Brain Lemon

As nauseous as it makes me, my honest gut feeling is that the Democrats will find a way to pass their health care bill.  The opportunity is simply too great and too close for them to resist.  It is much like Rush has described – it is like Sauron nearly grasping the One Ring.  In many ways the ultimate prize for the statists, government health care is potentially the most important achievement of their political lives.

The reasons for this are clear.  Passing this health care “reform” bill will establish a new entitlement that will be very hard to roll back.  It will extend the tentacles of government into every facet of life.  It has long been understood that, much like carbon controls allow government to regulate every part of economic life, health care control will allow government to regulate all elements of personal life.  The “obesity crisis” all of a sudden becomes a national emergency, and addressing it becomes an argument about saving taxpayer money and working for the common good.  And of course, addressing it means bans, laws, taxes, and the like.  In general, everyday health decisions gain national significance as they all affect the health care system in some way.

In short, then, this health care bill passing is in many ways “game over” for a long time.  This is not to say it cannot be defeated someday, but doing so will become increasingly hard under our current system, as the above-mentioned tentacles grasp tighter and deeper and people get used to subsidies and controls.  To the tyrants intent on passing this, that is the entire point.  The near-totalitarian mindset of much of the Left is on full display as politicians lie, extort, and bribe in their quest for the Holy Grail.  It has become clear that no tactic is too low, no attack too base.

What do we do then, in the face of this impending juggernaut?  We, quite simply, go to war.  I don’t think it is much of an exaggeration to compare this bill to Pearl Harbor.  Certainly not in the sense of lives lost (at least visibly), but in terms of its brazenness, violence, and offensiveness.  Just as Pearl Harbor shocked the nation, instantly readied us for war, and launched us into fighting against the Axis, the health care bill needs to launch Americans into battle against the power-hungry, oppressive leaders who would dare enact such a wretched thing.  We need to understand that the very fabric of our country is under assault and act accordingly.  This is not a fight any of us wish for – we would much rather live our own lives, and mind our own business.  But when the forces of statism launch an unprovoked sneak attack on us, we damn well better respond in kind.

This week, a couple events happened that prove that most of Washington, including virtually the entire Democrat Party, are not serious about anything they claim to be.  Again and again, our politicians claim they are against corruption and for responsible governing.  And, seemingly mere seconds afterward, they prove what a joke that idea is.  The fact is, this week, especially, proves that the large majority of our leaders are NOT serious about doing anything.  They are essentially lying hypocrites who stand for nothing.

The first case is the reaction to Jim Bunning’s brave decision to stand on principle.  He objected to passage of a $10B spending bill that would, among other things, extend unemployment benefits yet again.  Because of this, the bill’s progress was halted until a full vote could be scheduled.  Regardless of one’s feelings about extending benefits, or one’s opinion of Bunning’s strategy, the reaction to this tactic was extremely disturbing.  For daring to suggest that Congress should actually abide by its “pay-go” rules and pay for what it spends, he was demagogued and abused.  Democrats all over mocked him, attacking him as cruel and inhuman for opposing yet another unfunded handout.

In the grand scheme, this bill was not a major piece of legislation.  Many workers already have had unemployment benefits for up to 99 months and it may do them well to get off the public dime.  No one will die without this bill – there will merely be some minor inconvenience, and it appears a fully-funded replacement is in the works.  Yet to hear our glorious leaders speak, you’d think Bunning was walking around the city stealing food from the homeless.  These leaders have thus proved that even in the smallest of circumstances, they have no interest in any kind of restraint or responsibility.  Quite simply, they have no intention of ever reforming or taking seriously our desires to rein in government craziness.  They have no business leading anything, let alone our country, and letting them continue to lead would be like turning the country over to children.  Perhaps worse.

The other event that shows beyond doubt that most of our leaders have contempt for us is the treatment, or more accurately the lack of treatment, regarding Charlie Rangel.  Faced with a host of serious ethical questions, Rangel has been embattled for many months, yet at no time did it seem possible he could even be forced to step down as Ways & Means chairman.  Even now, with some of the charges confirmed, it still seems as if Rangel will hold on to his chair.  Remember, this was supposed to be the “most ethical Congress ever.”  The fact that it has not been, and has in fact been in many ways worse, proves that when Pelosi uttered that line, she was flatly lying to us.  That Rangel still holds his chair, and that many Democrats and liberal columnists have defended him, show for certain that when it comes to their own members, there are no standards and no rules.  And in full honesty, some Republicans are just as bad.

