Category Archive: These Are The Crazy Years

Wringing your hands and restricting freedom is not the answer.

Headline in the WSJ this morning:  “Low Tech Attacks Hard To Thwart”

(In reference, of course, to the three recent terrorist attacks in London.)

The problem is not that Islamic terrorists have resorted to “low tech” attacks.  The problem is that England has removed from its citizens the ability to defend themselves.

Give Britons the right to carry concealed, and I’ll bet the “drive a truck into a crowd and then start knifing people” attacks would have been stopped in their tracks.  A couple of concealed carriers would quickly put a stop to the carnage at London Bridge.  This is not to say that there wouldn’t have been casualties, but years of reading “Armed Citizen” columns here in the US suggests that our generally-robust 2nd Amendment protections (at least in the non-stupid states) frequently have a significant effect in lowering the total body count.  I have in mind an attempted church massacre in Colorado Springs some years back where an alert security officer stopped the murderer in his tracks.  More recently was the attempt by radical Islamists to assassinate blogger Pamela Gellar and journalist Robert Spencer Dutch politician Geert Wilders when they appeared at a gathering in Texas.  But my all-time favorite was the Appalachian School of Law incident in 2002, where the two concealed carriers who ended up stopping the rampage had to go back to their cars to get their guns because of the school’s (obviously ineffective) gun-free zone policy.  Clearly, armed citizens can make a difference, and do when they can.

While it’s unlikely that armed citizens could have stopped or mitigated the Ariana Grande concert bombing, police profiling and bomb-sniffing dogs would likely have put paid to it, or at least would have seen the bomb go off outside of the arena.  Again, there likely would have been casualties, but significantly fewer of them.

The Mayor of London, whose response to the latest tragedy was yet another riff on “We need to get used to a certain level of violence”, is an ass.  So is the Prime Minister, whose first reaction was that more Internet regulation was needed (a typical statist response from a typical statist politician, one each).  Wringing your hands and/or clamping down on freedom of speech are not useful options in a putatively-free society.  You know where the problem is, why not admit it and focus the crackdown where it needs to be focused?  Stop whinging about civil rights applying to people who would take your civil rights away (and are succeeding admirably, to date).

Let your people defend themselves.  It’s a basic human right, whether Europeans want to believe it or not.  A lot of those people fought back.  Think how much more effective they would have been with concealed weapons and training in their use.  And then ask yourselves why we don’t tend to see this sort of thing happen in the US — at least where we aren’t hobbled by blue state gun restrictions and “gun-free zones” (AKA “victim-rich zones”).  The answer is because Europe is much easier pickings and the radical Islamics are already well on the way to taking it over.

Apologies to my European friends, but y’all need to take the blinders off and start fighting back.

[Edited to correct my misremembering of who was targeted at the Garland, Texas conference.]

What has Paris done for you?

A wise professor of mine once pointed out that if one wishes to make a treaty that is all smoke and mirrors and “feel good” but has no actual impact on the world, the thing to do is to get as many countries as possible to sign on to it, thereby diluting its effect.*

He was speaking in reference, of course, to the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) which purported to outlaw offensive war.

And we all know how well that worked out.

There are 63 total signatories to the Pact, which (amazingly enough) remains in effect to this day — or perhaps we should say “in ineffect”.  This was never the intent of M. Briand, who simply wished for a friendly treaty of this sort between France and the United States.  Mr. Kellogg, in his wisdom or (more likely) lack thereof, flogged the idea of making it a general treaty, and it was then off to the races.  The League of Nations, already ineffectual (well, it was ineffectual from the day it started, but let’s be nice), had nothing to do with the treaty, sinking both the League and the treaty even farther into irrelevancy to the world at large.

And when I say “ineffect” regarding this treaty, remember that there have indeed been no offensive, declared wars waged between powers since 1945.**  But there sure have been a lot of “police actions” and “interventions” and claims of national insult leading to invasion and occupation of another’s national territory (yes, I’m looking at YOU, Russia, and your sneaky military games in South Ossetia and the Crimea).  Then there was the whole ten-year Iran-Iraq intramural back before Saddam, invaded Kuwait over the claim that Kuwait was a stolen province of Iraq, and that whole ball game in the sandbox started.  And the list goes on, but always in self-defense and/or with pious pleas of “they started it!”

