Saturday, July 21, 2012

Isn’t Soylent Green a Place Name Somewhere in the UK?

In eastern Europe, there was a popular joke people told: “if the desert was made a socialist state, there would soon be a shortage of sand.”

Socialism creates shortages. Socialize medicine enough, and you create a reason not to treat people. Sooner or later they start making excuses for euthanasia to save money. After a while they stop concealing that this is why they tried to justify it.
‘Sanctity of life law has gone too far’.
said an editorial published in the British Medical Journal. The author then arrived at the conclusion that:
‘The logical implications of this judgment threaten to skew the delivery of severely resource limited healthcare services towards providing non-beneficial or minimally beneficial life prolonging treatments including artificial nutrition and hydration to thousands of severely demented patients whose families and friends believe they would not have wanted such treatment. The opportunity cost will probably be reduced provision of indisputably beneficial treatments to people who do want them.’
Now that THAT’s out of the way, how many years will it be before we have an artificial market and delivery structure that will make people in prosperous industrial nations fight over food ?

Friday, July 20, 2012

It’s Just Like Obama’s Vision of America

Translation from original Klingon German: ... “Welfare is sexy” ...

In the Brussels Journal, George Handlery decrypts the symbolism of graffiti put up by people with everything to gain by having the state reach into your pocket.

Update: greetings to the Instapunditry. Do pour yourself a glass of something, won't you?

A lust for power disguised as the phony virtue of “compassion”

Here it is only mid-July and already the true thuggish face of the Obama Permanent Campaign is emerging for all to see
writes Michael Walsh (thanks to Instapundit).
When the president of the United States feels utterly free to bash private enterprise and the now-deceased Protestant work ethic, and even tries to criminalize it, you know we have entered uncharted waters in American political history.

Not since the Copperhead Democrats tried to appease the South and derail the Lincoln presidency have the Democrats been such an explicitly anti-American party. The relatively moderate party of JFK and Hubert Humphrey was hijacked in the streets of Saul Alinsky’s Chicago in 1968 and at the Miami Beach convention of 1972, which nominated George McGovern, and was transformed into a radical group that can no longer contain its animus against our country, our history, and our Constitution.

All eminently predictable, of course.

I’ve often called the Democrats a “criminal organization masquerading as a political party” — please read my brief new book on the subject, The People v. the Democratic Party, now available on Amazon, for chapter and verse. But the current rogues calling themselves “Democrats” are, as I pointed out last year over on NRO, especially dangerous:tries to criminalize it, you know we have entered uncharted waters in American political history.

For years now, I’ve been saying that the modern Democratic party is the unholy issue of thirties gangsters and sixties Marxists, a criminal organization masquerading as a political party, composed of thugs, lawyers, layabouts, and guilt-ridden dupes, and motivated entirely by a lust for power disguised as the phony virtue of “compassion.” And I mean that in the nicest possible way: The Republicans could use a little — no, make that a lot — of their ruthless moxie.

… It’s all well and good for Mitt Romney to point out, in his golly-gee genteel way, that the Obama administration pays off its political contributors in the form of government-guaranteed loans and rigged contracts. Of course it does — that’s the very essence of gangsterism, rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies.

But if Romney thinks that’s going to enrage the good people of America, he’d better think again, and fast. Thanks to changing demographics, the Left’s relentless assault on the American educational system over the past half-century, and the Regressives’ control of the media, it’s an open question whether such folks are still a majority. We’ve entered a period in our history very similar to the late 1920s and early ’30s, in which a sizable percentage of gangland-occupied jurisdictions sided with the gangsters. It took two-fisted reformers like Tom Dewey to rearrange the popular imagination.

… Clearly, all the president’s men have gambled that — just as Axelrod has done throughout Obama’s fixed-fight career — they can knock Romney out early by destroying his squeaky-clean reputation. But, as Dewey and the others showed, you can still be a nice guy and fight as dirty as they do. The question is whether Romney understands that and, if so, what he plans to do about it.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Citing Mister Cuddles

They are fossils, these old-line Marxist-Leninist / Permanent Revolution type Trotskyite variants. They even fall for phony, concocted quotations from their heroes of the near distant ago as a kind of scripture. Here, one present day “revolutionary” quotes this blog’s patron mass murderer Che, to try to convince the reader that Free Enterprise thanklessly exploits the worker, ignoring that under the Marxist-Leninism that the author never lived under the loving heel of the state, THE STATE is the corporate exploiter.
In carrying out whatever leadership task he was assigned, Che organized along a course that made it possible for workers to transform themselves and their social and political consciousness as they collectively transformed the social relations under which they worked, produced, and lived.

