I’m pretty well disgusted with the health care debate we’re having in this country. Even though I totally disagree with the notion that health care is a right and the government should be providing it, I can understand the pro-side. We just have a difference of opinion about the shape society should take. What disgusts me is the elitism that is bubbling its way up to the surface thanks to common people voicing their opposition. Here are some choice bits.

1. Barbara Boxer says protesters are too well dressed to be legitimate.

This is the most obvious form of elitism. Sen. Boxer “knows” what a real protester looks like. If a person is neatly groomed and takes care to dress appropriately, clearly they cannot be one of the common folk. The senator knows commoners are a filthy lot, often wearing dirty rags and flip-flops. Anyone dressed decently must be a paid operative of those evil Republicans. Real people are probably too drunk to show up at a town hall meeting anyway.

2. Andrea Mitchell says we don’t know what’s good for us.

Mitchell has settled the debate. We regular people are just too retarded to know what’s good for us. If only we would shut up and let our social betters run things, everything would be glorious.

3. Barack Obama wants us to stop talking.

Shutting up, isn’t that what representative democracy is all about? What better way is there for an elected official to govern but for opposition to shut up and let you do whatever you want? I wish I had the Constitution better memorized because I’m having trouble remembering the clause where it says anyone who disagrees with the president should keep it to themselves. I know it must be in there since that’s what our president has told us to do.

Really though this all goes to the heart of Progressivism. That ideology treats common people as incapable of caring for themselves. Government, run by society’s best and brightest, must step in to care for them. Barbara Boxer, Andrea Mitchell and Barack Obama clearly feel they know how to run your life better than you do. Do you think they do?

Half of me wants to laugh and half of me wants to weep. Watch this video and find out why.

I thought I was pretty harsh in my last post about people’s ignorance, but I’m rethinking that. This woman is so mindbogglingly stupid that she thinks rainbows are created by an unnamed toxic sludge dumped into the environment by a government effort to search for new energy sources. I guess her backyard sits at the corner of Paranoid Street and Stupid Lane.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that she is from Northern California. I don’t know if this is a byproduct of 60′s drug culture but this place is dominated by people just like her; totally ignorant of their own ignorance. She recorded this video because, in her mind, she was going to sound the alarm about this environmental abuse. Yet it never occurred to her to take a moment to research what causes rainbows. The thought never crossed her mind that there might be a simple explanation for it. No, she thought this phenomena was weird so immediately she just knew it was something toxic and caused by the government.

I just love that she jumped to this government conspiracy conclusion too because I would bet my paycheck that she is the type that supports a government takeover of the health care industry. She would be completely happy if the very same government that she believes is polluting her backyard with rainbows, controlled her health care.

Maybe there should be an intelligence test for voting.

Pew Research Center has proven with a simple web quiz that 90% of Americans are idiots. 0.5% are irredeemably stupid. You 0.5% can go to bed knowing you’re an anchor on human progress.

Take this quiz and find out where you stand. A normal person should get every single question right. If you have to pause on any of these, count yourself as ‘kinda dumb’.

All done? Good! Hopefully you did as well as me.

If you didn’t, well, take solace. It’s probably not your fault; not completely anyway. Ideally your brain would be interested enough to seek out knowledge on its own. Spend time reading books (non-fiction ones), magazines (no Hollywood gossip ones), blogs (find some serious ones, no gossip either). However I think the reason you haven’t sought this out already is because your education didn’t encourage it. Public education is crap. No child ever gets encouraged to search for answers. For instance, what did you ever get back from your literature classes? I remember them from high school, but I can’t think of any value I gained from that. What did I learn? We read from a set of books chosen by the teacher, and I can’t remember anything. Maybe I would have learned something from a more challenging curriculum. Instead of telling me what to read, I should have to find my own books on certain topics chosen by the teacher and write papers about them. In that sort of class I would have to learn to think abstractly. I would have to do my own research instead of briefly memorizing some plot points and forgetting them after the class. Maybe teachers can figure out some in-class presentation assignments so kids would get some experience in public speaking. Sure this class would be a lot harder, but the kids would be better for it. By finding their own books, they may even develop their own interests.

That’s just one example. That approach may not work with math and science but it definitely works for those soft and mushy social “sciences”. The problem with public education is that it’s structured to provide answers. Teachers present a problem, then present an answer. Students don’t need to think, so they never develop an interest in doing so. Then they spend the rest of their lives eating the intellectual pablum of People magazine and TMZ.

With Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling the House and Senate, they own the legislative agenda. So it looks like no matter what we’re going to end up with a massive disruption to the health care industry. I was thinking about how our society will cope when government controls the health care of most Americans. One issue grabbed my attention: abortion.

