Maverick Philosopher

The Climate Science Isn't Settled

Three questions: Is global warming occurring?  Is is anthropogenic?  Is it sufficiently serious to warrant massive action?  There is no good reason to think that all three questions have an affirmative answer.  Here is an article by Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

What is truly disturbing in all this is the extent of leftist ideological infiltration of science.  But this is nothing new.  See Stalin on Philology.

To put it polemically, the gas bags of global warming are CO₂mmies.  The point of this bit of invective is to highlight the anti-free market, totalitarian, and politically correct ideological nature of this so-called 'science.'

More on ClimateGate

Here.

Evidence Mounts That Global Warming is a Lot of Hot Air

So far I have been very measured and noncommittal in my comments on global warming.  I have contented myself with drawing some elementary distinctions that would have to be observed in any rational discussion of the issue.  See here and here. 

But having spoken to a climatologist and having read more on the subject, I am now inclining to the view that much of so-called climate science contains a sizeable admixture of leftist, anti-capitalist ideology fueled by grant-funding agencies with political axes to grind who favor  those who toe the party line.  This WSJ article is a bit more evidence that this is so. 

Travesty in New York

Will there be no end to the idiocies perpetrated by the Obama Administration?  The latest is the absurd decision to give Islamic terrorist  Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York City.  As usual, Charles Krauthammer cuts to the nerve of the matter:

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

See also Mona Charen's Holder's True Motive for some incisive analysis.

Obama's Fiscal Malpractice

Essential reading by Robert Samuelson.  What were you thinking when you voted for this empty suit?

The Latest Heidegger Controversy

Court Merrigan writes,

I wonder if you'd like to weigh in on the newly-intensified debate surrounding Heidegger.  Should the man's odious politics disqualify him from being taken seriously as a philosopher, as this book newly translated into English seems to indicate?

You may have seen this article, also, on Faye's forthcoming book.

This is apart from whether Heidegger's philosophy should be taken seriously in the first place.  Many, I understand, do not think so. 

I'm very curious to see where you stand on this and, more generally, the question of whether a philosopher's biography ought to be considered along with his body of work. 

I should begin by saying that I haven't yet read Emmanuel Faye's Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.  But if the NYT article is to be trusted -- a big 'if' --  Faye's book

. . . calls on philosophy professors to treat Heidegger’s writings like hate speech. Libraries, too, should stop classifying Heidegger’s collected works (which have been sanitized and abridged by his family) as philosophy and instead include them under the history of Nazism. These measures would function as a warning label, like a skull-and-crossbones on a bottle of poison, to prevent the careless spread of his most odious ideas, which Mr. Faye lists as the exaltation of the state over the individual, the impossibility of morality, anti-humanism and racial purity.

If this is what Faye is saying, then his book is rubbish and ought to be ignored.  Hate speech?  That's a term leftists use for speech they don't like.  No one in his right mind could see Heidegger's magnum opus, Sein und Zeit  (Being and Time),  published in 1927, as anything close to hate speech.  The claim that it is is beneath refutation.  Nor can his lectures and publications after 1933, when Hitler came to power, be dismissed in this way.

What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says

You say you haven't gotten around to reading H. R. 3962?  What's wrong with you?  It's only 1,990 pages long.  Here is a summary.  Section and page numbers are provided. Please read it.  My summary of the summary: this is the most massive assault on our liberty by the Left to date. 

Malcolm Pollack at the Gates of Vienna

Or rather, at the gates of Gotham.  Malcolm writes,

Upon reading your post The Left's Death Wish, I thought you might find this interesting: A Genealogy of Radical Islam.

I've been contending with the liberal mindset regarding Islam over at my own place, where, for suggesting that the massacre at Ft. Hood was most likely an example of jihad, and of why an increasing Muslim presence in the West might not be such a good idea, I was tarred, as usual, as a vile Islamophobe.

It's often tempting, as my own shadow lengthens to the East, to withdraw to a quiet life of reading and contemplation. But scribble I must, it seems.

1. Well, Malcolm, I hope you don't succumb to the temptation to withdraw from the fray.  To paraphrase Plato, the price the good pay for their indifference to politics is to be ruled by the evil.  Not that I don't understand the temptation to withdraw.  To quote from an earlier post: 

Why not stick to one's stoa and cultivate one's specialist garden in peace and quiet, neither involving oneself in, nor forming opinions about, the wider world of politics and strife? Why risk one's ataraxia in the noxious arena of contention? Why not remain within the serene precincts of theoria? For those of us of a certain age the chances are good that death will arrive before the barbarians do.

[. . .]

 The answer is that the gardens of tranquillity and the spaces of reason are worth defending, with blood and iron if need be, against the barbarians and their leftist enablers. Others have fought and bled so that we can live this life of solitude and beatitude. And so though we are not warriors of the body, we can and should do our tiny bit as warriors of the mind to preserve for future generations this culture which allows us to pursue otium liberale in peace, quiet, and safety.

