed it was difficult to discern the real from the filmed. By the end I’d given myself over completely to the experience, and was flying over the water to the very castle I’d entered an hour before, and it was the most utterly exhilarating thing I’d never really done.
Here’s an interesting commentary by Scott Pace and…Eric Anderson. I would have thought that an unlikely combination. Note the lack of specifics, including a monster rocket. Which is a good thing, I guess. It’s basically just “Obama’s space policy sux, and Romney’s will be great.” I’m thinking it’s not likely to move anyone’s vote.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s the counterpoint lauding Obama’s policy. I have to say that I agree with the criticism of Romney. If I were a single-issue voter on space, I’d vote for Obama, except for the fact that his general economic policies are harmful for small business and startups, which would make it harder to develop a privatized industry.