In fact, the only country in the world right now that seems to be bent on an eventual offensive war is North Korea, and even it (dubiously) claims provocation.  But exporting of a revolution once it goes flat has always been a Commie specialty, so it comes as no particular surprise that the fat boy is being belligerent.

Interestingly enough, Kellogg-Briand was yet another “Pact of Paris”.  But in this case there is no reason to disavow the treaty, since nobody pays any attention to it and dives through its huge loopholes on a regular basis.  And, after all, it was properly ratified by the Senate.

Parenthetically, I imagine humanity will never stop fighting amongst itself until aliens show up and invade.  Although even then I’d be skeptical.

As far as the Paris Accord is concerned, not only was it never brought to the Senate for ratification (which so few news outlets are pointing out, because it doesn’t fit their narrative), but it was nothing more than another “feel-good” pact among 130 nations, the major intent of which was to strike the world’s largest economy a crippling blow at the knees while everyone else sat back and laughed.  The dirty secret is that there was no enforcement mechanism, no penalty for missing targets, the worst polluter and purportedly second largest economy in the world (China) did not have the same obligations as the United States, and the United States was already voluntarily reducing emissions due to fracking and the steady replacement of coal with natural gas for peak demand power generation.

And then there’s the MIT assessment that even if the Paris Accord was fully executed, it wouldn’t succeed in its stated goal of “keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius”.  MIT’s assessment is that we’d be lucky if we didn’t get 3 degrees or higher even if Paris was fully implemented.  I tend to trust MIT a lot more than I trust a bunch of diplomats who are probably diplomats because they flunked out of their science classes and couldn’t get into MIT.

Say what you will, President Trump was absolutely correct to pull the US out of this unconstitutionally-implemented, economically-damaging treaty.  As Bjørn Lomborg,*** who is not even close to being an ideological brother to the conservative right, has said for many years, the solution to any warming problem is not to cripple economies by trying ineffectively to stop the warming, but to build stronger and richer economies in order to be able to react positively to changing climate and to any possible human or agricultural migration that might need to happen as a result.  In a rich world, there is no reason for humans to suffer.  In a world made bankrupt by ill-considered attempts to modify the climate rather than to simply get along with it, billions will suffer and die.  I know which outcome I prefer.

And on top of that, if other experts are correct and we are in a blip of warming that is just a pause in the overall cooling that has been happening since things warmed up after the last Ice Age, to fight warming might actually be fighting the wrong battle.  Any ham radio operator can tell you that this has been the worst solar cycle for radio in a long time.  That means solar activity is at a deep minimum, and projections for Cycle 25 have been pretty depressing.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the big nuclear fusion furnace in the sky is the biggest controller of climate, and when it gets the sniffles, Earth catches a cold.  But nobody in the “right-thinking” climate “science” community wants to admit that; they’d rather blame the industrial revolution and the CO2 it puts into the air, like the bunch of modern Luddites they are.

Got news for you:  I remember Mount St. Helens and Mount Pinatubo.  Both of those major eruptions pumped more junk into the air than (and I’m reaching a bit here, because I’m vaguely remembering what I read 20+ years ago) the entire output of mankind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  There were notable cooling regimes after the eruptions, and I for one remember walking out in the grass at my university not long after Pinatubo, coming back with my shoes covered with black yutz, and realizing that it was because of volcanic ash from Pinatubo traveling around the planet and falling out of the air here in the US.  Puny mankind’s got nothing on Mother Nature, the world’s biggest polluter.  (Take that, Gaia worshipers.)

But I didn’t come here to laugh at climate science.  I came here to laugh at diplomats and politicians and movie stars and rich progressives and idiots who flunked science in high school who think that an essentially non-binding treaty can trump (no pun intended) Mother Nature, and her buddy the Sun.  To them I say, stop thinking with your emotions and start thinking with that mass of grey matter in your head.

