The more columns written by liberals I read, the more I am convinced that they pay not attention to what they write. Reading comprehension must have been a bypassed topic in their education process.
Addressing the growing opposition to tyranny in Belarus, columnist Peter Goldmark writes:
Like the movements now dubbed Arab Spring, the Belarusian opposition relies heavily on social-networking websites for instant communication. And the unrest in Belarus is fueled by economic problems as well as the drive for political freedom. The economy, which is 70 percent state-owned, is slumping badly, and Belarus has applied to the International Monetary Fund for emergency financial aid.
Indicative of nations where citizens are finding ways to protest against their respective form of totalitarianism, citizens in Belarus face political and economic hardship created and perpetuated by a state controlled economy. We find this in nation after nation: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries; Cuba, Venezuela, and other Latin and South American nations; Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, and other debt-riddled European lands.
The list is far more extensive than it should be. The greater the extent of state-run central planning, the greater the economic woes and misery.
Even though they write about it as they applaud efforts to bravely stand up to tyranny, liberals turn right around and demand that the ills Americans are facing stem from a lack of central planning and federal government control of the private sector.
In another article, Mr. Goldmark pens:
What's at issue is whether we can govern ourselves. If we run up our national debt, like Greece, until it overwhelms us, people who lend to us will charge much higher interest rates (making it even harder to trim the deficit), and then some day they will not lend to us at all. Imagine a meeting of the Chinese politburo where they debate what kind of austerity measures to demand in return for a U.S. bailout.
Calling Republican Representatives opposing increased taxes and spending "extremists," Mr. Goldmark indicates consistently that he wants to see more of our national economy fall under state control.
Sad, isn't it, that liberals fail to connect even with their own observations? In one country, a state-owned economy is bad, but in our own country, we don't yet have enough state control over our economy. I guess we don't have enough tyranny to suit them.
Liberals need to read, and comprehend, what they write.
