Shelby Steele Is Simply Unbelievable, Again

Shelby Steele's essay "Barack the Good" converts the mind, enlightening it, turning it around. It is the opening of a door in what seemed a hopeless cave. Mr. Steele sees, understands, leads. He points the way toward truths far beyond the mundanity of politics, social stature or achievement. He drops gems for us along our path outward, toward intellectual freedom, toward a broader understanding and greater moral clarity:

A historic figure making history, this is emerging as an over-arching theme—if not obsession—in the Obama presidency. In Iowa, a day after signing health care into law, he put himself into competition with history. If history shapes men, "We still have the power to shape history." But this adds up to one thing: He is likely to be the most liberal president in American history. And, oddly, he may be a more effective liberal precisely because his liberalism is something he uses more than he believes in. As the far left constantly reminds us, he is not really a true believer. Rather liberalism is his ticket to grandiosity and to historical significance.

Of the two great societal goals—freedom and "the good"—freedom requires a conservatism, a discipline of principles over the good, limited government, and so on. No way to grandiosity here. But today's liberalism is focused on "the good" more than on freedom. And ideas of "the good" are often a license to transgress democratic principles in order to reach social justice or to achieve more equality or to lessen suffering. The great political advantage of modern liberalism is its offer of license on the one hand and moral innocence—if not superiority—on the other. Liberalism lets you force people to buy health insurance and feel morally superior as you do it. Power and innocence at the same time.[...]

There has always been a narcissistic charge around Mr. Obama, the sense that in embracing him one was embracing something special in oneself—and possibly even a larger idea of human perfectibility.[...]

Mr. Obama's success has always been ephemeral because it was based on an illusion: that if we Americans could transcend race enough to elect a black president, we could transcend all manner of human banalities and be on our way to human perfectibility. A black president would put us in a higher human territory. And yet the poor man we elected to play out this fantasy is now torturing us with his need to reflect our grandiosity back to us. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

I urge you to read Mr. Steele's essay for yourself. His commentary is incisive, brutal in its accuracy. It is told in the manner of a true intellectual. This is not the sort of pablum common to the academy or the liberal press; it is not remotely like the airs that pass for solids on so many vapid talk shows, or in the prose of Paul Krugman and Frank Rich. This is the sort of work that is the intellectual urgrund, the undefined substrate, of all that it means to think deeply about a matter. And it's moral vision is far more Hebraic than Greek; less like an oracle and more like the proclamations of Isaiah.

Barack Obama is using liberalism as a tool, not to build the Great Society, but to build the Great Legacy,  the Great Boast: Here is a man of great import. 

Let us feel good.  

(Oh, and let us not forget about history.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

If They Are "Teabaggers," Then Who Are The "Tea Cups"?

As some of you know, when the people who align themselves with the Tea Party are called "Teabaggers" -- and their activities called "tea-bagging" --  by their crude critics, these are meant as insults, insults rooted in homophobia and hate. 

Of course there is a solution to all this, really. If the Tea Partiers are indeed teabaggers, well, they do need teacups. 

Hence, perhaps the Tea Party's biggest critics should be heretofore known as the "Teacuppers."

"Keith Olbermann, that froth-mouthed, teacupping, seething mass of envy who speaks to himself every night on MSNBC..." 

It's just an idea. 

(Please note: I am not advocating the use of crude language and innuendo, at least for any lengthy period. I am aiming for the cessation of something that is offensive. I believe turning the "teabagger" metaphor around will bring a sudden stop to the use of that homophobic slur.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Failing The Lemon Test

It will be interesting to see if the health care reform projects passed by Barack Obama and his colleagues in Congress will now pass the Lemon Test. 

Mandatory health insurance is touted a great thing among the more liberally inclined folks dwelling among us. It is especially great since it reaches those unfortunate folks -- 30 million of them -- who do not currently have coverage. 

Of course, no one likes to talk about that 30 million, who they are, and what they want. Some of that 30 million includes people who hate medicine, who want nothing to do with doctors; who know that medicine and doctors are not infallible, that doctors often misdiagnose, poison, maim, wound or even kill people. Some people are just plain phobic: sadly, they MUST pay for something they not only don't want, but fear.

Another subset of the American public is that group, like some if not many members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, who do not want health insurance simply because practitioners of Christian Science seek help in different ways. Is the United States government going to force certain religiously-driven people to comply with something that stands against their religious beliefs? Is the United States government going to subsidize alternative forms of care that are religiously- and not medically-based? Is the United States going to fund care at a Christian Science facility? Is it going to force adult Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions if needed, though such transfusions are against the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses' church? 

Seriously, the religious and therefore legal implications of the new reforms are dizzying. If certain religious people can be exempted from such insurance, then all religious people can. If the federal government is going to pay for Christian Science-based care (for example), such will be denounced as excessive entanglement in religion (which means, it fails the Lemon Test). And if religious people who DO NOT WANT HEALTH INSURANCE are FORCED to do so, the state, then, will be acting as "Theologian-in-chief," telling its citizens that the cult of the state trumps the cult of any particular church, synagogue or mosque. 