2.  I don't know whether to commend you or criticize you for the restraint and tolerance you have shown in the comment thread to your 11/5 post.  One of the cyberpunks  calls you a "xenophobe" while the other removes the 'crypto' from your ironic self-characterization as a "crypto-Nazi."  Me, I DELETE and BLOCK the minute that sort of behavior is manifested.  Why waste your time with abusive cyberpunks who hide anonymously behind their 'handles' while spewing their PeeCee nonsense? 

The answer, I suppose, is that by responding you demonstrate to others, if not to the punks, how to rebut the charges.  So perhaps I should commend you for your toleration.  I suspect you will agree with me, however, that toleration has its limits.

3.  We agree on the substantive point that, as you put it " the massacre at Ft. Hood was most likely an example of jihad. . . ."  There is plenty of evidence for this, and it is most disconcerting that so many, blinded by their political correctness and moral cowardice cannot see it.

Blog on!

Ronald Reagan's Role in the Fall of the Wall

Twenty years today the Berlin Wall came down.  Anthony R. Dolan in Four Little Words explains the difference between a leader like Reagan and an appeaser like Obama.  Excerpt (emphasis added):

Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression. All this confirmed the criminal mind's abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others.

Accordingly, Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth about their moral absurdity . . . . This was the sort of moral confrontation, as countless dissidents and resisters have noted, that makes these regimes conciliatory, precisely because it heartens those whom they fear most—their own oppressed people. Reagan's understanding that rhetorical confrontation causes geopolitical conciliation led in no small part to the wall's collapse 20 years ago today.

The current administration, most recently with overtures to Iran's rulers and the Burmese generals, has consistently demonstrated that all its impulses are the opposite of Reagan's. Critics who are worried about the costs of economic policies adopted in the last 10 months might consider as well the impact of the administration's systematic accommodation of criminal regimes and the failure to understand what "good vs. evil" rhetoric can do.

California Grabs Ten Percent More in Withholding

One of the defining characteristics of liberals and leftists is a deep-seated quasi-religious belief in the benevolence and efficacy of big government, the bigger the better, and this despite repeated demonstrations of government incompetence, inanity, mendacity, and trickery.  This from the Associated Press (emphasis added):

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California wage earners will soon notice a little less money in their paychecks. Starting Monday, employers in the cash-strapped state are required to withhold 10 percent more in state income taxes to help ease the budget problems. It's part of a plan to artificially inflate state revenue by $1.7 billion through next June.

Brenda Voet, a spokeswoman for the state Franchise Tax Board, says it's technically not a tax increase since workers will get their money back after April 15. A single wage earner making $51,000 a year with no dependents will get about $4 less a week.

So it's just an accounting trick?  But it is worse than that: an arbitrary seizure of citizens' money 'justified' by the principle that might makes right, that what one can do, one is justified in doing.  You've heard of 'ought' implies 'can'?  This is  'can' implies 'may.' 

It will be interesting to see if  the California taxpayers get their money back.  Where will that money come from, yet another accounting  trick?

Fear of Fox

Obamacare: Lawyers Win, Doctors Lose

Today's column by Dennis Prager is a must-read.  Excerpt (emphasis added):

If the 1,990-page House Health Care Bill becomes law, the average American will receive worse health care, American physicians will decline in status and income, American medical innovation will dramatically slow down and pharmaceutical discoveries will decline in number and quality. And, of course, the economy of the United States will deteriorate, perhaps permanently.

However, we are also certain that there is one American group that will thrive -- trial lawyers. The very existence of a 1,990-page law guarantees years of, if not more or less permanent, lawsuits. And the law actually specifies that states that do not limit attorneys' fees in cases of medical malpractice shall be financially rewarded.

Unbelievable if True: Illiteracy and Innumeracy

David K. Shipler, The Working Poor: Invisible in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 139:

Some 37 percent of American adults cannot figure a 10 percent discount on a price, even using a calculator. (Emphasis added.) The same percentage cannot read a bus schedule or write a letter about a credit card error. According to the National Adult Literacy Survey, last taken in 1992 by the Department of Education, 14 percent cannot total a deposit slip, locate an intersection on a map, understand an appliance warranty, or determine the correct dosage of a medicine.

This is astonishing, if true. One thing that struck my conservative eye was 'Department of Education.' One wonders what the percentage of incompetents was before the inauguration of this behemoth agency. I'll bet it was less.

David K. Shipler, The Working Poor: Invisible in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 139:

Some 37 percent of American adults cannot figure a 10 percent discount on a price, even using a calculator. (Emphasis added.) The same percentage cannot read a bus schedule or write a letter about a credit card error. According to the National Adult Literacy Survey, last taken in 1992 by the Department of Education, 14 percent cannot total a deposit slip, locate an intersection on a map, understand an appliance warranty, or determine the correct dosage of a medicine.

