0 comment Friday, December 5, 2014 | admin
A while back, I read something about this new law, Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which was passed quietly (as most laws are) last year and which came into effect last week or so. I paid scant attention to it, but I've just read about one curious feature of this new law, after Laurel Loflund posted about it at the Kinism forum. The article to which she linked was in the City Journal:
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
Labels: Big Government, Books, Censorship, Congress, Freedom Of Thought, Libraries, Orwellian, Political Correctness
0 comment Sunday, October 26, 2014 | admin
On the subject of airline 'security', this editorial acknowledges the concerns many have about the new procedures:
''Led by agitators and sober commentators alike, the public is distressed and angered by the TSA's new procedures, implemented just in time for the Thanksgiving rush. They include imaging that essentially reveals nude portraits of those who pass through the scanners, and highly intrusive pat-downs.''
The first sentence in that quote gives away the writer's tack, which is one that ultimately leads to a justification of the scans and intimate searches, or at minimum, dismisses profiling.
The editorialist mentions the 'underwear bomber' of 2009, and the fact that passengers thwarted his attempt to carry out his plan, but he fails to note that the would-be bomber was on a no-fly list, and was inexplicably allowed to board. Profiling would have made it far less likely that he would have boarded, even if he were not on a no-fly list. He fit one or more categories: his name, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, indicated his likely religion, and he also had a one-way ticket if I remember correctly.
Now, doubt is being cast on whether his bomb would have been powerful enough to bring the plane down, but that is just hair-splitting, as far as I am concerned.
The editorial mentions also the ink-cartridge incident on a cargo plane, but passenger security would not have prevented such incidents.
So no, profiling would not eliminate any and all threats but it would go a long way, and it would simply be the most straightforward and most honest way of confronting the threat.
Profiling, and making it much harder for people from certain countries to immigrate and even to visit would be the best security measures we might have. As long as our government flatly refuses and rules out these common-sense measures, they are not serious about security or about the lives of citizens. Their rigid and dogmatically PC approach shows reckless disregard of the safety of the citizens whose safety they are supposed to defend.
The editorialist uses a cliched argument against profiling, one which we started hearing a few years ago. The claim is made that terrorists are getting smart. Supposedly they know we are scrutinizing airplanes and at least looking with some caution at Moslem travelers (though not profiling, perish the thought), so now they are going to change tactics. I've seen a number of articles over the last few years about how the next tactic will be to use Western White people or non-Moslem people to carry out attacks, or to act as accomplices.
However I can't think of any major terror attack in which White non-Moslems were involved. Can any of you? I think this is just propaganda that is being sown in order to further discredit the efficacy of profiling. The fact is, with any generalization, as with profiling, there will always be the rare exception, but that never invalidates the general rule.
This leads to the larger question of how we regard the terror threat as such. First of all, the so-called 'War on Terror' is a colossal joke, for the reasons I mention above. We are still letting people from terrorist-producing countries and backgrounds enter our country freely. We are still promiscuously open in our immigration policies. Political correctness trumps common sense, and takes precedence over preserving American lives.
However I am aware that many on the right dismiss outright the potential for terrorism. They believe the threat is an invention of our corrupt government, being used as a pretext for stripping us of our liberties and rights in the name of 'security.'
Actually I agree there is likely truth in that skeptical belief. At least, I can see that the government is exploiting the potential for terrorism, using it to justify totalitarian measures which ultimately make us no safer, but leave us less free.
However, unlike some on the right, I don't believe that the Moslems would be our friends were it not for Middle East politics or our pro-Israel policies. I do think we should abstain from taking sides in Middle East disputes. I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of those countries. But I don't go so far as to say that we and the Moslems could get along just fine if we minded our business. Just look at the history of Europe, and it's clear that Islam has always been at war with White, Western countries, or against historic Christendom -- even when we refuse to see ourselves as at war with them.
And quite apart from that, they are just not compatible with us.
We do not need immigration from those countries. Their interests and ours do not coincide.
On this subject, inevitably someone will recite the rote phrase one hears about all minorities: ''But they're not all like that." Usually that inane statement is followed by some anecdote about a friendly colleague or co-worker. Irrelevant. The fact that less than 100 percent of some group are a direct threat to our lives does not mean that they, or their influence, are desirable in our country. Moslems pose a threat to us in other ways besides clumsy and sometimes successful attempts to kill us. They tend to undermine our culture and our freedoms (complaining about our national and religious symbols displayed in public), demanding special concessions and privileges, and generally displaying a hostile attitude toward us.
And then there are the stories like this one which don't always get national coverage. These things are happening here and there.
I think we need to guard against knee-jerk reactions against our political enemies -- for example, the neocons want to stir up animosity towards Islam so we should turn a blind eye to the threat, or even defend Moslems, as some do. To believe that the neocons 'want us to hate Moslems' should not cause any of us to perversely defend Moslems. They are not our friends. Neither are 'neocons,' of course, but we are stuck with them, for the most part.
But to regard Moslems insouciantly as 'no threat' is not wise.
Whenever we start to find ourselves agreeing with the left, that should give us some pause.
''Led by agitators and sober commentators alike, the public is distressed and angered by the TSA's new procedures, implemented just in time for the Thanksgiving rush. They include imaging that essentially reveals nude portraits of those who pass through the scanners, and highly intrusive pat-downs.''
The first sentence in that quote gives away the writer's tack, which is one that ultimately leads to a justification of the scans and intimate searches, or at minimum, dismisses profiling.
The editorialist mentions the 'underwear bomber' of 2009, and the fact that passengers thwarted his attempt to carry out his plan, but he fails to note that the would-be bomber was on a no-fly list, and was inexplicably allowed to board. Profiling would have made it far less likely that he would have boarded, even if he were not on a no-fly list. He fit one or more categories: his name, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, indicated his likely religion, and he also had a one-way ticket if I remember correctly.
Now, doubt is being cast on whether his bomb would have been powerful enough to bring the plane down, but that is just hair-splitting, as far as I am concerned.
The editorial mentions also the ink-cartridge incident on a cargo plane, but passenger security would not have prevented such incidents.
So no, profiling would not eliminate any and all threats but it would go a long way, and it would simply be the most straightforward and most honest way of confronting the threat.
