Tuesday, July 28, 2009
President Obama is a smart man, though, and he knows the legislation isn't about actually providing health care. Oddly enough, it has much more to do with his stance on the Cambridge Police department issue he spoke about so briefly, which Mark Steyn addressed very well here.
Those who have read the bill are wondering why President Obama is lying about what it will do and what it contains. Why does this bill create an Office of Civil Rights and an Office of Minority Health? Why does it state that colleges that have a reputation for an aggressive minority acceptance level in medical school will have more access to money?
This isn't about improving access to health care. It isn't "reform." This is a method of introducing stealth reparations that will destroy an imperfect but nevertheless best health care system in the world.
He's pursuing new inequality ostensibly on the theory that this will somehow mitigate past wrongs. Unfortunately, it instead simply introduces new wrongs that will have to rectified at some point in the future, and fires up racial discord.
This bill is a community action plan to advance minorities at the expense of a majority that already largely believes in equality. It's just wrong.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
They should live by the laws they create rather than having special privileges and perks. We should call them and let them know they better make a law to that effect. I'll be doing that today.
I thought of another idea while considering this. What if Senators and Congresspeople were mandated by law to receive a salary equal to the average (we'll go with the median) salary of their constituents?
They would have instant motivation to improve the standard of living for their districts. Right now, they're busy trying to increase their income and power in every way they can. Let's tie that directly to the financial success of the people they represent. The trouble would be getting them to pass that legislation, but with enough pressure, it could happen.
Friday, July 17, 2009
What's condescending or racial? Sen. Barbara Boxer (full disclosure, I think she's lacking in intellectual ability and often call her Boxofhair) chooses to only cite African American groups to Mr. Alford, apparently trying to change his mind by quoting "his people." That's deeply offensive, as most of us believe people are people no matter what color their skin may be. The National Black Chamber of Commerce objects to Boxer's environmental legislation because it will hurt the economy, African American businesses right along with everyone else, and that's his only concern, not how other groups who happen to share skin tone feel about it.
What's worse is Sen. Boxer's very condescending tone. She feels these African American groups should be "proud" to be read into the official record. Is that a pat on the head or a gold star on the chart for the nice African American man you permitted into the Senate chamber, Sen. Boxer?
The defensive statement about her husband having served in the military is ludicrous. It's amazing to me that a senator would turn a discussion essentially into a pissing match. It's also notable that her husband paid for her senate seat, something that California voters should help to rectify by selecting a better representative for our state as soon as she's up for reelection.
Oh, and I wonder why Barbara Boxer didn't object to Mr. Alford calling her Ma'am.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal and social questions to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements. It must be uniformly effective. Despite widely varying doses received by individuals and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals, it also must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects and it must not affect members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.Michelle Malkin also wrote about this here, including an image of the material quoted above.
In other words, it's fine to sterilize people, just not animals. By the way, it's notable that a biogenic spermicidal variant of corn is under development. I thought that might be just a conspiracy theory, but it seems to be true.
While we're on the subject of government imposed Eugenics programs, Glenn spent some time on the progressive movement today, too. It's worth a read and it can be found here.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The section I'm most interested in should be given with some context:
Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?To understand why that last answer is so shocking, you'll have to know some history. There was a concept popular in the early 1900's called Eugenics. The idea was that undesirables, such as those with genetic defects, members of what were at the time considered "inferior" races, and so forth, would be discouraged from reproducing, while those who were genetically desirable wold be encouraged to have children. The concept was a part of the Progressive movement, and proponents included Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Progressives, of course, believed in enlightened fascism for the benefit of humankind, and the movement was popular until WWII showed the ugly, logical end of their ideology, and it fell from favor with the public.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
What's shocking, then, is decades after many ideas of the progressive movement were discredited, Justice Ginsburg still thought Roe v. Wade was about eliminating undesirable populations through abortion. Note at the time she was not a Supreme Court justice, she was teaching at Columbia University, on ACLU's board and was also general counsel. That interpretation of Roe v. Wade is eugenics, and she expected that we would naturally fund abortions through Medicaid to reduce the poor population. If that doesn't sound horrific enough for you, think of it from an elitist authoritarian socialist point of view: "Those dirty lower classes breed like roaches. We really should use tax money to help them murder their young, like drowning unwanted kittens in a sack in order to avoid paying for their social needs in the future."