This is astonishing, if true. One thing that struck my conservative eye was 'Department of Education.' One wonders what the percentage of incompetents was before the inauguration of this behemoth agency. I'll bet it was less.

David K. Shipler, The Working Poor: Invisible in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 139:

Some 37 percent of American adults cannot figure a 10 percent discount on a price, even using a calculator. (Emphasis added.) The same percentage cannot read a bus schedule or write a letter about a credit card error. According to the National Adult Literacy Survey, last taken in 1992 by the Department of Education, 14 percent cannot total a deposit slip, locate an intersection on a map, understand an appliance warranty, or determine the correct dosage of a medicine.

This is astonishing, if true. One thing that struck my conservative eye was 'Department of Education.' One wonders what the percentage of incompetents was before the inauguration of this behemoth agency. I'll bet it was less.

Palin Derangement Syndrome: Another Case

(Written 5 October 2008)

Here is how Richard Cohen begins a recent column:

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.

Global Warming: Some Questions

What can a philosopher say about global warming? The first thing he can and ought to say is that, although not all questions are empirical, at the heart of the global warming debate are a set of empirical questions. These are not questions for philosophers qua philosophers, let alone for political ideologues. For the resolution of these questions we must turn to reputable climatologists whose roster does not sport such names as 'Al Gore,' 'Barbra Streisand,' or 'Ann Coulter.' Unfortunately, the global warming question is one that is readily 'ideologized' and the ideological gas bags of both the Right and the Left have a lot to answer for in this regard.

Some Definitions of 'Global Warming' Examined

Just what is global warming anyway?  On this page  you will find a page of  definitions.  This post will examine some of them.  This is important because one cannot intelligently discuss global warming, or anything else, until one knows exactly what one is talking about. 

 

Now one thing that should be obvious is that a genus cannot be defined in terms of a species thereof. And yet that is precisely what some of the definitions on the linked page do. For example,

An increase in the Earth's temperature caused by human activities, such as burning coal, oil and natural gas.

This fails as a definition of 'global warming' because it is too specific. Not all global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). And even if all global warming were anthropogenic, it is not a matter of definition that this be so. The opposite mistake is committed by the following 'definition':

Also called climate change.

This is too general. All global warming is climate change, but not all climate change is global warming. There is also global cooling. And again, even if, contrary to fact, there never has been in the history of the earth any case of global cooling, this is not a question that ought to be decided at the level of a definition. Here is another defective definition:

the theoretical increase of global temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect.

Theoretical as opposed to what? What is the difference between a theoretical increase and an increase? What does 'theoretical' add?  And why is a cause specified in the definition? Suppose something other than the greenhouse effect is the cause of global warming. Would it not still be global warming? The business of a definition is to isolate the phenomenon in question, to say what it is. The question as to what causes it is logically secondary and does not belong in the definition. Here is a real winner:

Increased levels of gases such as carbon dioxide that trap heat in the earth's lower atmosphere potentially causing global warming.

Where's my logic stick? First, causes should be left out of definitions. Second, global warming can occur without the build-up of gases like carbon dioxide. Third, the weasel word 'potentially.' Fourth, the definition is circular: the definiendum occurs in the definiens. The following definition seems adequate:

Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

I would delete the pleonastic 'over time.' How could there be an increase that was not 'over time'? More importantly, note the word 'average' which I think is essential to a good definition. The claim that global warming is taking place is not the claim that at every place at or near the surface of the earth the temperature is higher than it was at that place and on that date in the past. Dennis Prager, an AM talk jock whom I respect, seemed to fall into this fallacy recently. He cited a place at which there had been a record low temperature as evidence against global warming. But it is nothing of the sort.  A record low at a particular place  is consistent with a general warming trend.

It should be obvious that an average increase in some quantity need not be steady or ubiquitous. Suppose the average price of a house in some locality has increased over a ten year period from X to Y. This is consistent with (i) some houses losing value, and (ii) the average value being at some times during the period less than X.

The last definition strikes this layman as adequate.  But it leaves wide open the question whther global warming is occurring, and if it is, how fast and from what causes.   But these are empirical questions for the climatologist. 

Liberal Values: Limbaugh Bad, Mao Good

Are we in Cloud Cuckoo Land yet? 

Pessimistic Thoughts on Political Discourse in America

The following piece was written on 12 April 2006.  I repost it, slightly emended, because events since then have led me to believe that the grounds for pessimism are even stronger now than they were before.  It is becoming increasingly clear that conservatives and liberals/leftists live on 'different planets.'  And it is becoming increasingly clear which planet bears the name 'Reality.'  A return to federalism may help mitigate tensions, as I suggest here.  But that is not likely to happen.