These issues are an obvious result of poorly formed, poorly planned legislation that was passed with nary a debate. This is the result of taking advantage of a manufactured crisis and its resultant fears, of ramming through something not because it was good for the country, but because it was good for a man and his party. And it is just further evidence of the Democrats' "Legislate now, think later" behavior. It is, sadly, a behavior that looks more like addiction than anything else. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

The Price We Pay

From a comment I dropped at Musings From The Hinterland:

I believe universal health care could suck the life out of living in America. It seems the end of heroism. Think of all the amazing stories we've heard about, where whole neighborhoods and towns rally around a sick person who can't afford expensive medical treatments. Think of the fund-raising, the charitable drives; think about the bake sales and motorcycle rallies and skate-a-thons and countless other awesome community-based, VOLUNTARY actions that will be lost if EVERY medical expense were covered -- FOR FREE! Oh, sure, kids will still die and their parents won't be bankrupt, but, as T. S. Eliot might have said, "Where is the LIFE we have lost in public funding?"

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Loving The Darkness

Hateful rhetoric fanning the flames of rage, inciting violence. Pure hate speech, swirling around a black man in power, and around his wife. Brutal accusations of Nazism; of being a "House Negro."

And all of it spoken on the radio. When will it stop?

Just read what white LEFTIST radio personality (and MSNBC guest) Mike Malloy recently had to say about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his marriage to -- stop your ears! -- a white woman:

The latest from the crazy people in the teabag movement is, uh, a story about, um, Virginia Thomas; she is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; and she’s setting up a teabagger nonprofit group. Now this will be interesting because the teabaggers are essentially racist; and how they're going to deal with a very dark Clarence Thomas and a very white Virginia Thomas setting up subdivision of their crazed teabagger party; how they're going to deal with that will be great fun to watch.

Now Clarence Thomas has always adopted the attitude of the House Negro, so perhaps he'll do it this time also. Clarence Thomas, in all the years he's been on the United States Supreme Court, I don't think has ever, ever written an opinion that became the rule of the court; he has never been the lead author.

He has - I don't think he's even spoken for the past six years! He just looks at fat Tony Scalia; and if Fat Tony farts, Uncle Clarence farts; if Fat Tony burps, Uncle Clarence burps! This is the guy who George Herbert Walker Bush said was the most qualified man in America to be on the Supreme Court.

... [Virginia Thomas is] in for a big surprise, when the inherently racist nature of the teabagger movement slams her in the face. She’s a very, very, very, very, very white Omaha, Nebraska woman married to a very, very, very, very black South Georgia man. And when the pictures of the two of them together get out, you can almost hear the squealing right now from the real teabaggers." [bold mine, added to emphasize bigoted remarks and homophobic slurs]

Newsbusters writer Tim Graham notes one risible mistake Mr. Malloy makes in his historical analysis: Clarence Thomas has indeed not written a single opinion for the court, he's only written over 140.

It always bemuses me when I hear Democrats or sundry leftists accuse Republicans (or conservatives) of being the party of prejudice. The historical facts point decisively in the other direction: the party that supported slavery and segregation is the Democratic Party. Republicans have been decades ahead of Democrats regarding issues of racial equality. There is no denying this, unless, of course, you are a revisionist. And there are a lot of revisionists.

The only racist at work in Mr. Malloy's world is Malloy himself. No Tea Party member has mentioned Clarence Thomas' "miscegenation" let alone worried about it. I personally don't know a single conservative who balks at inter-racial marriage. But the dark heart of uber-liberal Malloy has conjured up racism with ease. Apparently he can manufacture bigotry and impute it to others without compunction, or a sense of irony.

Rachel Maddow, a soft-spoken, shy, diminutive and ever-restrained left-winger who hosts an always-temperate eponymous show on MSNBC, recently gushed over Mr. Malloy's words:

I love your dark thoughts. We all love you for your dark thoughts.

They all love dark thoughts.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Thanks to Mr. Tim Graham of Newsbusters. 

.250, sort of

For the first time in my life I filled out the brackets for the NCAA men's basketball championship tournament. Needless to say, my Final Four looks like a can of hash. 

Here's the actual Final Four: West Virginia, Michigan State, Duke, and Butler. 

And here's who I predicted to be in the Final Four: Duke, Kansas, Kentucky and Pitt (I know, I know). And I predicted that Kentucky would take it all (I did have Kentucky battling West Virginia in the Elite Eight). 

So, no matter what happens, I lose. 

Loser. I am. 

Go, UCONN!

The Ground Shakes

This morning's brutal attacks in Moscow are too horrible to imagine. Such sorrow. Such pain and anguish. 

Dear Russia, know that we pray. 

______________________

"Ignorance Is Bliss" As Political Ploy

He wants us to believe him.

