Fri 25 Feb 2011
… which is why I hope they fire everyone that’s employed by the state.
Fri 25 Feb 2011
… which is why I hope they fire everyone that’s employed by the state.
Thu 25 Mar 2010
This seems to be a theme lately. Socialists really do hate to have their views examined. The writer of the quote from yesterday’s post, when pointed to it in order to be afforded the opportunity to interact, decided to delete all quotes on her wall that were antagonistic to her position and retreat to her “happy place.”
This is simple proof, as I have noted before, that leftist politics breeds sheer cowardice. Only by burying one’s head could they maintain such a position (picture it!) in the long run and rather than relinquish the self-created delusion of the moral high ground, the reflexive reaction is to hide among like-minded fundamentalists and preserve their hermetically sealed vision of what’s best for everyone else.
Wed 24 Mar 2010
[I’m willing to] forfeit more of [my] incomce to help [poor people]
[I’m] getting sick of all the angry, violent, whiny, yet privileged, people. I think I will just have to ignore them, so that their misery doesn’t infect me. It’s just too bad for them that they don’t know what happiness feels like and where it comes from.
– facebook quote
It’s amazing how emotive claims to the moral high ground, in bumper sticker fashion, fit so well with the level of discourse needed for the
socialist leftist (ok, ok) liberal (I hate the misuse of the term “liberal” in this country) to maintain it.
This proletariat comment about the evils of we bourgeoisie was brought on by discussions on the healthcare bill. These comments afford me the opportunity to highlight some clear distinctions between opposing worldviews but in a manner not befitting the twitter mentality required by facebook.
Intentions verses results
Notice it’s not the results that matter, it’s the intentions. All acts should be judged moral on the outward appearance of the intentions. This means a quick statement about caring provides immediate access to the moral high ground.
Never mind that this bill is a gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries (they now have 31 million more customers).
Never mind that these types of moves, always result in lower quality at higher costs – for everyone (please read, say, the first 20 pages of Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics”).
Never mind that the individual liberty to manage one’s resources as they see fit is diminished.
Never mind that the entitlement attitude and the “I have a RIGHT” mindset fostered by the ideology expressed in the quote leads to what’s going on now in Venezuela, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland (though Ireland has implemented some serious austerity measures to put themselves back on track).
Never mind that repeatedly, moves in the opposite direction (that is, smaller government and more individual responsibility), have consistently yielded results that have taken entire nations to new heights (Chile’s recent improvements is a case that come to mind).
Never mind that the majority of those that didn’t have insurance that will now be getting it have cell phones, or cable tv, or internet connectivity, or all of the above, and rather than view their lack of “insurance” as either their own “personal decision” in the way they chose to allocate their resources, we need to subsidize their health care so they can continue to avoid responsibility for their own choices.
Never mind that “the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money” (Margaret Thatcher) as much of Europe is now learning the hard way.
All of that makes no difference. It’s the fact that they care, we don’t.
This hearkens to a point Dostoevsky made several times in his portrayal of the Proletariat of privilege. The one whose guilt for actually being bourgeoisie was so great, they felt they needed to identify with those poor souls and prove that they knew what was best for them. Usually this character can be identified by their love of mankind yet their hatred of (individual) people.
And this leads me to ….
Elitism is, by definition (and Wikipedia never lies – just point me to where it does and give me a minute) “the belief or attitude that a select group of people with, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole.” It’s the very antithesis of individual liberty (which, by the way, shares the same Latin root for the word “liberal” and explains why I can’t stand the American use of the term).
When you hear the objection, usually raised in loud tones, and again in bumper sticker fashion: “Don’t cram YOUR morals down MY throat,” it’s usually from the mouth of someone on the left as the main premise in a counter-argument against someone that just MENTIONED what they thought was right or wrong. That same person, naturally and hypocritically drawn to elitism, is more than ready to force their morals (like say, everyone ought to “forfeit more of [their] incomce to help [poor people],”) down the throats of everyone else only using the power of the state as their means.
If you’re willing to “forfeit more of [your] incomce to help [poor people]” then go ahead, I don’t think anyone would complain. However, when, in clear elitist fashion, you use the power of government to force everyone to comply with your morals, don’t be surprised when someone that has a different set than you does the same thing. After all, you set the ground rules. Personally I’d prefer you both just left me alone.
It’s for this reason the William F. Buckley once said that he’d rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book, than by the Harvard faculty. BTW, have you seen who’s in charge lately?
Who are we anyway?
When someone claims we’re a Democracy and you reply with the truth, that we’re a Constitutional Representative Republic (or as such we were founded), you usually get strange looks. It wasn’t that long ago that people understood that our freedom is inversely proportional to the size of the Government budget. It’s for this reason that the Constitution strictly restricts the roll of the Federal Government to those jobs specifically enumerated therein (see the 10th amendment – which is pretty much a dead letter – but shows that the framers of the Constitution understood what was needed to preserve liberty). Funny – I didn’t notice anything about healthcare.
