Tuesday, April 11. 2006
I try to bring a soft heart but a hard-headed approach to things in general, but I am afraid the illegal immigration issue is beginning to harden my heart. Here is why: 1. It is not right for foreigners, in our country illegally, to demand things. They are in no position to demand anything. Every one of them is deportable at any time. 2. I am suspicious of the Left's apparent support of open borders. No nation has open borders. Is it a nihilistic impulse, or pandering, or both? 3. I object to the application of the concept of "rights" to illegal foreign nationals. This is not a civil rights issue, because we are not dealing with citizens. There are legal pathways to American citizenship, open to all, and more readily available than in any other nation. "Get in line," as they say. 4. If the illegals have so much to protest about, then why are they here? Why no protests about conditions in Mexico? 5. If we will have a de-facto open borders policy with Mexico, then why not with China, India, Russia, Poland, Iraq, etc.? Sneak in, and start making demands. These protests are what I consider "working the system." 6. I resent the Administration for bringing this issue up at all, now. Stupid. Enforce our borders, and let the people think about the issue for a while. We are too far from a consensus. 7. Just out of curiousity, are our Meican and Guatemalan and Phillipino illegals paying their taxes to their home nations, as they are required to do? Linkzona has some more thoughts from Arizona.
Saturday, April 8. 2006
 Anytime the government gets involved in do-gooder projects, they screw it up.
Their motive is generally some combination of "caring" and vote-buying, and the effect is usually a reduction of freedom and choice, a diminution of personal responsibility, and numbers of people working the system. I am not convinced that there is any huge national demand for more government involvement in medical care. We already have Medicaid for the poor, and Medicare for both the wealthy and the non-wealthy older folks. More and more doctors are opting out of Medicare, though. I no longer accept it, mainly because the coding is impossible to understand, and if I make a mistake, it is a felony. I would rather offer charity when needed, as docs have done forever. But I no longer do any costly procedures. However, medical practice has changed, and the costs of procedures is large. Every responsible person should have Major Medical coverage these days unless you are so wealthy that paying $20,000 for a bypass, or $16,000 for a hospital stay after being hit by a truck, or $100,000 for a dubiously-effective long drawn out treatment for metastatic cancer, is easy for you to pay out of the checking account. In addition to the costs of running a hospital these days, and the cost of procedures, there is no doubt that concerns about law suits have increased the cost of medical care. Prudent and practical medical judgement becomes replaced by fear-driven decisions, resulting in enormously expensive tests in search of the 1-in-10,000 possibility. Thus, between the costs of malpractice insurance and the cost of low-probability tests, trial lawyers, insurance companies, and hospitals are the beneficiaries of medical insurance. They all get paid. Who are the people who really "need" Major Medical insurance, but lack it? Not the poor - they are covered. Not the over-65 - they are covered by their under-65 neighbors via Medicare taxes. Not the prosperous - they buy it, or are insured through work. It's the under-65 non-poor (and their families) who have either not arranged their lives in such a way as to buy or to obtain coverage through work - and illegals. Plus those with chronic problems who cannot buy insurance and are unemployed. That is who we are talking about when we talk about the "uninsured." In Mass., most of the uninsured turn out to be young single men who don't want to spend the money on it - their foolish choice should not be our problem. A healthy married couple, both working at Walmart, with a family income of $56,000, can certainly afford to buy medical coverage, although it might mean driving an older car. In my opinion, any medical insurance law ought to recognize that those are the targets for it. Also, any medical insurance law should be Major Medical - with a choice of deductibles anywhere between $500-10,000. And no coverage for quackery and elective things such as chiropractic, yogurt enemas, homeopathy, gym memberships, abortions, routine check-ups, herbal wraps and massage "therapy." While everyone wants a free lunch, there is none. Somebody pays the bill - either you, or your next-door neighbor pays it for you. As I always say, if you want to have a body, and kids, then figure out how to take care of them. It's part of being a grown-up. Do what you have to do, and make good choices. Life is hard. Nobody promised us a rose garden. Utopian dreams of government "solutions" usually end up turning into nightmares, while emptying our pockets, nurturing an un-American sub-culture of weakness, dependency and entitlement, and reducing our freedom. If you cannot take care of kids, or would rather buy a new car, do not have kids. It's your choice. They can be expensive, but do not dump their expenses on your next-door neighbor. That is lame unless, due to grieveous misfortune, you need charity. Americans love charity, but they hate to be ripped off by people with options. Kesler has a follow-up piece on the Mass. laws, looking at its shortcomings. And a conservative Mass. reader offers a fine rant in our Comments about the unwelcome burdens of government's efforts to do things for him. Recent posts on the subject: Scroll down. Other pieces we have done on the subject here and here. Image: MRI of the head. Cost: $400-800. There happens to be a brain inside that one.
