Oct 25 2024

Every. Single. Time.

Were I to give bits and pieces of information and opinions to someone who has come from afar and wants to visit multiple places in the USA, one thing I would say is if there’s a Martin Luther King boulevard/avenue/road, stay away from it.

Memphis police are investigating a shooting that left a woman injured outside a Downtown Memphis hotel this weekend.

Police were called to the scene near the Arrive Hotel on South Main Street just before 8 p.m. Saturday.

The police report shows the victim was a woman from England. Police say she and another person were walking down Main Street when they heard gunshots and ducked for cover.

The 28-year-old was grazed on the left side of her head and in the right foot.

Police say people in a black Dodge Challenger and silver sedan were driving by and firing shots at each other.

The Challenger was reported stolen about two hours before the shooting. Officers later found the stolen car in the area of MLK Avenue and Second Street with several bullet holes.

The hotel these ladies were staying at is about six blocks away from where the car was found on MLK Avenue.

When I lived in Seattle, MLK Boulevard had the same reputation. Every city I’ve gone to that has a street named after MLK, has had the same problems.

It makes one wonder.

Oct 25 2024

Pathways

     First and foremost, Happy Saint Crispin’s Day! It’s not a bad idea to reread Henry V, if you have the time. Henry’s Saint Crispin’s Day speech to his troops at Agincourt is the second most famous of all Shakespeare’s soliloquies. The rest of the play ain’t bad either. If you’d rather watch than read, there’s the Kenneth Branagh movie, as well.

     Second, to those who fretted over yesterday’s emission: Relax. Two of those visits were six-month checkups; the third was a teeth-cleaning. You can’t get rid of me that easily!

     Third (now we get to the entrée), consider the following sentiment, once again shamelessly stolen from Mike Miles:

     Among “former Democrats,” perhaps the best known is Ronald Reagan. I think my Gentle Readers will agree that he left some pretty big footprints. But I expect Tulsi’s change of convictions to make some big waves, too. She’s not only a former Democrat Congresswoman and a former Presidential candidate; she’s also very attractive, eloquent, widely respected… and female. That’s more important than a casual observer of the political scene might imagine.

     Women tend to reach their political stances by a quite different route from men. Yes, some inherit them, just as we do, while some others adopt them to gain access to particular circles. But having left those categories aside, there’s a substantial number remaining… and the dominant influence on those women’s choice of alignment is emotion.

     The emotional influence on such things arises from women’s greater empathy for those who suffer. That probably derives from the maternal and consensus-oriented facets of the female psyche. (To any shirty women inclined to take me to task for generalizing thus: yes, of course there are exceptions. But look up the meaning of that word, and stop bothering me.) It’s a credit to the distaff side of our race, frankly. But let’s stick to the political effects for the nonce.

     For some decades, the Democrat Party has marketed itself as the party that “cares for people.” It’s always been a lie. Political parties exist to pursue political power and for no other reason. But we’re talking image here, which in the political realm will always differ from the underlying reality.

     Female aspirants to high office have predominantly been Democrats since the New Deal. Many of them were and are largely sincere in the belief that they could somehow help others by rising to power. The discovery that that is not the case can hit them hard. After that, what will matter to their futures is whether they have a taste for power over others. Quite as many women as men share that taste.

     Private-citizen women tend to respond strongly to the appeals of public-official women. There are several reasons for that, including admiration for a “successful sister,” but more relevant is the sense of emotional commonality. Thus a leader figure such as Tulsi has an edge in persuasive power over a similarly outspoken man. When such a figure announces a dramatic shift in convictions and perspectives, it gets women’s attention in a big way.

     Relevant here is the relatively minor influence of lifelong conservative women over other women’s political stances. The Ann Coulters and Laura Ingrahams are a special target of the Left’s denigration efforts. As most don’t put much work into softening their public personae, those efforts are more successful than not. Democrat-turned-Republican Tulsi is likely to have a large impact because she hasn’t previously been aligned with the Right. She already has a fund of female admiration and allegiance to build on that Democrat tacticians will be hard pressed to counter.

     There’s a significant synergy between Tulsi’s announcement of her realignment and the Republican Party’s recent rebranding of itself – under Donald Trump, without whom it would not have succeeded – as the party that stands for the interests of the common man. Among the Democrats are in the Slough of Despond is the predominance among their public figures of old male plutocrats. That’s not an image that generates wide appeal, as the history of the GOP shows. Still, the bulk of Democrat power and support lies with rich old men. Nor does it strengthen their appeal to note that the wealthiest members of Congress are predominantly Democrats. Even obnoxious former bartender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is worth millions of dollars today.

     Let’s hope President Trump sees the value of keeping Tulsi front and center during what remains of the campaign. Perhaps he’ll announce that she’ll have a post in his Cabinet, as well.

Oct 24 2024

Open This Can Of Enthusiasm!

I listened at normal speed for the first dozen minutes. I listened to the rest at 1.5 speed with a few stops so I could read what was on the screen. In my long life, no carnie barker has ever outdone Peterson here (see frieze screen below,) and I imply no disparagement with that analogy. Unlike the carnival showman, it’s certain he wasn’t paid to do this.

Curious note: For reasons unknown, the exact same link at Facebook provides the following frieze.

Perhaps because it excludes the Peterson caricature I find it preferable.

Oct 24 2024

Day Off

     Apologies, Gentle Readers. This will be a medical day off, as I have to see no fewer than three practitioners before 5 PM. So enjoy yourselves – life isn’t all Fran Porretto tirades, you know – and I’ll hope to see you tomorrow.

Oct 23 2024

To Knock Down A House (UPDATED)

     …you must knock down its supports, including its load-bearing walls. The same logic applies to the undermining of a movement, or a political campaign.

     The Left is not steered by stupid people. Its strategists and tacticians know what they’re about. And they’ve recognized the immense value to the Trump / Vance presidential ticket of Elon Musk:

     The New York Times is leading the charge, but the rest of the major media are maneuvering in concert with it. The campaign to discredit, impoverish, or imprison Trump has run its course and failed. The leftist media will now attack his supports, among which Elon Musk is currently the most prominent.

     With thirteen days to go, the attack doesn’t have good prospects. Investigations are rife today. Some produce criminal indictments or massive regulatory intrusions, but not all – and seldom swiftly. Musk is probably safe.

