Right to Opine

The left in America would have us become more like Europe: a largely secular society with cradle-to-grave “security” provided by the government. After seeing the rioting in England—public depredations that can only be described as evil—I’ll pass.

MOBS have begun stripping people and taking their belongings as police struggle to control riots in London and in other major English cities…

A young man is shown being forced to hand over all of his clothes after appearing to be stripped naked during the third night of lawless riots…

Another picture which emerged shows an unnamed woman completely naked next to a police officer after apparently having her clothes taken from her…

…another shocking video shows a bleeding teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet.

[Note the stirling security provided by the British government. The Bobbies—yes, that’s one ‘o’ and two ‘b’s, not the other way around—can’t control the mobs, and the people have been entirely disarmed by their own government so that they can’t protect themselves. But that’s a whole ’nother can-o-worms.]

And what are they rioting over? The big-government teat at which they’ve been feeding is drying up. This is swiftly becoming a recurring pattern—riots in Greece, France, and England by a populace weakened and spoiled by decades of government coddling. Once people grow accustomed to being cared for, they lose the ability—and the moral determination—to care for themselves. Think that couldn’t happen here? Yeah, I’d have thought the same thing a few decades ago when I lived in Europe and visited the U.K. with my family. But I was young and naive then.

As our nation’s debt crisis has become a central focus of our popular media, the rhetoric of class envy has been escalated to a near fever pitch. Of course this has always been the primary tactic of the political left, beginning most popularly with Marx and continuing rather visibly today in his ideological descendants. The easiest and most consistently reliable way for leftists to maintain and increase their power is to first engender envy of the wealthy, then to convince the general populace that it is not only morally acceptable, but morally right to take wealth from others by sheer might of the popular vote.

Their task really isn’t all that hard. Envy is one of the most common and basic human reactions when we are confronted with someone who has more than we. We’re warned against one variant of envy in the tenth commandment [Exodus 20:17]: “Thou shalt not covet.” (Yet another reason the left dislikes traditional Judeo-Christian values, but I digress.) But envy itself isn’t necessarily bad—like so many of life’s challenges, it depends upon what you make of it.

en-vy, n. painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage (Merriam-Webster)

The critical point in the definition of envy comes in the first three words.

One reaction to seeing others’ success—be it wealth, popularity, physical fitness—is to resent that success. This response yields a desire to level the playing field by diminishing the value of the other. After all, they can’t possibly deserve what they have when I don’t have the same. This is classical leftism at work: the success or failure of the individual is portrayed as largely beyond his own control. It’s a pretty easy sell because it doesn’t require anything of the individual.

The other, healthier, reaction is to be pained by the others’ advantage—not in a manner destructive to self or others, but rather in a way that makes you ask yourself, “What are they doing that I’m not? How should I change myself in order to achieve the same successes?” This path requires the individual to take responsibility for his own success or failure, to stop blaming others for consequences of poor personal decisions, and to take positive action to improve himself rather than tearing down another.

One thing is certain—when you see someone who has something you want but don’t have, you will envy them in some way. The only question is which direction your response will lead you. Will you tear others down or build yourself up? That choice is yours alone.

The most recent NY Times/CBS poll shows what many of us have feared for a while (and the last presidential election confirmed): Americans are confused, self-contradictory, and clueless. Consider:

Mr. Obama has considerable support for his proposal to end tax cuts for those households earning $250,000 a year and more: 72 percent of respondents approved of doing so as a way to address the deficit.

[…]

Given the choice of cutting military, Social Security or Medicare spending as a way to reduce the overall budget, 45 percent chose military cuts, compared with those to Social Security (17 percent) or Medicare (21 percent.)

Sorry folks, that’s not going to solve the deficit problem. You could tax everyone in that bracket at 100% and you still wouldn’t put a dent in our deficit. There just aren’t enough folks making that kind of dough to make a difference. And even if you shut every branch of the military completely down, we wouldn’t break even. Not even close.

55 percent of poll respondents said they would rather have fewer services from a smaller government than more services from a bigger one, as opposed to 33 percent who said the opposite, a continuation of a trend in Times/CBS polls.

[…]

Twice as many respondents said they would prefer cuts in spending on federal programs that benefit people like them as said they would favor a rise in taxes to pay for such programs.

Yet more than 6 in 10 of those surveyed said they believed Medicare was worth the costs. And when asked specifically about Medicare, respondents said they would rather see higher taxes than see a reduction in its available medical services if they had to choose between the two.

Yep. Americans want it all. Fewer services from a smaller government. Spending cuts instead of higher taxes. More Medicare (as it grows rapidly) and higher taxes. Which is it? You really can’t have it all.

The opposition by Tea Party supporters to raising the level of debt the nation can legally carry was shared by nearly two-thirds of poll respondents, including nearly half of Democrats…

OK, so in a nutshell, we’re going to cut spending but we can’t touch the biggest fiscal boondoggles (Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid) on the ledger. We’re going to raise taxes, but only on the “rich” (tell that to a two-income family in CA who makes $250K but pays more than $500K for a small home on top of exhorbitant state income taxes; no, wait—they deserve it for repeatedly electing the craziest state government in the union). We can’t increase our debt limit but at the same time we can’t cut the entitlement programs that make up the bulk of federal spending.

