Intellectual Champions of the Left

It’s hard to resist commenting on the things that liberals like Janeane Garofalo and Jeremiah Wright say.  I get queasy feelings afterwards, a certain guilt, as if I were changing channels and lingered too long on MTV.  A friend of mine calls it “beating up on retarded kids,” but I can’t help it.  When is someone going to inform that sad sack of man Jeremiah Wright that there are more poor white people in this country than poor black people?

Here’s the thing, though.  Ms. Garofalo’s usual statements and Mr. Wright’s latest piece of nonsense seem to echo the sentiments of the Left, the Democratic Party, and certainly our president.  The basic premise is that an established white male power structure is angry because the government is taking their money and giving it to poor people.  Some liberals might amend the above point to “poor minorities,” or “poor blacks.”  And of course, any minority who speaks out against Obama’s health care plan is delusional.

I’ve made this point before: This is about moral obligation for these people.  It’s not about sound economic policy, it’s not about a fair tax code, and it’s absolutely not about providing the best health care possible.  It’s a simple moral obligation.  Our president, the Democrats, Jeremiah Wright, Janeane Garofalo, et. al., believe that providing health insurance for everyone is morally imperative.  Therefore, 1.) The reality of the situation takes second seat to their feelings about the matter, and 2.) Anyone who opposes them is not merely wrong about a policy, but immoral.

The second point is what’s most important here.  It’s why the opponents of universal health care are called ugly names, derided by the media and Democratic leaders, and generally dismissed as either uneducated or unenlightened or both.  It was easy to call rich businessmen selfish and greedy for opposing higher taxes to pay for a stranger’s medical bills, but when these liberals see middle-class folks out there protesting, they can’t use those adjectives, so they’re forced to apply racism: “Oh, they’re just upset about blacks being empowered.”

It never enters into their deluded little brains that we oppose universal health care on practical grounds, because it’s clearly not the best way to get everyone to afford health insurance.  But worse, much worse, they can’t comprehend that they’re morally wrong, as well.  They can’t conceive of the fact that in America, only personal choices separate those who can afford health insurance and those who can’t.  (In case I’m being vague: If you don’t have health insurance, it’s by your own fault or choice.)

A desire for everyone to have good health coverage is great. I have the same desire.  But if you try to accomplish it by taking the money others have earned at the point of the gun, you’re not a crusader for social justice; you’re a thief.

Obama, Health Insurance Czar

Watching Obama’s big health care speech the other night, I started to wonder if he was addressing Congress or the Politburo.  I couldn’t believe that the president of the United States stood up there with a straight face and revealed to the nation how much of a communist he is.  Where were the boos?  Where is the shocked outrage?  In fact, the only booing came when Obama said he wasn’t going to insure illegal aliens!

What country are we living in?  Who were the people in that crowd?

Our president laid down a laundry list of regulations, requirements, and restrictions he’s going to place on private health insurance companies.  They can’t deny anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition, they must pay for routine check-ups and certain preventative procedures, price caps for out-of-pocket expenses…where does he get off?  Why isn’t anyone asking this question?  What gives anyone the right to tell a private company in America - health insurance or otherwise – how they can do business?  And if these health insurance companies are so awful, so exploitative, so desperately in need of reform, why do people keep buying health insurance from them?

Our president and his communist friends would say, “Because they have to,” but that’s not the truth.  No one has a gun to their head.  They’re buying health insurance because its worth their money, because they know that whatever faults of the individual company, they’re still better off than with no insurance.  If they don’t like the way that health insurance company does business, they can drop them and go to someone else.

I also thought it was stunning how Obama said this bill won’t add to the deficit.  Does he think we’re all complete morons, or just the helpless rubes in need of Big Brother?  He said the health care bill would be paid for by money that’s already being spent badly, and by cleaning up waste.  Really?  Then why hasn’t that already been done with Medicare and Medicaid?  The misspent money and waste there has been legendary for decades, Mr. Obama.

And how about this – if taxpayer money is being wasted and spent poorly, why not give it back to the people you took it from? 

During the speech, someone I know chided me for my stance.  He said, “Come on, wouldn’t you want to be provided with health care, given a chance?”

The answer that he couldn’t understand, the answer that the communists running our government never comprehend, the answer that I gave, was: “Not if it’s on someone else’s dime.”