     Still, the tactic should be kept in mind and talked up. Doing so will make the Democrats look even worse than they already do – and that’s saying something.

     UPDATE: Consider also this report of trans-Atlantic interference in America’s elections. It too is aimed at crippling Elon Musk.

Oct 22 2024

To Our Days Of Realism

     I’m going to disturb you, Gentle Reader. Some of you, at least. You may find what follows antiquated, a delusion of a past century. Perhaps you’ll deem it offensive. But I have something in mind that Rudyard Kipling expresses beautifully in the poem below.

Take up the White Man’s burden
Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times mad plain.
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden
The savage wars of peace
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man’s burden
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:
“Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden
Ye dare not stoop to less
Nor call too loud on freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man’s burden
Have done with childish days
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

     How often has that poem been cited as an expression of white supremacy? I can’t count that high. But is that what Kipling is expressing in the above verses? Is it even close?

     In the years before the First World War, when it was said that “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” Great Britain ruled over colonial possessions throughout the world. Its world-girdling trade fostered wealth in every corner of the globe. Its incomparable navy protected ocean-borne travel and commerce. Its colonial administrators sought to advance the values of civilization in every land they governed. Today, a century and more since Britain’s retreat from empire, those lands that were fortunate enough to have been British colonies are markedly superior to the colonial possessions of other European nations. And most persons of the Twenty-First Century have little knowledge of how that came to be, or what it wrought, or why.

     In those days, Great Britan was the world’s foremost power. Yet it exerted little actual force to become so, or to maintain its dominion. There was some – Herbert Lord Kitchener was involved in much of it — but in the main, the British colonies knew peace, order, and steadily advancing prosperity.

     The British ruling class regarded raising the colonies to European standards of order, cleanliness, and prosperity as Christians’ moral obligation. To be gentle about it, those conditions did not obtain before the British arrived. What the colonial administrators found upon their arrival sickened and appalled them.

     Remember this famous episode from India?

     A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:

     “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

     British governors and peacekeeping forces in the colonies were unabashed about eliminating the barbarities prevalent in the lands they governed. They held it to be their obligation as Christians.

     (For those who don’t keep up with the trends in India: the practice of sati has achieved a resurrection. It’s just that today, it’s called “kitchen accidents.” No foolin’.)

     Only the unthinking embrace of moral and cultural relativism makes it possible to view British colonial rule as evil. In truth, much of the world owes what peace and prosperity it possesses to its years under British rule: the rule of savages, whatever their race, by white Christian men.

     And today we are taught to be ashamed of it, even as the reports of cannibalism, rampant rape of children, ethnic cleansing, and brutalities inconceivable by a Western mind pour in from the length and breadth of the Third World. We are taught that “it never should have happened” – that First World colonialism was inherently and unqualifiedly evil, that to imagine that the values of Christian-Enlightenment civilization are superior to the savagery of killers, rapists, and brutes is “white supremacy.”

     Choose according to your tastes. I stand with Rudyard Kipling.

Oct 22 2024

Visions Of Sugarplums

     Let’s talk about money:

     Well! If the subject is money, is there really more to say than that? Frankly, yes.

     Relax, Gentle Reader. I’m not about to quote Francisco D’Anconia at you. But he did have a point or two, especially this one: the first thing looters and totalitarians go after, when they get their hands on power, is the money. Corrupt that – put control of it in the hands of the State – and you’ve gained hold of a lever that can move continents.

     Now, as matters stand today, the United States dollar is inescapable. It defines all finance, both inside and outside the U.S. It is controlled by the federal government in concert with the Federal Reserve Bank. Look up the Bretton Woods agreement if you’re interested in the details. With few exceptions, Americans who work for wages are paid in the U.S. dollar.

     Saving itself has become problematic. If you’re saving for retirement, you’re likely to save either in dollars or in equities that are traded for dollars. None of that is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

     Savers must be aware of the changing nature of the dollar. They must also be aware of the legal and regulatory constraints on what they can do with their savings. Today, the dominant vehicles for Americans saving for retirement are the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and the 401(k) account.

     This morning, the Wall Street Journal has a thought-provoking article on the 401(k) account. In particular, the article notes the psychological effects on employees’ treatment of their 401(k) accounts as they exercise occupational mobility:

     [I]t has become much less common for workers to stay with a single employer throughout their careers. In fact, the typical American holds nearly 13 different jobs before retirement, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
     However, far less has been done to help workers keep their savings on track when they change jobs.
     One major challenge is that millions of Americans end up with multiple small retirement accounts that they have left with former employers. This shouldn’t matter in theory: After all, 10 accounts of $10,000 should be treated the same as one account of $100,000.
     But in practice, that isn’t how people react. As Nobel laureate Richard Thaler has written, smaller windfalls—like those left-behind 401(k) accounts—often are treated as income, and are thus far more likely to be spent. Large windfalls, in contrast, are more likely to be seen as assets that need to be saved for the future.
     This psychology has a big impact on retirement savings. According to research by Vanguard, about 40% of workers with 401(k) balances between $1,000 and $10,000 cash out their accounts upon leaving an employer. In contrast, less than 10% of accounts with balances over $100,000 are cashed out. These larger accounts were seen as assets worth preserving.

     Let’s assume, along with that article, that a typical American wage earner – call him Smith – is likely to change jobs about 13 times during his working life. When Smith changes jobs from one employer to a new one, the previous employer retains administrative control of Smith’s 401(k) account, unless he “rolls it over” into an IRA. However, it’s become depressingly common for Smith’s “new employer” to be unemployment, at least for a spell. That too influences what Smith is likely to do with the money in that 401(k), for obvious reasons.

     While the 401(k) has its limits, it remains by a large margin the most advantageous savings vehicle available to Smith. It would follow that, present conditions continuing, that’s where Smith would be best advised to put his retirement funds. But the unprecedented occupational mobility of American wage earners does put a crimp in matters.

     There’s also this ever-looming possibility, which makes me hesitate to offer an unqualified recommendation of the 401(k). With the national debt now above $35 trillion, Washington’s hunger for (your) money is unlikely to do anything but increase. Remember what they did to the Social Security “trust fund.”