Profiling, and making it much harder for people from certain countries to immigrate and even to visit would be the best security measures we might have. As long as our government flatly refuses and rules out these common-sense measures, they are not serious about security or about the lives of citizens. Their rigid and dogmatically PC approach shows reckless disregard of the safety of the citizens whose safety they are supposed to defend.
The editorialist uses a cliched argument against profiling, one which we started hearing a few years ago. The claim is made that terrorists are getting smart. Supposedly they know we are scrutinizing airplanes and at least looking with some caution at Moslem travelers (though not profiling, perish the thought), so now they are going to change tactics. I've seen a number of articles over the last few years about how the next tactic will be to use Western White people or non-Moslem people to carry out attacks, or to act as accomplices.
However I can't think of any major terror attack in which White non-Moslems were involved. Can any of you? I think this is just propaganda that is being sown in order to further discredit the efficacy of profiling. The fact is, with any generalization, as with profiling, there will always be the rare exception, but that never invalidates the general rule.
This leads to the larger question of how we regard the terror threat as such. First of all, the so-called 'War on Terror' is a colossal joke, for the reasons I mention above. We are still letting people from terrorist-producing countries and backgrounds enter our country freely. We are still promiscuously open in our immigration policies. Political correctness trumps common sense, and takes precedence over preserving American lives.
However I am aware that many on the right dismiss outright the potential for terrorism. They believe the threat is an invention of our corrupt government, being used as a pretext for stripping us of our liberties and rights in the name of 'security.'
Actually I agree there is likely truth in that skeptical belief. At least, I can see that the government is exploiting the potential for terrorism, using it to justify totalitarian measures which ultimately make us no safer, but leave us less free.
However, unlike some on the right, I don't believe that the Moslems would be our friends were it not for Middle East politics or our pro-Israel policies. I do think we should abstain from taking sides in Middle East disputes. I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of those countries. But I don't go so far as to say that we and the Moslems could get along just fine if we minded our business. Just look at the history of Europe, and it's clear that Islam has always been at war with White, Western countries, or against historic Christendom -- even when we refuse to see ourselves as at war with them.
And quite apart from that, they are just not compatible with us.
We do not need immigration from those countries. Their interests and ours do not coincide.
On this subject, inevitably someone will recite the rote phrase one hears about all minorities: ''But they're not all like that." Usually that inane statement is followed by some anecdote about a friendly colleague or co-worker. Irrelevant. The fact that less than 100 percent of some group are a direct threat to our lives does not mean that they, or their influence, are desirable in our country. Moslems pose a threat to us in other ways besides clumsy and sometimes successful attempts to kill us. They tend to undermine our culture and our freedoms (complaining about our national and religious symbols displayed in public), demanding special concessions and privileges, and generally displaying a hostile attitude toward us.
And then there are the stories like this one which don't always get national coverage. These things are happening here and there.
I think we need to guard against knee-jerk reactions against our political enemies -- for example, the neocons want to stir up animosity towards Islam so we should turn a blind eye to the threat, or even defend Moslems, as some do. To believe that the neocons 'want us to hate Moslems' should not cause any of us to perversely defend Moslems. They are not our friends. Neither are 'neocons,' of course, but we are stuck with them, for the most part.
But to regard Moslems insouciantly as 'no threat' is not wise.
Whenever we start to find ourselves agreeing with the left, that should give us some pause.
Labels: Big Government, Islam, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Security, War On Terror
0 comment Thursday, October 9, 2014 | admin
Kudos to Paul Craig Roberts. He's written a piece about the assault on 'entitlements', especially Social Security, in the wake of the huge budget deficits.
Suddenly, in the last six months or so, it almost seems as if someone declared open season on the old and the disabled. Once upon a time, only the real curmudgeons decried things like Social Security, and suggested cutting off this program, which for many older Americans is their only source of sustenance.
Hard economic times have caused a commensurate hardness of hearts on the part of many conservatives and libertarians. Actually, though, I don't think that is true, when I reflect on it. I think they have always been hard-hearted, and now feel emboldened to say some heartless things that would not have been said in polite company, definitely not in Christian circles, anyway.
I haven't read many of Roberts' pieces on VDare. I do agree with him about the costly and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iran, but it seemed he wrote about nothing else, and I generally go to VDare to read articles about immigration and the demographic warfare on this country. Roberts never seemed interested in any of that, but I give him credit for addressing this issue and speaking out where nobody else would. I fully expect the 'FReepers' and other conservative/libertarian mammon-worshippers will rake him over the coals for this column, but he is right.
If all the people baying for the elimination or drastic reduction in Social Security are doing so because they care about reducing out-of-control government spending, why are they not first attacking the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not only an enormous waste of money, but a waste of the lives of our young people. Yet none of these right-wing advocates of reducing spending will mention the costly wars.
''There is not enough non-military discretionary spending in the budget to cover the cost of the wars even if every dollar is cut. As long as the $1,200 billion ($1.2 trillion) annual budget for the military/security complex is off limits, nothing can be done about the U.S. budget deficit except to renege on obligations to the elderly, confiscate private assets, or print enough money to inflate away all debts.''
He mentions, too, the factor of offshoring of business and the loss of much of our tax base (due to unemployment). The budget-slashers don't usually address those things.
''In America destruction is done with jobs offshoring, financial deregulation, and fraudulent financial instruments. In Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) is it done with bombs and drones.
Where is all this leading?
It is leading to the destruction of Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans have convinced a large percentage of voters that America is in trouble, not because it wastes 20% of the annual budget on wars of aggression and Homeland Security porn-scanners, but because of the poor and retirees.''
Roberts mentions the fact that between 1984 and 2009, Americans contributed $2 trillion more to Social Security and Medicare than was paid out. What happened, he asks, to that surplus? Roberts says that it went for wars and bailouts, mainly.
But for whatever reason, it is being blamed on those greedy old folks who wanted to live in luxury on their Social Security checks when they retired.
When the proposed government health care system was working its way through Congress, I wrote then about the way that it transferred money from the old and chronically ill to the young, and it seemed to assume that the old are a burden and should be abandoned and neglected to death, while we used resources mostly for those who are still productive. And think about the demographics there: the old are the Whitest of all age groups, while the young are the least White. It is clear that there was hardly an impartial distribution of health care here. It looked like an effort to hasten the demise of the old, and transfer spending to the young, many of whom are foreign-born, and not citizens.
