Archive for March, 2010

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

There is polite society, there is the left wing nutty extreme, and there is the right wing nutty extreme. Naturally, most of us wish to be regarded as belonging to polite society. We never utter the word nigger or faggot. We never compare the President to Hitler, unless he’s a Republican, and even then only in moderation.

We don’t question Obama’s birth certificate or who were the real perpetrators of 9/11. We are reasonable, civilized, moderate people. You can even be a Republican and still be grudgingly accepted, as long as you are a David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley kind of Republican who reluctantly voted for Barack Obama.

Staying within the boundaries of polite society, David Brooks-like, may be a cowardly denial of the obvious, but we are social animals and nobody wants to be sent into exile. I am constantly surprised at the strength of this evolutionary imperative. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly necessary to deny more and more obvious facts, in order to remain a member of the nice people club.

There are, regrettably, strong correlations between race and IQ.

It is lamentable that the Koran calls for the extermination of the Jews, and the subjugation of all non-Muslims. It’s a shame, but Al Qaeda is right about that.

It is unfortunately true that, for the most part, people don’t like to associate with those of a different race or culture. This is especially true of all cultures and races other than white, Christian, middle class Americans, the most tolerant people in human history.

It’s a bummer, but war is, always has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, endemic to human nature.

A nation unwilling or unable to wage war, is a dying nation.

A nation unwilling or unable to control its borders is a dying nation.

A nation unwilling to allow its citizens to participate in the free capitalist market is a dying nation.

A nation that denies its citizens the right to free speech and freedom of religion is a dying nation.

A nation whose people expect their government to provide them with free health care, free education, free retirement, free housing, free food, or free anything, is a dying nation.

You can be for this or against that. The real debate is not about expanding or shrinking government at the margins. It is about whether the current size of government is grossly, brutishly, thuggishly, blatantly, way, way too large, or whether it needs to grow massively more. Whether the free enterprise, capitalist system has gotten out of hand and needs to be drastically reined in, or whether it has been so egregiously suppressed that it can barely function. These are statements of extreme views. They are also the real polarities of our current political debate.

The federal government, and some of the larger state governments like New York and California, are bloated, gorged, parasites feeding on the fear of being seen as extreme, and the desire to be absolved of personal responsibility.

Last year, our public federal servants spent $13 billion, billion with a “b”, on trips that doubled as vacation junkets. They flew first class. Where did you go on vacation this year? Is there any question in anyone’s mind whether or not these trips, that we (the 53% percent of us who still pay federal income tax) paid for, served the public good?

There is a current attempt by the Democratic Party to smear dissenters who object to Obamacare, as violent racists. Obama is black. He was black before he was elected. He was elected by a majority of voters. He is now disapproved of by a majority of voters. Did they suddenly become racists? Violent? Most of the charges of violence have no evidence. Andrew Beitbart offers a $100,000 prize to anyone who can give video proof of even one of the 15 allegations of someone hollering, ‘nigger’, that was claimed. Even without video proof, he or she wins the prize if they can pass a lie detector test.

I am hereby announcing my going over to the dark side. This is no longer the usual give and take of the two party system of our republic. There is a confrontation looming between those who wish to progress, as quickly as possible, beyond the Constitution and those who wish to redeem it.

Government Health Care

Saturday, March 20th, 2010

Tomorrow is supposedly the big vote on the big government health care bill. Everybody knows it’s a horrible bill, Republicans, Democrats, lefties and righties, not to mention the public at large. Even Obama knows it’s a horrible bill.

The thing is, the content of this particular bill is not the point. The point is that the bill, no matter how horrible, regardless of what kind of garbage is in it, establishes the principle that the federal government is responsible for our health care.

Once that principle is installed into the law, and into the expectations of the citizenry, it is only a matter of time before we have what is euphemistically referred to as “the public option”, and from there it is a hop, skip, and a jump to single payer.

President Obama and a lot of Democrats believe that would be a good thing, good for the country, good for the people. And they perceive that the current bill is pretty much the only possible first step on that road towards the ultimate goal.

Myself, I think the goal is wrong, bad for the country, bad for the people. So I see the horrible bill as horrible in root and branch. There needs to be some amount of government interference in the health care market, to cover those that are not covered in any other way, but most of the problems with health care are the result of way too much government interference, not too little.

If insurance companies were allowed to compete across state lines, and the buyers and sellers of insurance were free to decide what is covered, without any government dictates, and individuals and employees were treated the same for tax purposes, and something was done about the cost of defensive medicine and malpractice insurance, then we could see what remains to be done to cover those who wish to be covered, but are unable to afford it.

The less government interference and control, the better. That is the principle that really needs to be established.

Climate and Human Redemption

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Al Gore has an op-ed in the New York Times. Here are a few excerpts to give you the flavor of Al’s call for human redemption or else.

…unimaginable calamity…

…human civilization as we know it.

…a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings…

…we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere – as if it were an open sewer.

…the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

…the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

…create conditions that make large and destructive consequences inevitable long before their awful manifestations become apparent: the displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases.

…what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

Churchillian rhetoric. Were it not for the complete and utter collapse of the certainty and precision of the climate science “consensus” at the IPCC, CRU, NASA, and MSM, a collapse which Al Gore, the world’s first carbon billionaire, conveniently ignores, one could almost be inspired.