     This brings us to an overarching consideration. Whether it’s in an IRA, a 401(k), or some combination thereof, Smith’s retirement savings are more in the federal government’s control than in his own. Washington could change the rules at any time. It’s done so more than once. Left-wing influence peddlers have advocated all sorts of rules for what IRAs and 401(k)s can do, including forced “investment” in federal bonds. (“A government bond is a certificate of guaranteed confiscation.” – Franz Pick)

     In the mid-Nineties, when I first took interest in this subject, the aggregate value of Americans’ retirement accounts was about $18 trillion. It’s about $38 trillion today. That’s a significant fraction of the aggregate worth of all American assets. The vulnerability of that mass of assets to federal meddling is something that should give anyone pause. Given the mutability of the rules, it should also cause Smith to ask himself “What do I really, truly own?”

     From here I could segue into a discourse on the illusory nature of “real” property, but that’s a subject for another tirade. Anyway, it’s time for more coffee. Back later, I hope.

Oct 21 2024

Life is Getting Easier

I’ve been dragging around my right leg in an aircast for the last month. My ankle had a stress fracture, and was not improving. Today, after a visit to the Ortho doctor, I’ve graduated to an ankle brace, made of fabric and velcro straps. MUCH lighter, allows some movement of the ankle, and does not force me to place most of my weight on the inner knee joint.

Already, I can see this will allow me to move around more easily and comfortably. I also have a Physical Therapy referral, which should speed my recovery.

My husband, after a visit to his doctor, that led to an ER visit and admission to the hospital, is home again. He had bacterial pneumonia, complicated by some mild cardiac issues. After over 24 hours in the hospital, he was released to finish healing at home.

He still felt lousy on Sunday, and did something he hardly ever does – he stayed home from church. I’m more cautious about exposing others to potential health issues, and more likely to do church online, if I’m sick.

He’s better today, though. He’s moving around without becoming breathless, and will – with some luck – have an uncomplicated recovery.

Living with others is more complicated than living on your own. But, it is helpful as you age – looking out for your spouse keeps them from deteriorating unnoticed, a little reminding (OK, nagging) forces them to make regular doctor visits, and good home nursing can be the difference between a nasty respiratory infection, followed by recovery, and death.

Plus, they add a lot of fun and company to your life.

We’ve been making a point of watching Elspeth every Thursday; if you haven’t watched it, give it a try. Hard to describe, but a genuinely different show with a quirky lead actress. NOT a woke character at all.

Other things I’m looking forward to:

  • My daughter has season tickets for Cleveland performances of touring Broadway shows. This Saturday, she offered her tickets for the Neil Diamond show (not him, but a tribute show) to us. It appears that he will be healthy enough to go.
  • Getting back to walking around the neighborhood, including the beautiful Lakeview Park in Lorain.
West Beach archway at the top of the outdoor amphitheater
  • Getting ready for Halloween – last year, the weather was so cold (not just seasonal cold, but taking-your-breath-away cold, even with winter coat, hat, and gloves), I gave up after 1/2 hour. Fortunately, I was still there for a sweet child with sensory issues, for whom this annual treat wasn’t always something he could handle. I made sure he had a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of treats to take away.
  • Spending time with family – we’ve been staying away due to my husband’s lingering respiratory issues (and the difficulty I had with traveling).

As for the election, I’ve mostly been turning the sound down on the commercials. Since I did my early vote, I find that my interest is not as strong. I’ve done my part, it’s in God’s hands now.

I’m even looking forward to some cleaning up. It’s just great to be able to move around without dragging that heavy cast with me.

Oct 21 2024

A Spread Of Motives

     Karl Schmidt at The Village Hemorrhoid asks an important question:

     Wouldn’t You Think That Other Countries Might Take Heed To What The Muslims / Islam Have Sworn To Endeavor To Accomplish…

     It’s a question that’s been asked many times, including by myself. But it will continue to be asked, for the bizarre phenomenon of Western nations importing their own destroyers continues apace. Indeed, Giorgia Meloni, the nationalist prime minister of Italy, can’t get her own country to stop it.

     But Karl focuses on something else: Western nations’ support of the Islamic terrorists of HAMAS and Hezbollah against Israel’s attempts to expunge them.

     My initial reaction was to recur to the “they don’t really mean it” explanation for such things. Decent persons are susceptible to projecting their own morals, ethics, and attitudes onto others – even others who demonstrable don’t share them. That propensity has caused us plenty of trouble in the past, both with Muslims and with other enemies of Western values and ethics. But the longer I ponder the matter, the more persuaded I am that there’s a spread of motives involved. Those motives vary according to the altitude of the policy maker or policy influencer.

     There are probably a number of tenderhearted idiots who’ve been swayed by the anti-Israel propaganda put forth by the Islamic world. When Islamic terrorists murder Israeli civilians, the mouthpieces proclaim it “an understandable response to oppression.” When Israel retaliates, it’s suddenly “genocide.” And depending on where you get your “facts,” it’s possible to be persuaded in that direction.

     But tenderhearted idiots seldom rise high in governmental hierarchies. Above them sits a layer of persons of greater authority and influence. Many of those persons will parrot what their higher-ups are saying. After all, agreeing with the boss is harmless to one’s career prospects; disagreeing with him is not. There aren’t many bosses who don’t respond favorably to approval and praise of their judgment.

     But what about those bosses? The cabinet secretaries and the ministerial appointees? Their agenda is often covert. Those who’ve shepherded them into power – the media barons and money men – are often less concerned with good and evil than with the bottom line. Their political clients know it, and are understandably reluctant to take positions that would harm their backers’ interests. There’s always an election coming up.

     Finally, some persons at the top level of government in Western states fancy themselves as geopolitical experts. Perhaps they have a moral code, but in practice the dictates of that code are often subordinated to clever (they think) thrusts for international advantage for their nation. Is there a Most Favored Nation trade status at stake? Are extraterritorial holdings vulnerable to an Islamic government? What about the possibility of getting the Muslims to sell oil for francs or deutschmarks instead of dollars alone?

     It’s all in the mix. Separating out the ingredients is challenging – frequently impossible, as the prevalence of duplicity in speech and action can confuse even the best-seasoned and hardest-headed diplomats. They, too, will believe what they prefer to believe unless the evidence against it is irrefutable and overwhelming.

     For further thoughts on this subject, see this Baseline Essay.

Oct 21 2024

Every So Often, Someone Asks The Right Question

     And here he is:

     Well, yes! Is there anything else you want to know?