Both of these events should prove, even to the most stubborn out there, that our current leaders are unfit to lead.  To even call them leaders is a sad commentary on the level of corruption we as a country have allowed to fester.  We’ve come to the point where our politicians feel able to lie to our face, as if we are idiots who will never hold them to their words.  This tendency extends even up to our president, one of the most dishonest among them.  Thankfully, there is a movement afoot to change this state of affairs, and this is wonderful.  For to tolerate this nonsense any further would be an abrogation of our duty as citizens.

UPDATE (3/3/10): It appears now that Rangel is stepping down, though his likely replacement, Rep. Pete Stark, is the guy who accused President Bush of sending troops to Iraq “to have their heads blown off for [his] amusement.”  So, still a pretty despicable choice.  And it also seems that Bunning relented on his objection, and the bill he was blocking passed anyway.  Disappointing, but not surprising in both cases.

The battle between practicality and idealism within the GOP has always been a fierce one. Some value winning above all, and would see the Republican Party twist and mold itself into whatever easily-digestible form possible in order to regain power. The other side, which makes up a significant faction of the tea party movement, wants so-called “purity tests” in order to assure that all potential Republican candidates at least outwardly agree with a list of core tenets. The truth, as is often the case, is that both sides have a point, but that neither way is the best for the party. Obviously it’s not worth selling out everything you stand for just to win an election. But since the recent debate has settled more on recent attempts to impose a purity test, I think it is important to understand that purity is an elusive, and likely non-existent, beast.

From the beginning, what one citizen defines as purity is a completely personal thing. I’d venture that every major group in the GOP has its own “top 10″ list of requirements. Social conservatives will demand the candidate be totally pro-life. Business types will demand he/she favors tax cuts and opposes onerous regulation. Libertarians will demand moderation on social issues. The point is, each of these groups represents a sizable, but not majority, portion of the party. They each play an important role, but each must also play along with the others on the larger stage, because the things we all agree on are what is really important. To oversimplify these, they essentially boil down to a smaller, less-intrusive government. Such a government lets social cons raise their families, businesses conduct their affairs, and libertarians cultivate their cannabis farms in peace. To this end, all members of the GOP should support at least this.

But anything further is destructive. To give a specific item, I don’t think the party needs to be full-bore pro-life. Scott Brown is a recent example of a reasonably pro-choice candidate who, by and large, gets the core ideas and will hopefully fight for a more restrained government. Now, I have my own significant doubts about Senator-elect Brown, but I will put those aside for the moment and be optimistic. My problem with a pro-life test is that it renders a very complex issue into a simple black-and-white absolute that does not make sense. If abortion really were such an issue, there would be just two groups. The pro-life group, believing abortion is murder and genocide, would be bombing clinics and shooting doctors. The pro-choice group, believing the value of human life is dependent on its being “wanted,” would be in favor of euthanizing the infirm and “defective.”

Clearly neither side really exists except on the fringes. The point, then, is that abortion, like any issue, is not a 100% issue either way. This is not to say that those who aren’t setting bombs are not actually pro-life, or that those who support early-term but not partial-birth abortions are not really pro-choice. Instead, they are both generally well-intentioned in their beliefs, but they represent various points along a continuum rather than polar opposites. My own opinions strongly favor pro-life, mainly for human rights reasons, but not believing abortion is tantamount to murder and not believing in souls, I would never justify killing an abortion provider to stop the procedure. To some on the extreme side, I’d then fail a litmus test, but in fact it is the litmus test that is wrong, not the person who fails an impossible standard. In any case, who determines what is sufficiently pro-life?

To demonstrate another example of the pitfalls of purity tests, say for example you require all candidates to be for “small government.” Now, that would certainly require you to be against ObamaCare, but what else is required? Do you have to be against Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, labor laws, environmental laws, the FBI, and the Department of Education? Does your vision of government have to be almost anarchistic, or are you allowed to let the government build roads and schools? At what point do you draw a line?

My alternative to purity tests is something more difficult, but much more important. I think, instead of going down a list checking true or false, our candidates should have to explain their principles. By this I mean demonstrating an understanding of American history and government, and an understanding of personal freedom and liberty and why it is important to defend. It is my belief that this basis can evolve into a variety of positions – the point is in knowing how you get there. For example, I can imagine very strong, logical, freedom-centered arguments for and against gay marriage, for or against abortion, and for various positions on our actions abroad. In the end, I just want to know that my candidate actually believes in something, even if I may disagree with his/her positions.