At the time, I was shocked by some of the commentary here and there which showed outright hostility to old people. 'Good riddance' or 'they were all a bunch of hippies' or 'they sold us out' were the kinds of comments heard here and there. I was taken aback. Is this what we've come to?
I believe Rush Limbaugh and other such 'conservatives' are fueling this kind of attitude. This is where I part company with the 'conservatives' and the libertarians who worship the Market and profits, and who have made a god of small government. These people who think the abstract principle of 'smaller government' (which I generally favor) is an absolute that must be sought even at the cost of human lives.
And if they think we must cut budgets drastically, why not start with cutting all benefits (ALL benefits) to or for non-citizens, whether here or in their own countries. Why are the slashers not directing their zeal toward cutting all foreign aid or benefits for immigrants? There are plenty of places where cuts could and should be made. Yet we are willing only to sacrifice our own folk.
I wonder what those who favor eliminating Social Security or Medicare plan to do when they are old or otherwise rendered obsolete in the work force? Have they all got a few million socked away for their 'twilight years'? Are they all rolling in money like Rush Limbaugh or the budget-cutting Republicans who are set for life, with all their government perquisites and benefits?
But as Roberts says, the government no longer represents us, the American people; it represents the powerful and the elite.
But somehow most Republicans and libertarians have chosen to identify with the wealthy and the privileged, not with the common, ordinary man.
Perhaps there needs to be a party which will remember the common man, the little guy. As of now, neither major party cares about the man on the street, and we have been duped into thinking that they do, or that the interests of Big Business always coincide with the interests of the average American.
If I sound as though I have strayed off the 'conservative' reservation, I won't deny it. I don't make a god of 'small government' or The Market. I care about my folk and about the common good. If that makes me an anomaly, so be it. I am content to be a minority of one, if need be.
Suddenly, in the last six months or so, it almost seems as if someone declared open season on the old and the disabled. Once upon a time, only the real curmudgeons decried things like Social Security, and suggested cutting off this program, which for many older Americans is their only source of sustenance.
Hard economic times have caused a commensurate hardness of hearts on the part of many conservatives and libertarians. Actually, though, I don't think that is true, when I reflect on it. I think they have always been hard-hearted, and now feel emboldened to say some heartless things that would not have been said in polite company, definitely not in Christian circles, anyway.
I haven't read many of Roberts' pieces on VDare. I do agree with him about the costly and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iran, but it seemed he wrote about nothing else, and I generally go to VDare to read articles about immigration and the demographic warfare on this country. Roberts never seemed interested in any of that, but I give him credit for addressing this issue and speaking out where nobody else would. I fully expect the 'FReepers' and other conservative/libertarian mammon-worshippers will rake him over the coals for this column, but he is right.
If all the people baying for the elimination or drastic reduction in Social Security are doing so because they care about reducing out-of-control government spending, why are they not first attacking the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not only an enormous waste of money, but a waste of the lives of our young people. Yet none of these right-wing advocates of reducing spending will mention the costly wars.
''There is not enough non-military discretionary spending in the budget to cover the cost of the wars even if every dollar is cut. As long as the $1,200 billion ($1.2 trillion) annual budget for the military/security complex is off limits, nothing can be done about the U.S. budget deficit except to renege on obligations to the elderly, confiscate private assets, or print enough money to inflate away all debts.''
He mentions, too, the factor of offshoring of business and the loss of much of our tax base (due to unemployment). The budget-slashers don't usually address those things.
''In America destruction is done with jobs offshoring, financial deregulation, and fraudulent financial instruments. In Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) is it done with bombs and drones.
Where is all this leading?
It is leading to the destruction of Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans have convinced a large percentage of voters that America is in trouble, not because it wastes 20% of the annual budget on wars of aggression and Homeland Security porn-scanners, but because of the poor and retirees.''
Roberts mentions the fact that between 1984 and 2009, Americans contributed $2 trillion more to Social Security and Medicare than was paid out. What happened, he asks, to that surplus? Roberts says that it went for wars and bailouts, mainly.
But for whatever reason, it is being blamed on those greedy old folks who wanted to live in luxury on their Social Security checks when they retired.
When the proposed government health care system was working its way through Congress, I wrote then about the way that it transferred money from the old and chronically ill to the young, and it seemed to assume that the old are a burden and should be abandoned and neglected to death, while we used resources mostly for those who are still productive. And think about the demographics there: the old are the Whitest of all age groups, while the young are the least White. It is clear that there was hardly an impartial distribution of health care here. It looked like an effort to hasten the demise of the old, and transfer spending to the young, many of whom are foreign-born, and not citizens.
At the time, I was shocked by some of the commentary here and there which showed outright hostility to old people. 'Good riddance' or 'they were all a bunch of hippies' or 'they sold us out' were the kinds of comments heard here and there. I was taken aback. Is this what we've come to?
I believe Rush Limbaugh and other such 'conservatives' are fueling this kind of attitude. This is where I part company with the 'conservatives' and the libertarians who worship the Market and profits, and who have made a god of small government. These people who think the abstract principle of 'smaller government' (which I generally favor) is an absolute that must be sought even at the cost of human lives.
And if they think we must cut budgets drastically, why not start with cutting all benefits (ALL benefits) to or for non-citizens, whether here or in their own countries. Why are the slashers not directing their zeal toward cutting all foreign aid or benefits for immigrants? There are plenty of places where cuts could and should be made. Yet we are willing only to sacrifice our own folk.
I wonder what those who favor eliminating Social Security or Medicare plan to do when they are old or otherwise rendered obsolete in the work force? Have they all got a few million socked away for their 'twilight years'? Are they all rolling in money like Rush Limbaugh or the budget-cutting Republicans who are set for life, with all their government perquisites and benefits?
But as Roberts says, the government no longer represents us, the American people; it represents the powerful and the elite.
But somehow most Republicans and libertarians have chosen to identify with the wealthy and the privileged, not with the common, ordinary man.
Perhaps there needs to be a party which will remember the common man, the little guy. As of now, neither major party cares about the man on the street, and we have been duped into thinking that they do, or that the interests of Big Business always coincide with the interests of the average American.
If I sound as though I have strayed off the 'conservative' reservation, I won't deny it. I don't make a god of 'small government' or The Market. I care about my folk and about the common good. If that makes me an anomaly, so be it. I am content to be a minority of one, if need be.