...............................

A few nights ago on C-Span I listened to a talk by Mark Crispin Miller given at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). His theme was that of a book he had authored alleging that the 2004 election was stolen by the Republicans and how democracy is dead in the USA. Not having read Crispin's book, I cannot comment on it. But I will offer a few remarks on his talk.

Miller, a tenured professor at New York University, is obviously intelligent and highly articulate and entertaining to listen to, his mannerisms and delivery reminiscent of Woody Allen. He takes himself to be a defender of the values of the Enlightenment. But then so do I. So here is the beginning of a 'disconnect.' From my point of view, Miller is an extremist motivated by the standard Leftist fear of, and hostility toward, religion. (Miller's NYU colleague, Thomas Nagel, owns up to his fear of religion, as I document here.) Miller's hostility was betrayed a dozen or so times during his speech by mocking turns of phrase. But of course he doesn't see himself as an extremist but as a sober defender of values he feels are threatened by Christian Reconstructionism, also know as  Dominion Theology.

Obama Fails To Win Nobel Prize in Economics

Here.

Yet More Evidence of a Lack of Common Sense Among Democrats

It is hard to believe, but then again, given how preternaturally stupid and politically correct Dems are, maybe it is not so hard to believe:  a significant number of these jokers oppose photo ID when it comes to applying for Medicare and Medicaid benefits!  Here is John Fund, Making the World Safe for Medicaid Fraud:

Americans expect to show a photo ID when they board a plane, enter many office buildings, cash a check or even rent a video -- but rarely in voting or applying for government benefits such as Medicaid. Many Democrats seem to view asking citizens for proof of identity as an invasion of privacy -- though what's really being protected is the right to commit identity fraud.

Exhibit A is Tuesday's 13 to 10 party-line vote in the Senate Finance Committee rejecting a proposal to require that immigrants prove their identity when signing up for federal health care programs. [. . .]

This shows that the Dems are not serious about health care reform.  If they were serious they would begin by solving pressing and solvable problems such as the fraud and waste in existing programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.  But they refuse to take the simplest steps toward this end.

Misplaced Moral Enthusiasm and Mel Gibson

The L. A. Times reports that Mel Gibson's 2006 drunk driving conviction has been expunged.  Here is what I wrote about the case at the time (1 August 2006): 

What's worse: Driving while legally drunk at 87 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone, or making stupid anti-Semitic remarks? The former, obviously. And yet a big stink is being made about Gibson's drunken rant. I call this misplaced moral enthusiasm. Calling a Jew a bad name won't kill him, but running him over in your speeding 2006 Lexus LS 430 will.

On the one hand, offensive words that no reasonable person could take seriously; on the other hand, a deed that could get people killed. Here is what Gibson said: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and, addressing the arresting officer, "Are you a Jew?"

Now compare Gibson with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who repeatedly has called for the destruction of the State of Israel. Ahmadinejad's is speech that incites unspeakable violence, unlike Gibson's drunken rant which is no threat to anyone. So let's forget about Gibson, and concentrate on real threats.

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care

This entire book, by Sally C. Pipes, is available here in pdf format.

The Bigger the Government, the More to Fight Over

Taking a page from Prager, I've already noted that big government makes for small citizens.  Let us also note that government expansion exacerbates political divisions and sets citizen against citizen. 

Suppose we get to the point where Washington bureaucrats  dictate what types of cars and trucks will be manufactured.  Then you can be sure that there will be more lobbying, more corruption and the buying of votes, more fighting.    Or suppose the czars of Obamacare begin dictating how many cardiologists we need, how many gastroenterologists, etc.  Do you think medical students, physicians, and their patients will take that lying down?  Hell no, they will organize and fight and protest and lobby.  They will be justified in doing so because of the constitutionally protected right to a redress of grievances.

Do you like contention and division?  Then support bigger government.  We are coming apart as a nation as Patrick J. Buchanan documents here.   The rifts are deep and nasty.  Polarization and demonization of the opponent are the order of the day.  Do you want more of this?  Then give government more say in your life.  Do you want less?  Then support limited government and federalism.

Federalism, roughly, is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that the central and constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will and meddle in their affairs.  Federalism is implied by the Tenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

Federalism would make for less contention, because people who love high taxes and liberal schemes could head for the People's Republic of Taxachusetts or the Left coast state of Californication,  while the  conservatively inclined who support gun rights and capital punishment could gravitate toward states like Texas.

The fact of the matter is that we do not agree on a large number of divisive, passion-inspiring issues (abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, wealth redistribution . . .) and we will never agree on them.  These are not merely 'academic' issues since they directly affect the lives and livelihoods and liberties of people.  And they are not easily resolved because they are rooted deep in fundamental worldview differences.  When you violate a man's liberty, or mock his moral sense, or threaten to destroy his way of life, you are spoiling for a fight and you will get it. 