If you have one.

Oh, and go read Niven/Pournell/Flynn, Fallen Angels, and Ringo, The Last Centurion, for a different view of what we might face in the future.  You might learn something.

_____________________

* The dilution of effect comes from the idea that the more signatories to the treaty, the more vague the treaty obligations must become in order to encourage the reticent to sign on.  Thus the loopholes in Kellogg-Briand that one could drive a tank (or an armored division) through.

** And recall, WWII started in 1939 when Germany claimed Poland had violated Germany’s territorial sovereignty by sneaking across the frontier and killing German border guards — which of course was a false-flag job performed by Germans in Polish army uniforms, who’d violated Poland’s territorial sovereignty by crossing into Polish territory and then coming back to kill their own countrymen to create an excuse for an “aggrieved” Germany to invade Poland.  Declarations of war followed from France and England due to mutual defense treaty obligations with Poland.  Then Germany turned around and declared war on England and France.

*** Also, see Lomborg’s 2015 paper regarding the ineffectiveness of the Paris programme.  This is the source of the graphic in my previous post.

Thank you, Mr. Trump

for seeing the Paris Accord for what it is — that is to say, complete bullshit, and by the way irrelevant and invalid in the United States because it’s never been ratified by the US Senate.

And yes, it’s complete bullshit:

ETA:  Source.

Of course, this presumes that the climate scientists’ models are correct — and they aren’t, because they failed to predict the 18 consecutive years of stable temperatures we’ve experienced since 1998.  (Google that; it’s fun to see all the links thrown back screaming that the observations are bullshit, or cherry-picked, or fake science.  Google is not your friend.  Google, despite its motto, is evil.)

So bottom line, even if the climate frauds are correct and we really are experiencing warming, all those potential trillions of dollars would have been wasted no matter what.  And probably still will be, by the countries remaining in the accord.  But my guess is that most of them will quietly slink away from their commitments within the next few years, now that the US has said, “we’re out of this sucker game.”  And climate “science” will die a well-deserved death due to federal grant starvation.

A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.

Trump understands that.  And the rest of the world can go to hell if they like.

Because they’re not the same thing, idiots.

So far today I’ve seen two variations on the same theme show up as Facebook memes.

First, “They give Narcan for free to drug users because it will keep them from dying.  So why don’t they give free insulin to diabetics?”

My response was

Because you only get Narcan when you OD? I mean, it’s not like you get Narcan every day. Because if you do, it’s amazing you’re not dead anyway.

My paramedic niece has related stories of being called out more than once to Narcan the same person and wondering what the point of the exercise is.

FWIW I’m going to guess that it isn’t actually free. Somebody is paying for it, if not the dopehead’s insurance (and there’s a laughable thought), then you and me when we pay our premiums and taxes.

Then I saw this one: “If methadone is free to addicts because they have a disease, why is chemo not free for cancer patients?”

I didn’t respond to that one, but it’s the same stupid question wrapped up in the same stupid logical fallacy.  You’re not talking about apples and apples here.  You’re talking about an attempt to modify an anti-social behavior versus trying to cure a fatal disease.

Plus, heroin addiction is not a disease, no matter how the proggy left wants to soft-shoe it.  Becoming a junkie required a positive (or negative, depending on your viewpoint) decision on the part of the junkie to become a junkie.  Becoming a junkie didn’t happen because of a virus or a bacteria.  Becoming a junkie isn’t like catching a cold or flu, or getting Ebola.*  And it happens regardless of any attitude on the proto-junkie’s part of “I’m strong, I can quit any time.”  Yeah.  Addiction doesn’t work that way.  The hell of it is, I was just sitting here thinking about alcoholism and how it’s considered a disease…but I don’t know of anyone who gives away free alcohol rehab the way, say, the city of New York hands out free methadone.**  And the consumption of alcohol is, at least, legal and accepted by society.