Abortion was a huge hot-button issue in the 1990s. The media spent a lot more time and ink back then covering it, and while I don’t have any statistics on this I suspect there were more protests about it back then. Today the issue feels mostly settled. Conservatives don’t like it but they have seemed to accept that Roe v. Wade isn’t going to be overturned. When Obamacare comes into force I expect abortion will roar back as an enormous social issue. When the federal government becomes every citizen’s health insurer, conservatives will not be happy paying for abortions. With the government as insurer it will have to pay with money collected as taxes. Don’t think that abortion will be an “elective” procedure and not eligible for coverage. NARAL and NOW will never ever permit Democrats to do that. And so tax money will go to pay for abortions, and there will be much outrage and protest. If Republicans want to actually derail Obamacare they should bring this up. If the health care debate can be sidetracked into the abortion quagmire, it will come to a standstill.

The American Spectator is a conservative publication I don’t normally read, but I saw a link to an article where they had a different take on the issue. They found a different abortion pitfall for Obamacare. The Roe v. Wade decision that permitted abortion nationally could make any government involvement in health care decisions unconstitutional. Before I explain TAS’s reasoning you need to understand that a key part of Obamacare is the government’s ability to decide on what treatments you’ll be allowed to have. President Obama has been saying the cost of health care is rising so fast because doctors run too many tests and prescribe too many medicines to cover their asses from malpractice lawsuits. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats will decide what tests, surgeries and medicines you are permitted to have. They can overrule your doctor and yourself if they choose.

TAS sees two ways this conflicts with Roe v. Wade.

One: The State has a legitimate interest in keeping you healthy.

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

- Roe v. Wade Decision

Roe’s language is focused on pregnant women, but that can easily be extended to all Americans.  The Supreme Court decided that the government has an interest in protecting the health of Americans. How can the government live up to that if it is denying treatments to lower costs? How can the State ever deny a hip replacement surgery to a 90 year old? The government must protect our health, and doing that requires pursuing every treatment. Denying a treatment to save money would be negligent and the government would then be liable. So much for cost savings.

Two: The right to privacy excludes the government from intruding on the patient-doctor relationship.

The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

- Roe v. Wade Decision

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy and 9th Amendment’s support for individual liberty would exclude the government from the abortion decision. It’s easy to extend “women” to all Americans, and an “abortion” can be extended to all medical procedures. I would like to see the logic that says only women have the right to make a decision on abortion, but the government can decide everything else.

So TAS concludes either Roe or Obamacare has to go. It’s a rather fascinating result and I’m happy to hear any news that could undermine the government’s takeover of our health care system. However, if this legal logic is correct, how come point two hasn’t been used to slay the twin beasts of Medicare and Medicaid?

A man placed an ad on Craigslist looking for another man to rape his wife while he watched. To be clear, his wife was not into this. This wasn’t a couple trying to spice up their relationship. Now I don’t know if he first tried to get her excited about it and she rejected this idea, or if he hatched this completely in his head.

We’re not that far off from eating babies. Seriously now, does human behavior get any more depraved than this? People have always done horrible things to each other, but what appalls me about this is this guy’s betrayal of his wife. I think it goes without saying that you don’t offer up your friends or family to be raped. I suppose you’re also not supposed to do that to complete strangers too, but if you’re sick enough to do it, you would think you would start with a stranger. Instead this guy offers up his wife, the person he is supposed to be closest to, so he could get a sexual thrill.

Really now, does it get worse than this? I could imagine someone answering back that maybe if the guy offered up his children instead of his wife, but I don’t see that as a great deal different. He would still be torturing his close family to get a cheap thrill.

I’d like someone to ask him what he thought would be the end of result of his action. Did he expect his wife to turn to him at the end and say, “Wow hun! That rape was hot! I’m going to cook you your favorite dinner,” and everything would work out for him? Did he actually think this was totally worth going to jail for?

Stick a fork in the human race. We’re done.

Is today Earth Day? I always thought it was on April 20th, which struck me as an odd choice because that’s Weed Day and Hitler’s birthday. Well, I suppose the association with pot makes some sense. Apparently though, April 22 is Earth Day this year. Not sure why. I’m pretty confused.

But in keeping with the day let’s salute Gaia with a circle of idiots!

Just seeing this makes me lose all respect for the human race. Seriously, that’s not exaggeration. I feel like humanity is irredeemable. It pushes me beyond frustration to think that these people believe what they’re doing matters. A tree can’t understand English! They will never understand that you love them. The trees don’t love you either just so you know.