Recognizing these facts, we must ask ourselves: How can we keep from tearing each other apart literally or figuratively?  I am floating the suggestion that federalism and severe limitations on the reach of the central government are what we need.  Example:  Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned and the question of the legality of abortion is returned to the states.  Some states will make it legal, others illegal.  This would be a modest step in the direction of mitigating the tensions between the warring camps.  If abortion is a question for the states, then no federal monies could be allocated to the support of abortion.  People who want to live in abortion states can move there; people who don't can move to states in which abortion is illegal.

A. C. Grayling on the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape Case

I find myself in complete agreement with Professor Grayling's commentary on the Polanski case.  Read it carefully; he makes several important points.  What is astonishing to me, however, is how this man can be so sane and judicious on this topic, and yet such a blithering gasbag of a lunatic when it comes to religion, as I document  here.  There is something I call topical insanity, and Grayling on religion is an example of it. Sometimes otherwise sane people simply 'lose it' when it comes to certain topics. 

Barack Obama, College Administrator

Victor Davis Hanson scores again. (HT:  KBJ) 

Is Glenn Beck Good for Conservatism?

Glenn Beck is doing good work and he is effective.  Van Jones is out and ACORN has been defunded.  But Beck can exaggerate and misrespresent as in his attack on Cass Sunstein.  So is he a liability to the conservative cause as, I have maintained, Ann Coulter is?  David Frum and David Horowitz discuss the question here.  Excerpts from Horowitz directed at Frum:

. . . there are conservatives – you are one, David Brooks is another -- who think that if everyone on our team only behaved better, there would be no targets for the neo-Stalinist left to attack. Not a chance. If they were able to demonize George Bush as a liar, a murderer, an idiot, and a religious nut they can do that to anyone. So-called liberals have shown themselves to be shameless, unprincipled, bigoted, intolerant and determined to personally destroy any conservative whom they consider to be politically effective and therefore dangerous to their agendas. That’s where we really differ. If you understood this or believed it, you would not attack a Glenn Beck in the scorched-earth manner in which you did.  

[. . .]

In fact, this is an exemplary case of exactly what I think is wrong with the conservative movement in contrast to what you think. Franken is now a U.S. Senator in part because conservatives of whom you are typical want to conduct politics by the Marquis of Queensberry rules when the other side is in it as war in which destruction of the enemy is the game. Franken calls us evil. You call him mistaken (and unfunny). And you want other conservatives to do the same. The more conservatives who follow your advice the more we will lose. Personally, I am thrilled with what is happening now in the conservative movement – our aggressive media like Fox and talk radio, the emergence of enraged conservative masses – the tea baggers – as leftist half-wits like to dismiss them. It is this energized, unapologetic, in-your-face (but also civilized and intelligent) conservative base on whom the future not only of the movement but the country depends.

Ronald Radosh, another red diaper baby who saw the light -- I highly recommend his Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left --  weighs in here. 

Does He Lie?

A fine piece by Charles Krauthammer.  Excerpt:

And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more importantly, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

Universal Health Care

I'm for universal health care: I want everyone to have health care. But the issue is not whether it would be good for all to have adequate health care, the issue is how to approach this goal. I can't see that increasing government involvement in health care delivery is the way to go.  We need less government inefficiency and more market discipline.  That will bring prices down while safeguarding liberty, a value liberals, despite their name, seem insufficiently appreciative of.  The so-called 'public option' will lead to no option: you will have no option except to use the government plan because private insurers will most of them have been  driven out of business.  And so only the superrich will get the best care.  The phrase 'public option' is a piece of Orwellian bullshit.  Descriptive accuracy favors 'government takeover health plan' or something like that.

Van Jones Is Out!

And good riddance to him.  But no thanks to the miserable MSM who have failed to exercise due diligence in ferreting out this weasel.  (Nice piece of invective, eh?  'Ferreting out a weasel.' It just occurred to me.)  Michelle Malkin covers the story.  Follow her links.  Ron Radosh, who as a red diaper baby knows a thing or two about commies and their ways, weighs in here.

The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen

The reckless fiscal irresponsibility of ObamaCare should be obvious to anyone whose head is screwed on properly.  But that is only one reason to oppose the leftist power-grab. Dennis Prager supplies another.

The Gun-Totin' Obama Protester Was Black!

If a black man exercises his Second Amendment rights, is he really black?  For liberals, the answer, apparently, is in the negative.  For them, apparently, the only real black is a liberal black.  Take a gander at this video clip.  You will see an Obama protester with a semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, a pistol on his hip, and an ammo clip in his pocket.   But the shot has been edited so that we cannot see that he is black.  And you liberals have the chutzpah to tell me that the MSM does not tilt to the Left?  To depict the man's color  would not fit in with the leftist party line that opposition to Obama's policies has its origin in racism.

