Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 26th, 2009

[Cross-posted at The Hostages.]

I don’t often wander in to the fever swamps of the Huffington Poo.  Prolonged exposure to forceful ignorance coupled with a nearly incurable resistance to logic tends to drive my blood pressure to levels that are unsafe.  However, today I was spoiling for a fight, and as billed, the Poo did not disappoint. 

This loverly post from a blogger at ‘The Campaign for America’s Future’ tries to make the case that Americans who are not on board with the health care reform plan before Congress are like children trapped in the throes of “the Terrible Twos”, and in emulation of the Dear Leader’s “We won and we’re bringing CHANGE! with us!” style, it has never even occurred to him that “Because Dear Leader Wants It” is not a good reason to pass an unconstitutional bill that will forever destroy the notion of privacy and freedom from an intrusive and overbearing government as the hallmark of life in the United States of America.  And because ignorant condescension and a predilection towards making others responsible for the cost of his health care just wasn’t enough, he had to toss in some racism too, in true liberal fashion.

Because the simplistic analysis is just too damn good to give away wholesale here, I’ll just hit you with some highlights of this careful consideration piece:

What we’re seeing from the health care town halls, what we’ve seen from the “birthers” and what we saw during the campaign is essentially what I call “Tyranny of the Tantrum,” which many parents encounter at the onset of the “terrible twos.”

“Tyranny of the Tantrum”?  How silly is this?  The angry constituents aren’t the ones intimidating and suppressing the opinions of others.  That’s left for the rent-a-mob union members being bussed in and given preferential entry to these meetings, to the exclusion of constituents.  The tyranny is taking it upon yourself, with the enthusiastic support of the gimme-gimme class, to continue to root around in our pockets to pay for programs by which you give of the fruits of our labor to others without our consent, and without even showing the courage to face our wrath when you undertake a program to fundamentally change and expand the role of government in our lives.  Tyranny is having the temerity to characterize such an invasive intrusion as something that is “good for us.”

Put another way, they don’t like transitions — that uncertain period between the end of one thing and the beginning of another, when they’re not quite sure what’s happening, where they’re going or what’s next. They just want to either keep doing what they were doing or go back to where they were, because it’s what they’ve gotten accustomed to.

Thank you for demonstrating one of the major failings of the public indoctrination system that masquerades as “education”.  It has left you completely unable to apply critical thinking to a situation like this.  People aren’t mad because they are unsure of where this is going.  They are angry because they see exactly where this is going and they can see their elected officials, including the President, brazenly lying to them about it.  And once these public servants decided to slander and and belittle them, rather than be mindful of their roles, the righteous anger gathered steam.

Being the adult, the grow-up, the parent, etc., I know we can’t stay in the same place indefinitely. I know sooner or later, we have to put the groceries in the car and go home, or stop playing long enough to have dinner. I know that the transition — whether from the grocery cart to the car, or from the bathtub to the towel — is a necessary part of moving on to what’s next, even if my two-year-old doesn’t.

Supporting the idea that government has to provide an entitlement is the least ‘adult’ behavior that you can muster.  And while its slightly amusing that you think that bringing this monumental abdication of personal responsibility to pass is “necessary” and part of this nation “moving on”, your unquestioning and slavish dedication to this idea marks an underlying lack of courage to command your own destiny and live like a free man, or unforgivable laziness and a willingness to sponge of the labor of others who have that courage and have not yet grown sufficiently annoyed with the endemic corruption of a government that believes that charity is foolish but welfare is noble.

That’s what the town halls have devolved into — the tyranny of the tantrum. The behavior we’re seeing is basically the extreme of the Republican base kicking and screaming because they believe that if they throw a big enough tantrum, they can hold off change, turn back the transition period already begun, and keep things the way they are — or go back to the way they were.

No.  what they have devolved into is the re-focusing of attention of a free people who have too long been distracted from being more mindful of what our elected officials have been up to, because our two income lives necessitated by the modern welfare state has had us spending too long picking up the tab for others while we still try to enjoy our own lives with what the government has not yet taken from us.   We bought into the notion that government should be generous for us because it was “the right thing to do”, and despite having all the evidence in the world of the theft you were committing against us right before our eyes, we still allowed ourselves to be distracted.  As a result we elected the same grifters who took pleasure in using our money to buy votes in the first place.  Billions in fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid?  We’ll have to send Joe Smith back to Congress to deal with that.  Thousands of dollars for midnight basketball?  Preposterous!  Jane Doe can fix that if we re-elect her! 

No more.  The spectre of a tax regime that borders on confiscatory coupled with nothing less than the eventual take over of the best health care system in the world, and with it, more power than any dime-store tyrant could ever want have brought these activities into clear, sharp focus.  We are paying attention now, and although some of these elected officals would like to believe that the complacency that has made their systematic betrayal of the American people and the American ideal possible will once again be draped across the slumbering eyes of their constituents, the fact is that some of them are coming to terms with the uncomfortable reality that they will soon need to looking for honest work if they have not been able to curry enough favor with leftist causes who can serve as their Sugar Daddies in their twilight years.

Neither can we turn back the clock (nor should we) to a time when the president and most of the Supreme Court (to name two seats of power), were guaranteed to be white— something many townhall screamers, birthers, and McCain/Palin rally attendees would like to return to, whether they say as much or not.

Your unfortunate and intellectually bankrupt claim of racism is not supported by fact.  Unlike liberals, who will claim racism, sexism, and any other form of victimhood when it allows them an advantage, or an opportunity to have a discussion about the real issues the claim was made to avoid, conservatives, the real ones, not the ones you attempt to appoint for us, do not care about a person’s race when it comes to them serving in public office.  Our litmus test is much less subjective then how well a candidate or nominee establishes their victim identity or street cred.  We simply want to know:

1)  Has the candidate read and understood the Consitution?; and

2) Are they willing to do their jobs in accordance with it, rather than engaging in tortured interpretations of it that bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate the document beyond any understandable reading of it in order to justify laws and policies that do violence to it, or make rulings on such justifications that amount to usurpation of powers never assigned to them by it.  These are usually marked by stretched-to-the-breaking-point applications of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, and magic penumbras that only certain ‘sympathetic’ Justices can ascertain and describe.  That’s it.  

Oh, and when we talk about racism, it is because there are objective manifestations that we can point to.  We can give examples, and do so, unlike liberals who make general and unsubstantiated statements like the one above.  When we point it out, it is because we want to discuss it, not because we want to supress discussion.   When we point it out, it is because we want to improve the quality of political dialogue, not because we want to perpetuate a victim status as a means to avoid owning our lives and the choices that we have made in making them what they are today.  When we talk about it, it is to help people to overcome, rather than wallow in an excuse.   For an ‘adult’, you seem firmly rooted in an extremely childish worldview, Mr. Heath.  The biggest piece of the analysis that you fail to make is that no matter how much you may want others to do for you, it is selfish and woefully misinformed to think that it is desirable or wise for you to insist upon that for the rest of us.  The good news is that you still live in a free country, and you have the opportunity to grow up.

 

Read Full Post »