Oct 21 2024

Thinking Ahead

     Roger Kimball is confident. That cheers me quite a lot. Kimball is my current favorite among commentator-prognosticators, as he has a habit of being correct. (He’s also a terrific writer: always both graceful and clear.) That doesn’t mean Trump supporters can relax, of course. It’s still necessary to vote, and to get the vote out. But it does suggest that we should spend a little time thinking beyond the 2025-2028 presidential term.

     According to Wikipedia, J. D. Vance is 40 years old. That’s young for a vice-president, and younger still for a president. At any rate, he’ll be only 44 when the 2028 presidential election is held. If he’s elected president at that time, he would become the third-youngest man ever to occupy the Oval Office. (Theodore Roosevelt was 42; John F. Kennedy was 43.)

     More compelling still, Vance has only been a federal officeholder since 2023. He’s had only two years to make connections and gather allies. If he’s to succeed President Trump in 2028, he’d better spend a good part of the next four years doing so. The alternative is to have the GOP Establishment steamroll him… as you know perfectly well the Old Guard in the Republican Party will try to do.

     The Bushes, the McConnells, and the rest of the GOP kingmakers have no love for Trump. They accepted him as the party’s standard-bearer because they had no choice in the matter. But they haven’t changed their spots. Vance would have an uphill battle to attain the 2028 nomination. He’d need his own, popular base of support – and while he might inherit part or all of Trump’s base, he can’t count on anything beyond that. The Old Guard will be doing its damnedest to recapture control of the GOP once Trump is gone.

     So once the election is behind us, it will be time to “prep” Vance: to build him up as the logical, even inevitable successor to President Trump. There’s a delicate dance involved, as the focus, quite properly, must remain on Trump himself as he strives to right the leaking American ship of state. Moreover, Vance and his boosters will not be operating in a completely benign political environment. He’ll have to face rivals for the nomination, some of whom would be backed by the Old Guard.

     It’s worth thinking about this. There’s a lot of work involved in developing a national image and national support for a politician. Reaching the vice-presidency, history tells us, isn’t a free ride to the presidency thereafter. One swallow, as we say here on Long Island, does not an Iced Tea make.

Oct 20 2024

Helpful Enemies

     As God is my witness, I knew nothing about this until this very morning:

     Former President Donald Trump is weighing a go-it-alone approach to presidential transition planning, which could dramatically slow his takeover of the federal government if he wins in November.
The Trump transition team has yet to sign two agreements with the federal government to receive transition funding and planning assistance and to share information — a break with modern precedent. Instead, transition co-chairs Linda McMahon, who served as small business administrator in the Trump administration, and investor and GOP mega-donor Howard Lutnick are plowing ahead with their own processes for vetting potential political appointees and preparing policy plans.
The decision not to take federal assistance allows them to raise unlimited funds without disclosing their donors, while avoiding oversight from federal bureaucrats, whom Trump and his advisers deeply distrust. But if Trump wins the election and continues to drag his feet on signing the agreement with the White House, it will limit the information he and his team can access to understand current federal operations and challenges.

     So the “federal government” – meaning who? I’d surely like to know – offers to provide “transition funding and planning assistance” to the incoming president? What do you suppose the aim of such a program might be? Not the for-popular-consumption aim; the actual, never-to-be-broached-in-public aim. Could it be anything other than assuring the futures of those who populate and direct the Deep State?

     If my surmise is correct, Trump would be right to decline such “assistance,” even were it to cost him and his inner circle temporary access to certain information. All that information will be completely accessible to him by law after his inauguration. Why, then, should he permit persons with a strong personal interest in the perpetuation of “things as they are” to have visibility into his plans for his administration, much less influence over them?

     We know the Deep State is deeply dug in. (“Like an Alabama tick,” to borrow a characterization from a great onscreen philosopher who “ain’t got time to bleed.”) We also know that they fear a second Trump term. Therefore it behooves Trump to steer clear of their “assistance,” lest he or his closest advisors allow the bureaucratic worm into their deliberations. Nothing good could come of it.

     Turn not to your enemies for counsel.

Oct 20 2024

Boredom: A Brief Appreciation

     “I want to live my own life, sleep in my own bed—and not be bothered!” — Robert A. Heinlein

     Is your life exciting? If not, would you like it to be? If so, how much sleep do you get, on average?

     A lot of people seem to desire excitement. Whether it’s the thrill of reaching the peak of the mountain, the challenges of wheeling and dealing in commerce, or the all-consuming thrum of romance, they seek it. They claim to want it… that an unexciting existence is little better than the grave.

     There’s room in life for excitement. Most of us get some of it at some time in our lives, however long it might last. But the very nature of it should be food for thought.

     If your life is exciting at some time, that means it’s unsettled – that things are changing, and that the results of those changes are uncertain. You’re in the midst of dynamics you can’t wholly control or predict. So while there’s excitement, and the possibility of gains of some sort – achievement, love, triumph over an enemy or an obstacle — danger is involved as well.

     The greater part of a happy life is ruled by routine: the expected, with which one has already prepared to cope and which therefore holds no fears. Oh, there may be some trials of body or mind that involve modest risks, but even were you to fail those trials, you can be confident that you’d survive what would follow.

     Exciting times, for a happy person or a secure nation, must be exceptions. Just now, as I wrote earlier, we’re in for some excitement. The prospect should not please you. It certainly doesn’t please me.

     Why this subject, early on a Sunday morning in October? I was reflecting on what things and events, in this Year of Our Lord 2024, I strive to avoid. My friend, the late and much missed Remus of the Woodpile Report, understood this. He had much to say on how to brace oneself for unpleasant events… but he didn’t look forward to them. He counseled his readers to avoid them. “Stay away from crowds,” he said over and over. A crowd is a reliable indication that something exciting is happening or about to happen. Remus understood that; many others don’t.

     Boredom deserves appreciation. If things get really exciting after November 5 – the British “celebrate” Guy Fawkes Day on that date – a lot of Americans who’ve occasionally lamented the routine that governs their lives will appreciate routine, regularity, and boredom a whole lot more.

     Nothing too deep here, Gentle Reader. Just one of those early-morning thoughts. And now, it’s time for Mass. That reminds me: remember to pray. Prayer strikes many persons as monotonous – boring. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature. God never intended prayer to be exciting. He gave it to us, in part, as a way to calm ourselves while we await developments. Reflect on that when your routine gives you a moment.