May the sun explode and wipe us all out. It’ll be no great loss.

I am just a hopeless pessimist. Here I sit worrying about the state of the country and the world. Why? Well a few things come to mind: the imminent bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, pirates off the Horn of Africa, China expressing concern over our debt levels, budget cuts to the missile shield, an ever rising unemployment rate, a media in bed with the White House, a war in Afghanistan getting worse. There’s probably more if I think real hard. However all of this proves I’m just an idiot who can’t see the forest for the trees because George F. Will has identified the real worry; the one, single snowball that rolled into the avalanche that is destroying society – jeans.

Yes, George Will took time to castigate the lazy, slovenly Americans who persist in wearing denim everywhere. Because really, what other problems are there?

Actually I planned to write a much longer post about Will’s fashion don’ts column, but then I read this post on Lileks. I can’t top that. If I try, I’ll fail and probably end up ripping off a lot of that good material in the process. Here’s an excerpt to whet your appetite.

We can gather much from this, aside from the fact that the tea was tepid when served that morning, which always puts one in a querulous humour. We can assume he hasn’t seen more than two seconds of “King of the Hill,” a very clever show that’s firmly on the side of the folk who share his instincts and understands their culture far better than Mr. Will does. (Hank Hill is a man haunted by Oughts of all sorts, constantly parsing the demands of modern life with the Oughts that arise from being a middle-aged Texan father who deals with propane. And propane accessories.) The self-contented sneer against animation suggests no disrespect for the thing itself, but rather the moving drawings aimed at adults. They should content themselves with the amusing engravings in Punch, which stay in one place and do not excite the blood.

Read the whole post. It’s smart, wry and hilarious.

Tenuously related, and also quite funny is this old SNL clip about George Will I saw today on Ace of Spades. I actually remember watching this on TV as a kid when it was brand new. I shouldn’t have found it all that funny back then, but I was a weird child who loved to watch This Week with David Brinkley, so it really struck a chord with me.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

¹⁴And the State of Hawaii went forth, and saw a great disaster in Polihale State Park, and was moved with compassion, and proposed funding $4 million to repair.

¹⁵And when the State of Hawaii examined its budget, his accountants came to him, saying, This budget is a desert place, and the funding is not allocated; send the multitude of merchants of Polihale State Park, that they may go into the villages, and find themselves other jobs.

¹⁶But the State of Hawaii said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them a date two years hence when the repairs shall be.

¹⁷And they say unto him, We have here but a simple bridge repair.

¹⁸He said, Bring the plans hither to me.

¹⁹And he took the bridge repair job, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and wasted time, and overspent on labor and supplies.

²⁰And they did all plan $4 million to build a short bridge two years hence.

– The Book of the Bureaucrats: Chapter 14: Verses 14-20.

Yes the State of Hawaii worked a miracle. A bridge was destroyed in Polihale State Park thanks to bad flooding. Hawaii figured replacing that bridge would cost $4 million and couldn’t be done for two years. The merchants whose livelihoods depend on tourists visiting the park found that intolerable and actually did something about it. They replaced the bridge in eight days for a cost far less than $4 million. Hawaii took a simple construction project, and using the power of bureaucracy, turned it into an expensive and time-consuming one. Government be praised!

Gee, I can’t wait until the government is in charge of my healthcare.

Not being a parent this may have slipped under my radar for some time, but a fight over the rights of parents is brewing in Congress. Republicans in the House have introduced a bill to amend the Constitution and add a Parental Bill of Rights. When I first heard the news I dismissed the idea as ridiculous. Why should the government bestow rights upon families? It feels so wrong to me considering how the parent-child relationship long pre-dates the government.

Then again I didn’t know about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This UN treaty defines certain rights every signatory nation is supposed to guarantee for children. Immediately I have to ask why is this the UN’s business. The UN is supposed to be a forum between nations. Why is it trying to legislate when it is not a government?

It would be a nice idea to read through the treaty’s actual text, but what loser has that much time on their hands? It has 54 articles! Okay I’m a loser. I actually did read the treaty. I got caught up in the preamble and it didn’t seem so bad. Here I’ll summarize the 54 articles. If you’re also a total loser read along side with a copy of the treaty from that earlier link.

Article 1: Sets a definition of a child. I don’t understand the caveat though. “…unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” Majority? Is that some legal term for adulthood?

Article 2: No discrimination.

Article 3: Best interest of the child is primary concern.

Article 4: Every nation that agrees to this treaty must also pass whatever laws necessary to make its provisions part of the nation’s law.