During his speech in St. Charles, Missouri just days before the US House of Representatives passed his health care reform legislation, Barack Obama told us all what he does not know:

You know what, here’s the bottom line, St. Charles. I don't know how the politics play. I don't know. This is a hard issue. It’s a complicated issue. There is a lot of information floating around out there. A lot of it is inaccurate.(†) The opponents have spent millions of dollars fighting it. And people during recessionary times, they’re anxious and sort of thinking, gosh, can we really afford to change things right now? Maybe we should just kind of stick with the status quo, even though we know it’s not working for us.

So I don't know how the politics plays. But here’s what I do know:  The American people will be more secure with this reform. Our country will be stronger because of this reform. I don’t know about the politics. But I know it is the right thing to do, and that’s why I’m fighting so hard to get it done. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

____________________

Barack Obama has a serious problem. Whenever he speaks, many astute listeners receive his words with abject incredulity. He speaks with such disrespect of the truth that people can hardly hear him, shutting him off when he most wants to be understood. Or does he not really care if anyone understands him? Maybe he really doesn't care that millions of people have tuned him out. It seems his casual disregard for truth and fact leave him nearly inaudible, as he speaks at a frequency few care to hear, having passed their threshold for pain. We all know the truth can be painful, and we accept that. But it is undeniable that Mr. Obama fails to comprehend his falsehoods are painful, and that we therefore reject them.

In the passage above, Mr. Obama, the president of the United States, claims he's ignorant of the politics regarding health care reform legislation. Really? A sitting president does not know the politics of a major issue? That's quite amazing. But if this is true, surely it is safe to conclude the president is incompetent.

And if it is false, then Mr. Obama is a liar.

No one, of course, believes Mr. Obama is as ignorant as he claims. Everyone knows he knows what he claims he does not. His apology tour proves this; going forth with a busload of talking points to try and sell health care legislation -- ex post facto -- to a doubting public proves he does know the politics, and that he always did. No doubt he was simply trying to portray himself as the noble crusader, indifferent to his own future: My ignorance of the politics, of how all this will play out, proves I am more concerned for you than my own political future. Or so he implies, though it is indeed hard to reconcile such thoughtful altruism with his claim he "does not know the politics" and his subsequent hard-sell to a public that refuses to acquiesce merely because of his good intentions.

Of course, the one thing Mr. Obama genuinely did not know was his own health care bill. And he still doesn't know it. This is particularly evident today as we learn that sick children, those with certain "pre-existing health conditions," won't receive health care coverage immediately -- as promised -- but in 2014 (or so it is reported). The strategy to bring such "immediate" relief to needy children was surely bold and new: Let's pass the bill first so we can all fall in love with it. After that, well, maybe then we'll look at what's in it. But bold and new is, in this case, undeniably pathetic.

Ignorance -- and feigned ignorance -- are sadly what "change looks like."

Permit me to borrow Mr. Obama's own words: "Here's what I do know" --  that this, truly, is an ironic presidency.

†"A lot of it is inaccurate" implies that some of it isn't.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Path To Chaos

The tipping point. 

Chaos. Anarchy. 

And then martial law, oppression.

It is not too extraordinary to think about, the end of a culture, the collapse of a society. Such things do happen. In fact, such things have happened more often than not. 

The other day CODEPINK, the antiwar activism group, created and disseminated a phony press statement in the name of AIPAC. AIPAC, as you know, is a pro-Israeli lobbying group. 

CODEPINK, which arguably holds pro-Palestinian convictions, released to news outlets a faux statement calling for the immediate halt of all Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. Sadly, several major outlets fell for the spurious statement -- NPR, Fox News, ABC, C-SPAN and Al-Jazeera. 

Chaos. 

This is the age of the impostor, the poseur. The fake. The internet is rife with this sort of malicious play: liberals pose as conservatives to present frightening caricatures; conservatives, apparently, do the same. Anyone can steal an identity, an avatar; it would be easy to steal someone's blog code and post a clone somewhere else. And this is not merely a political habit: atheists create fake identities, and fake blogs, to present religion, particularly Christianity, in the most unfavorable and grotesque way. That theist who seems utterly whacked out that you've been arguing with? That's an atheist playing a sick game. Those ten atheists attacking you at a popular anti-Christian site? That's right. There's only one atheist there, shattered into ten personae. 

In a few short days, we've heard about escalating threats and violence in the wake of the new Obama Health Care Projects. Accounts of bigotry are flying at us from all directions. But the problem is evident: the bigotry and threatening comments are probably coming from liberal sympathizers who need to foment rage, and to generate fear, about the "extreme right-wing." It is easy to pose, to pretend, for political gain. That is why it is so often done. 

Remember the leftist who attacked the local Democratic Party headquarters to make it look like angry hatemongers had it out for Democrats? No? How soon we forget. And how soon we forget this sort of thing is a leftist trick created by a master of deception and cunning. 

But when major news organizations swallow a fake AIPAC press release, the future of society is in jeopardy. And when we can't tell if the bigots screaming obscenities and death threats are real or fake -- or some weird hybrid -- we're doomed. It's a whole new type of asymmetrical warfare. 