This is much better than some small group forcing everyone in the party to agree to their priorities. I can be certain that most of the party would not agree with all of mine. But I’m okay with that, as long as I feel that my leadership understands WHY small government is, in general, better, regardless of to what extent they take their government-shrinking fervor. Purity tests create artificial divisions and split the party on lines that may not even exist. They turn complex issues into true/false questions. And they certainly are not a way to nurture and encourage freedom-minded folks who might disagree on a few specific policies. In that light I am glad the GOP is pushing against these tests, as accepting them would permanently reduce the party to fringe status.

I thought in light of my previous rant on Olbermann’s comments about Scott Brown, that it was appropriate to show the response of Jon Stewart.  I do this because as Stewart is a well-known liberal, it gives me hope that even the left might be realizing how insane Olby is.  Of course, the audience doesn’t seem to be playing along, so unfortunately there are still many who agree with Olbermann.  But it’s a start.

I’m used to Keith Olbermann being a fiery, partisan figure.  I’ve even grown accustomed to him making a number of very nasty statements.  He clearly has his point of view, and a small but dedicated group of followers.  But apparently, on last night’s broadcast Keith felt as if he needed to take his rhetoric to a whole new level.

I really don’t know what to say about this, other than stating the obvious.  It is a sad commentary on the state of political discourse in this country that this type of thing is even pondered.  As Joe Scarborough tweeted in response last night, “It is no longer enough to simply disagree with someone. These days some feel the need to call opponents evil.”  This is indeed true on both sides, but I find this specific incident to be especially egregious.

For one, you can take any one of the insults Olbermann lobs at Brown and take it apart easily.  The accusations of being “homophobic” and “racist” are laughable, yet they have become almost reflexive when liberals talk about those on the right.  As for “teabagging,” that little trope warrants a separate discussion of its own – short story is, it’s a vulgar sexual reference that is the province of adolescents, not adults.  For all of these, they can be forgiven as language that is ugly, but nothing unexpected from those on the left.

But the final part, “supporter of violence against women,” is where this goes from overblown political opinion to near-slander.  There’s nothing at all that even comes CLOSE to supporting this.  This is simply taking things to an entire new level, to the point of actually accusing a politician of being PRO-RAPE.  I cannot see any way that this can even be remotely considered a legitimate criticism.

Does Keith actually believe Scott Brown is in favor of women being violated?  No one can know other than him.  But one fact does stand out to me – this man is very popular among liberals.  They watch him daily and for them, this type of thing is basically normal.  The right also has its more fervent members, though I don’t know if any of them ever accused an opponent of supporting rape.  If they have, then they should be condemned too.  But at least in the case of Mr. Olbermann, discourse has truly sunk to a new low.

I’m waiting for mainstream liberals to denounce this.  Something tells me I’ll be waiting for a while.

Dear liberal friends,

According to news reports, health care is on its way to passage.  Or, at least, to a successful cloture motion, potentially on Christmas Eve.  All of this would seem to be a great victory for liberals.  But I must ask, honestly, at what cost?  Is it worth your integrity and your soul to get legislation passed?

All along this process, the primary method to promote health care has been bald-faced lies and deception.  Any person over the age of 5 knows this.  You can’t SAVE money by insuring millions more people.  You can’t do cost control without rationing.  You can’t lower premiums by adding new mandates and requiring insurers to issue policies to all comers, even those who wait until they are already sick.  You can’t introduce a “public option” with infinite funds and not have it crowd out private care.  You can’t add new penalties and taxes and not hurt the economy, not to mention breaking Obama’s promise to not raise taxes on the middle and lower classes.  All of these things, and more, are knowing, willing falsehoods.

Add to this the disgraceful willingness of legislators to bribe, threaten, and smear in order to get the magic 60 votes.  It was already well-known that Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was “encouraged” by the so-called “Louisiana Purchase,” the adding of hundreds of millions in funding specifically targeted for New Orleans.  Now it is clear that Ben Nelson (D-NE) was bought off in one of the most blatant and shameful instances of political payoffs, a most likely unconstitutional exception of Nebraska to get special Medicare funding.  Who knows what else happened in the top-secret, closed-door meetings of exclusively Democrats held to cobble this thing together.

