From political correctness to Mind Control

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/14/times.square.investigation/index.html

Does "immigration charges" mean that the suspects in the Time Square terrorist incidence are illegal immigrants? This article doesn't mention "illegal". We certainly need to re-define our immigration laws and either enforce them or open the borders to anyone who can get across. But, please, let's speak and think clearly

In a libertarian world there would be no problem with open borders, but we don't live in a libetarian world and we're not a libertarian country. But, aside from immigration problems, we've got a speech/thought/mind problem developing. Witness Eric Holder's theater of the absurd before congress.

It's not just speech that's being threatened, it's the mind itself in trouble. Recently Obama told students something to the effect that there's too much information, too many different arguments, and many of these arguments, to Obama's way of thinking, not all that truthful. There's nothing wrong with commenting on untruthful information, but in the context of regulation it can be very troubling. Cass Sunstein has proposed ways for government to deal with speech the State believes in untruthful, even taxing conspiracy theorists.

I have read remarks from some libertarians who are all worked up over racial profiling in the Arizona immigration law, which, by the way, prohibits racial profiling, but they're not as vocal regarding the real threat to freedom -- the State's attempt to control ideas by controlling speech -- in other words, mind control. The mind is the most important thing the State can control -- without control of the mind, all kinds of mischief is possible, and the State loses control. Just imagine all those ideas out there running loose and creating havoc.

Is this a conspiracy theory? Do I have to worry about goons getting my mind right? The sad part is that many Americans have offered their minds, freely, as lumps of clay, to be molded by Those Who Know Better. It's very sad.

Metaphor exuberance

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/obama-says-republicans-cannot-have-the-keys-back-to-the-car-no-you-cant-drive.html

Throwing metaphors around like a teenage wannabe poet, Obama tells Democrats at a DCCC fundraiser:

“After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No!  You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”

The ABC article goes on:

“Now they are talking about repealing when they take over in November,” Obama exclaimed, “I’m confident that as long as we’re able to get our message out, with your help the American people aren’t going to let that happen.”

The president claimed that the Democrats had led the “most productive legislative session in history” and that while “everybody’s kinda pooped” due to the lack of “help from the other side of the aisle,” that now is the time to push on.

“After a stormy time, people may be a little sea sick. But right now the waters are calm. There on the horizon we can see our destination. Now is not the time to lose heart. Now is not the time to get complacent. Now is the time to remind ourselves of what America is all about and return Democrats to the House of Representatives.”

The president had a little backward compliment for the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who had introduced him a few moments before.

“Nancy Pelosi, that’s one tough lady. And she’s so elegant. Even as she’s ripping your heart out. If you mess with her.”

Good lord, we have cars in ditches, seasick progressive voyagers and then Nancy Pelosi elegantly ripping the hearts out of Republicans. After the rhetorical flourish, mixed metaphors and depictions of violence, we're left with 10% unemployment and debt that is truly "historical". Obama is not out of touch -- he knows the problems, but he chooses to spout sophomoric metaphors and blame the Republicans. He should be telling Democrats that their party is in danger, that the public is fed up and the messaging isn't working. Obama is saying "No" to Republicans and praising Pelosi for ripping our their hearts -- so much for bipartisanship. It's just pathetic. The political class is dysfunctional, and the sooner the whole country realizes this, the better off we'll all be.

SCOTUS anti-intellectualism

Robert Gibbs repeated Obama's desire to find a Supreme Court justice who understands people in the real-world, and then he went on to state something to the effect that they want someone who is not  book smart, like in school and classes. Seriously, this is very close to what he said.

The liberal media will attack this anti-elite, anti-intellectual, faux populism, just wait and see...and wait...and wait...and wait...

China love

There's a growing admiration among the left for China for the way the Chinese government has controlled the country's wealth to invest in infrastructure, but, not only the left, Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan joined Thomas Friedman this morning on Morning Joe glowing over China's rise as a global force.

China gets things done. Friedman said that this is Obama's goal and dream, to nation-build at home. There's a progressive idea which is building credibility through the accomplishments of China, that the government has to create a future Plan to, first of all, strengthen the people through healthcare, employment, safety net protection, the correct education, the proper environmental protection, stength of worker union against dominating, old-style capitalism, so that the foundation is formed for infrastructure across the nation -- light-rail, energy production, whatever needs to be built to help us keep up with the modern advances of China. This would include helping developing Third World nations to modernize according to modern standards.