Wednesday, April 5. 2006
Massachusetts has a new medical insurance law. I don't unders tand it all, but Bruce Kesler likes it, and he studies these things. The key is that you are required to be insured. Like with car ownership - if you own a body, you have to insure that darn thing yourself so you don't dump your maintenance costs directly onto everyone else. And taking care of one's health and one's family's health is a greater source of pride than taking care of the car - or should be. Interestingly, it turned out that most of the uninsured in Massachusetts were young single men - they figure they are invincible, and they would rather buy beer and cars and F150s and deer rifles and Ezra Pound poetry and new outboard engines. That is natural - irresponsible, but entirely natural. I don't think it will have much effect on the private practice of medicine, so that is a good thing. Hospitals will like it: they will get paid. And people should like it, because it keeps politics out of medical care...hopefully. Read Kesler's piece here. This could be ground-breaking. PS: Welcome, HH readers. Check out our blog - we are sure you will want to bookmark us! Our April Fool's Day satires were pretty good. PSS: Dissent from a Massachusetts reader - scroll up.
Tuesday, April 4. 2006
In an effort to film some  anti-Moslem
prejudice in the US, NBC has been
seeking Moslems to volunteer to attend NASCAR events while wired and secretly filmed. No doubt they planned to continue filming until they caught something "useful" on film. Like Candid Camera. I guess it reveals something about what NBC thinks of NASCAR fans. Nice try, NBC. But you are busted. They used to call this "yellow journalism," and it is beneath contempt. And the real question is this: If 100 people were pleasant to these stooges, and one person was rude - what would be shown on the news? Chalk up one more for the blogosphere vs. the biased and, in this case, insidious and corrupt MSM. Two comments from The Chairman: 1. If they really wanted some good footage, they should have gotten five or six of the scariest-looking Moslems they could find and put them on a transatlantic flight as a group. 2. Why didn't Cynthia McKinney think of bringing a film crew with her when she punched the cop? And why isn't her story a bigger story than Cheney's? His was an accident - this was on purpose.