He explained that this is the only way working people carrying out the revolutionary process can make the new social relations more transparent and direct and, at the same time, base these relations on human solidarity. It is the only way to tear away the veils and fetishes behind which the capitalist system hides the brutal consequences of its exploitation of working people and obscures the unique contribution labor makes to all social and cultural progress.
So I suppose that he was going to lead by example, and tell us how many of his political opponents he capped? Not likely. He does, however, advocate chaos and the descent into a base, regressed society though:
By the time the Cuban revolution conquered, the balance sheet of twentieth-century experience had demonstrated beyond any doubt that society will not—and cannot—advance toward socialism and communism along any other course.

If it is directed down any other road, it will become mired in bureaucratic planning and management, fostering growing demoralization and alienation of working people from their labor. New privileged social layers will be spawned that ape the values and attitudes of the capitalist classes still dominant on a world scale. Willy-nilly, revolutionists will be turned into accomplices of the law of value and its corrosive social consequences. They will begin, at first even unconsciously, to seek support and collaboration from petty-bourgeois layers at home and from bourgeois forces internationally, as they turn their faces away from the toilers of the world, who are humanity’s only salvation.
There’s the perpetual argument pointing somewhere else: “sure, you’re suffering, or are trapped in these borders, or poor – but you’re doing it for the good of man. The irony is that that man, whoever the hell he is, was always somewhere else: Africa, South America, East Asia, etc.

After some more piffle about the worker, he is reputed to have said:
Fear that the example of Cuba would spread and that other pro-imperialist regimes would be overthrown by mass revolutionary struggle underlay Washington’s determination to crush the workers and farmers government in Cuba. At Wall Street’s bidding, bourgeois governments throughout the hemisphere rushed to try to isolate the revolutionary regime. …
Yes, and it was the workers who feared it, which is why they had to use violent intimidation and “never let a crisis go to waste”. Those who actually ARE workers, taking a moment to think about who the new boss is, realizes that not only does the State Mega-Nasty-Corp of the Socialists’ paradise have no competition, but they also have no incentive not to REALLY abuse the person.

Proof of this is plain: these regimes maintained impotent unions as a useful distraction to help keep the workers from rising up and taking their power away. Their job as a union, was to militate an already trapped people into towing the bosses’ political line. When the workers did rise up to protest unreasonable production quotas, they shot at them.

Can the fossils find even ONE example of anything that bad being done to working people by the state where there is Free Enterprise without massive repercussions? Well?

In that minor instance of the 1953 East German uprising, one of many events in the solidaristic “free world” that they called their walled-in lands, 170 were executed for political crimes, 123 for other ‘crimes’, connected to the protests in addition to the scores of victims shot down in the street when the protests were put down.

Voting rights, voting wrongs

The Economist ends its article on voter fraud (Voting rights, voting wrongs, July 14) with the sentence:
it would be awkward, to say the least, if Mr Romney won because new laws kept some of Mr Obama’s supporters from voting.
Would it not be far worse if Barack Obama — or if either candidate, really — won because the absence of a voting law allowed fraudulent voters from his party (with or without the candidate's consent) to steal the election?

In the latter case, a candidate might win as a result of a crime — a crime which election and law officers were deliberately prevented from detecting. In the (hypothetical) case you mention, his adversary might win because of the unintended consequences in the fight against crime, which is surely a distinction worth making.

To take another (far worse) crime, how prevalent is murder? Not very, if you take the statistics in percentage (something like 0.0048 %). Well, no matter how rare murder is, you still need to criminalize it as much for justice — to bring perpetrators (however rare they may be) to justice — as for prevention — to prevent people from being tempted to use it.

The last I heard, one needs some sort of poll card to cast a ballot in Britain, as indeed one does in every other democracy on this planet. Due to the Democrats' hysterical race-baiting, we have been subjected to the (absurd) spectacle of being the only country where having this (common-sense) requirement can only be viewed as vile, outrageous prejudice. Well, if it is racist to require voter ID in America, then Britain and every other democracy on the planet (including, of course, in Africa) can only qualify as racist as well.

