Category Archive: Progressive Derangement

That slippery slope is going to be quite a ride.

A friend noted that one of our local television stations had prematurely labeled church vandalism (Nazi-esque, pro-Donald Trump graffiti spray-painted on the exterior) in a southern Indiana county last February as a “hate crime”, prior to discovering that, in fact, the church organist vandalized the building as a protest against Donald Trump.

Talk about egg on their face.  But, nah, let’s talk about “hate crimes” instead.

On some level, all crimes are potentially hate crimes. Designating certain types of crimes as official hate crimes under law is an exercise in legislative opinion (and as a primarily-political opinion, it makes for bad law). It’s all well and good to fix in law that vandalism of a religious property is a hate crime, to be prosecuted with special attention to the mental state of the perpetrator; but once you have designated one thing as a hate crime, you’ve got a foot stuck in the door to eventually broadening the definition of a hate crime. And we’re already headed down that slippery slope, with “thoughtcrime” already being sanctioned, however unofficially, by the media and by various Internet services like Facebook and Twitter.

And you thought 1984 was just a book.  “Two-Minutes Hate,” anyone?

I, for one, strongly believe that tearing down Confederate memorials is a hate crime. Not because I hold any brief for slavery, or for the rebels and their ill-conceived secession and the war it engendered, but because to destroy or remove these monuments destroys our national history out of no emotion other than hatred for that history. As an historian, I strongly believe that we MUST embrace our history honestly, warts and all, and not try to erase the “uncomfortable” parts just to make ourselves feel better.

On the other hand, there are people out there who believe the opinion I just expressed is itself a hate crime. The next thing we know, it may become a hate crime to express opinions that are out of the mainstream.*  If you think that’s impossible, don’t think the First Amendment will protect us from that; remember, the Second Amendment is very clear that the right to bear arms is not to be infringed, yet there exists a multitude of local, state, and federal laws that significantly infringe the right. Legislators can always find a way to get around the Bill of Rights, and with the right (meaning the left) judges in place, they can take away God-given rights we have long thought inviolable.

Don’t be so quick to label anything as a hate crime. Or at least, wait until the investigation is complete and the facts of the case have been made public. Remember that a lie can make it around the world twice while the truth is still lacing up its boots.

_________________________

* Oh, wait — as I pointed out, it already is, on Facebook and Twitter.

It’s not moral relativism to blame both sides.

I was accused of moral relativism on Facebook when I stated that both sides were to blame in Charlottesville.  This was supposedly because, by blaming both sides equally, I was entirely absolving one side from blame in the death of the young woman who was struck by the jerk in the car.

I can’t parse that, and you probably can’t either.  To me, that young woman would still be alive today if both sides had stayed the hell home.  There is indeed blame on both sides.  Both sides are full of hate and both sides espouse hate.  That one side in this particular contretemps espouses hate against non-whites, and the other side espouses hate against those who hate non-whites, seems immaterial to me.  Either side is as bad as the other.

After all, the SS blackshirts were just as bad as the SA brownshirts whom they destroyed.  But that’s history, after all, and not many people actually learn history anymore.  But the analogy holds.

I was so assaulted because I dared (in this person’s opinion, anyway) to diminish the culpability of the white supremacists who, after all, started it all by having their protest in the first place.  However, I suspect the real reason for this assault on my integrity is merely because the person who did so is a rabid neverTrumper who will never back down from his now-untenable position; I mean, come on, the guy was elected and he’s president, and he’s not a Nazi.  And by insisting that I’m letting the Nazis off by including antifa in the mix, this person is implicitly stating that antifa bears no blame whatsoever.  Does he support antifa?  I’m going to guess he’d be horrified if someone told him that.  But that’s what he’s doing by claiming it’s moral relativism to blame antifa equally with the Nazi group for the death of that young woman.

As I told him repeatedly, if antifa hadn’t shown up, that young woman would still be alive.  But it would have been even better if neither side had shown up at all.

However, the main point this person misses in the process of being all het up about spreading the blame around is that any culpability for the young woman’s death is not placed on the group — it’s placed on the person who actually ran that car down the street and killed her with it.  And that’s an important point.

In our system, the group to which that young fool belonged won’t be on trial anywhere except in the court of public opinion.  The court of law that will try said young fool for vehicular homicide isn’t going to be interested in his political views, or what hate group he happens to belong to — they will be concerned only with his disregard for the law and the consequences of that disregard.  And that is because our courts are courts of law, not courts of political justice.