Like many bloggers, 
the strange case of
the Yale Taliban-
Man has been on my mind. John Fund (his latest piece is linked in the following paragraph) has, of course, been on the story. What's the story really about? Here's my first take on it. Some of those folks up at Yale are just so doggone smart that they have managed to use their powerful brains to transcend not only Judeo-Christian morality, but all morality, and have thus transcended themselves into the abyss of amoral, ie anti-moral, relativism. And, all the while, thinking themselves morally superior beings for having done so. (Let's hope they do not run their personal lives in a similar fashion - but I am sure they do not, generally. They live morally, and preach relativism. A rather wierd form of hypocrisy, and the inverse of the common form of hypocrisy most of us practice.) So, since the wise men of the Ivy League have determined that multicultural diversity and respect have now replaced our narrow-minded and obsolete Judeo-Christian morality, we offer the suggestion that this man might have been an attractive, multiculturally diverse applicant to Yale - had he not been too busy. Goebbels surely could have provided a different perspective - and all perspectives are now valid - right? No. There is one exception: The Maggie's Farm-type of perspective on the world is definitely not valid. It, alone, is "marginalized" on campus, as they say. We think of ourselves as traditionalist, capitalist, God-fearing, rationally patriotic, freedom-loving, and proudly protective of our country and our heritage. Why is this one "perspective" unwelcome, and disregarded? Image: Reichsfuhrer Doktor Joseph Goebbels speaking in Hamburg, 1936
The dramatic growth of Right to Carry (ie concealed weapons) since 1986 occurred beneath my radar. "Shall issue" means a carry license will be issued if you pass the background check. I am getting mine - not because I want to carry, but because I want to be able to if I want to. It's a freedom issue. Brits and Aussies: Eat your heart out. A nice summary of the subject, with maps, at RWN. Here is the current state of the states: 
Monday, April 3. 2006
 Remarkable piece from Ledeen at NRO - h/t Ed Driscoll. Here, he quotes Oriana Fallaci and comments:
How come that, in a country where 85 percent of the citizens say to be Christian, so few rebel to the ludicrous offensive which is going on against Christmas?!? How come that so few protest when your Caviar Left speaks about abolishing Christmas holiday, Christmas-trees, Christmas-songs, the same expressions Merry Christmas and Happy Christmas?!?
That’s the sort of anger that comes from a self-described "religious atheist" like Oriana, who knows that if anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism spread again, it is only a matter of time before they will come for people like her. As indeed they have already, with their legal briefs and their anti-hate-speech codes, dragging her off to the latest version of the Inquisition for the sin of apostasy against the Church of Political Correctness. San Francisco, under cover of "existing and established customs and traditions," bans free speech. The little reichs of San Francisco, St. Paul, and Paris ban free religion. And "top professors" at Harvard and Chicago take off after the Jews. No wonder Ayman al Zawahiri and his buddy, the Ayatollah Khamenei, think we’re going to be an easy prey.
Read the whole thing.
Highly informative, with lots of links: Citizen Joe
 The British military announced today that they had air-dropped former hostages Norman Kembler, James Loony and Harmeet Singh Sooden into the Iraqi desert, just two weeks after their rescue from a house west of Baghdad. The men had been held by insurgents for four months.
Since their release, the three men, all from a Christian Peacemaker team, have spoken with deep admiration and respect for their captors, while not offering any degree of gratitude to the British commandos who risked their lives to save them.
"We realize now that we made a huge mistake," said Captain Ian Coates of the British Army, "and it was time to return these men to the people they love and respect."
Coates wistfully related the story of how the former hostages were told of the decision to reunite them with their brethren in Iraq.
"To keep it a surprise, we used our commandos to gather the men in the middle of the night," he said. "They were so surprised and excited that we needed to duct tape their mouths and tie them up. But there was no doubt that they were overjoyed to be returning to Iraq. Their eyes were as big as saucers, and Kembler even wet his jammies in excitement!"
The men were whisked by military jet back to a British Military base in Kuwait, and flown by helicopter into Iraq at dawn. Captain Coates struggled to keep his composure as he described the reunion.
"The air drop was a remarkable moment, something I was honored to see," he said. "The men were writhing around, screaming and crying with joy. There wasn't a dry eye in the helicopter as we rolled them out."
The British Military was concerned that the men would not be picked up quickly, leaving them to wander in the desert. So each man was given a bright red parachute emblazoned with one of the famed Danish Mohammed cartoons.
"The cartoons really did the trick," said Captain Coates. "As they drifted downward, you could see the insurgents gathering to welcome them. Some had even set fires to help guide them as they landed. We could hear the chants and gunfire of welcome even over the whir of the rotors. Did you ever see Born Free? It was like that, but better." Coates would not comment on reports that the three men were all wearing nice new T-Shirts with "Jesus Rules, Mohammed Drools" on the back.