Labels: Atomized Society, Big Government, Corporate Welfare, Fiscal Conservatism, Social Services
0 comment Friday, September 19, 2014 | admin
Mona Charen, with whom I find myself agreeing on very little these days, writes about Michael Gerson, the former Bush speechwriter, and his book 'Heroic Conservatism.'
Gerson's sniping memoir
'There were some rhetorically soaring moments in this presidency. At the National Cathedral, three days after 9/11, the president spoke these words to a grieving country:
"On this national day of prayer and remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come. "
As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love. May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country."
Beautiful. And perfectly suited to the occasion.
Alas, Gerson's agenda in "Heroic Conservatism" is not to reprise the greatest hits of the Bush presidency but to scold his fellow Republicans for their miserly, cruel and indifferent conservatism, which he contrasts with his own -- well, you've seen the title he gives his version.
This is such an old, old story. Conservatives have been accused of cold-heartedness at least for several generations and maybe longer. But it is a little startling to see this old chestnut revived by a Bush administration insider. ''
It's interesting that Mona praises Gerson for his eloquence, and for the beauty of the words he wrote for Bush at that National Cathedral ecumenical PC photo op (which I saw, and remember well). The second part which she quotes above, complimenting its beauty, is obviously not Gerson's, but a passage from Romans 8. '...neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love.''
Interestingly, Gerson is now also being accused of having plagiarized bits of his Heroic Conservatism book from David Frum's White house memoir.
Gerson, not surprisingly, is a fan of Mike Huckabee, another liberal Christian Republican, as we see here :
...Huckabee is a fine debater and a compelling speaker who punches far above his fundraising weight. He has strong conservative credentials. He is solidly pro-life -- in our conversation he was highly critical of Fred Thompson's view that abortion policy should be left to the states. Huckabee supports the troop surge in Iraq. He boasts of being America's first governor to possess a concealed-weapons permit.
But he adds an element that distinguishes him from the rest of a Republican field competing for the title of Mr. Conventionality. "I'm a conservative," Huckabee told me. "But if that means I have to close my eyes to poverty and hunger, I'm not going to do that." This, he said, would be to "refuse a larger allegiance, to my own soul, and also standing before God." "
Overall," he says, "the macro economy is doing very well. . . . But in the micro economy -- how specific groups are doing -- there is a growing disparity between the top and the bottom, and not just the bottom." He worries that even people with a college education are falling behind because of rising insurance costs and fuel prices. "People will only endure this for so many years before there is a revolt. But leaders in the Republican Party seem oblivious to it."
This kind of talk has earned the enmity of fiscal conservatives such as the Club for Growth, which Huckabee has dismissed as the "Club for Greed." "They view everything as accounting," he told me. "For a kid with asthma, who is sitting on the steps of a hospital -- let them [the Club for Growth] have an economic policy that doesn't care about that kid."
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee occasionally raised taxes but mainly to do what governors are supposed to do: increase teacher pay and improve roads and parks. He is proud of extending health insurance to 70,000 Arkansas children and winning 48 percent of the African American vote -- achievements that would be impressive to most voters but that have been received with yawns from most conservative and Republican leaders.''
Here, Gerson advocates what he calls 'open-arms conservatism', meaning: bleeding-heartism with a Republican face; the social gospel ethic carried out with taxpayers' money.
A Republican Party that does not offer a robust agenda on health care, education reform, climate change and economic empowerment will fade into irrelevance.
But the moral stakes are even higher. What does a narrow, anti-government conservatism have to offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and intact families are rare? Very little. What hope does it provide to children in foreign lands dying of diseases that can be treated or prevented for the cost of American small change? No hope. What achievement would it contribute to the racial healing and unity of our country? No achievement at all.
As the Republican candidates attempt to prove themselves the exemplars of conservatism, they should consider what that philosophy can mean: the application of conservative and free-market ideas to the task of helping everyone. ''
Obviously this kind of 'conservatism' can't coexist with small-government conservatism, because it presupposes that the government is in the business of doing what churches and missionaries and volunteers from charitable groups used to do. Government, in the view of the bleeding hearts, is supposed to be daddy and mommy to everybody, compensate for the disparities that inevitably happen in a world in which ability, motivation, and incentive vary among individuals and groups. According to the 'compassionate conservative' view, government is supposed to do everything, up to and including healing the sick and raising the dead, much as Jesus and the original apostles did in the Bible.
John C. Hulsman describes here what is wrong with Gerson's 'heroic conservatism'
...Mr. Gerson calls traditional conservatives "anti-state conservatives," coyly implying that anyone who objects to sweeping, messianic programs--Mr. Gerson loves the idea of the U.S. government spending billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa--is flirting with anarchism. He scoffs at the "unheroic" conservative belief that domestic problems should be solved either by private means or by narrowly gauged government efforts at the local level--that is, at the level closest to the people. He warns: "If Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted, and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose."
The "deserve to lose" part of his message is especially galling. The U.S. government has been pouring billions and billions of dollars into the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, with results so wayward that, for decades now, a cottage industry has grown up among policy intellectuals to document all the disappointing results and ill effects. The welfare reform of Bill Clinton's first term grew out of such a critique. Still, Mr. Gerson equates "caring" with government spending, as though, self-evidently, yet more "visionary" programs are the best way of dealing with poverty, addiction and children at risk.
To the traditional conservative, it is more heroic--that is, more honest and realistic--to acknowledge that such problems are too deeply ingrained to be solved by a far-away Washington bureaucracy. Traditional conservatives since Edmund Burke have put their faith in the organic forces of society--family, community, civic institutions. In America, such faith has made common cause with commercial dynamism and the opportunities it creates for upward mobility.
[...]
For all its Christian urgency, there is not much humility on view in "Heroic Conservatism." The book has a hectoring tone, blithely claiming the moral high ground and ignoring a great deal of chastening experience. Such self-satisfied thinking runs counter to the Burkean temperament, which is painfully aware of the limits, and potential flaws, of even well-intentioned men. For traditional conservatives, societies evolve in an almost geological way--formed by the immense weight of history and culture over vast stretches of time. Grand schemes, even grand religiously driven schemes, do not suddenly "direct" history or solve long-festering problems or, for that matter, remake the world.''