It is not entirely clear from the answer if the understanding Justice Ginsburg had of Roe v. Wade was because she shared that progressive attitude toward the poor and other "undesirables," but given how she rules as a member of SCOTUS, it seems likely that she does.
If so, it should be less surprising that our last few presidential administrations have incorporated progressive ideas into their governance. Apparently, there's been an unbroken line if progressive ideologists building their movement quietly until its culmination, which may very well be the present administration.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure you’ll all going to have wonderful careers.
Just today I see a new story about how Obama lied about something else. In this case he nominated Arne Duncan to Secretary of Education and claimed that he'd done much in improving Chicago’s schools. Turns out, not so much:
Why does Obama have such a disrespect for the truth that he makes lies so casually?
In December, Obama said that during a seven-year tenure, Duncan had boosted elementary school test scores "from 38% of students meeting the standards to 67%" — a gain of 29 percentage points. But the new report found that, adjusting for changes in tests and procedures, students' pass rates grew only about 8 percentage points.
Obama also said Chicago's dropout rate "has gone downevery year he's been in charge." Though that's technically true, the committee says it's still unacceptably high: About half of Chicago students drop out of the city's non-selective-enrollment high schools. And more than 70% of 11th-graders fail to meet state standards, a trend that "has remained essentially flat" over the past several years.
It's time for people reading the news to stop caring about what Obama says and pay attention to what he does.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Well, another fascinating story has come up. On July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, Al Gore included in his comments, "But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements." As the evidence mounts that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, the secondary (or primary?) goals of the movement force its proponents to keep pushing ahead, undeterred by science.
As Mr. Gore indicated above, global governance is a huge part of the movement. The other part is global socialism, as Christine Stewart, Canada's former environment minister helped to explain: "Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." On another occasion, she said, "No matter if the science is all phony, there is still collateral environmental benefits to global warming policies." More on the flaws in the theory are detailed a couple of times in this blog, and Christine Stewart's quotation was included in this earlier post.
The biggest fear of the movement is that humanity won't do much of anything about their theories and the cycles of warming and cooling will, in time, be clearly linked to solar activity. This is not to say humankind has no impact, just that we don't, and can't have the type of impact activists would like us to believe.
If we make a massive effort, then any cooling might be attributed to that effort, and the sham can continue. If not, then the movement and its intended goals of global governance and global socialism will fail. It's little wonder Mr. Gore and his followers are trying so frantically to stir people and governments to action.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
An openly socialist country is now seen as having a more business-friendly tax environment than the U.S. If we'd like to keep any of our businesses, now would be a good time to turn our policies around. A glimpse of the future of the U.S. comes from California, where businesses are leaving by the tens of thousands, fleeing over regulation and high taxes.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Homeopathy is one of the worst kinds of pseudoscience, in that it can lead people to avoid real treatment for what ails them. I guess you just have to laugh at it.
Pay close attention to the signs they pass on the gurney.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
She replied, "The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: 'You vote for revenue and your career is over.' I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair."
Terrorism is an awfully strong word. Others have covered how ludicrous it is in a republic to call the exercise of one's right to representation "terrorism." When a representative fails to do her constituency's will, she should expect to be ousted from office.
I have another word for Karen Bass. "Entitlement." We mostly use that as a bad word these days, referring to a right considered so basic to humanity that it's unalienable.
Such rights do exist. By virtue of being a citizen of this free republic, you have the right to assembly, free speech and independent press, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. These rights the founders considered basic and necessary to a free humanity, and enshrined as unalienable in the United States.
The right to keep your elected office if you flout the will of the voters isn't unalienable, but is so taken for granted in California that Karen Bass believes it is. How shocking. I hope her constituency will reject her version of entitlement and exercise their right to proper representation despite our heavily gerrymandered districts by introducing madame Bass to this kind of "terrorism" and voting her out of office.