Oct 20 2024

A Storm Is Brewing

     Strike that; it’s in the wrong tense. A storm has brewed. It’s ready to spill over.

     Dio of the Workshop, whom I admire, has expressed a sense of things I’ve detected in a great many decent Americans as we’ve marched toward Election Day:

     They are planning on a shitfestivus of fun cuz they know the DON has it in the bag (because even kneepads Harris can’t blow THAT many, in that short a time to sway the voat)
     The mental breakdown of the left is going to be epic, and the TANTRUM they throw,,,, Dude, I have no words, and honestly, can’t imagine the horrors that are being set to be released if the STEAL doesn’t happen the way they want it.
     We have about three weeks to that date. The waffling of ‘the count may take weeks to sort out’ bullshit is starting to wear thin, and even some courts are calling BS on it….
     […]
     I’m gonna say it outloud, but I am sure there are some that are thinking it as well: I almost wish they would kick this shit off, because I am getting a might pissed off with how they rub THEIR shit in our faces with the ‘whatchagonnado’bout it?’ vibe.

     Damn right people are thinking it, Dio.

     There will be an effort to steal the election. We know it, and they know we know. All that remains to be seen is whether it will succeed.

     Should the theft come up short, the Left will return to its 2016-2017 tactics: street violence, disruption of normal people’s lives, and general fuss-raising intended to unsettle the public and obstruct the Trump agenda.

     Ragin’ Dave has been telling you to buy more ammo. It’s good advice. Add these to it:

  • Check your pantry and fill in any gaps;
  • Clean and oil your guns and keep the ammo near them;
  • Talk to your neighbors about their readiness for civil disorder.

     One way or another, we’re in for it. You’ve got two weeks left. Don’t waste them.

Oct 19 2024

The Fallacy That Won’t Die

     Our Gentle Readers may have noticed that one of the two major political parties has nominated socialists for president and vice-president of these United States. Kamala Harris’s socialism isn’t perfectly overt, though her inclinations and her totalitarian impulses are quite open. Still a comparison of her advocacies with the 1928 platform of the Socialist Party would make it hard for her to disclaim the label. As for “Tampon Tim” Walz, the less said the better.

     The worldwide failure of socialism has never been more blatant. The Communist nations, with one exception, are all gone; the exception lacks enough calories to keep its subjects alive. The “softer” socialist nations have all been forced to restore at least some measure of capitalism to ward off complete economic collapse. You’d swear that the evidence against socialism is enough to kill it and nail its coffin shut.

     But it is not so, as the socialist subversion of the Democrat Party makes clear.

     I’ve strained to explain to others why socialism refuses to die. The essay below, which I wrote in November of 2003 and which first appeared at the old Palace of Reason, is a good example of my efforts. Perhaps the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch can help me to understand why such explanations remain insufficient to kill the beast.

     At The Brazos de Dios Cantina, proprietress Sharon Ferguson declaims as follows:

     Since when did ideologies like Socialism and Communism become “good” things?

     Am I the only one who seems to notice that more and more people have not only embraced these antiquated ponsi schemes for the elites of society as desirable lifestyles, but display incredible amounts of hatred for ideologies of republicanism and individual freedoms and civic knowledge?

     Have we passed that point of no return in America where students have no education in citizenship, but seek out group philosophy as a means of self-identity?

     Have we allowed the words socialism and communism to become so innocuous and benevolent in our minds that their true and terrible inheritance has metastasized into blatant and defiant agendas?

     Have Socialists and Communists become that brazen, knowing they have had our children in thrall for two generations now?

     These are things I have been wondering about for some time now, reading various blogs that never defend socialism but waste bandwidth in attacking opposing views, hearing actors like Ed Asner praise Stalin and Castro, watching Congressmen play number games not so much to reassert Constitutionality, but to spell the difference between central government as matters of lesser or higher rates.

     Worthy questions all, and not easily answered.

     In the natural sciences, when a proposed theory is disproved by relevant counter-evidence, the theory is usually junked. If it held sway for some significant interval, it’s relocated to the Museum of Illuminating Mistakes. There, knowledgeable tour guides (professors) explain to the visitors (students) how the proponent went wrong, and what significance his idea had for the overall history and development of his field.

     It is not so in the soft disciplines, such as economics and political science. The unique hybrid of these called political economy continues to drag every discredited theory in human history behind it, like the trail of a slug — because no theory in political economy is ever sufficiently discredited to flense away all its adherents.

     In part, this is because there are no controlled experiments in the social sciences. Human societies cannot be experimented on like lab rats. Therefore, all evidence of any sort is open to objections to its real significance. But in larger measure, it’s because of the hybrid nature of political economy, which is of occupational interest to two disparate groups:

  • economists,
  • politicians.

     These groups diverge widely, unbelievably so, in their motivations. Economists seek to understand the way societies structure themselves as individuals pursue their various visions of happiness and fulfillment. Politicians seek power. They bring those orientations with them to their considerations of socialism, which is first and foremost a model for political economy.

     But there are other divergences that matter, too.

     Human decisions, including decisions about ideological allegiances, descend from human motives. Therefore, the enveloping question — why are so many people so friendly toward socialism? — must be decomposed into lesser questions, according to the motives of those to whom it applies.

     The ranks of socialist loyalists contain:

  1. people who are motivated by a desire to help others,
  2. people who are motivated by a desire for power over others,
  3. people who are greatly envious of others who have more than they.

     Despite socialism’s perfect record of failure, there are still millions of people in group 1, the Good Intentions Brigade. Your Curmudgeon will refrain from any wisecracks about asphalt or compasses, for what we see here is among the most poignant of tragedies: a laudable concern for the well-being of one’s fellow man, harnessed to an idea that has intensified poverty wherever it’s been tried. That the idea keeps being tried testifies both to the power of good intentions and to their insufficiency. Wishing that socialism would work will not make it work, but that won’t stop the well-intentioned man from thinking with his wishes rather than his logic center.

     Of course, like the poor, power-seekers will always be with us. Some fraction of humanity seems to be born with the libido dominandi in control of its soul. Whatever socialism’s faults as a system for economic development and the distribution of society’s products, it’s unparalleled as a rationale for the concentration of irresistible power in the hands of a few. This raises the tragedy of the Good Intentions Brigade to a towering height. To rise to the station they covet, the power-seekers in group 1 uniformly require the support of the good guys in group 2. To get that, they must conceal their real motivations — something at which the professional politician is unusually good.