Unknown Capitalism

This morning on the way to breakfast I was commiserating about the state of America with a friend.  Both of us agreed that the politicians in this country is problem number one – or a more appropriate term: Public Enemy Number One.  Politicians meddling in affairs in which they have no business have done more harm to America’s economy and freedom than Bernie Madoff and every robber and burglar in the country put together.

However, when remarking upon the recession and private corporations, my friend was torn: “The government has to control the corporations, but I don’t see how they can do that without becoming dictators like Castro.”

I told him that the problem was his first premise; i.e. that the government has to control private corporations.  I’ve noticed that people seem to have some vague notion that huge corporations will “run wild” if left alone, possibly creating huge destruction monopolies and unmitigated greed that will ruin the economy.

This is nonsense.  A destructive monopoly is logically impossible in a free market system.  A destructive monopoly (one that exploits its workers and/or customers) can only exist in a climate that is the political and economical antithesis of “free-market economy.”  As long as citizens have full property rights and freedom of choice – enforced by objective laws – then only criminals and the government can enable a destructive monopoly to prosper.  Criminals accomplish this by cheating, stealing, and coercing.  Governments accomplish it the same way, only they use terms like “social engineering,” “special tax,” “too big to fail.”

When a corporation tries to exploit citizens who have full property rights and freedom of choice (enforced by objective laws), those citizens can work for or buy from another corporation.  And as long as the market system is truly free, as long as thieves and politicians granting special favors and subsidies aren’t running the economy, corporations that exploit citizens will be beat out by corporations that treat citizens well.

Please not that this fairy-tale version of a free market that I’m talking about does not exist in America today.  And this is why we have travesties like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.  This is why we have bailouts, rampant cronyism, subsidies, and special interest groups.  None of these can exist in a truly free-market economy.

Of course there has to be “regulation” in the free market – but “regulation” only in the sense of objective laws protecting property and personal rights.  This is true in all aspects of a culture, not just the economic system.  There will always be thieves and thugs, and there must always be laws and a justice system to deal with them.  But the corporate climate of a country needs no more (or less) “regulation” than law enforcement.

Town Hall Challenge

I keep hearing the people who oppose Obama’s socialist health care plan hurl a challenge to their representatives at town hall meetings.  It certainly comes across as a “gotcha” moment, something sure to make people clap and cheer and possibly fluster a weasel politician or two.  It goes like this: “If this health care plan is so great, I want to know if you and your family will go on it.”

As satisfying as it is to see a politician have his caviar promises thrown in his teeth, I think these challenges are missing the point.  Universal health care is not designed for those (like politicians) who have good health care.  Universal health care is designed (ostensibly) to help those who need it.  By the very words of those who espouse it, it’s about giving the “right” of decent health care to every American, even if it’s paid for by the America majority who already have health insurance.

The only people who need socialist health care are those who can’t afford any health care.  This is the surprisingly simple conclusion that no politician will ever admit: This new health care bill is sub-optimal by its very nature.  It’s designed to give poor people something that’s better than nothing.

Marc Lamont Hill, frequent guest on The O’Reilly Factor, put it plainly to Laura Ingraham the other night.  He said that to poor people with no health care, even the system in Cuba looks pretty good.  And when challenged by Tammy Bruce that he himself won’t be using the new health care plan, he at least was honest and agreed with her.

Again, I think Ms. Bruce’s challenge (and that of the town hall dissenters) misses the point.  A better challenge to an elected official would be: “Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone who can’t afford something is entitled to it on the dime of others?” And even better: “Where in the Constitution does it give you the power to do this?”

Hannity’s Playmate

The other night on Hannity, one of the guests of the Great American Panel was a liberal Playboy model named Audra O’Day (or something like that).  Judging from her inability to form a coherent defense of her position, I’m going to walk out on the cynical limb and surmise that she was there to make liberals look stupid.  Hannity certainly seemed to want her there as a whipping post.

Ms. O’Day definitely appeared to be a walking, talking socialist.  She didn’t seem to understand the problem with the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  She spoke about our “responsibility to the global community” and considered things like a house, medical care, a job, and higher education all to be “rights” and even “civil rights” due to everyone.