It is precisely this sort of climate -- this chaos and anarchy -- that emboldens a government to seize even more control. It is the twisted, deceptive abuse of speech that leads to the loss of free speech. 

This, apparently, is what change really looks like.

Peace.

______________

PS. It must be remembered that Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan reported that he was being constantly abused and threatened by pro-choice activists who believed he was going to vote against health care reforms. Were these really pro-lifers posing? Who, then, has been harassing him now -- AFTER he voted in favor of health care? See? Chaos. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

The 'Right' Side Of History: Every Knee Shall Bow

It's an idol worth examining. It's the idol of history.

Not long before the U.S. general election in 2008, a reader of this blog emailed me, in light of my opposition to Barack Obama, to ask if I was "afraid of being on the wrong side of history." Another email came shortly after the posting of my essay in which I confessed the election of Barack Obama did not FEEL all that special to me: "Time will prove you are on the wrong side of history," I was told (I could feel the finger wagging). 

A blogging friend, one who supported Mr. Obama, rebuked me at his/her website with similar censorious vigor: I, Bill Gnade, would be stuck on the wrong side of history voting against Mr. Obama (I wrote a poem that partially replied to that rebuke).

But such love of history's good side is not limited to my friends or readers of this blog. Such love reaches high places. For example, regarding Republican opposition to Democratic health care reform projects, U.S. Senator and Democrat Harry Reid had this to say last December:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.'

After it was revealed earlier this year in Game Change that Harry Reid had used racially-charged language in 2008 describing then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, Mr. Obama came to his defense:

[Reid] is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.

What is it about being on history's good side that is so important? What does being on the "right side of history" even mean?

____________________

THE DEIFICATION OF HISTORY

In one sense, this adoration of history is about vanity, even envy. Certain people, Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not least among them, have an obvious existential need to be remembered in the history books: their apparent anxieties about death -- of being forgotten among the riff-raff -- clearly motivate them to get attention, to seek approval; to be remembered as special. After all, at least according to the old progressive adage, history is written by the victors. Mr. Obama and company need to be on the side of history's approving stenographers, not for political but spiritual and psychological reasons: they are desperate to be thought wonderful, good, consequential. This is about the limelight in perpetuity. It's about living an enviable life. It's about leaving an obituary that others will envy.

But it is more than vanity at play, it's religion. Atheist, agnostic, theist -- it matters not. In the secular arena there is the cult of history, where history is divinized and adored (as long as it flows according to progressive ideals). History is spiritual. History is a force, a will: time ALWAYS progresses towards a happy end. It has a plan; progress is God's goal, at least the goal of the idealist's god. Hegel comes to mind here, as do other idealists who believed that the universe was driven by an unfolding self-consciousness that moves ONLY in one purposive direction: more order, more justice, more approval of progressive golden calves in a cheery dialectic. Change, progress, an increase in justice -- these are irresistible and inevitable. To go with the tide of change, to flow with history's wondrous ends in mind, is the essence of being on history's "right side." To stand in the way, to walk against the tide; to deny that history is Spirit unfolding in blessed clarity, is to be on the wrong side of history, where the gods wag their fingers in your face, shaming you for recalcitrance. It's to where history's stenographers condemn you -- "YOU! You are on the wrong side of HISTORY! We are in charge of the narrative now." 

And note that the "right side of history," which is the only authentic side of history, is always infallible, inerrant. It is the place of the always correct idea, deed, policy. It is indeed the place where the gods reside, happily, given to great applause. 

But there is something odd, really, about it all. No doubt there is Darwin to consider. His genius was in seeing that things seemingly change without purpose, without a guiding hand from Spirit or the gods or history. But the heretics who adore him who've corrupted his vision with ideas of progress fail to see their mistake: they've imposed a meaning on the world the world does not provide. No one can say that the human species is more progressed or more advanced than an amoeba. Darwin surely can't. But the tendency toward narcissism, and the apotheosis of history, results in this religious idea that time and evolution and progress are all connected, and that the future is a land of undeniable bliss promised us by the mechanics of Darwin's theory. Humans are more advanced than an amoeba, or so the heretics declare, unaware that they've invented that value out of nothing but their own conceit. Evolution tells us nothing about worth, value, advancement, status -- or sophistication. 

But the odd thing is that no one knows exactly where we are going. We are on a journey toward some progressive end -- some telos -- that is apparently akin to perfection, nirvana. But no one knows what the end looks like, or where it lies. As G. K. Chesterton so wonderfully pointed out, the confidence in progress is thus insane. If we do not know where we are going, then how do we know we've gotten any closer to arriving at our destination? If we don't know our destination, how can we tell our travels are not leading us further from our goals? 

Undeniably and predictably, progressives will scoff at such talk. Of course we know where we are going, they will assert in question-begging confidence. 

We do? Who says? 

Peace.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY INDEBTEDNESS TO HERBERT SCHLOSSBERG, AUTHOR OF IDOLS FOR DESTRUCTION: THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH AND AMERICAN CULTURE  AND ROGER LUNDIN, AUTHOR OF BELIEVING AGAIN: DOUBT AND FAITH IN A SECULAR AGE. BOTH AUTHORS HAVE CRAFTED EXCELLENT CHAPTERS REGARDING THE IDOL OF HISTORY. 