     Regarding the envious, there is much that can be said. Nearly all of it has been said brilliantly and definitively by Dr. Helmut Schoeck in his 1969 book Envy: A Theory Of Social Behaviour. All your Curmudgeon need do for the purposes of this discourse is to emphasize that the envious man willingly accepts damage to himself and his interests, if he can thereby damage those whom he envies. Socialism, which degrades the condition of all, is a perfect fit to the psyche of the envious man.

     We must now consider the inadequate resistance of those who have no love for socialism. Some of these are simply numb to political economy, or to ideology of any sort. Others, while interested, might lack the knowledge or the analytical skills to penetrate the matter. Still others are more clear-sighted, considering socialism a threat to freedom and prosperity and a betrayal of the nature of Man, but they can still be less than effective as opponents of it. Here in America, these persons easily outnumber the socialists, yet for more than a century, the socialist tide has advanced steadily and the sphere of freedom has steadily shrunk. Why?

     Again, no single explanation will cover all the facts. There are many persons who are simply not knowledgeable or articulate enough to mount a defense of the free market or a coherent assault on the inherently static logic and Utopian visions of socialism, and therefore give way before the verbal nimbleness and erudition of socialism’s promoters. There are others who suffer from undeserved guilt over their own prosperity, and see socialism and comparable redistribution schemes as a way of doing penance. There are those who, while not consciously friendly toward socialism, distrust freedom — others’ freedom, not their own. And there are those who can be seduced with a public-spirited rationale, of which we’ve heard God’s own plenty this century past.

     In our own time, it can be very difficult to sustain the necessary interest and perspective to appreciate the failures of socialism. This applies with particular force to the “micro-socialisms” inherent in government control of specific industries or activities. For example, not many people have enough breadth of experience or historical knowledge to grasp just how completely educational socialism — the highly privileged, near-monopoly status of the government’s schools and the bureaucrats who operate them — has ruined American education. Acquiring that sort of knowledge takes concentration and determination. Most people have other things on which they’d rather spend their time.

     In consequence, when a “for the greater good” rationale carries the day, and an area of life is socialized, few will bother to collect the necessary baseline information that would buttress later negative evaluations of the socialized system’s performance, vis a vis the displaced free-market alternative. Meanwhile, the socialized area will acquire an Iron Triangle: bureaucrats who work for the system, vendors who sell to the system, and persons who contrive to acquire direct benefits from the system even though they’re outside it. The members of these communities of interest will mount a fanatical defense of the system whenever it’s questioned. Because they have a short, coherent agenda and strong personal motivations, they nearly always manage to stand their ground. They use tactics such as the Washington Monument Defense to discourage anyone from attempting even to trim their areas of control.

     Against opposition this staunch, the typical, indifferently-knowledgeable, indifferently-motivated citizen, even if he has no love for socialism or schemes for government management of parts of the economy, will usually step aside. He’ll award the benefit of the doubt even when there is no doubt. He’ll defer to “experts,” who, being part of the Iron Triangle, always side with the socialist forces. Even the clearest-eyed, most knowledgeable and most passionate anti-socialist will usually fail. He has other things to attend to; he doesn’t make his living defending freedom, after all.

     How does the socialist message manage to predominate in our freedom-oriented, capitalist society? Do the socialists have a special set of techniques they can use to glamorize their message well beyond its objective virtues?

     Yes and no. It’s not a matter of special technique, but of special technicians. Nearly everyone who goes into the communications or entertainment field will tend to sympathize more with socialism than with freedom.

     Some years ago, a retired computer salesman named Marshall Fritz formed a freedom-promoting organization called the Advocates for Self-Government. In his researches, Fritz discovered that certain political opinions tend to correlate strongly with certain psychological predispositions. In particular, those who were most receptive to the socialist ideology also tended to be most driven by emotional considerations, as measured by the famous Keirsey-Bates personality inventory.

     The emotion-oriented personality also dominates the communications and entertainment industries. Apparently, an emotion orientation either produces communications skills or predisposes one to acquire them. So the very persons most adept at conveying ideas and attitudes to others are naturally receptive to socialist ideas.

     Numerous implications radiate from this, but two stand above the rest:

  • There’s no conspiracy involved. The natural communications skills of the emotion-oriented person simply correlate with a predisposition toward governmental — i.e., socialist — solutions to “problems,” however defined.
  • Any promoter of any concept who can “enlist” the professional communicators and entertainers will gain a huge advantage in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, for conservatives and libertarians, there’s no alternative to the attempt to enlist them; no other consideration could be as large.

     This recalls the strategy consciously conceived by Sidney and Beatrice Webb and the British Fabian Society, which promoted socialism in Britain. The Fabians targeted the communications organs of the Labour Party, and gradually came to dominate them. Once so ensconced, they were able to control Labour’s “internal” messages to its adherents, and in time gained control over its policies. What happened through planned action in Great Britain has happened through unconscious, spontaneous action in the Democratic Party and the major media in the United States. (It’s also an illustration of Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.”)

     Though Ann Coulter and others who have decried the censoriousness of the Left, which holds the power seats in broadcasting, journalism, and publishing, are entirely correct, there is little to be done about it. The “mature” forms of those industries are essentially closed to change. Their barons are uneasy about (if not outrightly hostile to) freedom and its outcroppings, and cannot bear to let the voices of freedom’s promoters reach the public unfiltered. These strong points for the dissemination of socialist ideas cannot be brought down by siege; they’re simply too well defended. They must be bypassed by the creation of alternative channels of communication.

     National Review columnist Florence King used to say that, when a pundit approaches the Last Graf, he’d better have some suggestions to present. His readers will expect them.

     Sadly, your Curmudgeon, while passionate about freedom and horrified at the inroads socialism has made on the liberty of Americans, has no suggestions to make. Generally speaking, he hews to Nock’s Dictum that the only way to improve society is to improve yourself. In part, that’s because it’s a good idea, but it’s also less likely to annoy the neighbors than stomping around with a placard and a bullhorn. Swapping ideas with like-minded others, and writing essays such as this one, with whatever persuasive power they might possess, is all he knows how to do.

     One hopes more penetrating minds are at work.