Senator Conyers recently said that the healthcare bill was constitutional because of the “Good and Welfare Clause” (isn’t it wonderful to know how Constitutionally literate our Senators are?). Needless to say no one has ever been able to sue for their rights under the preamble and Madison, in the Federalist papers (in case your one of those educated in a modern American public Skool – the Federalist papers are the commentary on the Constitution by the main writers) found it absurd that anyone could think that Federal policy could be driven from that clause (though this was something that the Confederacy fixed in their short-lived constitution).
A couple of points on the specifics
Other than the government regulation of another industry that needed a completely different policy, there are two very specific issues with this bill that makes it a clear monstrosity.
First, and this is the lesser problem, as previously mentioned this bill is a gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries – it doesn’t punish them. Portions of the bill were written by them. They now have 31 million more customers. For anyone that doesn’t get it, please follow a chart of stocks in these markets the day the bill passed. People know what this means to the bottom line of the industry giants.
Secondly, you are now REQUIRED to have insurance. Several people have tried to make the point that you’re required to have car insurance, as if this settles it. This displays a complete lack of understanding of (once again) the Constitution, and more importantly the difference between a “right” and “privilege.”
In case no one noticed, it’s the STATES that require insurance, not the federal government. That is, it complies with the notion that those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (- hey look – you just read the 10th amendment. Congratulations if that was your first time).
More importantly, driving is a PRIVILEGE and with the privilege comes certain responsibility. Such as taking responsibility for any harm YOU CAUSE while driving. The States have the right to make sure you can afford to take that responsibility by requiring insurance in order to get licensed.
However, while I can choose not to drive (as it is a PRIVILEGE), I cannot choose NOT TO BREATH. Now, the act of breathing requires me to get insurance when the only one that should be harmed by my NOT having insurance in MYSELF (and so that is one of the things that a right healthcare reform bill would have allowed).
But then again, all it takes is good intentions, no matter how much harm you do, to gain the moral high ground.
Fri 5 Jun 2009
In 2005 I wrote that GM should go bankrupt. Well, it certainly took long enough. Back then I commented how the corporate welfare minded Republicans would bail them out. Now that the Democrats have finished the job and taken control of the company, take a look at what we have to look forward to:
Thanks for the reference Andrew
Mon 11 Aug 2008
Bloomberg is reporting that the SEC is investigating Chicago-based Wextrust Capital LLC and actually going after the executives personally, claiming they are operating a “Ponzi Scheme.” I had always wondered if Ponzi Schemes were illegal or not. I had been told that they were but this is the first time I’ve seen one prosecuted. The article defines a Ponzi Scheme as:
Operators of so-called Ponzi schemes use money from new investors to pay off old ones.
Funny, I thought that was basically the definition of Social Security. I hope the SEC moves against the Federal Government next. Not only is Social Security the biggest Ponzi Scheme on the planet, it employs forced participation.
Mon 12 Feb 2007
It’s been a while since I published an outright political post but something has been developing in Venezuela that I’m finding it difficult not to write something about. In discussions with friends of the leftist bent I’ve always suggested that the best course of action that the US should take in dealing with Venezuela is simply to ignore them. Of course, coming from me this isn’t surprising since “leave them friggin’ alone” is pretty much the summation of my foreign policy anyway. However, in the case of Venezuela, I’ve always added the fact that Chavez’s socialism will cause the country to implode without any outside interference.
While I always expected to be proven right, as it begins to happen I’m distraught because I know what it means. The plain and simple fact is, like all socialists, Chavez is an ignorant fool whose policies are likely to cause the pain, suffering, and death of many of his people. Just like under Stalin, when price controls destroyed the incentive among farmers in the fertile Ukraine to actually produce food, they simply stopped doing it, and (at least) 20 million starved. Ignorant that he’s repeating history Chavez simply charges ahead and blames the farmers themselves providing yet another reason for them to simply stop.
Of course, given the denial of objective reality required to maintain a socialist outlook, the left will problably claim my sources are biased. We all know how right wing the BBC must be in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4599260.stm which points out shortages in some non essentials, and the AP in this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_food_crunch which describes how bad food shortages are becoming.
Keep this in mind as Hillary pushes her socialized medicine scheme. After all, if the left can claim that “health care is a right,” how much MORE can they claim that eating is?
Sat 30 Sep 2006
This bit of sarcasm is making the rounds on the internet. I thought it worth posting. Note: As I noted previsously, Senator Santorum was against this bill.