A Real Google Bomb? One Never Knows.

It feels like China is about to pounce, at least on Google ("Go Ogle" for those among us who struggle with online pornography). Look for a moment of internet sabotage designed to discipline the search engine giant.

Google, the $24 billion in revenues per annum behemoth, is not invulnerable. A Google knockdown could be economically disastrous, even if short-lived. Why not? 

I'm probably wrong. Maybe China will just generate its own version of Google, faster, better, more controllable from on high. A true totalitarian search engine. 

________________________

Mr. Netanyahu, Don't Be Fooled

I REPEAT.

They are looking for an excuse.

________________________

When Abraham Lincoln Sounds Hostile, Even Scary

In his Missouri speech to supporters of his health care reform projects a few days before those projects became federal law (alluded to earlier here), Barack Obama quoted, albeit brokenly, Abraham Lincoln. It is a quote he has used several times in speeches since his election. But in the wake of health reform legislation that was "historic" precisely because nothing like it (in sheer size and import) had been passed by such a partisan, ideologically-driven and emaciated majority, Mr. Lincoln's words in Mr. Obama's mouth have a very chilling, even dictatorial, quality. 

Here's Mr. Obama:

A big part of our campaign [for the presidency] was about changing the way Washington works.  It was about transforming a politics that's driven by cynicism and a 24-hour news cycle, and the cable chatter, and always focused on the next election instead of the next generation.  Our campaign was about meeting the looming challenges -- in education and in energy, in our health care system, in our financial system -- that helped bring about the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And it still threatens our prosperity.  It was about making our government actually work for you, the people:  a government that lives up to its responsibilities, including the responsibility to live within its means. [...]

You know, President Lincoln said that “the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not … do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”  That pretty much sums up my attitude.  You let people do for themselves what they can do for themselves; and then if there are some things that we do better together, we should do them together. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It is reassuring to read Mr. Obama will "let" us do for ourselves what we can. I really do appreciate that he has given us his permission.

Here, by the way, is the Lincoln quote (notice how different it is from Mr. Obama's quotation; red letters added to emphasize that difference):

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama (perhaps in deference to various court orders that may be pending) will support those states, and even those individuals, who believe they can "individually do as well for themselves" in controlling, maintaining and paying for their own health care without federal involvement. Of course, we know his answer: Individuals and states can't do it "as well for themselves" as the federal government can do it for them. 

In the corporate world, what happened this past weekend regarding health care might be described as something akin to a hostile takeover. Despite overwhelming voter opposition, significant Democratic Party opposition (15% of house Democrats opposed the legislation) and complete Republican opposition, the WE-DO-BETTER-TOGETHER powers of the executive and legislative branches eked out a legislative "victory" regarding health care. 

That is historic, I guess. Of course, since there are some things I can't do all that well for myself, I will have to "let" the government tell me what is historic -- and why. Obviously, some of us can't even opine correctly -- for ourselves.

(Alas, Mr. Lincoln, if "all men were just" indeed.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

"It's Getting Worse." -- Barack Obama

We can't help but notice what Barack Obama said in Missouri -- at a pep rally intended to cheer people up -- a few days before his health care reform projects were made law. It is either a moment of intense honesty or of intense dullness -- or both.

Now, there’s been a lot of discussion about government over the last several months -- and let’s face it, people have lost faith in government.  They had lost faith in government before I ran and it’s been getting worse.

It stuns, really.

Mr. Obama's last sentence could be amended without changing its meaning by simply adding the word "things."

They had lost faith in government before I ran [things] and it’s been getting worse.

Blinding.

Faith in government has been getting worse ever since Mr. Obama came to office, or so he proclaims. That is precisely what he said at a pep rally while allegedly pumping up his supporters, isn't it? If not, what is he saying?

"Let's face it," indeed.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Indeed.

Was it the most ironic statement ever made by an American president (who fails to see the irony)?

Mr. Obama said the following after signing his new health care legislation today:

"We are done." 

Something Old, Brand New

I have begun reading Flannery O'Connor. Her writing makes me ask, "Where have I been all my life?"

Why Universal Health Care Is NOT Universal But Exclusive, Even Elitist?

"I read in Men's Health magazine that President Obama has two cardio days and four weightlifting days. You see, I don't have to exercise because I have health insurance." -- comedian Joe Wong, at last week's annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner

________________________

In his recent column on what some have called "ObamaCare," James Taranto shares a passage from a National Review interview with Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak, a pro-lifer from Michigan. Note what Stupak says other members of his party are saying about abortion and its relation to a publicly-financed health care system:

The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, "are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party."

What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue--come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

Alarming? Perhaps it is, at least to people who enjoy thinking things through to their logical conclusions. Indeed, abortion as a cost-cutting measure seems not only inevitable but undeniably -- and frighteningly -- frugal. 