     CODA: My dear and brilliant friend Duyen, after reading the essay above, had something ominous to say:

DK: We’re in deep shit, Flashy.
FWP: Why do you say that?
DK: Because the forces that keep socialism alive are inextinguishable.
FWP: You don’t think they can be successfully countered?
DK: Not a chance. And about that “more penetrating minds” bit?
FWP: Hm?
DK: You know perfectly well there aren’t any.

     Duyen has a damnable habit of being right.

Oct 18 2024

Watching The Gold Market

     Gold is tearing through every threshold anyone has proposed for it.

     Americans smart enough to hold some physical gold should not take this as a reason to sell their holdings. Speaking for myself alone, if I had any unemployed cash just now, I’d be buying. But more to the point, the steady increase in the dollar price of gold doesn’t mean that gold is becoming “more valuable;” it means that the dollar is becoming less so.

     If you’re paid in dollars for your labors, you’ve already felt the bite of inflation. It’s not going to improve in the near term. Indeed, it’s more likely than not that the recent surge of federal spending will boost prices further. Life will get harder.

     If your savings are in dollars – actual Federal Reserve Notes or dollar-denominated bank deposits – I hope your pantry is full and you have enough ammunition. You might want to take inventory and shore up any weak areas before things go further. It’s time to “think austerity.”

     If your savings are in equities – stocks, bonds, or mutual fund shares – stay in touch with your broker or advisor. Make sure he knows that you’re worried. If he’s at all competent, he’s worried too, though he might not admit it; investor confidence is something he’s professionally inclined to encourage.

     Pray for a Trump / Vance victory on November 5.

Oct 18 2024

The Predicted Acting-Out

     I’ve quoted this before, from the late, lamented Florence King:

     Did your Congressman fuck a Doberman on the steps of the Capitol? He’s guilty of bad judgment, not dog-fucking. Who said anything about dog-fucking? Where in the world did you get that idea? Dog-fucking has nothing to do with dog-fucking. It’s a question of bad judgment, and if you don’t agree, you’re not only an –ist, you’re a –phobe.

     Changing the subject to something utterly irrelevant is a time-honored technique for evading sharp, difficult questions. Politicians must master it before their first network appearances. The alternative can involve admitting to having been wrong, or having to explain why their conduct clashes with their representations.

     But it isn’t just politicians who self-exculpate in this fashion. Others do so routinely. Sometimes, they have third parties to help them: persons who style themselves “therapists” or “mental health professionals.”

     If there’s no one with a pseudo-medical credential to do the job, there might be a commentator or a political pundit.

     And so, many have been wondering how the left will take it if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election. According to veteran political analyst Mark Halperin, a Trump-Vance victory will trigger “the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.”
     Halperin sat in on Tucker Carlson’s show this week for a wide-ranging discussion. When Carlson asked him what he thought would happen if Trump wins, Halperin predicted a psychological holocaust on the left that would fall somewhere between “The Purge” and the zombie apocalypse.
     “I say this not flippantly,” began Halperin. “I think it will be the cause of the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country. I think tens of millions of people will question their connection to the nation, their connection to other human beings, their connection to their vision of what their future — for them and their children — could be like. And I think that it will require an enormous amount of access to mental health professionals. I think it’ll lead to trauma in the workplace. I think there’ll be some degree of —”
     At this point, an incredulous Carlson asked Halperin if he was being serious.

     I’d have asked, too. Halperin is excusing the inexcusable, and must be hauled up short.

     Put the behavior Halperin predicted in the above – which is only an amplification of their behavior in November 2016 – next to the behavior of any toddler who’s just been told that he can’t have what he wants. Can you see any differences between them? Honestly, now? Because behavior is the starting point for analysis. As with the military analyst, reason backwards. Deduce objectives, and then motives, from observable behavior, not the other way around!

     (Dear Lord, please forgive me for repeating that particular advice so often. It appears it’s been ignored by the very people who most need to heed it. Thank You for Your kind attention. Sincerely, Francis W. Porretto, Curmudgeon Emeritus to the World Wide Web.)

     The toddler and the shrieking Leftist have the same general intention: to punish those who denied them their way. It probably won’t change the decision at issue, but it might deter future refusals. It’s a rational, if unarticulated, application of a well understood phenomenon: people shy away from pain and suffering.

     But in our time, innumerable helpful sorts will explain it away with psychological doubletalk. In this connection, watch for the words stress and trauma. (“Beelzebub, what a useful word!” — C. S. Lewis) Anything is preferable to the bald admission that the flailing, screaming toddler is striving to punish Mommy or Daddy, and therefore should receive more punishment, not less.

     And so, to this credentialed “helper:”

     …I say bring it on, if you have the guts. We’re tired of the deflections, the rationalizations, and the excuses. We’ll hear no more of them. It’s not trauma; it’s not Post-Election Stress Disorder; it’s not “bad judgment.” It’s dog-fucking, and we will have no more of it. We certainly won’t kowtow to it. The miscreant deserves to be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Oct 17 2024

“Bar The Exit Door!”

     One thing that’s perfectly consistent among totalitarians of all stripes is that they don’t like for anyone to escape them. Enough escapees and the totalitarian could find himself exercising power over… no one. What fun would that be?

     Today, governments control the habitable land surface of the Earth. (Only penguins consider Antarctica habitable.) Thus, there’s nowhere on this ball of mud where one can go to be left alone. The only prospects for escape from the ever-tightening grip of one State or another are off-planet: in space or on some other solid body.

     So the Left wants that prospect eliminated:

     Savannah Mandel, a PhD candidate at Virginia Tech and an “outer space anthropologist,” adds to what seems to be a trendy argument about investigations into outer space.
     According to Virginia Tech News, Mandel’s book “Ground Control: An Argument for the End of Human Space Exploration” argues that “rushing to send more humans to space […] mirrors an imperialist mindset that harms Earth’s humanity and environment.”
     Mandel (pictured) said the space industry is “highly bureaucratic, highly politicized, and highly technical,” and the more she learned the more she began to question the utility of continued manned space operations.
     She said she wants a “systemic change” in human-led space efforts, one of which is “the inclusion of more social scientists” at NASA and elsewhere.