In this clip you can see that the man is indeed black.

Here are two points that need to be made again and again in opposition to the willful moral and intellectual obtuseness of liberals and leftists.

1. Dissent is not hate.  To dissent from a person's ideas and policies is not to hate the person.

2. As a corollary to #1, to dissent from the ideas and policies of a black man is not to hate the man. A fortiori, it is not to hate the man because he is black.

 

Living in the Past: Is That Why You are Still a Dem?

To understand a person, it helps to consider what the world was like when the person was twenty years old. At twenty, give or take five years, the music of the day, the politics of the day, the language, mores, fashions, economic conditions and whatnot of the day make a very deep impression. It is an impression that lasts through life and functions as a sort of benchmark for the evaluation of what comes after, but also as a distorting lense that makes it difficult to see what is happening now.

Job One: Tort Reform

The Obama administration's health care initiative is looking more and more like a totalitarian power-grab pure and simple. If they were serious, they would address the logically prior issues of tort reform and border control.  See Sarah Palin, No Health Reform Without Legal Reform.

The Fiscal Irresponsibility of Liberals in the United States of Ponzi

Paul Krugman as case in point, here:

There’s been some hysteria about the administration’s new estimate that the cumulative deficit will be $9 trillion over the next decade. Don’t get me wrong: this is bad. But it’s being treated as an inconceivable sum, far beyond anything that could possibly be handled. And it isn’t.

What you have to bear in mind is that the economy — and hence the federal tax base — is enormous, too.

Please note the typical leftist tactic of imputing mental instability to those who dissent from liberal-left ideas: you are 'hysterical' if you question the wisdom of running massive debt and thinking that we can spend our way out of it.  To take a second example, if you point out the very real threat of radical Islam, the leftist will call you an 'Islamaphobe' which of course implies that your concern is not rational but simply an irrational fear.  Examples can be multiplied.  Oppose the morality of homosexual practices and you are a 'homophobe.'  Obama treats criticism of his socialized medicine proposals as fear-mongering.  This shows what little respect liberals and leftists have for their fellow citizens.  It is a  sign of  profound disrespect for one's interlocutor when one treats his thoughts and utterances as mere symptoms of an underlying psychological malaise.  But that's the Left for you.  They are elitists.  They don't respect you, but they want to control you.

Note also Krugman's point about the size of the federal tax base.  The Feds have plenty of opportunity to fleece the taxpayer.  And that is what they will do.

Now read something from an economist with his head screwed on properly, Nouriel Roubini, The United States of Ponzi:

A government that will issue trillions of dollars of new debt to pay for this severe recession and socialize private losses may risk becoming a Ponzi government if--in the medium term--it does not return to fiscal discipline and debt sustainability.

A country that has--for over 25 years--spent more than income and thus run an endless string of current account deficit--and has thus become the largest net foreign debtor in the world (with net foreign liabilities that are likely to be over $3 trillion by the end of this year)--is also a Ponzi country that may eventually default on its foreign debt if it does not, over time, tighten its belt and start running smaller current account deficits and actual trade surpluses.

Roots of Leftist Viciousness in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

One reason that leftists are vicious is that they take to heart Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals  #13:

RULE 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Study Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals if you want to understand the tactics of the Obama administration.

David Horowitz will appear on the Glenn Beck show on 24 August to explain Alinsky's tactics.  See Alinsky, Beck, Satan, and Me.  Excerpt (emphasis added):

So Alinsky begins by telling readers what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. This is something that conservatives have a very hard time understanding. Conservatives in my experience are all together too decent, too civilized to match up adequately, at least in the initital stages of the battle, with their adversaries. They are too prone to give them the benefit of the doubt. Radicals can't really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal and has brought wealth and prosperity to so many. Oh yes they can. That is in fact the essence of what it means to be a radical -- to be willing to destroy the values, structures and institutions that sustain the society we live in. Marx himself famously cited Alinsky's first rebel (using another of his names -- Mephistopheles): "Everything that exists deserves to perish."

This is why ACORN activists for example have such contempt for the election process, why they are so willing to commit fraud. Because just as Lucifer didn't believe in God's kingdom, so the radicals who run ACORN don't believe in the democratic system. To them it's a fraud -- an instrument of the ruling class, or as Alinsky prefers to call it, the Haves. If the electoral system doesn't serve all of us, but is only an instrument of the Haves then election fraud is justified, is a means of creating a system that serves the Have-Nots -- social justice. Until conservatives begin to understand exactly how dishonest radicals are -- dishonest in their core -- it is going to be very hard to defend the system that is under attack. For radicals the noble end -- creating a new heaven on earth -- justifies any means. And if one actually believed it was possible to create heaven on earth who would not willingly destroy any system hitherto created by human beings?