Taranto goes on to ask

What would happen to a woman who received, say, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome? She would be free (as she is today) to exercise her right to have an abortion. But would she be free to exercise her right not to have an abortion?

Presumably the government could not directly force her to abort, as this would provoke political outrage and run afoul of Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings. But one can easily imagine softer forms of coercion coming into play. A government-run insurance plan, for instance, could deny or limit coverage for the treatment of certain conditions if diagnosed before fetal viability, on the ground that the taxpayer should not be forced to pay the costs of the woman's choice to carry her child to term.

I believe Taranto, in essence, has expressed what comedian Joe Wong (quoted above) intimated in his joke before America's radio and TV journalists. Namely, what Taranto is suggesting is that universal health care will be used to REMOVE people from health care coverage. Taranto (and Stupak) are correct to note that such denial of coverage will probably begin with the unborn, but it will not end there. All sorts of folks will be denied coverage in order to leverage them into complying with a set of public health standards.

An old Milton Friedman essay replayed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal called "A Way Out of Soviet-style Health Care," explores several passages from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's novel Cancer Ward in which two characters discuss the public takeover of health care. Friedman is right to note that the conclusion is prescient: that universal, public and free health care is not only NOT free, it results in depersonalization and sets patients and doctors in an adversarial relationship, with doctors acting as state (or HMO) spies to descry who his defrauding the system or wasting resources.

If health care becomes an entitlement, it will "dis-incentivize" people to really care for themselves: As Joe Wong states, he doesn't need to exercise -- as a preventative -- because he is covered by insurance; even his pre-existing conditions are covered.

Though Wong is pretending, he is not pretending about how people will treat the public health-fare system (it is health-fare, no?) -- they will simply take it for granted. People will not feel any incentive to eat well, lose weight, wear helmets, exercise, avoid tobacco or alcohol, and so on: SOME people will just blow off worrying about themselves because their finances are not one whit jeopardized by health care costs.

But what this will mean, then, is that doctors will HAVE to report such people who refuse to comply with basic health standards and expectations. Doctors, as employees of the state, will have to report those who willfully place an excessive burden on health care costs. And what will the state HAVE TO DO? That's right: the state will HAVE TO REMOVE such people† from the public health-fare rolls in an effort to motivate them to live healthier lives!

So, what does this mean? It means that universal health care coverage is really not universal at all, being only for those people who ARE healthy or CHOOSE to be healthy. In other words, the more fortunate people in America who are not a medical burden on the government will have coverage while those less fortunate who are an excessive burden on the system will be expelled from coverage.

In reality, then, universal health coverage is exclusive. Such exclusion will start with the unborn and extend out to those living souls who will not -- or cannot -- live the "right" way.

_____________________

†Or the state will have to charge such people a hefty co-payment or deductible, which means health care won't be "free".

Part II tomorrow? Maybe.

(You should read all of Milton Friedman's essay.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Winning In Politics Is About Caffeine

In politics, the spoils go to those who drink the most coffee.

Not long ago I met with a lawyer who had drafted a special needs trust for a member of my family. The trust was 24 pages long. After 55 minutes of working our way through the document, I noted, with complete exasperation, that we were only on the fourth sentence: we were still on Page 1, §1, ¶1. Death could not come soon enough.

A day or two later, I arrived late for our local school district's annual meeting. And I mean LATE: about an hour and fifty minutes late. Not that it mattered; my wife was already there and I am not the most interested voter on items budgetary. Regardless of when I arrived, the meeting had not progressed far when I presented myself to the checklist supervisor. Alas! Here it was, somewhere after 8:45 on a school night, and we're just discussing a second motion on the second amendment to the first article in a warrant consisting of 13 articles!

Oh, the pain of the legislative process.

But it is this very pain I think describes the legislative process exactly: Whoever has not collapsed in exhaustion wins. It's as simple as that. Legislative and political successes are not a measure of moral or intellectual excellence; they are not a signal of what is right or true or best. They are just a plain marker of endurance.

I personally oppose the Obama health care plan, if you can call it Obama's (considering he's largely farmed it out) or even a health care plan. But I am SO SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT I am tempted to simply surrender and capitulate: go ahead -- HAVE YOUR WAY, you petulant brood! Indeed, there is no doubt the torturous push for a political goal is in part meant to weaken and tire the opposition. And drafting a colossal and arcane bill -- one full of abstruse language and even esoteric references -- creates not only an expert, interpreting class -- our elected officials -- but a dependent, even helpless class, namely, the citizenry who've not the time to know what is in the bill or the resources or energy to challenge it (and one can add to this class those elected officials who haven't the time, energy or resources to pore over 2100 pages of linguistic mash). And health care is not the only issue where we can see the "beat down-wear down" strategy at work. The gay marriage debate is a recent example of this sort of thing: Let's beat them down to get our way, or we'll make them so sick of it they'll just flop down in exhaustion.