     Mandel is hardly the first. There’s this moonbat:

     Wesleyan University Dean of Social Sciences Mary-Jane Rubenstein, a “philosopher of science and religion” (who’s also affiliated with the school’s Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program), says she’s noticed how “many of the factors that drove European Christian imperialism” have been put to use in “high-speed, high-tech forms.”
     Rubenstein wonders if “colonial practices” like “exploitation of environmental resources and the destruction of landscapes,” all “in the name of ideals such as destiny, civilization and the salvation of humanity,” will be part of man’s expansion into space.
     Of course, we’re reasonably sure that, especially in our own solar system, there is no life — not even microbes — about which to worry. Hence, what’s the big deal if we help save Earth by exploiting Mars, Mercury, the asteroid belt, etc. for mineral and other resources?
     To her credit, Rubenstein notes that Mars Society President Robert Zubrin has made this exact case. In a 2020 op-ed, Zubrin ripped a “manifesto” from a NASA DEI — diversity, equity, and inclusion — group which had argued “we must actively work to prevent capitalist extraction on other worlds.”
     Such “brilliantly demonstrates how the ideologies responsible for the destruction of university liberal-arts education can be put to work to abort space exploration as well,” Zubrin wrote.

     There are others.

     Now that most of the workable approaches to getting off the Earth’s surface are under private control, the decision to go somewhere else in the Solar System, for whatever reason, rests largely in private hands. That’s got the Left’s knickers in a twist. Even were 99% of the world’s population to remain Earthbound, that 1% would constitute an unacceptable insult to them. Worse, it could prove more successful than any Earthly society. The odds favor that, as persons eager to make lives off-Earth are likely to be both smart and individualistic.

     This is a theme many science-fiction writers have explored. (Yes, I have, too.) How many of them expected the Left to condemn it – and them – for daring to inspire new dreams of freedom?

     Perhaps we should have known. After all, look at all the effort recognizably totalitarian countries have put into hanging on to their subjects. The border guards of such nations aren’t tasked with keeping immigrants out.

     But the subject doesn’t end with the possibility of establishing viable habitats off-Earth. Even the use of off-Earth resources is anathema to the Left. After all the work they’ve put into keeping the greater part of Mankind poor, they’re not about to let Elon Musk and his confreres ruin things by making the riches of the Solar System available. The hoi polloi might actually realize what’s been done to them – and by whom!

     Regardless of their putative ideologies, governments worldwide are dominated by power-mongers. They’re hostile to anyone who appears to threaten their power over us. And they are quietly doing everything they can to seal off the high frontier. “National security” forbids it, don’t y’know.

     A fanciful story from fifty-five years ago, J. W. Schutz’s “The Bubble,” proposed that a space-oriented entrepreneur could break the government’s stranglehold by turning enough Americans into stockholders in his enterprise. It might work, if enough people could be convinced that a positive return is probable. But you can bet your last dollar that the stock offering would somehow be torpedoed. The escape hatch must be closed.

     And the anti-human, anti-prosperity, anti-freedom Left would lead the charge.

Oct 17 2024

Is It CINO, or UTBC?

CINO – Catholic in Name Only

The above ‘kinda Catholic’ is one that seldom attends church, hasn’t a clue about theology, positions of the Church, and considers Confession one of those old timey leftovers from before Vatican II.

UTBC – alternatively known as Raised Catholic

That breed is often divorced, if female, may have had an abortion, and in contrast to the CINO, is actively hostile to The Church, priests, the Pope (Although they kinda/sorta approve of Francis, when he speaks out on climate, the poor, and social justice. Not so much when he reminds them that the Church is still not gonna ordain women or endorse abortion).

The UTBC takes every opportunity to declare that THEY represent Catholics, not those simple people in the pews every week. They never pass up a chance to mention their distant relationship with religion. If pressed to define their current relationship with God, they will declare themselves “Spiritual”, which apparently means they do yoga and occasionally meditate.

So, they ar3 not the demographic that is likely to switch their vote from Kamala.

However, these people may very well deliver the knockout punch that makes Trump president, again.

Oct 17 2024

That Damnable Conscience!

     Quite a lot of the First World has legalized euthanasia. Some nations that haven’t done so de jure permit it de facto. And some “health care providers” are discovering that they don’t really approve of it:

     A homeless man refusing long-term care, a woman with severe obesity, an injured worker given meager government assistance, and grieving new widows. All of them requested to be killed under Canada’s euthanasia system, and each sparked private debate among doctors and nurses struggling with the ethics of one of the world’s most permissive laws on the practice, according to an Associated Press investigation.
     As Canada pushes to expand euthanasia and more countriesmove to legalize it, health care workers here are grappling with requests from people whose pain might be alleviated by money, adequate housing or social connections. And internal data obtained exclusively by AP from Canada’s most populous province suggest a significant number of people euthanized when they are in unmanageable pain but not about to die live in Ontario’s poorest and most deprived areas.
     Some doctors fear moving forward even with cases that meet Canada’s legal requirements, which allow euthanasia for people with “irremediable suffering” from serious but nonfatal medical conditions and disabilities. On private forums, doctors and nurses have expressed deep discomfort with ending the lives of vulnerable people whose deaths were avoidable, according to messages provided to AP by a participant on condition of anonymity due to their confidentiality.

     The subject tests many persons’ consciences… but it should surprise no one when physicians are troubled by it. To kill, however antiseptically and bloodlessly, is the exact opposite of “health care.”

     Governments –organizations whose entire existence is founded on having the power of life and death over others – have a somewhat different attitude. Euthanasia helps a government in so many ways! It balances budgets. It reduces unpleasant statistics. It quiets popular discontent. A sufficiently ruthless regime can even use it as a tool for social control.

     Remember when Ezekiel Emanuel pronounced that living past seventy-five is “living too long” — ? What do you think he had in mind for those of us with different views?

     Now some Canadian doctors are finding their consciences tested. Not all of them, of course; some like the power to kill under color of law. The love of ultimate power isn’t confined to politicians, even in ultra-polite Canada.

     “But the patients want it! They consent to it!” rises the cry from the death-cult activists. Are you quite sure of that? It would be terrible to be wrong.

     Some of this was foreseeable when I wrote this Baseline Essay. Medicine, the practice of treating illness and injury in the hope of restoring or improving life, has already advanced so far and encompassed so much of human existence that some practitioners were eager for new realms to conquer. The ascendancy of the worldwide death cults was sure to encourage them.

     No subject could possibly be more serious than government approval of death administered as “health care.” The practice has even been legalized in a few of these United States. It’s time for men of good will to ponder what it means for the future of our species… and our souls.

Load more