 

The Race Card, the McCarthy Card, and 'Death Panels'

There are two cards no leftist leaves home without: the race card and the McCarthy card.  The Henry Gates case was a particularly egregious recent example of the playing of the former.  For a recent example of an uncommonly  sleazy deployment of the latter, see Richard Cohen 's attack on Sarah Palin in which he mounts the lunatic thesis that "Palinism" is "an updated version of McCarthyism."

An excellent antidote to Cohen's delusional tripe is provided by Thomas Sowell in Whose Medical Decisions?  Excerpt:

As for a "death panel," no politician would ever use that phrase when trying to get a piece of legislation passed. "End of life" care under the "guidance" of "some independent group" sounds so much nicer-- and these are the terms President Obama used in an interview with the New York Times back on April 14th.

He said, "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there." He added: "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."

But when you select people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to give "independent" guidance, you have already chosen a policy through your choice of advisors, who simply provide political cover. The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called "death panels."

Doom and Gloom

Gerald Celente predicts economic armageddon.  Per usual, consume cum grano salis.

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine

Here.

Cash For Clunkers

The lunkheads of the Left really outdid themselves when they dreamed up this new wealth redistribution scheme.  An acquaintance of mine told me of his son who turned in a 1989 Ford pickup with over 200, 000 miles on the odometer, a  vehicle worth $50 according to my friend, a former mechanic, and received $4,500 of taxpayers' money, not to mention a dealer rebate on the purchase of a new car.  Nice deal, eh?  Our ever-expanding socialist government brokers a transaction in which some of us get to steal from the rest of us.  It is crazy both morally and economically.  But the people will lap it up along with panem et circenses, 'free' health care, and what all else.  They will lap it up until there is nothing more to lap up and the republic goes the way of ancient Rome.  For more on this depressing topic, take a gander at Michael Barone's Cash for Clunkers: Not the First Time.  Something similar was tried in my beautiful State of Arizona.  I think of poor Barry Goldwater, rolling around in his grave.

Health Care: A Liberty Issue

Mark Steyn gets it right.  Excerpts (emphasis added):

. . . [nationalized] health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. That’s its attraction for an ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular. [. . .]

It’s often argued that, as a proportion of GDP, America spends more on health care than countries with government medical systems. But, as a point of fact, “America” doesn’t spend anything on health care: Hundreds of millions of people make hundreds of millions of individual decisions about what they’re going to spend on health care. Whereas up north a handful of bureaucrats determine what Canada will spend on health care — and that’s that: Health care is a government budget item. [. . .]

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

Are you willing to sell your birthright, liberty, for a mess of pottage?  That's the issue.  Liberals are a strange breed of cat. They'll puke their guts out in defense of their 'right' to abortion and their 'right' to violate every norm of decency in pursuit of the 'artistic' expression of their precious and vacuous selves, but when it comes to the right to be in control of the sorts of care their bodies receive they reverse course and surrender their liberties.

 

 

Ten Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'

The following piece by Dennis Prager is required reading.  It's so good I herewith reproduce the entire article.  The threat to liberty posed by the Obama administration is unprecedented.  Do your bit to oppose it and stand up for what is right, assuming you actually care about yourself and your country. 

A Right to Health Care?

Food, shelter, and clothing are more important than health care in that one can get along for substantial periods of time without health care services but one cannot survive for long without food, shelter, and clothing. Given this plain fact, why don’t the proponents of ‘free’ universal health care demand ‘free’ food, shelter, and clothing? In other words, if a citizen, just in virtue of being a citizen, has a right to health care, why doesn’t the same citizen have the right to what is more fundamental, namely, food, shelter, and clothing?

Why isn't health care a commodity in the way that automotive care is? If I want my car to run well, I must service it periodically. I can either do this myself or hire someone to do it for me. But surely I have no right to the free services of an auto mechanic. Of course, once I contract with a mechanic to do a specified job for a specified sum of money, then I have a right to his services and to his services being performed correctly. But that right is contingent upon our contract. You could call it a contractually acquired right. But I have no right to free automotive services just in virtue of the fact that I own a car. So why is it any different with my body? Do I have a right to a colonoscopy just in virtue of my possession of a gastrointestinal tract?

Lawrence Auster's Exchange with a Black Reader

This piece gets at many of the issues surrounding the the Crowley-Gates controversy which Obama stupidly made a national issue upon which a vast army of bloggers and pundits are grinding away as we speak.  And while you are at Auster's site, there is plenty more on this topic including a link to the Cambridge police report.