Article 5: Parents (or legal guardians) have their own rights and responsibilities (which are unnamed) that must be respected by signatory nations.

Article 6: This looks to me like the very first contentious part. “…every child has the inherent right to life.” Unless you go back to rewrite article one and tighten up the definition of a child, here is the basis for a ban on abortion. After all, article four says you must pass laws that implement these treaty articles.

Article 7: I find it amusing that the UN is essentially granting the right to bureaucracy. “The child shall be registered immediately after birth…” *whew* What a weight off my mind. Every child can expect to be entered into a record.

Article 8: This looks like a leftist dream. This forces nations to preserve a child’s identity. Identity includes nationality. Now we can have lawsuits by NGOs who demand governments pay more money into lame cultural programs so minority children will feel their nationalities are being celebrated. Yes, cultural assimilation cannot be allowed.

Article 9: I find this to be an exercise in pointless legalese. Basically, nations will ensure a child is not separated from their parents except in cases where the nation thinks a child should be separated from their parents. This is pure feel-good legislation. The delegates must have wanted to have some strong moral stand on keeping families together, but knew it would undermine state authority to confiscate a child. Not to mention it would screw with divorce laws too.

Article 10: Any child who wishes to leave one nation for another, for the purpose of being reunited with parents, shall be treated with smiles and sunshine by both nations.

Article 11: Every nation must do something to combat child trafficking.

Article 12: Every child has a right to express their feelings about their own welfare. No one really has to listen to them, but they do get to speak their piece.

Article 13: Freedom of Expression - I guess this is supposed to be some guarantee for permission to pursue arts and education. There are lots of caveats though so nations can wiggle out of it if they’re determined. After all you don’t want muslim girls to be allowed to read do you?

Article 14: A nation must respect the freedom of thought and religion of a child, but also respect the right of parents to direct a child’s thought and religion. Religion and beliefs can be limited to protect public safety.

Article 15: Children have a right of free association and assembly. This right is totally unrestricted except where the national government wants to limit it; all in the interest of public safety of course!

Article 16: Children have a right to privacy and honor, and the law must protect that.

Article 17: Mass media is important and government “shall ensure that the child has access to” that media. Government should also encourage mass media to educate and promote good moral values. The media should also be encouraged to create books in minority languages. This last section sounds like an excuse for governments to throw money at publishing books in obscure languages that nobody will read. By the way who will define those values I’d like to know.

Article 18: Nations will make their best effort to recognize that both parents have responsibilities for raising a child. Oh and by the way, governments “shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities”. So welfare is now a right for parents. Good to know.

Article 19: Nations must protect children from all forms of violence. I think this is one of the articles that have social conservatives worried. This could be intrepreted as an anti-spanking order.

Article 20: A child who is removed from their family must be cared for by the government.

Article 21: This article emphasizes that countries with adoption programs must ensure children aren’t being sold or given to idiots who can’t care for children.

Article 22: Refugee children are also covered by this treaty, and nations must cooperate in efforts to reunite these children with their families.

Article 23: Disabled children have a right to special care. In some contorted logic, that special care “shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents…” So it will be free if you can afford to provide it free. Otherwise it costs money I guess. I’m really getting sick of reading passages like this where the treaty says you must do X, but only if you think you can. They’re meaningless. Either something is a requirement or its not. What a waste of words.

Article 24: This is some mini-proclamation on children’s rights to health care. Reading it I get the feeling it’s actually saying all children have a right to have health care provided by the state. I hope I’m not being confused by UN-speak, but what else could “…ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children…” mean? It goes on to include encouraging some health programs in the third world, and that the first world should pay for it. Oh excuse me. I mean the first world should “cooperate”.

Article 25: Children taken away from their parents have a right to have that decision reviewed periodically. It doesn’t say what the period is though, so I guess we could schedule one review every twenty years.

Article 26: Here’s another right to bureaucracy article! This one bestows the right to social insurance in accordance with local eligibility laws. So put another way, every child is entitled to social insurance if the government says they are.

Article 27: Every child has a right to a standard of living adequate for their “physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.” It gets even better. One section says that parents are responsible for providing that standard, but government shall assist those who cannot afford to implement this right. So it’s really a legal guarantee for welfare.

Article 28: Generally speaking, education is an inalienable right, but there are some fun sections in here. Primary education must be free and mandatory for all children. Government should be encouraging secondary education for every child by making it free or offering financial aid to poor students. College should be available to all children, but at least there’s no words about making it free. There should be free school guidance counselors for all though. School discipline must be maintained in accordance with this treaty, so I guess that means no more Boards of Education.