Seriously, after sitting with a lawyer who takes an hour to expound on four sentences of legal language, I'll give him my house if he'll just shut up and tell me where to sign. So, too, with most things political: I'll vote yes -- or just present -- if they'll just let me go home. I mean, there are different ways to filibuster; one way is to just talk about nothing other than your political goal everywhere and every moment, jamming the airwaves and newspapers with jabber, jabber, jabber. Even criticism works in your favor: if the critics talk long and hard enough, PERHAPS the effect will work toward your goal, as listeners and viewers will simply grow weary, satiated, stumbling dumb in ennui. To beat down, I believe, is also the very nature of bureaucracy: to render an individual impotent before the bureau itself has to change or do any real work. There's no moving a well-caffeinated leviathan. Please, just give me the papers so I can go hang myself. ("I'm sorry, sir, but that will require a permit. $30 please.")

_____________________

FATIGUE, CASE IN POINT: The CBO

It was really no surprise the numbers presented this week by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out so favorably to Mr. Obama's health care plan. What was surprising to me is that the Democrats in Congress didn't immediately vote on the bill so as to prevent objective number crunchers from having enough time to determine where the CBO's mathematics strayed from reality. Interestingly, there may be evidence the CBO itself is a victim of political fatigue, or so reports Politico in "CBO crumbles under health workload":

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told House Appropriations Legislative subcommittee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) that his staff has been working “100-hour weeks” and cannot keep up with the budgetary and economic impact queries lawmakers have about health care.

“Analysis of competing health care proposals absorbed a huge share of the agency’s resources, and CBO analysts in that area have worked flat out for more than a year,” Elmendorf said today. “…Considerable congressional interest in analysis of health care issues is likely to persist and …the almost round-the-clock schedule maintained this past year by CBO’s current staff cannot be maintained much longer...."

The budget office is responsible for providing Congress nonpartisan analysis and cost estimates for legislation, but the CBO has been in the limelight in a much greater way as Democrats desperately try to keep the cost of the health care bill in check.

But the CBO admits that the quantity of analysis hasn’t been enough to meet the needs of Congress.

Wasserman Schultz said she was concerned that Elemendorf’s office had recently sent a scored legislative summary to a House office that later needed to be significantly amended.<

Wasserman Schultz’s aides wouldn’t specify where the error occurred, but one aide said that the cost estimate differences were “significant.”

“Can we be sure in the future that’s not going to happen again?” Wasserman Schultz asked Elmendorf, noting that factual errors are a “big concern. This was a dramatic change…That, to me, should be avoided at all costs.”

“I wish I could guarantee that,” Elmendorf said.

If America really opposes the sort of changes that are imminent, it's time for the country to order a lot of double espressos. It's going to be a long, long night.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Recurring Visions

"I am seeing things, I know. I see a nation in abject poverty; I see chaos, death, despair. I see disease. I see crime. I see revolt. I see war. And I see someone, some Venezuelan or Cuban or even an American, stepping forward to intervene, to calm and charm the Haitian people: I see a peacemaker full of political guile. -- Bill Gnade, "Tragic Thoughts", January 13, 2010

In a recent interview with Bill Maher, actor and political activist Sean Penn had this to say regarding his humanitarian outreach program in Haiti:

Hugo Chavez, who, when I went to Venezuela, when I went to Haiti, because when I, starting up an NGO, how do I, an actor in Hollywood, order bulk narcotics?...But on a serious note, you know, this is where amputations, reamputations after gangrene set in – it was Venezuela, Cuba, were able – supplied us with those to be able to get them to hospitals. And then later when I – it wasn’t because the Americans weren’t, it was because I didn’t know how – It seemed I didn’t know the same people that I knew to be able to do it... The collaborative opportunity in Haiti, when you talk about Hugo Chavez, and some of these other people who are demonized, and you know, when some of these countries accuse us of an occupation -- where I believe this was strictly a humanitarian action one the part of the United States military, and an incredible one – I’m a little sympathetic. Because every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it! And accept it. And this is mainstream media, who should – truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

________________________

The Mean Green Machine

Quote of the week:

'Do Green Products Make Us Better People' is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write.

For more, see the Guardian's article, "How going green may make you mean". (Of course, perhaps being mean makes you go green.)

[H/T to James Taranto.]

Legislate Now, Think Later

It is a very liberal habit: Legislate now, think later. It is what urgency demands. 

In 1974, when things were not moving hastily enough for a few of the progressives in the Episcopal Church, three bishops, two retired and one resigned, took it upon themselves to "ordain" eleven women to the priesthood, despite the fact that their church, and the worldwide Anglican Communion, forbade it. The stance against such ordinations had nothing to do with sexism but theology, particularly the theological nature of the sacraments. But the liberalizers did not care; to them, a social wrong needed to be made right, and so they ordained eleven women who became known as the "Philadelphia Eleven." The eleven went forth and served God; the church denounced their ordinations, even revoking them, but the liberalizers stood defiant. Things, eventually, went their way. And yet the fall-out, and the disintegration of the Episcopal Church, continued, with some auguring that the ordination of women only opened the door to even more liberal ideas. Pshaw! said the liberalizers. 