I occasionally hear Republicans arguing against big government do-goodism. But the arguments they are prone to use do not involve the fact that government, at least from the conservative perspective, is not supposed to be mommy and daddy to everyone, or that the American government in particular is not supposed to be some kind of rescuer and messiah of all the world's hard luck cases. Rather, these Republican critics will offer that 'big government liberalism is not good for the minorities who are the intended beneficiaries of the programs.' They will say ''these programs hold minorities back; they are the reason for all the dysfunction in the minority 'communities' and they are the reason for family breakdown and crime and underachievement.'' I fail to see the benefit of making these kinds of arguments; why not appeal to conservative principles or to the Founding Fathers' original vision for our government, rather than using the essentially liberal argument that 'big government does not help minorities who need our help; we should help them by some other means.' Where is the responsibility of the individual in that argument, or where is the responsibility of the supposed 'community leaders' who claim to advocate for their people? Where is the emphasis on family members doing a better job of raising up children or providing for ailing family members and older generations in need of help? And to blame all the disparities in income and achievement on liberal malfeasance is to imply that there really are no other factors other than government, whether big government meddling or lack of government meddling, that factor into the disparities we see.
It doesn't help to make liberal arguments against big government efforts at do-gooding.
Ross Douthat here argues that the Republican party should not return to the 'government-cutting' principles of the past:
Particularly since Gerson's central argument is basically correct: American conservatism needs to stand for something besides government-cutting if it hopes to regain the majority that George W. Bush won (and quickly lost). At its best, Heroic Conservatism is a necessary corrective to the right's mythologizing of its own past, which cultivates the pretense that small-government purity has always been the key to Republican success. By way of rebuttal, Gerson points out that conservatives tend to win elections only when they convince voters that they mean to reform the welfare state, rather than do away with it entirely. This was true of 1990s success stories like Rudy Giuliani in New York and Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin; it was true of the Contract With America, a far less ideological document than right-wing nostalgists make it out to be; and it was true of Ronald Reagan himself, who slowed the growth of government but hardly cut it to the bone. The insight isn't unique to Gerson; it dates back to the original, '70s-vintage neoconservatives. But it seems to be slipping away from the contemporary GOP, whose primary contenders�save perhaps for Mike Huckabee�are falling over one another to prove their small-government bona fides, and whose activists have persuaded themselves that tax cuts and pork-busting will be their tickets back to power.''
Douthat seems to be saying that yes, to adopt the 'heroic conservatism' of Gerson -- and Huckabee -- is to lose conservative principles, but to maintain those principles would doom the GOP to the 'political wilderness.' This is always the refrain of those who say that we have to be pragmatic and win, even if winning means adopting liberal ideas, and essentially doing the liberals' work for them. The idea is just to win, even if winning means becoming liberal.
Since Gerson and his buddy Huckabee like to quote the Bible, I will end with a quote which I think apposite in this context:
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'' - Matthew 16:26
Gerson's sniping memoir
'There were some rhetorically soaring moments in this presidency. At the National Cathedral, three days after 9/11, the president spoke these words to a grieving country:
"On this national day of prayer and remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come. "
As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love. May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country."
Beautiful. And perfectly suited to the occasion.
Alas, Gerson's agenda in "Heroic Conservatism" is not to reprise the greatest hits of the Bush presidency but to scold his fellow Republicans for their miserly, cruel and indifferent conservatism, which he contrasts with his own -- well, you've seen the title he gives his version.
This is such an old, old story. Conservatives have been accused of cold-heartedness at least for several generations and maybe longer. But it is a little startling to see this old chestnut revived by a Bush administration insider. ''
It's interesting that Mona praises Gerson for his eloquence, and for the beauty of the words he wrote for Bush at that National Cathedral ecumenical PC photo op (which I saw, and remember well). The second part which she quotes above, complimenting its beauty, is obviously not Gerson's, but a passage from Romans 8. '...neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love.''
Interestingly, Gerson is now also being accused of having plagiarized bits of his Heroic Conservatism book from David Frum's White house memoir.
Gerson, not surprisingly, is a fan of Mike Huckabee, another liberal Christian Republican, as we see here :
...Huckabee is a fine debater and a compelling speaker who punches far above his fundraising weight. He has strong conservative credentials. He is solidly pro-life -- in our conversation he was highly critical of Fred Thompson's view that abortion policy should be left to the states. Huckabee supports the troop surge in Iraq. He boasts of being America's first governor to possess a concealed-weapons permit.
But he adds an element that distinguishes him from the rest of a Republican field competing for the title of Mr. Conventionality. "I'm a conservative," Huckabee told me. "But if that means I have to close my eyes to poverty and hunger, I'm not going to do that." This, he said, would be to "refuse a larger allegiance, to my own soul, and also standing before God." "
Overall," he says, "the macro economy is doing very well. . . . But in the micro economy -- how specific groups are doing -- there is a growing disparity between the top and the bottom, and not just the bottom." He worries that even people with a college education are falling behind because of rising insurance costs and fuel prices. "People will only endure this for so many years before there is a revolt. But leaders in the Republican Party seem oblivious to it."
This kind of talk has earned the enmity of fiscal conservatives such as the Club for Growth, which Huckabee has dismissed as the "Club for Greed." "They view everything as accounting," he told me. "For a kid with asthma, who is sitting on the steps of a hospital -- let them [the Club for Growth] have an economic policy that doesn't care about that kid."
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee occasionally raised taxes but mainly to do what governors are supposed to do: increase teacher pay and improve roads and parks. He is proud of extending health insurance to 70,000 Arkansas children and winning 48 percent of the African American vote -- achievements that would be impressive to most voters but that have been received with yawns from most conservative and Republican leaders.''
Here, Gerson advocates what he calls 'open-arms conservatism', meaning: bleeding-heartism with a Republican face; the social gospel ethic carried out with taxpayers' money.
A Republican Party that does not offer a robust agenda on health care, education reform, climate change and economic empowerment will fade into irrelevance.
But the moral stakes are even higher. What does a narrow, anti-government conservatism have to offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and intact families are rare? Very little. What hope does it provide to children in foreign lands dying of diseases that can be treated or prevented for the cost of American small change? No hope. What achievement would it contribute to the racial healing and unity of our country? No achievement at all.