Make no mistake — antifa would like nothing better than for our courts to become courts of political justice, wherein they could, in Stalinesque show trials, condemn the 1% to death and then start in on the bourgeois middle class.  Which is why I oppose antifa as much as I oppose asshole white supremacists who dress up in swastika-festooned clothing, wave the swastika flag, and play at being National Socialists just like the bunch of pin-headed, slack-jawed wanna-be Hitler Youth they are.

These two groups are two sides of the same adulterated coin.  National Socialists vs. International Socialists.  All left-wing, no matter how hard the left tries to push them off on the right (the soi-disant “alt-right” being little more than a fabrication of feverish brains on the left side of the spectrum).  All of the repugnant ideologies on parade last weekend, nay, since it became clear that Donald Trump was a serious threat to Hillary Clinton’s coronation, originated on the left.  The KKK?  A left-wing Democrat institution for many, many years.  Fascists and Nazis were both leftists, and made no bones about being leftists, despite generations of Gramscian historians who have tried to frame them as being phenomena of the far-right.  Black Lives Matter?  Left-wing anarchists with a desire to destroy the police as a force for civil order.  Name a disruptive domestic terrorist group that has been in the ascendant in the past two or three years, and every one of them is a tool of the left.  Hell, even the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a leftist tool of destruction, by tarring innocent and well-meaning right-wing organizations with the “hate group” moniker.

And they are all to blame for what happened last weekend.  Because they have weakened the social structure of this country to the point where such things not only can happen, they are happening — with great regularity.

What is most alarming about this is that the number of people actually involved in these actions is tiny in comparison to the rest of the country.  In other words, we could easily scrum ’em if we chose to.

I fear we’re coming to that.  And sooner than we think.  It’s going to be messy.

And there won’t be a damn thing that’s morally relative about it.

And the response from the left? *crickets*

You know what irks me more than anything else about the Scalise assassination attempt?

None of my liberal friends have explicitly disowned or condemned what happened yesterday. Except for a few non-specific posts about sadness that people can be evil, I’ve seen nothing on the left like the posts I’ve seen on the right.

No human being should be anything but outraged about what happened on that ball field yesterday. I used to think that was a universal moral imperative. Now I’m not so sure the other side believes in moral anything anymore.

If the left wants to be taken seriously in the future, it needs to step up, condemn this violence, and start disowning antifa and BLM and all the other lefty hate groups they’ve allowed to spring up.

The left can spend all day pointing fingers at what they claim is a neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist fringe right (which is hilarious, because real Nazis and Fascists were socialists, as I have pointed out numerous times on this blog), but the fact is that nobody on the right is going around tearing up college campuses, play-acting presidential assassinations, and now shooting politicians for no reason other than that they are Republicans. We’re on a slippery slope to escalation right now, and all the left is doing with their hippie tears is greasing the ways to general insurrection. Hope they can live with that when it matures into open warfare.

And if any of my left wing friends read this and become angry, tough toenails. You own this mess because you couldn’t accept the results of an election that proved the country really didn’t want your fundamental transformation. Don’t try to shift the blame off on people who just want to be left alone and get on with their lives.

My biggest problem with the left at the moment, though, is that they don’t seem to realize how much damage they’re doing to their own party’s legitimacy. They need to consider very carefully what is going on in the hearts and minds of the silent majority who were responsible for Donald Trump’s election. The actions of the left — or more to the point, their inaction in stopping the political and actual violence taking place in their name — only cements the desire in the hearts and minds of the silent to throw more of them to the curb. While some may consider that a good thing, I don’t. Tension between left and right is healthy in a democratic republic. The actions of the fringe left coupled with the inaction of the soi-disant “moderate” left threatens that tension and thereby threatens the very fabric of the Republic. For that reason alone, the left has a vested interest in controlling their run-wild fringe before they bring down all before them.

You want more Trump? Because…oh, you know the drill.

Well…that’s how you get more Trump.

Steve Scalise, aide shot in Virginia

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told Fox News he left just before the shooting. As he walked to his car, a man asked DeSantis if it was Republicans or Democrats practicing. About three minutes later, at around 7:15 a.m. the shooting began, DeSantis said. It reportedly last about 10 minutes.