And all of this maneuvering, cheating, and dirtiness to pass a massive, complex piece of social and economic legislation making over one-sixth of the US economy on a politically-motivated timetable.  All of this to get a massive new entitlement out the door, in order to satisfy the president’s domestic agenda, regardless of whether it is good law, good policy, or even coherent.  All of this because the White House stated, without any logical backing, that Congress needed to “pass something” rather than nothing, no matter what it looked like.  Even liberals know this is not good law – it will most likely exacerbate problems, and create entire new ones.  It is the first time in history something like this has been passed against widespread public disapproval, without a single ounce of bipartisanship.  And while surely that second part is part political calculation, the fact that Republicans were excluded from every part of this and that even “moderates” like Snowe were repulsed says a lot about this process.

So I ask this of my liberal friends:  is this the “change you believed in”?  Is this a new era of bipartisan, open, accountable government?  Or is this the same old political games, ratcheted up to entirely new levels?  Is this the way that progressives govern?  Are you bothered at all by the behavior of your leaders?  If you still have your soul, then I’d say you must be.  If not, you have truly become the living, breathing epitome of what is wrong with our country.

Sincerely,

Brian

One of my basic beliefs is that people’s ideas come from somewhere.  Now, that might sound like stating the obvious.  But what I mean to say is, that a given person’s feelings are always a product of a number of factors, including their education, their upbringing, and their life experiences.  At the core of modern ideologies lie some basic assumptions about the nature of man and his relationship with the state.  I will expound upon this much more in the future, but for now I want to briefly discuss one element that seems at the heart of the current health care debate – the idea of fairness.

Now, as someone who was always told growing up that “life isn’t fair,” I have been fairly inculcated with the basic belief that things in life don’t always work out in the most “equitable” way.  To take an easy example, it is clear that some people are born into well-off families, and others born into poor single-parent homes.  The point is, things don’t work out so that everyone has the same opportunities.  This is simply a fact of life – there is nothing we can do to make life more fair.

To somewhat oversimplify things, the modern dichotomy between left and right lies on the basic reaction to the dilemma of life’s unfairness.  A right-leaning person believes that unfairness is just part of life and we should do what we can to eliminate barriers and obstacles to moving up.  A left-leaning person, on the other hand, views unfairness as a problem that can be solved, and thus favors a large, activist government to do so.  Neither side is “wrong” in the moral sense.  It is just that one side accepts reality, while the other believes they can change things.

Now from my point of view, as someone who is largely a libertarian, I see unfairness as a natural result of different choices in life.  For example, it is not unfair that between two equally gifted people, one may succeed and the other may fail.  Furthermore, where there does exist some inequality, such as the fact that some are good at sports and others not, it is better to accept that than to try to change it.  My belief is that the methods used to change it often do much more harm than good.  In the sports analogy, you could make things more “fair” by lowering the hoop for me and breaking one of LeBron James’ legs.  But while that would be more equal, no one would say we’re better off.

To use a current example, in the health care debate, much time is spent arguing that premiums should be the same for everyone, and that everyone should have access to the best care.  While that would be more “fair” by liberal definitions, what it really means is that the healthy would have much higher premiums in order to balance out those who get insurance only when they’re sick.  Assuring everyone the best care means that costs will skyrocket, and doctors will be overloaded.  In the end, then, nearly everyone ends up worse off.  Is fairness worth hurting so many?

Of course not.  One must then conclude that constantly endeavoring to enact fairness is not the best idea.  We can understand this in sports.  We can even understand it in other types of insurance – why should a responsible driver in a safe car who lives in rural country pay the same as a reckless driver in a sports car who lives in the city?  Why should someone who lives in a small condo pay the same for homeowner’s insurance as someone in a mansion?  In all of these examples we understand that life circumstances and choices matter.  Why not in health care?  Why should a healthy 25-year-old pay the same as a 75-year-old with chronic diseases?  I’m not saying it’s nice, and we should try and help the older person, but how does it help things to make the younger pay more just to make things more “fair”?

As I said, I’ll go into this further.  It’s one of my core things to try and understand why people believe what they do, and then learn to counter the things I disagree with.  That is my hope for this website – to offer respectful, logical debate to what may seem to be conventional wisdom.  I hope you enjoy reading my efforts!