The height of ridicule occurred when Democrats organized hearings in Washington to hear the sob stories of these oppressed masses. Except that in order to get out-of-state to DC, the wretched martyrs who find it such a hardship getting around their home towns managed to board an… airplane by showing an… ID.
Democrats don't support voter fraud;
they just worry about disenfranchising the deceased

Obama, You're No Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Welcome to the Hotel California

Europeans are learning something is wrong with their long held utopian ideals. When even the slightest difficulty is presented to the Europeans as a whole, they passive-aggressively turn on one another – each threatening to take their football and go home.
On a recent BBC Newsnight debate, Jeremy Paxman drew applause by popping up on a screen a photo of Herman Van Rompuy, the rather nondescript Belgian president of the European Council, and asking the audience whether they had voted for him and even knew who he was. Argument over: of course we’d rather not be bossed about by unelected officials whom we can’t even name.

Except for this. It was tosh. Why didn’t he also put up photos of the Secretary General of Nato, or the head of the World Trade Organisation, or the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Maritime Organisation, or even the head of Fifa? We didn’t vote for any of those either; they come from funny foreign countries and we don’t even know their names – except perhaps the President of FIFA.
But naturally, it take a Briton to really understand that the issue is one of self-interest, having long-since shed the notion that there is such a thing called enlightened self interest. Writing in the Times of London, Bill Emmott reminds us that there are even bigger temples of dysfunction trying to exercise “global governance”, and that Europeans have been following along with all manner of nonsense with the UN, IMF, and a bunch of other alphabet soup outfits with a childish optimism about human nature.

The side effects have been the shaky legal ground this leaves them on, insofar as they really don’t actually say they’re ceding sovereignty on one matter of another when they are, and the irreversibility of it all:
The point is that a crucial part of British policy since 1945 has been that of setting up, and joining, international organisations to agree upon common rules for various activities, to foster co-operation rather than conflict, to increase collective security, or to promote freer trade. All of them involve the pooling of sovereignty in exchange for an expected benefit – rather as the FA joined Fifa to play in international tournaments and to all follow the same rules of football. We could be independent and set our own rules. But it wouldn’t get us very far.
[ ... ]
Is the extra degree of sovereignty regained enough to make it worthwhile? Is the then less Common Market still common enough? Is the loss of Britons’ automatic right to live and work in Spain, Italy, Germany or elsewhere a price worth paying?
No-one asked you that either, did they?

What’s the end result of all of this? Pretending to be a helpless, servile victim of these imagined external powers with a sort of universal power ascribed to them by the well promoted feeling that international institutions are of man’s way to build some sort of “heaven on earth,” with harmless, pointless lives for everyone. A case in point is a headline. Forget the content, just look at the tone, and the assumption of who’s in charge:
IMF tells eurozone to turn on printing presses
Actually, you really don’t HAVE to, friend.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Like Babes in the Woods

Free-riding is a problem. Eventually, the free-riders either believe that they are entitled to the position that they’ve put others into, or convince themselves of some other world view in order to ignore their real behavior.

Case in point: Lecturesome pacifist Germans being willfully ignorant of their nations’ arms sales.

Observing Hermann:
These pacifistic (German made) and very expensive peaceships not only make big profits for traditional Waffenschmiede (weapons makers) like Thyssen-Krupp Marine-Systeme, they finally give Germany’s alibi army something vernünftig (reasonable) to do: Train the folks who might actually be using these weapons one day.
Of course when sold to the right parties, the DO keep the peace, but it doesn’t square with the broadly held view among Germans that they can
1) ...somehow check out on having any responsibility in the world, and,
2) ...continue imagining the world can be some peaceful little dorf where people get along without making anyone else uncomfortable, shed anyone elses’ blood, or seize one anothers’ resources (as if there even exists such a dorf in Germany,) and,
3) ...abide by the vision of “peace” held by dewey-eyed adolescents.
4) ...keep that scary, icky world “away”, (after all, it’s just too far to go to these places other than on vacation,) and pretend it’s not there.

While they prefer to not be distracted by pretending their making totally unique art, or making money and expanding their economy on the back of goofy currency manipulation, they can’t keep it up for long.