All y’all on the left really need to start policing your folks better. The violence and threats aren’t coming from our side, and even under your Anointed One, the right always promptly disavowed anyone who talked this kind of smack.

The left has never apologized for this kind of thing, though, or done much to prevent it from escalating, and I doubt it will start now.

If the left had an actual leader who would step up and vociferously condemn what is going on, that person might actually have a chance in 2020. But the “leaders” on the left are too busy trashing Trump and trying to find ways to block his agenda.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I am not a huge Trump fan, but this kind of behavior is precisely what got Trump elected, and to let it go on continues to damage the Democrats more and more. The silent majority is not happy right now, and as we saw in 2016, plenty of them vote, and they are pretty much unpollable because they won’t talk to pollsters, whom they tend to view as slanted and dishonest. And that’s how you get an election where it’s supposedly Hillary in a walk, and then instead you get Trump as a complete surprise to the media and the establishment — but not to the people who are sick and tired of the status quo in Washington.

Ben Sasse said it best in his maiden speech in the Senate: “The people despise us all.” And he was and remains 100% correct.

The folks out there who are whinging about how Weimar-esque the US is starting to look (and that includes some folks on the right — it’s a theme that comes up regularly at Instapundit, for instance) don’t seem to understand that, contra Santayana, history really doesn’t repeat itself; it merely repeats overarching themes.  There will be no American Hitler, because the silent majority remains well-armed and unwilling to kowtow to anyone who bids fair to take those arms (and the rights they protect) away.  There may be hard and bad times coming in America, but a true dystopia seems to me to be pretty unlikely.  And of course, it will never be as bad here as it will be in the rest of the world, given it’s still true that when America gets the sniffles, the rest of the world catches cold — or worse.

The American spirit still lives in a lot of Americans.  As much crap as I throw at GenX, GenY, and millennials, there are plenty of patriots in those groups as well.  These Americans may not speak out or make their true feelings known until the feces truly impact the turbine, but they will step up when their country needs them.  Count on it.

Despite the worst the Democrats could do to us, we shrugged off a Great Depression and won a World War.  What we have today isn’t nearly what our parents and grandparents had.

We can prevail — but we need to put a stop to the turbulence on the left that is being driven by a completely irrational hatred of Donald Trump, capitalism, and classical liberal conservatism.  Put bluntly, the left wants to destroy our country, or “fundamentally transform” it as their Anointed One put it.

But there’s still a lot of us out here who have no interest in being transformed, either fundamentally or otherwise.  The left should fear us.

That they don’t — yet — speaks volumes.

The left is punch-drunk.

Fox News front page headline:  “Party hopes to ride Trump fatigue to a 2018 House takeover”

This is my laughing face.

(Note:  That’s not the headline of the story it links to, which is actually, “Democrats now targeting 79 House race, but do they have the money and message?”  Not quite so upbeat.)

More likely the GOP will hang on because people are fed up with the constant thrum of left-wing BS about Trump.  Every day it’s a different alarmist progressive story, and none of it actually is true.

I guess the left hasn’t noticed yet that the people who voted for Trump really don’t like them very much.  To date, I have yet to see the Dems win one of the recent special elections, about which they assert that each one going to be a referendum on Trump.  So far, Trump is way out front of them.

The Dem bench is old and frail and busted-down.  Nobody really wants to vote for them.  Senile Nancy Pelosi, stupid Maxine Waters, the moronic Dianne Feinstein, and the corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was so bad she had to step down as the chair of the DNC.  Nothing but tail-enders of a dying socialist breed.  They will be gone soon, their power dissipated, their party in ruins.  Even Libertarians might have a chance now.

And then, Kathy Griffin — I mean, honey, if you want more Trump, that’s exactly how you get more Trump.

Must say that I’m still not a Trump fan, but I have to admit that he’s got the left so bamboozled, they’re just throwing anything they can at the Teflon to see if it will stick.  And that’s great stuff in my book.  It’s like watching the monkeys at the zoo throw poo at each other.  Great political theatre.  Keep bringing it; you’ll marginalize yourselves even more the longer you keep it up.  And that can only be good for the Republic.

It’s not a human right just because you say it is.

Health care is not a human right.

Nope.  Not even close.