As disgusting as her position was, Hannity’s wasn’t any easier for me to swallow.  He certainly didn’t need to painstakingly set her up for fall so that he could shake his head in lamentation and call her Marxist.  Condescending to someone isn’t going to make them understand or see reason – indeed it’s more likely to make them defend their irrationality even more.  I see this type of thing on the news all the time: Rather than try to use reason to explain one’s position or denounce another’s, we get emotional indignation.

Why not try to explain to Ms. O’Day (and the multitudes like her) why she’s wrong?  When they start babbling about how every American (and perhaps even everyone in the world) deserves this and that, ask them: “Okay, but on whose dime?  Who’s going to pay for it?”  When they remind us of our “responsibility to the global community,” remind them that Americans are indeed very generous, that we give more money to charity than any other nation does.  Remind them that if charity isn’t voluntary, it ceases to be charity.  Remind them that if producers can’t keep what they produce, they’ll have no reason to produce.

Kindness from a pretty blonde celebrity may be a nice gesture, but without the people who create wealth and jobs, it’s not going to accomplish anything.  Gestures don’t feed and educate those poor children in Africa that Ms. O’Day cares about; money does.  Money cannot be created without private ownership.  The basis of all human rights is the right of ownership.  And people like Ms. O’Day hold a philosophical and political view that undermines – and ultimately will destroy – the concept of private ownership.

Town Hall Fight Clubs

I have an idea for deciding the health care issue in this country.  A Democratic politician gets up at a town hall meeting, picks one of the protestors and challenges him to a fight.  No shoes, no shirts, stop when someone goes limp or taps out.  The winner’s argument is the right one.

Why not?  It makes about as much sense as the current discourse in America today.  Obama and his administration seem to think they have the moral, ethical imperative on their side.  Hell, they’re even going so far to call everyone in this country who disagrees a racist, anti-Christian, selfish, Republican-created, phony.  They don’t care about facts or reason; it’s all about emotion for these sops.  It’s not surprising that they can’t be reasoned with – it’s like trying to tell Sylvia Browne that she’s full of it.

I mean, honestly, I realize I might not be in the loop here, but has anyone ever noticed an actual rational argument for this health care plan?  Anything at all?  Because all I’ve ever heard is, “We must do it because…” and then they list off several emotional appeals about the poor souls who can’t afford healthcare.

And these town hall protestors.  Guess what?  Anyone out there who yells and screams and shouts down these Democratic politicians is just as bad as they are.  I’m sorry to tell you that throwing temper tantrums is not a rational way of opposing health care.  I agree one-hundred percent with your “righteous anger” over what this government is doing, but this country is not a nation of unruly mobs.  Grow up, or consign yourself to being just as stupid as left-wing halfwits like Janeane Garofalo say you are.

And for once, I’d like to hear some honesty from political partisans.  Just once.  So far, I’ve heard only Bernie Goldberg make the point that these town hall protestors should conduct themselves more civilly – that’s it.  The other Republicans and conservatives I’ve seen on TV are gleeful about these people giving Democratic politicians an earful, but if it were liberal loudmouths shouting down Ann Coulter or Michael Steele, their tune would be different (and has been different in the past).

Shouting, sophistry, emotional appeals, fact-mining, Biblical guilt-trips, blatant pandering, political power grabs, deals with insurance and pharmaceutical companies – all of these things can settle the health care debate.  But for my vote, I think a town hall fight club would do a better job than any of that.

Reasonable Creationists?

Most mainstream creationists reject the notion of a young earth, because they know how ridiculous it is.  Even some of the fundamentalists aren’t out there claiming that the earth is six thousand years old like the young-earth creationists are.  But many of them do reject evolution and think that all the different “kinds” of life were created.  In this, I think they come across as more foolish than the YECs.

In trying to be reasonable about the age of the earth, they subscribe to the equally wild notion that God created all the different types of life, all at different times throughout the billions of years of history.  And not only did God allow most (99%) of those species to go extinct, He appears to have created them successively, starting with the simplest and working His way up to more complex forms.  For millions of years He created lost of different kinds of jawless fish, let many of them die off, then tried out the jawed fist.  It just so happens God made the first jawss look like modified gill arches, and the first limbs look like modified fins.  Then He created lost of fishy-looking amphibians that still had tail fins like fish, then lots of amphibian-like reptiles, then more modern-looking reptiles, then mammal-like reptiles, then modern-looking mammals, and so on.  He must have been feeling frivolous when He created dozens and dozens of different elephant-like species over the last several million years, all in order, all more and more like modern elephants, then allowed all but two to go extinct.  And it was surely a joke when He created all the many different species of hominids – again in successive order, again more and more like modern humans – before finally creating us, His crowning achievement (with traits that appear to be left over like wisdom teeth, flawed spines and knees, the appendix, hemorrhoids, and embryonic yolk sacs), three billiion years or so after first waving his magic wand to make bacteria.