Article 29: Let’s call this the “Respect Everyone Clause”! Every country’s education system must preach respect for everything under the sun. Parents are in the list. The child’s cultural identity, language and values along with everyone else’s identity, language and values. The Charter of the UN is also mentioned believe it or not, as well as the environment. I’m actually a little surprised Muslim countries accepted equality of the sexes and tolerance.

Article 30: Minority children, along with “other members of his or her group”, should have the right to maintain their own culture. Wasn’t there another clause that protected minorities? This one is hardly about children anyway. It cover all in a minority group.

Article 31: Children have the right to play.

Article 32: This one bans child labor, but I don’t think conservatives should worry. It’s worded so that I don’t think it could regulate chores as home.

Article 33: Children should be banned from using narcotics.

Article 34: Don’t sexually abuse children.

Article 35: No trafficking in children.

Article 36: Any kind of exploitation of children should be banned. This article is very vague. I wonder if it could be twisted into something troublesome.

Article 37: No torture or executions of children are permitted, neither is a sentence of life without parole. Child prisoners should be kept separately from adult prisoners. Finally, every child can challenge their detention in court.

Article 38: This sets an age limit of 15 for being a soldier.

Article 39: All children damaged by abuse, neglect, torture, wartime, or whatever shall be rehabilitated by the state.

Article 40: This is the longest article so far and it seems to be an extension of article 37. It covers a variety of ways children are treated in a legal system. For one they must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Isn’t that going to cause a conflict with some legal systems? Hell, doesn’t Louisiana presume guilt first? Children must be informed of their charges and get legal counsel. They can’t be compelled to testify against themselves. They have a right to appeal. They have a right to an interpreter. There must also be a law that sets an age below which children are not considered capable of committing a crime. There are so many specific provisions in this article I expect it must conflict with several established legal systems.

Article 41: If national law gives more rights to a child, then it supersedes this treaty.

Article 42: Governments must make the rights in this treaty widely known.

Article 43: This is another long one. It creates the “Committee on the Rights of the Child” which will judge countries on how well they implement this treaty.

Article 44: Details on how nations will report their progress in implementing this treaty.

Article 45: Other UN organizations may assist in implementing this treaty.

Articles 46 through 54: These spell out the formal diplomatic crap. Stuff like when the treaty takes effort or a process for amending the treaty.

*WHEW* I can’t believe I went through all that. Did you skip ahead? Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised. My verdict… The treaty is probably harmless. It’s so full of caveats and loopholes it seems to undermine itself. Sure its vagueness could have potential to cause problems and I guess that’s what conservatives are worried about.

Honestly I don’t support the treaty. I don’t think children need to have specially enumerated rights. They should be treated the same as any citizen. I also don’t think this is any business of the UN. The UN has no place in the relationship between citizen and government.

However I also can’t support a US Bill of Parental Rights. I don’t think this lame treaty will actually harm the country. I don’t want to further risk the creation of more stupid laws through a bill designed to guard against a treaty I don’t think will do any harm. Ideally neither treaty nor bill would be passed, but if the Democrats are obsessed with forcing Americans to be like everyone else and ram this treaty through the Senate, I don’t think it will make any difference.

This day is an embarassment. Today US sailors retreated under gunfire from Somali pirates. The sailors did not return fire. How have we come to this? How is it that the US Navy is being held at bay by a gang of pirates?

The West is a civilization of cowards. Europe and now America are incapable of showing any fortitude. You would think pirates of all people would be dealt with quickly and harshly. Instead here we are standing around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for the FBI to fly in and start a criminal investigation. WHY?!?! Pirates do not have rights. Pirates get shot and dumped in the ocean. That’s it. There are no negotiations or investigations. For centuries when a navy found a pirate vessel, they hunted it down. Every pirate was killed and there was no question that was the correct action. When did that change? When did piracy become respectable? How can pirates have defenders?

Today the US Navy should take on the role the British held in the 19th century and police the oceans. Britain was at the height of its naval prominence and used that to keep the world’s shipping lanes open and safe. The continual growth in world trade was thanks to Britain. Now that the US has the dominant navy we should take up that responsibility. Do you think the British had any qualms about killing pirates? I don’t and America shouldn’t. We should hunt them down and kill them. Sink their ships and leave them to drown. Execute them and dump them in the ocean. Bomb their ports and give them no place to shelter. This is what pirates deserve and nothing more.

Our civilization is over. If we’re going to quiver over what to do with pirates, we’re no match for a real military.  The West shall drift and decay until some other civilization realizes our incapability. Then we will be no more.