Freedoms enumerated and enshrined in the Constitution?  Human rights.  The right to free speech, the right to worship as you please, the right to bear arms in defense of yourself, your family, and the nation, the right to be free of the government quartering its soldiers in your home, yeah, all those things are human rights, built into the bedrock of human experience.  That they have been violated more often than upheld is part of what makes them so precious, and worthy of defending.  But these freedoms and rights require nothing more than our eternal vigilance to maintain.  (Which is cheap at twice the price, considering the totality of human history.)

Health care is not a human right because it depends on so many other people doing things for your benefit.  If I were a doctor, I would not agree that you had a human right to demand my services for less than I believe they are worth.  (And if I priced my services too high, I’d probably go hungry a lot while my competitors lived off the fat of the land.  But that’s my right and privilege to determine for myself.)  If I were a nurse, I would not agree that just because your tummy hurts, you have a human right to force me to turn away from the cardiac patient who is coding in the next room and give you an antacid.  If I were a dentist, I would not say that you had a human right to barge into my office and demand that I immediately pull the tooth that’s been bothering you because you don’t have enough sense to take care of your own teeth, when I already have a waiting room full of patients who made appointments and also have dental issues.

And so forth.

What I’m really getting at is that the labor of another human being (either singularly or plurally) is not yours to demand as a human right, simply because you didn’t have the sense to buy insurance before you started having major health issues.  And that’s what you’re doing when you insist that health care is a human right.  You’re also demanding that my labor is yours to demand by proxy, since my tax money and my insurance premiums go to fund the abortion known as Obamacare.

We do not fight wars to restore human rights to people in other parts of the world in order that they can demand that we continue to prop them up after we’ve thrown the dictatorial and oppressive bastards out (which was the mistake we made in both Iraq and Afghanistan).  Human rights and the exercise of them are what lay down the base of a free and civilized society.  They do not provide services nor do they demand revenue.  They simply “are”.

When I write posts on this blog, they are my freely-expressed opinions.  I do not demand that someone else pay for my web hosting or domain registration, or my time and effort keeping the blogging software and the rest of the site up to date.  I don’t even ask for donations, because I don’t think my writing is worth your money 🙂  But to take the “health care is a human right” to another level, what if I and other bloggers started to take the attitude that the provision of the soapbox upon which we exercise our right to free speech should also be a human right, that all of you taxpayers out there should be forced to subsidize?

That’s a horse of a different color, isn’t it?

The argument that insurance should cover pre-existing conditions completely ignores the point of insurance.  Insurance is a gamble between you and the house (the insurance company) that you either will (your bet) or won’t (their bet) become gravely ill at some point.  Insurance generally pays for health maintenance like doctor visits and immunizations and colonoscopies and mammograms because those things are inexpensive (by comparison) hedges on their bet.  In other words, they pick up the tab because it’s like putting their thumb on the roulette wheel or using a marked deck — you’re more likely to stay healthy if you have those things, and not cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime for major medical expenses.

By definition, if you do not have insurance and you get some dread disease like cancer or lupus or rheumatoid arthritis, and then you demand that you should have insurance coverage to pay for it, you are holding up the house and trying to make off with something you did not pay for.  And that ends up making my annual bets on my own health cost more.

The running gag about the lottery is that you can’t win if you don’t play.  (In actuality, you can’t win no matter what you do; winning is a fluke, the rules and the odds are stacked against you.)  Translated to the casino metaphor I’ve used above, you can’t win if you don’t lay down a bet.  The casinos take a very dim view of that.  I would imagine sitting down at the table and placing a bet on 13 red without actually laying down a chip would get you hustled right back out to the street.

The uninsured do not have a human right to barge into my insurance company and demand that it pay for their dread disease.  Period.  I don’t care what Congress says and I don’t care what the Supreme Court or the President say, either.  Insurance is a pay-for-play deal.

Closer to home, the uninsured also do not have a human right to demand that the federal or state government care for them and levy the cost of that care onto the taxpayers.  While I would feel responsible for the health care of my own immediate family (as any civilized man or woman should), I frankly don’t have the money to waste on yours.  And it is a waste — it is money I will never see again (and never saw to begin with, because the government hoovers it out of my paycheck before I ever see it, to the tune of about two grand a month once everyone gets their cut).  That is money that I, as a responsible ant, should be putting away for my retirement and other future costs, not handing out to grasshoppers who can’t think past their young and healthy years and don’t even consider buying insurance until it’s too late — or just live on hope, that is, “I sure hope I don’t get sick or hit by a car or a falling meteor.”*

That said, I have at least one very close friend who has been buying his own health insurance for years and has had massive hospital and health care bills over the last six years.  Of course his premiums under Obamacare have skyrocketed.  And of course he’s not employed with what most of us would consider a regular job — he’s a writer and speaker.  And you cheap grasshoppers out there are part of why he’s hemorrhaging cash.