Of course, I’m being silly; this isn’t an accurate description of the history of life on earth.  The truth is that it’s incredibly more complex, with a great many extinction events, false starts and stops, and different paths.  For these so-called reasonable creationists, God was a very, very busy creator who either learned by tinkering and trial-and-error, or just capriciously played around for billions of years.  Not only is this picture of a creator shortsighted, it’s demeaning.

So honestly, who’s being more ridiculous?  The young-earth creationists hold to the notion that the earth, life, and humans were created in a flash six thousand years ago regardless of all the evidence saying otherwise.  But maybe they’re they reasonable ones.  Maybe they’re taking the reasonable position, because they know how ludicrous the alternative is.  The young-earth creationists’ denial of evidence may boggle the mind, but the old-earth creationists have plenty of their own farcical absurdities to deal with.

Christian Delusions, Part Three

“Whatever it is we think we mean by human ‘equality,’ we are able to presume the moral weight of such a notion only because far deeper down in the historical strata of our shared Western consciousness we retain the memory of an unanticipated moment of spiritual awakening, a delighted and astonished intellectual response to a single historical event: the proclamation of Easter.”

This is David Bentley Hart, talking about Gregory of Nyssa’s sermon in 379.  Amidst the grandiose verbiage, the near megamaniacal audacity, and the stunning leap of faith, we have nothing more than a Christian petulantly proclaiming “My religion is what’s best for everyone!”

It’s rather ironic that Mr. Hart derides critics of religion like Richard Dawkins for making sweeping, peevish claims in light of reality, for appealing to the anti-intellectual segment of the godless crown (all without, as I’ve noted before, providing any examples), and yet here we have this corpulent nonsense.

Yes, apparently the notion of human equality is all traced back to Gregory’s sermon about everyone being equal under God.  It must simply be a coincidence that it took the advent of the secular state 1400 years later – when we booted Gregory’s religion out of the governance of men’s lives – before we could truly begin to implement it.  Here’s a question: Why wasn’t it a Christian theocracy that freed the slaves, gave women the right to vote, ended apartheid, defeated the Nazis, and lifted more people out of poverty and ignorance than any nation in history?  When has a Christian theocracy ever used its political or military power to do anything other than consolidate its earthly control with heavenly promises and warnings?

It took a secular government, the United States of America, to truly show the world what the notions of freedom and individual rights really mean.  The Constitution wasn’t picked from the Gospels.  The Bill of Rights wasn’t derived from the Book of Exodus.  Regardless of the individual religions beliefs of the Founders, they all understood one very important thing – that a secular state is required for liberty.

Christian Delusions, Part Two

“…the modern notion of freedom is essentially ‘nihilistic’: that is, the tendency of modern thought is to see the locus of liberty as situated primarily in an individual subject’s spontaneous power of choice, rather than in the ends that subject might actually choose.”

So says David Bentley Hart in Atheist Delusions.  As an admirer of Ayn Rand’s (atheistic) philosophy of objectivism, I find it interesting and amusing that Ms. Rand would have agreed with the above statement.  Then Mr. Hart continues.

“Neither God, then, nor nature, nor reason provides the measure of an act’s true liberty, for an act is free only because it might be done in defiance of all three.”

That, I’m afraid, is where Ms. Rand’s agreement would have abruptly and vehemently disappeared.  This is a perfect example of the false dichotomy that Christians such as Mr. Hart are so adept at deploying.  Observe: “It may well be that, when Christianity passes away from our culture, nihilism is the inevitable consequence…”

Like most who must, by virtue of their cherished beliefs and feelings, embrace a philosophy of mysticism, Mr. Hart clings to the puerile view that a philosophy of reason also implies of nihilistic view of freedom.  Why?  Those of us who understand that reason (or nature, if you like), does indeed provide “the measure of an act’s true liberty” are always rather surprised to hear such a thing.