Let’s think for a moment about anti-social behavior.  Being a junkie is definitely anti-social.  Being a junkie means that you probably lie, cheat, and steal for your next high.  By the time you need treatment, in most cases you’re probably diseased, have poor hygiene, and are probably living on the streets or damn close to it.  Even if you’re not that bad, you’ve probably assured that nobody can trust you, and you’ve probably let down everyone who knows you, including your family and closest friends.

Or you’re just a fucking clueless dickhead or cuntwaffle doing meth or whatever the fuck is the drug of choice down on the Ohio River these days.  And yes, I include the long-term unemployed who have given up and turned to drugs as an escape.  You’re a bunch of fuckheads.  Man (or woman) the fuck up and make the best of your situation.  Yeah, I know, easy for me to say.  So I’ll say it again:  Stop acting like an animal and stand up like a human being, look adversity square in the eye, and say to it, “Fuck you, I’m not letting you get the best of me.”

Where was I?  Oh, yes.

I question the morality inherent in handing out these drugs to junkies for “free” in an attempt to wake them the fuck up and set the on the right path.  The standard proggie claim is that it is our moral and ethical duty to help these people.  But I do not believe it to be either moral or ethical to make me pay for a heroin addict’s methadone treatment, or for the Narcan for the stupid fucks who OD on the latest tainted shit that came out of the local dealer’s drug lab.  Because it is not moral or ethical to force me or anyone else to pay to correct other people’s stupidity.  And it is willful stupidity! You cannot say that people in this modern age aren’t aware of the dangers posed by deciding to do drugs.

My generation grew up getting the “don’t do drugs” mantra pounded into us by parents, teachers, TV, radio, you name it.  “This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs.”  Who the fuck wants to go around with a scrambled egg for a brain?  Life is a raging bitch, but we are supposed to stand tall and DEAL, not resort to booze or drugs or any other stupidity to dull the pain and make the hours pass like minutes.  We were taught that it was stupid to hand your life over to drugs or anything like them, including alcohol.  And yet, so many stupid people refused to accept that lesson even when it was being beaten into their brains on a daily basis.  Why are we coddling these people with treatments when the record shows that they almost all backslide back into addiction?***  Why don’t we just let them take their exit?  Or if you prefer stark reality to metaphor, why don’t we just let them fucking die?  It’s clearly what they seem to want.

My sense of morality is not twinged by any need or desire to succor these people, because history and common sense indicate that they will simply go right back to what they were fucking up before.  We are told that we have to break the cycle in order to cure what ails them.  But there are two ways to break the cycle, and one of them is to simply let nature take its course.  You OD’d?  Bye.  You’re a junkie?  Go ahead and sedate yourself to death.  You pussified coward.

And now we have these memes.

Because the progressives are frantic to try to find a way to force us into single-payer, so they can have that much more control over our lives.  And as usual with progressives, they are lying through their teeth to try to win us over to their point of view.

Because progressives are a bunch of fucking cuntwaffles.****

Fuck them.  Taxation is theft, and control over my life is something they can’t have.

_____________

* It is, however, very much akin to contracting HIV if you indulge in the kind of anti-social behavior that gets you into a situation where you can contract HIV.  And by this I’m not including the people who contract it through no fault of their own, e.g., through blood transfusions, or sex with a partner who hasn’t been upfront with them about their own anti-social behavior, or any of the other ways that folks unknowingly manage to pick up HIV.  Or herpes.  Or gonorrhea.  Or syphilis.  Or chlamydia.  My, the list just goes on and on, doesn’t it?

** Yes, I understand that the methadone is handed out in a clinic situation and you have to go to the clinic to get the shot or pill or whatever, because they also don’t want you to end up addicted to methadone, which is just about as nasty a drug as heroin.  Before they figured that out, people did in fact switch from being hooked on heroin to being hooked on methadone.

*** Or go back on the streets to get another hit of what the fuck ever they did that made them OD in the first place, in the case of Narcan.