Despite my arguments above, I do not maintain that there should be absolutely no consideration for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions, but only that such consideration should be voluntary on the part of the public who will be paying for it, and not forced upon the public as a human right equivalent to the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Some sort of fund to cover such people’s short-term medical expenses with the caveat that they MUST purchase an insurance policy and show proof that they have maintained it through the “pre-existing condition” period (which used to be a year for most things) is acceptable to me.  But the rules have to be clear, fair, and tough.  One year only, and only once in your life.

But again, the public ants shouldn’t be forced to pay for all those grasshoppers in the long term, and it ought to be hard to get them to pay in the short term.  Let’s face it: Eating, for instance, is not a human right.  Work or starve has been the rule throughout history, at least until modern times when the original meaning of the Constitution has been twisted to support federal welfare programs and more wallet-hoovering by the federal government.  Even the freed slaves after our Civil War were essentially told that freedom was defined as the choice between working and starving.

Housing isn’t a human right, either.  Housing generally requires other people’s labor, for which they expect to be paid.  Or it uses other people’s property, again, for which they expect to be paid.

Clothing?  Not a human right.  Lots of people in the world wear anywhere from nothing to locally-produced homespun to the cast-offs our thrift stores send to them.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by hard-headed but fair-minded men who understood that a government could not force its citizens to be altruists.  When they wrote about promoting the general welfare, they did not mean handing out money to the indigent so they could eat, house, and clothe themselves.  They meant something more lofty than that — the general welfare of the country as a whole, which, if properly promoted, would mean that few if any people would go hungry, naked, or unroofed.  But not because such was a human right — because “a rising tide [should] float all boats”, as Ronald Reagan was fond of saying.

To claim that the Framers could not know that we would have the level of medical science that we have today and that they really meant to include universal healthcare as a basic right is to ignore the fact that the Framers were smarter than that.  Two hundred and thirty years later, there are only 27 amendments to the original plan, ten of which were ratified immediately as the Bill of Rights, one of which (smart) repealed another (stupid), and two of which (the 16th and 17th) were progressive, radical departures from the Framers’ ideal, and which have come around to bite us in the ass a hundred years later.

Bottom line:  Health care and the fulfillment of other basic human needs aren’t human rights, or the Framers would have included them from the start.

______________

* Dudes, I’ve had major medical insurance, either paid for myself or by my employer, from the time I was 24.  And life insurance, too.

 

“Worse off than 100 years ago.” Really?

said someone in response to a post on Facebook of an LA Slimes, er, Times, article entitled “Our Dishonest President” (to which I refuse to link, go look it up yourself).  Specifically, she said:

this is so true and the people fell for it now they are complaining. oh well so what let them suffer his idiotic ways until it will take years to recover from what he already has done. you people who voted for him in my opinion are just as hateful as he is and self centered. you were afraid of hilary and what she would have accomplished to make america greater than it was but now we are worse off than we were 100 years ago. lets stop him before its to late and keep him under careful watch. but you people who thought he was a change for good may you all suffer the consequences. its to bad you had to drag us into it with you.

Ignoring the last eight years and the near-irreversible damage they did to the Republic (national debt doubled, healthcare in a shambles, international reputation wrecked), not to mention your near-complete inability to write like an educated person, really doesn’t reflect well on your thesis, sweetie.

Further, as an historian by training who spent quite a lot of time studying the first half of the 20th century, I take issue with your assertion that we are “worse off than we were 100 years ago”. I doubt you would like to live in 1917, if for no other reason that you would not have a vote.

Suck it up, snowflake.  Or do you want more Trump?  Because this is how you get more Trump.

So the hell what?

So I guess the new idiotarian progressive talking point is that Mike Pence won’t eat alone with any female other than his wife.

Seems to me that the bottom line is, “What business is it of ours?”  Plus, the rest of the world has known this since 2002, when Pence mentioned it in an interview with The Hill*, so it would be nice if the idiotarian progressive left could kindly keep up.