Mr. Hart also says, “There is no such thing as ‘enlightened’ morality, if by that one means an ethics written on the fabric of our nature, which anyone can discover simply by the light of disinterested reason.”

Really?  How do you know this?

Mr. Hart claims to have a philosophical background; indeed he denounces critics of religion like Richard Dawkins for showing an ignorance of philosophy (without providing any examples).  I suggest Hart look at Ayn Rand’s philosophy to fill in the gaps in his own knowledge.  Ms. Rand outlines a clear, logical, and godless path from “disinterested” reason to morality.  Indeed, Ms. Rand found the nihilistic approach to freedom as repugnant as Mr. Hart seems to.

It seems obvious that Mr. Hart has already made the groundless assumption that reason can have no say in morality.  At the very least, he has failed to acknowledge an alternative as arguable in his zeal to present his either-or version of reality.  His point is nothing but a more articulate version of this ignorant canard: “If we didn’t have religion, everyone would just run around wild and only think about themselves.”

As usual, it seems clear that such a notion says more about what that person would do without religion, rather than what the rest of us would do.

Christian Delusions

I’m reading a book called Atheist Delusions, by theology professor David Bentley Hart.  Ostensibly his main point is that Christianity has had a much more profound effect on Western culture, science, and morality than its uber-critics (such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris) like to admit.

The main problem arises when Mr. Hart asserts that faith and reason are not inherently opposed: “All reasoning presumes premises or intuitions or ultimate convictions that cannot be proved by any foundations or facts more basic than themselves, and hence they are irreducible convictions present whenever one attempts to apply logic to experience.”

So far, so good.  All reasoning does indeed presume irreducible convictions (though certainly not “intuitions”).  But Mr. Hart seems to be making the point that materialism (i.e., the conviction of an objective reality untouched by supernatural whim) is equal to his own conviction of supernaturalism.  Apparently those who assume a materialistic foundation simply have a different set of beliefs “that may, for all we know, blind us to entire dimensions of reality.”

Indeed, we could be completely blinding ourselves to the dimension of fairies and elf magic.  We “materalists” are just so narrow-minded.

He goes on: “Certainly we moderns should not be too quick to congratulate ourselves, or to imagine ourselves as having embraced a more rational approach to the world … We have no real rational warrant for deploring the ‘credulity’ of the peoples in previous centuries toward the common basic assumptions of their times while implicitly celebrating ourselves for our own largely uncritical obedience to the common basic assumptions of our own.” [Emphasis mine]

Our own largely uncritical obedience?  Does Mr. Hart understand the most basic tenets of reason or science?  Science is inherently critical of itself.  The very concept of a rational idea that also consists of “largely uncritical obedience to an assumption” is an oxymoron.  Furthermore, the foundation of science is its provisional nature; it strictly rejects dogmatism to any ultimate conviction – yes, even materialism.  One can witness this by the many and varied scientific tests to search for the evidence of ESP, the efficacy of prayer, prophecy, spirits, and so forth.

Mr. Hart seems very close to saying that no philosophy is right or wrong because they’re all based on different “common basic assumptions” of our culture and experiences.  By this line of reasoning, a man whose irreducible conviction is that a giant reptilian monster that regulates the laws of nature with magic eye rays is as equally viable as anything else.

Hart goes on to tell the reader of three African priests with modern educations who also believe that miracles, magic and spiritual warfare are real aspects of their everyday lives.  That’s very heartwarming, and I’m sure it will endear Mr. hart to the multi-culti crowd, but I’m curious as to whether these priests wrote a thesis and passed the exams for that modern education by using miracles, magic, and spiritual warfare.  Try fixing a computer, building a house, or planning birth control with magic.  Try feeding a nation or curing a disease with miracles.  Try it, and let me know how it turns out.

Some metaphysical convictions are clearly more useful than others.  Some are useless.  Assuming supernatural fiat in the natural world destroys science and makes all experimental data useless.  We “moderns” don’t cling to materialism out of blind devotion; we simply use methodological materialism because it’s not only unfailingly useful, but also necessary to a functional human mind.  One can’t even argue against it without first assuming it.