As a native Pennsylvanian and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to Illegal alien, stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill’s provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I’m excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as “in-state” tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver’s license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Fri 11 Aug 2006
I was in the Jackson airport in Wyoming on Sunday morning on my way back home (I’ll be posting a page about that trip soon). A kid – about 15 years old – pale skin, with long blond hair, blue eyes, jeans, and a t-shirt sporting the emblem of some band or musician I didn’t care much about and traveling with his parents, was randomly selected for a more intensive screening due to the policies set in place by our former Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. I didn’t think much of it at the time.
Several days later a major plot to bring down a half dozen planes over the Atlantic was foiled by British officials working with American and Pakistani officials. Again, I’m so thankful for the “random” screening put in place to stop Irish teenagers and elderly “blue haired” ladies from potentially carrying out such acts, now that the names and background of some of the individuals involved in the plot have been revealed. As an example:
– Ahmed Abdula Ali
– Usman Muhammed Saddique
– Mohammed Shamin Uddin
– Arafat Waheed Khan
– Murphy Jones O’Reilly
Oh wait! One of the above wasn’t on the list. Can you guess which one?
So can I. And so can anyone with cranial capacity of a chipmunk – which Norman Mineta apparently doesn’t posses.
I’m not necessarily saying that random checks are useless but lets face it, we’re at war with an enemy that hates us, wants to kill us all, and fits an identifiable ethnic profile. It’s irrational to pretend otherwise. Get over it and get the job done.
Thu 11 May 2006
A friend recently posted the comment:
To answer your humorous broadside against “liberals” (that perjorative is so 80’s; you really must use “progressives today), I’d simply submit the obvious:
Conservatives emphasize “me”; Progressives emphasize “we”. I’d rather be in the latter camp rather than the first.
I thought I would make my response as a post rather than simply a comment. Keep in mind this is a “Rant.” …
This not only NOT “obvious,” it’s clearly false. “Progressives” cloak their selfishness in the guise of compassion. Never a more selfish phrase was uttered than “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need;” pious sounding words used as an excuse to take from those that can for the selfish gain of those that don’t (i.e. “progressives”).
As an example of twisted “progressive” reasoning, progressives will look at conservative attempts to dismantle welfare as “selfish” even though government run welfare systems are probably one of the best ways to perpetuate a permanent poor underclass.
Progressive “compassion” creates enormous harm. From perpetuating racism, to destroying progress, to creating mass starvation, to creating a permanent underclass, to mass murder – “progressive” ideas of “we” encapsulated in their conception of “equality” and “fairness” are responsible for more death and destruction than is even imaginable, while the “conservative” emphasis on accountability, the free market, charity, and real compassion founded on reason and an accurate understanding of human nature is the only reason there is any “progress.”
As a term, “progressive” is about as Orwellian as “liberal” when applied to the group of people it’s intended to label. “Liberal” is from the Latin root for “free” or “freedom.” The application to those it now refers forces those who are “liberals” in the true and original sense of the word (such as myself) to adopt bastardizations like “libertarian.” It is not the word that makes it a pejorative but the referent. Soon enough “progressive” will have the same connotation since the referent is the same.
Sat 29 Apr 2006
I just heard a story from a friend that I found rather disturbing. My friend is a man that had opened his home to the homeless, raised foster children when he was asked to, and regularly gave to various charities and volunteered for various charitable causes. One day he arrived home from work to find a stranger in his house, sitting in his living room, and eating food from his kitchen. Needless to say, my friend was aghast. The smugness of the visitor was what struck my friend most; the intruder barely acknowledged my friend was there until he was confronted. In response the visitor insisted that he was within his rights – after all, my friend had the room and the food, and his need outweighed any perceived wrong.
My friend was so upset that he immediately called the police. This didn’t seem to deter the visitor at all. To my friend’s surprise, when the police arrived, they refused to remove the visitor from the premises. Even though they acknowledged that what was being done was illegal, they claimed that removing the intruder would cause too much of an uproar – apparently, the rantings of the visitor about his “right” to be there deterred the local police from acting; the Chief of Police in this community had fired police officers who acted in similar situations. My friend was told there was nothing he could do.
This emboldened the intruder who immediately began to lay claims on my friend’s property, sustenance, and money. My friend was speechless and beside himself with anger. When his family came home the intruder began to eye-up his daughter while making more noises about his rights, my friend decided on another course of action. He called the local press.
The press came in interviewed my friend and then interviewed the intruder. To my friends surprise the local radio news that evening lead off with the story about how an “uncompassionate” and “intolerant” resident was berating the homeless in the township. As shocking as this was, some of the members of his immediate family started telling him that he should feel guilty about how much he had, and that the right way to assuage this guilt was to allow the visitor to stay and eat what he wanted, for as long as he wanted.
Throughout the course of this ordeal, the visitor saw fit to remind my friend of his rights and how evil and intolerant my friend was for trying to get him out.
Does this type of presumption on the part of individuals make you angry? This little ficticious story is to give you a taste of what I feel when I see those draped in the Mexican flag demanding their right to the benefits of citizenship and the services provided by our tax money.