And then, well, the consecration of an openly gay man as bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire in 2003 split the church even more. Even today, seven years later, some wonder what minority is next to be liberated from alleged oppression. Those of us who are Episcopalians in exile know that it was standard-issue commentary that the ordination of V. Gene Robinson had nothing to do with gay marriage; that Mr. Robinson's consecration as bishop would not lead to anything else. Of course, Mr. Robinson has hardly done anything else in his ministry but advocate for gay marriage, even serving as a principal witness in legislative hearings on gay marriage in the NH state capitol. You think ordaining a gay man to the bishopric will lead to further confusion, erosion and disintegration of the church? Pshaw! 

Today, less than a year after the NH state legislature (following V. Gene Robinson's advice) rammed through a poorly crafted bill legalizing gay marriage, many NH citizens are seeking to bring the issue of gay marriage to a referendum, and even, ultimately, to the point of amending the state's constitution defining marriage as a legally binding contract between one man and one woman. What is the law that was rammed through last year? Well, HB 436, declaring that gay marriage is a right, was passed in such haste (to create a great and mighty wrong) that it includes this amazing clause:

457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution. 

What this means, obviously, is that the Democratic Party-controlled legislature in NH decided to legislate now and think later. For if gay marriage is indeed a right, what a tawdry right it must be if those who have the power to confer that right may refuse to do so on religious grounds! Indeed, that is what the law says: If your religion teaches that gay marriage is NOT a right, though the state has given you the authority to confer that right, you can choose NOT TO CONFER IT. 

The imbecilic nature of the law, and the chaos such a law MUST and WILL create, is indicative of the nature of liberal politics, of acting first and thinking later. The grotesque entanglement of the state in religion is now codified into NH law. Sadly, nary a liberal can see the insanity of the state's "new and wonderful" law legalizing gay marriage. 

Of course, Legislate Now, Think Later is nearly a motto, at least for those liberalizers who know they cannot win an argument on its merits, or on the facts. It's a very liberal habit. 

This all leads us to today, to the Obama White House and the liberal congressional leaders: "We can't know what is in the health care bill until we pass it", or some such insanity. Without debate; without even a nod to the majority of Americans who oppose Mr. Obama's vision for a healthy and egalitarian state, the current administration is going to assert its "we know best" egotism on the country. Fall-out? Pshaw! Chaos? Pshaw! 

Legislate NOW! Think, well, never. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

[I would be remiss if I did not remind readers that pro-gay marriage activists in upstate New York and San Francisco performed gay marriages to challenge opponents to declare the marriages invalid. Curiously, they were so declared, but the cynical mechanics of the pro-gay marriage lobby were based on what I've discussed here: Legislate now, think later -- and DARE people to undo our work.]

[In 1973, as Americans debated the pros and cons of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States mysteriously found a right to privacy in the Constitution hidden in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (I think I have this correct in the most general terms). A court decision, serving more as a legislative rather than judicial act, became the law of the land -- a land still divided by that court's liberal decision. Just like that: We'll legislate, and you figure it out for yourselves, later. Which means never.] 

Why FOX NEWS, Mr. Obama?

There is only one reason President Obama is (finally) going on Fox News tonight: He believes he can make the channel look like a peddler of misinformation and lies. He is hoping to stump his interviewer, Bret Baier; he's hoping to inundate the newscaster with such verbosity that Baier will capitulate, or stumble and stammer; that he will look guilty and weak. This is an effort by Mr. Obama to show to the world that Fox News is against his goodheartedness, and that Fox has been in a campaign against not only the facts, but his benevolence. He's been bullied, thwarted, misrepresented.  

OK. Maybe there are two reasons for his appearing on Fox News.

Barack Obama's appearance is not about procuring more votes in the House. It's about this: 

"Look, I've reached out to Republicans, and I've EVEN REACHED OUT TO FOX NEWS, and they STILL refuse to accept the beauty, the clarity and the moral excellence of my vision for America. They continue to mislead and beguile, obstruct and obfuscate. Republicans, with Fox News as mouthpiece, continue to be an obstacle to progress, justice and equality. Hence, we are left with nothing but parliamentary gimmicks to pass health care reform legislation. This is about history, about who stands on the right side of it, and who stands on the wrong. We haven't any more time to waste on the naysayers. The need is too urgent; dialogue has become nothing more than a stall tactic. The TIME TO ACT HAS COME!" 

In other words, Barack Obama is interested in posing, in theater. In pretend. 

Look! Don't you see how earnest he is? He believes. Surely that counts for something. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

It IS Too Late

Though I love the original song on which this is based, I thought this remake really quite amazing (you'll see, or maybe you've seen it before). If this is part of a program to make civics more attractive and understandable to kids, it's a good step forward (especially in this era, when all that America does, it seems, is apologize). Plus, it suggests that our founding fathers were in many ways the rebellious rock stars of their day -- which they were. 

Besides, it's just fun. And if the video below appears cropped, try this link. 

(Crank it up. Seriously.)