As the Republican candidates attempt to prove themselves the exemplars of conservatism, they should consider what that philosophy can mean: the application of conservative and free-market ideas to the task of helping everyone. ''
Obviously this kind of 'conservatism' can't coexist with small-government conservatism, because it presupposes that the government is in the business of doing what churches and missionaries and volunteers from charitable groups used to do. Government, in the view of the bleeding hearts, is supposed to be daddy and mommy to everybody, compensate for the disparities that inevitably happen in a world in which ability, motivation, and incentive vary among individuals and groups. According to the 'compassionate conservative' view, government is supposed to do everything, up to and including healing the sick and raising the dead, much as Jesus and the original apostles did in the Bible.
John C. Hulsman describes here what is wrong with Gerson's 'heroic conservatism'
...Mr. Gerson calls traditional conservatives "anti-state conservatives," coyly implying that anyone who objects to sweeping, messianic programs--Mr. Gerson loves the idea of the U.S. government spending billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa--is flirting with anarchism. He scoffs at the "unheroic" conservative belief that domestic problems should be solved either by private means or by narrowly gauged government efforts at the local level--that is, at the level closest to the people. He warns: "If Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted, and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose."
The "deserve to lose" part of his message is especially galling. The U.S. government has been pouring billions and billions of dollars into the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, with results so wayward that, for decades now, a cottage industry has grown up among policy intellectuals to document all the disappointing results and ill effects. The welfare reform of Bill Clinton's first term grew out of such a critique. Still, Mr. Gerson equates "caring" with government spending, as though, self-evidently, yet more "visionary" programs are the best way of dealing with poverty, addiction and children at risk.
To the traditional conservative, it is more heroic--that is, more honest and realistic--to acknowledge that such problems are too deeply ingrained to be solved by a far-away Washington bureaucracy. Traditional conservatives since Edmund Burke have put their faith in the organic forces of society--family, community, civic institutions. In America, such faith has made common cause with commercial dynamism and the opportunities it creates for upward mobility.
[...]
For all its Christian urgency, there is not much humility on view in "Heroic Conservatism." The book has a hectoring tone, blithely claiming the moral high ground and ignoring a great deal of chastening experience. Such self-satisfied thinking runs counter to the Burkean temperament, which is painfully aware of the limits, and potential flaws, of even well-intentioned men. For traditional conservatives, societies evolve in an almost geological way--formed by the immense weight of history and culture over vast stretches of time. Grand schemes, even grand religiously driven schemes, do not suddenly "direct" history or solve long-festering problems or, for that matter, remake the world.''
I occasionally hear Republicans arguing against big government do-goodism. But the arguments they are prone to use do not involve the fact that government, at least from the conservative perspective, is not supposed to be mommy and daddy to everyone, or that the American government in particular is not supposed to be some kind of rescuer and messiah of all the world's hard luck cases. Rather, these Republican critics will offer that 'big government liberalism is not good for the minorities who are the intended beneficiaries of the programs.' They will say ''these programs hold minorities back; they are the reason for all the dysfunction in the minority 'communities' and they are the reason for family breakdown and crime and underachievement.'' I fail to see the benefit of making these kinds of arguments; why not appeal to conservative principles or to the Founding Fathers' original vision for our government, rather than using the essentially liberal argument that 'big government does not help minorities who need our help; we should help them by some other means.' Where is the responsibility of the individual in that argument, or where is the responsibility of the supposed 'community leaders' who claim to advocate for their people? Where is the emphasis on family members doing a better job of raising up children or providing for ailing family members and older generations in need of help? And to blame all the disparities in income and achievement on liberal malfeasance is to imply that there really are no other factors other than government, whether big government meddling or lack of government meddling, that factor into the disparities we see.
It doesn't help to make liberal arguments against big government efforts at do-gooding.
Ross Douthat here argues that the Republican party should not return to the 'government-cutting' principles of the past:
Particularly since Gerson's central argument is basically correct: American conservatism needs to stand for something besides government-cutting if it hopes to regain the majority that George W. Bush won (and quickly lost). At its best, Heroic Conservatism is a necessary corrective to the right's mythologizing of its own past, which cultivates the pretense that small-government purity has always been the key to Republican success. By way of rebuttal, Gerson points out that conservatives tend to win elections only when they convince voters that they mean to reform the welfare state, rather than do away with it entirely. This was true of 1990s success stories like Rudy Giuliani in New York and Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin; it was true of the Contract With America, a far less ideological document than right-wing nostalgists make it out to be; and it was true of Ronald Reagan himself, who slowed the growth of government but hardly cut it to the bone. The insight isn't unique to Gerson; it dates back to the original, '70s-vintage neoconservatives. But it seems to be slipping away from the contemporary GOP, whose primary contenders�save perhaps for Mike Huckabee�are falling over one another to prove their small-government bona fides, and whose activists have persuaded themselves that tax cuts and pork-busting will be their tickets back to power.''
Douthat seems to be saying that yes, to adopt the 'heroic conservatism' of Gerson -- and Huckabee -- is to lose conservative principles, but to maintain those principles would doom the GOP to the 'political wilderness.' This is always the refrain of those who say that we have to be pragmatic and win, even if winning means adopting liberal ideas, and essentially doing the liberals' work for them. The idea is just to win, even if winning means becoming liberal.
Since Gerson and his buddy Huckabee like to quote the Bible, I will end with a quote which I think apposite in this context:
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'' - Matthew 16:26
Labels: Big Government, Compassionate Conservatism, Gop, Inequality, Liberalism, Presidential Candidates, Republicans
0 comment Wednesday, July 16, 2014 | admin
Little did I know that the health care plan is being pushed through in response to public demand. That's one thing I learned from tonight's press conference.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.
Labels: Big Government, Health Care, Media Bias, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Race Card, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Victimhood
0 comment Wednesday, June 18, 2014 | admin
Westchester Agrees to Add Housing in Desegregation Pact
From the article:
Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care," said Mr. Gurian.''
Residential segregation is behind every racial disparity? What does that mean? Is Mr. Gurian, who is executive director of 'the Anti-Discrimination Center', saying that nonwhites must live among Whites, being in constant proximity to them, in order to be 'equal' in education, jobs or healthcare? That is about all I can make of his words. So he is indicating, as I perceive it, that nonwhites are not self-sufficient, able to accomplish 'equality' on their own, and that their being amongst White people is essential to their prospering in any way?