'Islamophobia'

This is another one of those silly PeeCee expressions liberals love to use to obfuscate issues and slander their opponents. A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing phobic about opposition to radical or militant Islam. To fear it is entirely rational. Militant Islam and Islam are presumably distinct. I could be wrong, but I doubt that Islam as such is the problem. But militant or radical Islam -- sometimes called Islamism -- most assuredly is a threat to the West and its values.  Still, someone (Robert Spencer?) who thinks that Islam as such is the problem cannot be accused of suffering from any phobia. So when I heard the liberal Karen Armstrong use 'Islamophobia' or a cognate during a C-Span presentation, my estimation of her dropped several notches lower.

Someone who uses such words as 'homophobe' or 'Islamophobe' may as well just put a sign on his back declaring: I'm a dumbass PeeCee liberal!

Are You a Liberal? Take This Test

The following statements in boldface are taken verbatim from Dennis Prager's Are You a Liberal?  I comment briefly on each in turn. Mirabile dictu, it turns out I am not a liberal! I could make of each of these items a separate post. (And you hope I won't.) I don't want to hear anyone complain that I am not arguing my points. I argue plenty elsewhere on this and my other sites. In any case, that is not my present purpose.

How many of the following do you believe?  The more you believe the more liberal you are.

On Profiling

Do all liberals lack common sense? No, but many of them do. If you are a liberal and oppose criminal profiling, then I say you lack common sense.

 

It is obvious that only certain kinds of people commit certain kinds of crimes. Suppose a rape has occurred at the corner of Fifth and Vermouth. Two males are moving away from the crime scene. One, the slower moving of the two, is a Jewish gentleman, 80 years of age, with a chess set under one arm and a copy of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed under the other. The other fellow, a vigorous twenty year old, is running from the scene.

Who is more likely to have committed the rape? If you can't answer this question, then you lack common sense.

The problem is not so much that liberals are stupid, as that they have allowed themselves to be stupefied by that cognitive aberration known as political correctness. I'll let Charles Krauthammer finish this post for me (emphases added):

Is Greed the Engine of Capitalism?

The Financial Times reports on a piece of silliness from the Pope:

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday condemned the “grave deviations and failures” of capitalism exposed by the financial crisis and issued a strong call for a “true world political authority” to oversee a return to ethics in the global economy.

One mistake the good Pontiff is making is to confuse capitalism and capitalists.  One who cannot see the difference may fallaciously conclude that the greed of some capitalists is rooted in capitalism.  Here is a post from a while back that counters the notion:

The Medical-Industrial Complex, Part II

Part I is here.

The liberal-leftist animus against corporations is undoubtedly excessive, as is their pollyannish trust in Big Government solutions to every problem under the sun; but this should not blind us to corporate irresponsibility especially when the corporate types work hand-in-hand with liberals to 'medicalize' the ordinary difficulties of life.

The Medical-Industrial Complex

No doubt you have heard of ADD. Recently I learned of a new medical condition known as ADHD: attention deficit hyperactive disorder.

What could be called the medical-industrial complex is a curious alliance of soft-headed liberals eager to invent diseases and celebrate their 'victims' and money-grubbing corporate types out to turn a quick buck. Liberals invent the diseases and syndromes, while the big pharmaceutical companies supply the drugs for their alleviation. Compliant shrinks and medicos write the prescriptions and serve as go-betweens while Big Government programs divert tax dollars from legitimate uses to enrich the doctors and drug companies.

Merton, Marilyn, and David Carradine

Thomas Merton, Journal (IV, 240), writing about Marilyn Monroe around the time of her death in 1962:

. . .the death was as much a symbol as the bomb – symbol of uselessness and of tragedy, of misused humanity.

He’s right of course: Monroe’s was a life wasted on glamour, sexiness, and frivolity. She serves as a lovely warning: Make good use of your human incarnation! Be in the flesh, but not of the flesh.

The fascination with empty celebrity, a fascination as inane as its object, says something about what we have become in the West. We in some measure merit the revulsion of the Islamic world. We value liberty, and rightly, but we fail to make good use of it as Marilyn and Anna Nicole Smith failed to make good use of their time in the body. Curiously enough, a failure to make good use of one's time in the body often leads to its early destruction, and with it, perhaps, the possibility of spiritual improvement.

Curiously, Merton and Carradine both died in Bangkok, the first of accidental electrocution on 10 December 1968, the second a few days ago apparently of autoerotic asphyxiation.  The extremity and perversity of the latter practice is a clear proof of the tremendous power of the sex drive to corrupt and derange the human spirit if it is allowed unfettered expression.  One with any spiritual sensitivity and depth ought to shudder at the thought of ending his life in the manner of Carradine, in the heteronomy and diremption of the flesh, utterly enslaved to one's lusts, one's soul emptied out into the dust.  To risk one's very life in pursuit of intensity of orgasm  shows a mind unhinged.  Thinking of Carradine's frightful example, one ought to pray, as Merton did thousands of times: Ora pro nobis peccatoribus.  Nunc et in hora mortis.