The resulting charge among radical feminists on the left (but I repeat myself) that Pence discriminates against women because this means they can’t get the same one-on-one access to him as men do is just another bogus charge from the progs, trying to stir something up.  But given modern security concerns, who actually believes that any official meeting with the Vice President (or any other politician at that level) isn’t covered and recorded for security purposes?  Despite that assumption on my part, he chooses to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and I say, bully for him.

If I were VP, or frankly a politician at any level, I’d just carry around a table sign that said, “This interaction will be monitored and recorded for security purposes,” and let the chips fall where they may.  Glenn Reynolds’ advice to always record or film your own interviews, especially when you figure the opposition will cut and paste their tape to suit their agenda, makes great sense.  While it sounds Nixonian, it’s hardly covert or illegal if you come right out and say all of your interactions with other people will be recorded.  They can take it or leave it.

FWIW, I somehow suspect Pence has either read Glenn’s “The Appearance of Impropriety”, or he already understood the concept deep in his bones when he went into politics.

______________

* See the recent profile on Karen Pence in the Washington Post.  It’s about halfway down.

You want more Trump? Part I dunno what.

So, this happened.

New GOP Star Born When California Dems Forcibly Remove Vietnamese Senator for Criticizing Tom Hayden

Sen. Janet Nguyen (R) was the star of last weekend’s California GOP convention because she was forcibly removed from the floor of the Senate on Feb. 23 for criticizing the late Sen. Tom Hayden (D), who was honored by his former colleagues two days before.

I’m going to make it plain that I am lukewarm as hell about Trump, even if I think most of the things he is pledging to do need to be done (and wouldn’t get done with a more “conventional” GOP president, and may still not if the “conventional” GOP Congress doesn’t start playing ball).  And I hope people understand that when I repeatedly say, “if you want more Trump, this is how you get more Trump”, I mean, stupid moves like the one linked above are how the Dems unintentionally solidify GOP support, i.e., “more Trump”.

All the protests and the heckling and the sit-ins and the crocodile tears from the press and the unfunny assassination jokes — that’s how you get more Trump.  And you’d think the Dems would be able to wrap their minds around that and find a different, more adult way of dealing with their loss.  You know — like the right did when Obama was elected.  We weren’t happy about it, and we snarked about it, and certain idiots came up with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about him, but in the main, the right does things differently from the left — primarily, it doesn’t act like a spoiled baby with a poopy diaper when it doesn’t get its way.

At this point, the left is just damaging itself to no good purpose.  If you think this hasn’t resulted in the creation of a ton of closet Trump Democrats, kind of like there used to be Reagan Democrats, you haven’t been paying attention.  And the last thing I’m going to say about that is that the American Republic is not a healthy place if the balance of power swings too far either direction.  I can get along with a Kennedy Democrat, or a Scoop Jackson Democrat, or even a Zell Miller Democrat.  It’s these far-left socialist redistributionist anti-capitalist Democrats that I have a problem with.  This country was designed to be run from the center, and we’ve almost completely lost track of that.

It’s time for compromise, and neither side will ever have a better chance to do that than right now.  That’s what Trump is all about:  The Deal, which by definition requires compromise.  If you don’t want to compromise, don’t expect to get more than short shrift from him.

Children should not be allowed to vote.

This kind of thing makes me more and more convinced that Robert Heinlein was right and we need to require intelligence tests with a reasonably high passing grade to qualify to vote.  He suggested the solution of a quadratic equation which would be randomly generated and shown on a screen before you got to the ballot.  He also suggested that there should be no minimum voting age; if a 13-year-old girl could solve the quadratic, she should be allowed to vote.

Heinlein also suggested that voters should be military veterans with an honorable discharge in order to vote.  Which would disqualify me since I never served, but that’s on me, not anyone else.  (Besides, Heinlein left open the possibility that anyone could serve a term, discharge honorably, and obtain the franchise.)  For some reason this position got Heinlein labeled as a Nazi — or worse — by the soi-disant cognoscenti, few of whom ever actually read Starship Troopers and didn’t understand the logic behind it.

The childish minds at work in this video cannot possibly encompass the intelligence or the moral discipline to evaluate properly the issues of the day and cast a ballot accordingly.  Want to secure the ballot?  Start ensuring that the people who cast them can actually articulate their personal political and moral philosophy.  Mooning the Trump Tower in Chicago doesn’t rise to that level.  Kids and drunks do that kind of thing, not intelligent adults.

Comment on Facebook

Older posts «