China is admired because its government can get things done, but we have the dilemma of environmental groups, myriad regulations, which hold us back. The suggestion is that Obama and the progressives are in the process of managing regulations to balance environmentalism with the need for infrastructure and modern energy policy. The key to this is State management of the economy, central planning and social engineering. In the discussions I read and hear, there's no talk about a free market, only government management to put the missing pieces in place.

We're hearing a lot about China's capitalist success, and they are succeeding while still maintaining authoritarian control. We're not hearing about the negatives of authoritarian control, so much, as we're hearing a cautious explanaton how the Chinese governent is managing the plan and moving ahead of America. No one prominent has come straight out and recommended authoritarian control in America, but the implications are that America has to find a way to give government more control over our Plan.

You can see the Plan being implemented by the passage of healthcare, control over failing industries, current attempts to place controls over banks, proposed energy policy giving the government more control over direction of energy production, more control over education, the talk about green jobs created by government, etc. The public is reacting to these plans because they see spending going up, although there has also been some concern over growing government power and control. I'm not sure everyone fully understands the danger in the latter.

Healthcare was pushed through, and the administration believes people will grow to love it. But, the next argument is going to be very seductive. The new vision and Plan for America will promise China-like growth, infrastructure development, educational opportunites, a clean earth, jobs, jobs, jobs, and equal prosperity for all. It will be sold by appealing to nationalism, that America has to compete with China, that our country is falling behind because of greedy, self-interested Wall-Street types, that we now have to think about the common good, what's good for Americans, for our future, and that we need to lead the world once again into the future, using the flag of Democracy, fairness and equality as our guide.

The new Plan won't be fueled by old-style, jingoistic nationalism, but a modern call to join the global economy and work internationally and cooperatively to help influence the future growth and make sure that no nations are left behind. They will tell us that old capitalism has brought us to the brink of destruction, and that now a partnership between private industry and government is vital to pull us from the brink and carry us into the future. The Plan will be sold as a national effort, and everyone is asked to sacrifice and do their part, that freedom is lost if we dont act together - that without this shared sacrifice and cooperative effort, we'll sink into a backward, two-tiered society of the haves and have-nots.

Expect to hear a lot of good things about China, with the caveat that we need to emulate the good aspects and avoid the bad aspects -- the difference being that our government will be good to all our people -- but we must act now -- time is wastng. It will be reminiscent of the Western intellectuals' fawning over Stalin and the USSR in the early 20th century, but don't worry -- China is much different.

Obama's healthcare speech

Obama gave yet another healthcare speech which was full of mendacity. Obama is trying to place himself as a pragmatic middleman between free marketers and socialists, even stating that a Canadian style healthcare system is not right for America -- yet, Obama is on record calling for a single payer system and has revealed the long range plan of tweaking any reform until we get there. This is arrogant deceit which the Information Age doesn't let slip by so easily -- we have records to retrieve.

Obama also gave the deceitful impression that insurance profits are a big part of the problem -- they aren't. The profit margin for insurance companies is minimal, with no evidence of price gouging. Cost of healthcare services continues to rise, for numerous reasons, therefore insurance calculations which set the price of insurance merely follow the rise in healthcare service costs. You might be able to make a case that insurance companies' overhead, administration costs, are too high, but profit is not the problem, and it's unlikely that more government regulations will lower the overhead of insurance companies.

Healthcare services have become more costly, in large part, because of Medicare, Medicaid and regulations which say all patients have to be treated in emergency rooms. I won't argue whether these programs and regulations were necessary creations or not -- I'll simply say they are a factor in rising costs.

So, still, there are certain costs associated with providing healthcare at the level it's now provided, and taking all the insurance companies' profits wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket. Obama could institute price controls, but this doesn't address the problem in an effective way -- it would only drive providers from healthcare and cause certain services to be unavailable. Applying Obama's solution to the present regulated system will harm quality and quanity of care. It's the only logical outcome.

Well, not quite, Obama can shift the costs being paid now to the rich in the country by raising taxes enough to support a government-run healthcare system which results from people leaving private insurance companies to go to the exchange. When private companies go out of business, the government can step and do the only thing left to do -- nationalize healthcare -- which will lead to a reduction in quality and quantity. Either way, quality and quanity suffer if we are going to lower costs to the point we can afford to cover millions more people -- government will be running the show either way, it's just that nationalized healthcare is clearer.

There is one more way -- remove government from healthcare and allow the free market to handle it. This was another Obama lie -- he said the free market tried and failed. I can't remember a time when healthcare was allowed to operate under free market principles. I am still holding off on judgement and trying to stick with reality. The reality is that with increased government involvement, we're heading for single payer healthcare, nationalized healthcare -- we have to choose between government and the free market -- in this case, the mixture of the two isn't working.