Basically we want everything but we don’t want to actually pay for it. We’ve become the perfect credit card society. This can’t last long, folks.

Throughout the current recession Hyundai has not only remained profitable but has significantly expanded its manufacturing presence in Alabama and Georgia. Other foreign auto makers have had similar success. Why is it that the Big Three in Detroit have struggled so much—with two being handed generous taxpayer-funded bailouts—while we hear nary a peep about Honda, BMW, Hyundai, etc., who all have plants here?

The United Automobile Workers union has long tried to organize plants in the United States operated by foreign carmakers, most of which are in the South, but has yet to succeed anywhere.

No unions. Unencumbered by the dead weight of the UAW, foreign makers are able to offer competitive salaries and benefits while remaining competitive and profitable in a down market. Workers at GM, Chrysler, and Ford could learn a valuable lesson from this. Will they?

For an informative history of Arizona—as well as a fascinating glimpse into how one’s view of history is shaped when seen primarily through a veil of race and racism—check out Arizona: A History by Thomas E. Sheridan (University of Arizona Press, 1995). Although the author’s liberal leanings are apparent throughout the text, it is an enjoyable and entertaining read even for those of us on the far right of the aisle. You will definitely come away with a new perspective of the state.

[Available via the Amazon widget on the main blog page.]

For years western Europe has been quietly allowing an increasingly radical Muslim population to cause serious societal problems. The conflict has been most notably covered in Belgium and the Netherlands, but the U.K. has certainly had its share of issues, particularly with homegrown terrorism. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron today signaled that his country’s slumber may be coming to an end.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Mr. Cameron condemned what he called the “hands-off tolerance” in Britain and other European nations that had encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”

He said that the policy had allowed Islamic militants leeway to radicalize young Muslims, some of whom went on to “the next level” by becoming terrorists, and that Europe could not defeat terrorism “simply by the actions we take outside our borders,” with military actions like the war in Afghanistan.

“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,” he said. “We have to get to the root of the problem.”

The full text of his speech can be read here. It’s well worth your time.

Another undercover video sting has exposed the rot that underlies Planned Parenthood—this time catching a clinic manager in a clear violation of the law.

It shows a woman identified as Amy Woodruff, the office manager, responding to an unseen man and woman. The man says he is involved in sex work and wants to bring girls, some only 14 or 15 and illegal immigrants, for medical exams.

The manager says that 14-year-old girls should not admit their ages, because doing so triggers extra reporting requirements. “For the most part, we want as little information as possible,” she says.

I’m tempted to give PP a little credit for firing Woodruff, but the organization really has no shame. Or credibility, for that matter.

Stuart Schear, vice president for communications of the national federation, said in an interview on Wednesday that Planned Parenthood had “zero tolerance” for unethical behavior and that the behavior filmed in the video was “very isolated.”

Now that takes some nerve. Videos and taped conversations like this have been made in city after city, clinic after clinic. At what point, Mr. Schear, should we no longer consider these isolated cases? If you were truly concerned with ethics, why does it take the dogged efforts of undercover investigators to root out the corruption and sheer evil in your organization?

For those who are interested in small arms and infantry tactics, the “At War” blog on the NY Times’ web site has had some very good articles on the rifles used by the Taliban. The latest entry is no exception, with a fascinating description of a couple Pakistani copies of old British designs.

Remember just a couple years ago when the U.N.’s IPCC issued a report claiming the Himalayan glaciers were melting—due to man-made global warming, er, “climate change”—and would disappear within a few decades? Well, we already had good reason to believe that was false because the head of the panel—Dr. Rajendra Pachauri—has acknowledged the claim was made based on unchecked research, although

he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.

Well, hold onto your hats, because even that isn’t true.

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

You read that correctly. And the research was done by scientists at the University of California—not exactly a hotbed of right-wing conservative climate change skepticism.

“Anthropomorphic global warming” is nothing more than a tactic to throttle private industry and increase governmental (and U.N.) control over the economy. This becomes clearer with each new revelation.

Why, if ObamaCare is so great, are the very unions that backed it so strongly and cheered its passage applying for and receiving waivers to get out of it?

On Wednesday, the agency [Department of Health and Human Services] quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees – in addition to four states Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee – who collectively cover 2.1 million enrollees.

Five major unions—the most glaring of which is the SEIU—who contributed heavily to the campaign to pass the monstrosity have obtained waivers for local affiliates. Why?

Without the HHS-approved exemptions, these health providers would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage for seasonal, part-time, and low-wage workers due to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they are keeping their health care is by successfully begging the feds to spare them from Obamacare.

Lovely. You know a law must be great when the same people who pushed it are doing their best not to have to live under it.