**** I just like the sound of “cuntwaffles”.

Double blep

I made this very point to one of our sales drones yesterday — there was little utility in me responding to the upset customer when all I was going to be able to do was reaffirm what the support engineer had already told them.  The fact was that the overnight service outage the customer was upset about was not our fault; our upstream ISP blew that one by not having a spare router card in the colo when the one we were connected to lost its magic smoke.  All of our stuff was up and running and patiently waiting to speak to the ‘net.  Customer is now demanding that they should be informed when we have an unexpected outage…well…that would have been difficult, with all our mail servers sitting behind the bad card.  So yelling at us was not exactly going to accomplish much in the grand scheme of things.

It’s gotten to where people today don’t understand that it’s a miracle the Internet works at all.  Either they don’t remember or never experienced the joys of the ‘net ca. 1995-1999.  I was telecommuting daily at the time on 56k dialup, and 90% uptime for any service was a pipe dream.  I didn’t have so much as a DSL line until late 2002, and it was strictly a quasi-T1 (1Mbps down, but residential service with no SLA, so it wasn’t particularly reliable, and I think uploads were limited to 100kbps).  Today you drop for a few hours (our SLA for the service in question states that “downtime” is only counted during our normal support hours, which makes sense, because who is working nights in this business) and people spoiled by always-on, fast, “reliable” internet get all bent out of shape because they can’t send out an email blast that nobody is going to read anyway.

I honestly cannot wait to get the hell out of this business.  I hate it.  Unfortunately I made the mistake of staying too long and am stuck with it till I retire, I fear.

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.

Greed? That’s a funny name for “trying to make one’s investment back.”

Yeah, from FacialBook as usual, the Book of a Million Lies:

Wrong.

Greed is not the problem.  Government over-regulation and FDA slow-rolling of drug approval is the problem.  Drug companies pour billions of dollars annually into drug development, most of which is “wasted” when new ideas for drugs don’t pan out, usually after years of expensive trials.  I’ve read that the success rate for drug development is one drug in ten, so for every billion-dollar development program that succeeds, there are nine billion-dollar development programs that fail.  If that rate holds, for every new drug a company develops through FDA approval, they have a $10 billion investment that has to be accounted for and and recovered.  Not much profit there!

Yet people wonder why new drugs cost so much, and agitators like Sachin Patel claim it’s because of greed.  Is it really greedy to want a return on your ten billion dollar investment?  Does Dr. Patel like having new drugs and therapies, or would he prefer to go back to the old days when aspirin and chalk pills was about all a doctor could prescribe?

I’ll agree in a heartbeat that there are companies like Mylan who ought to be ashamed of themselves (and be run of business) for what they charge for basic drugs just because they have a fancy proprietary delivery system.  But by and large, drugs are expensive to buy because they are expensive to develop, and drug companies naturally want to make their money back.

These RealFarmacy people are a real danger to the rest of the world.  Liars, cheats, and swindlers all, they are nothing more than modern Luddites wishing the rest of us back into a medieval world where we all drop dead in our 40’s from preventable disease, or starve to death because there isn’t enough food.  They are the logical heirs of Paul Ehrlich and his ilk.

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.

 

Millenial sensitivity in a nutshell.

Millenials not only are ruining the country, they don’t even have a sense of humor.  Found on Facebook — where else?

With the exception of rape…and maybe not rape*, there was not a single one of those subjects that were off-limit to comedians and teenage boys back when I was a kid.  Having been both the brunt and the inflicter, I can attest to that.

The offense-mongers today have taken all the fun out of things.  Berke Breathed had it absolutely right — in 1983:

We’re doomed.

________________

* To wit:

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.

and

Taggart: I got it! I got it!
Hedley Lamarr: You do?
Taggart: We’ll work up a Number 6 on ’em.
Hedley Lamarr: [frowns] “Number 6”? I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that one.
Taggart: Well, that’s where we go a-ridin’ into town, a-whompin’ and a-whumpin’ every livin’ thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.
Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
Taggart: Naw, we rape the shit out of them at the Number Six Dance later on.
Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous!

Don’t tell me Mel Brooks wasn’t funny.

Well

It’s been four days, and I notice the ground hasn’t opened up under Washington, DC, nor has the sky fallen from above it, since Sen. McConnell and crew applied the Reid Rule.

Pre-natal infanticide is apparently still legal, too.

Older posts «

» Newer posts