I would bet Mr. Gurian does not mean that as it sounds. He is either one of those ideological, doctrinaire liberals who really believes that Whites are selfishly denying nonwhites their ''piece of the pie'' by not 'allowing' them to inhabit historically White areas, or he doesn't really believe the egalitarian claptrap, and knows that the only earthly way to remove those pesky 'racial disparities' is by dragging everybody's standards down to the lowest common denominator. That was the way it usually worked in the old Communist countries; instead of 'wealth' being spread to everyone, poverty was made more inclusive. Almost everybody but the 'party elites' lived in cramped, dismal housing and had minimal creature comforts. That was 'equality'. So when the Gurians of the world finish with America, all neighborhoods will be grimly equal, with nobody living in middle-class 'luxury', and everybody living in shared squalor.
There is no way to bring everybody up to the higher level; instead, everybody will be dragged down, and the envious will have had their pyrrhic victory. Nobody will be 'better' than anybody else; misery will have its desired company, and the envious will enjoy their Schadenfreude at seeing Whitey brought down to their level.
Quite apart from the futility of social engineering efforts like this, and its impracticability, and its cost in dollars and cents, it's just simply wrong. It's wrong from a constitutional point of view; our government was not designed to do this. The United States government (whew, I almost slipped and said ''our'' government again!) has no legal right to meddle in mandating where people live, and in forcing taxpayers to fund the relocation of the have-nots to live (according to some imaginary 'right') among the haves.
The government is destroying natural freedom of association. You and I will no longer be allowed, if this continues, to live among people with whom we are comfortable, with whom we share certain commonalities -- of income level, religion, lifestyle, race/ethnicity, habits, or whatever. It will all be decided for us by Big Mommy Government, and it will be ensured by force.
The agreement, if ratified by the county�s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments� housing policies by the Obama administration.
"This is consistent with the president�s desire to see a fully integrated society," said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. "Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people�s feet to the fire."
The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.
The county, one of the nation�s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.''
This kind of government coercion is yet another means by which communities consisting mostly of White people will be forcibly broken up, and ''diversity'' imposed by government edict.
Now, 50 years ago, this kind of ''integration'' could not be forced on people if only because blacks were only 10-11 percent of the population, and they obviously could not be in every community.
I've noticed that many young diversity-minded people are alarmed at seeing pictures of White communities from 40 or 50 years ago, saying ''where are the African-Americans and the Hispanics?' Where, indeed. Now, however, our resourceful elites have solved that vexing problem. Knowing that certain neighborhoods and towns could not be properly ''integrated'' since nonwhites were spread too thin, they thoughtfully, in 1965, passed a law to ensure that no neighborhood need ever be color-deprived. The Hart-Celler Act, which favored Third World immigration and discouraged European immigration, began to import millions of people to 'integrate' America properly. Now, all these years later, there is still a color shortage, apparently, as millions more are sought to come and 'integrate' us further. Refugees help increase the numbers, since immigration is not fast-and-furious enough for our rulers.
Some of us have noticed that refugees are now very consciously placed in small, mostly White towns and in states with a diversity 'deficiency.' Do the powers that be think we are so stupid as not to notice this pattern, and to divine the reasoning behind it?
I posted an article a while back about the plans to bulldoze certain areas and to relocate people elsewhere, and remarked that I was certain it was more social engineering, more meddling. The New York Times article describes the other part of the plan. Places like Westchester (and maybe your town) will be the recipient areas.
Note: Old Atlantic has blogged about this, here.
From the article:
Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care," said Mr. Gurian.''
Residential segregation is behind every racial disparity? What does that mean? Is Mr. Gurian, who is executive director of 'the Anti-Discrimination Center', saying that nonwhites must live among Whites, being in constant proximity to them, in order to be 'equal' in education, jobs or healthcare? That is about all I can make of his words. So he is indicating, as I perceive it, that nonwhites are not self-sufficient, able to accomplish 'equality' on their own, and that their being amongst White people is essential to their prospering in any way?
I would bet Mr. Gurian does not mean that as it sounds. He is either one of those ideological, doctrinaire liberals who really believes that Whites are selfishly denying nonwhites their ''piece of the pie'' by not 'allowing' them to inhabit historically White areas, or he doesn't really believe the egalitarian claptrap, and knows that the only earthly way to remove those pesky 'racial disparities' is by dragging everybody's standards down to the lowest common denominator. That was the way it usually worked in the old Communist countries; instead of 'wealth' being spread to everyone, poverty was made more inclusive. Almost everybody but the 'party elites' lived in cramped, dismal housing and had minimal creature comforts. That was 'equality'. So when the Gurians of the world finish with America, all neighborhoods will be grimly equal, with nobody living in middle-class 'luxury', and everybody living in shared squalor.
There is no way to bring everybody up to the higher level; instead, everybody will be dragged down, and the envious will have had their pyrrhic victory. Nobody will be 'better' than anybody else; misery will have its desired company, and the envious will enjoy their Schadenfreude at seeing Whitey brought down to their level.
Quite apart from the futility of social engineering efforts like this, and its impracticability, and its cost in dollars and cents, it's just simply wrong. It's wrong from a constitutional point of view; our government was not designed to do this. The United States government (whew, I almost slipped and said ''our'' government again!) has no legal right to meddle in mandating where people live, and in forcing taxpayers to fund the relocation of the have-nots to live (according to some imaginary 'right') among the haves.
The government is destroying natural freedom of association. You and I will no longer be allowed, if this continues, to live among people with whom we are comfortable, with whom we share certain commonalities -- of income level, religion, lifestyle, race/ethnicity, habits, or whatever. It will all be decided for us by Big Mommy Government, and it will be ensured by force.
The agreement, if ratified by the county�s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments� housing policies by the Obama administration.
"This is consistent with the president�s desire to see a fully integrated society," said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. "Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people�s feet to the fire."
The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.
The county, one of the nation�s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.''
This kind of government coercion is yet another means by which communities consisting mostly of White people will be forcibly broken up, and ''diversity'' imposed by government edict.
Now, 50 years ago, this kind of ''integration'' could not be forced on people if only because blacks were only 10-11 percent of the population, and they obviously could not be in every community.
I've noticed that many young diversity-minded people are alarmed at seeing pictures of White communities from 40 or 50 years ago, saying ''where are the African-Americans and the Hispanics?' Where, indeed. Now, however, our resourceful elites have solved that vexing problem. Knowing that certain neighborhoods and towns could not be properly ''integrated'' since nonwhites were spread too thin, they thoughtfully, in 1965, passed a law to ensure that no neighborhood need ever be color-deprived. The Hart-Celler Act, which favored Third World immigration and discouraged European immigration, began to import millions of people to 'integrate' America properly. Now, all these years later, there is still a color shortage, apparently, as millions more are sought to come and 'integrate' us further. Refugees help increase the numbers, since immigration is not fast-and-furious enough for our rulers.
Some of us have noticed that refugees are now very consciously placed in small, mostly White towns and in states with a diversity 'deficiency.' Do the powers that be think we are so stupid as not to notice this pattern, and to divine the reasoning behind it?
I posted an article a while back about the plans to bulldoze certain areas and to relocate people elsewhere, and remarked that I was certain it was more social engineering, more meddling. The New York Times article describes the other part of the plan. Places like Westchester (and maybe your town) will be the recipient areas.
Note: Old Atlantic has blogged about this, here.
Labels: Big Government, Celebrate Diversity, Cultural Marxism, Diversity, Egalitarianism, Freedom Of Association, Inequality, Integration, Liberalism, Social Engineering
0 comment Sunday, June 1, 2014 | admin
An American blogger says she was sexually assaulted during the airport ''security'' screening.
The article, posted on an Australian news site, drew many comments, some of them very stupid and some more reasonable. I am always dumbfounded by people of whatever nationality who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being subjected to intimate body searches or ''naked scanners'' just to board a plane.
One comment says if we get to our destinations safely, then it's worth it. I surely hope Americans won't be so ovine and passive as to simply shrug their shoulders and acquiesce to this. I hear a lot of people saying they just won't fly (which has been my resolve for a while now) but I wonder if they'll get over that and decide they 'need' to fly after all.
One cliche that we have heard ever since 9/12/2001 is that ''if we change our lives and habits just because of terrorists, then they will have won. So let's just do everything we did before 9/11 and defy the terrorists.''
That kind of thinking exasperates me. Who started that silly meme, anyway? As far as I can discern, the terrorists are not just looking to 'change our way of life' or 'destroy our freedom', they are trying to kill people, specifically Americans and infidels. If we are wise enough not to take chances, and avoid high-risk situations, the enemy will not have won; we will have won by eluding the traps set for us. We win by staying alive and foiling their designs, not by "defiantly" dying in an avoidable attack.
I don't believe they ''hate us for our freedom''. They hate us just because of who and what we are and what we represent.
So if we 'defy' them by taking risks that are usually avoidable, and we end up dead because of it, I would think that THEN, they would have won.
So why take unnecessary risks?
I don't believe these intrusive and probably unconstitutional measures make us one bit safer. They are not really intended to make us safer. If our government wanted to protect us, it would have closed the borders on 9/11 and radically tightened our immigration laws, excluding people from terrorist-producing nations. Profile. That's the best way of making us safer. And fix our wide-open borders and our lax visa regulations.
Some have declared that these new security regulations are 'theater' to make the gullible public believe that our government is protecting us. I doubt that; I think most people are past believing that our government has our interests at heart, or that they are really serious about actually performing the main duty of government -- to protect our lives and safety, particularly from foreign invasion or attack. No, I think it's simply a show of power, and an attempt to get us more accustomed to just shuffling along obediently, and giving up more of our rights and liberties in the name of 'security.'
Personally, when I have to travel, I will choose some other method than flying.
The article, posted on an Australian news site, drew many comments, some of them very stupid and some more reasonable. I am always dumbfounded by people of whatever nationality who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being subjected to intimate body searches or ''naked scanners'' just to board a plane.
One comment says if we get to our destinations safely, then it's worth it. I surely hope Americans won't be so ovine and passive as to simply shrug their shoulders and acquiesce to this. I hear a lot of people saying they just won't fly (which has been my resolve for a while now) but I wonder if they'll get over that and decide they 'need' to fly after all.
One cliche that we have heard ever since 9/12/2001 is that ''if we change our lives and habits just because of terrorists, then they will have won. So let's just do everything we did before 9/11 and defy the terrorists.''
That kind of thinking exasperates me. Who started that silly meme, anyway? As far as I can discern, the terrorists are not just looking to 'change our way of life' or 'destroy our freedom', they are trying to kill people, specifically Americans and infidels. If we are wise enough not to take chances, and avoid high-risk situations, the enemy will not have won; we will have won by eluding the traps set for us. We win by staying alive and foiling their designs, not by "defiantly" dying in an avoidable attack.
I don't believe they ''hate us for our freedom''. They hate us just because of who and what we are and what we represent.
So if we 'defy' them by taking risks that are usually avoidable, and we end up dead because of it, I would think that THEN, they would have won.
So why take unnecessary risks?
I don't believe these intrusive and probably unconstitutional measures make us one bit safer. They are not really intended to make us safer. If our government wanted to protect us, it would have closed the borders on 9/11 and radically tightened our immigration laws, excluding people from terrorist-producing nations. Profile. That's the best way of making us safer. And fix our wide-open borders and our lax visa regulations.
Some have declared that these new security regulations are 'theater' to make the gullible public believe that our government is protecting us. I doubt that; I think most people are past believing that our government has our interests at heart, or that they are really serious about actually performing the main duty of government -- to protect our lives and safety, particularly from foreign invasion or attack. No, I think it's simply a show of power, and an attempt to get us more accustomed to just shuffling along obediently, and giving up more of our rights and liberties in the name of 'security.'
Personally, when I have to travel, I will choose some other method than flying.
Labels: Big Government, Liberty, Privacy, Terrorism, War On Terror
0 comment Saturday, May 17, 2014 | admin
It's becoming more and more open and brazen.
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare. Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power. Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008). Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''
This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.
So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.
It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.
Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.
Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.
I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare. Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power. Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008). Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''
This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.
So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.
It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.
Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.
Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.
I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.
Labels: Big Government, Democrats, Euthanasia, Health Care, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberalism, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Nanny State, Public Health, Totalitarianism