Image: A Brit commando unit attacks a German-held port in Norway, 1942 PS: To Free Market readers - check out our blog. You will like it, if you like his. He is our Brit cousin and bother brother-in-arms.
Saturday, April 1. 2006
 President Bush's proposal to return California to Mexico, or possibly Spain, is being opposed by leading Dems. And Mexican President Fox had some comments on the issue.
"California is our bread and butter," noted the cheerfully rotund Kennedy, as he sat on two chairs and sipped on a triple scotch this morning at a popular college bar in Georgetown. "Give away California, and we drown. I didn't go to electoral college for nothing, and I can count...We won't let Bush pull a fish one a fasht one a flesh one a fash one on us. Hellooooo?" Said the perky but menopausal Californian Pelosi: "Giving California away as a gift is a moving, culturally-sensitive offer, but I wouldn't have a job anymore, would I?" She added "My sound bite for California is 'Mexican, but not Mexico.' By the way, "Pelosi" is a Mexican-sounding name, isn't it? How about Peliso?" The not-so-perky, post-menopausal Reid said "I love California. I went there once, to Disneyland. 1955, it was, I think. It was great, and Mickey gave me some career tips, too." Mrs. William Clinton offered this written comment: "We must be caring. We must be strong. We must be clear. We love Mexicans. We love Jesus. Love thy neighbor. We have a border. Yet we do not really have a border. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge." However, Mexican President Vincente Fox offered this statement, through a spokesperson "We will take California back with pleasure, but we must build a wall on the border to keep the Anglos in. Otherwise, California will turn into another dump like Mexico, with chickens and dead dogs on the roads, barefoot kids begging everywhere and selling their sisters and mothers, and burritos burros for transportation. California without your Anglos we do not want." Image: Ted Kennedy heroically volunteering to personally plug a levee breach in New Orleans last fall.
Friday, March 31. 2006
 Borders is as chicken as City Lights Bookstore is hypocritical.
But you can have an impact on Borders, if you believe their cowardice in the face of Jihad is shameful and un-American. And dumb: When you cringe in the face of bullies, you only encourage them. Samizdata has two pieces on the subject, and supplied their email address: ccare@bordersstores.com Why not send 'em a friendly email? Personally, I like their stores, but this kind of dhimmitudinous, weak-sister behavior cannot be rewarded in the proud USA. We are not the UK or Canada. (And also, if you are the only person in the world who has not seen those silly, harmless cartoons, here they are, via Jihad Watch.) Image: Borders chicken dinner tonight, but we will add some Gibier sauce with fresh porcini mushrooms, and a mountain of Smashed Potatos potatoes taters.
 From ABC News:
"We construct your schools. We cook your food," rapper Jorge Ruiz said after performing at a Dallas rally that drew 1,500. "We are the motor of this nation, but people don't see us. Blacks and whites, they had their revolution. They had their Martin Luther King. Now it is time for us."
From an excellent piece in The Daily Pundit: The tactically astute -- and blindingly obvious -- approach for the Administration and Senate would have been to let their open borders/amnesty plan sleep until after the November elections, when there would be a better chance of getting concessions from the House. But these folks aren’t the Stupid Party for nothing...
Flag image from Whittier, California, posted in a long and comprehensive piece at Michelle.
Mexico invades and defeats the 
United States of America, without a shot being fired. "Nothing will stop us," they declare. The Dems and the Repubs have figured it out together, in Washington over cigars and double Laphroiags, and the hell with the voters. Guess what? The entire illegal immigration issue is about a complicated partisan maneuvering, and has nothing to do with the interests of Americans. And if both parties can conspire together against the voters, who can you punish with your vote? This is one of those cases where politics trumps reason, law, national sovereignty, economics, common sense, and the will of the people. People bitch about contentiousness in DC - but look what happens when both sides are on the same page, and against the voters. As the rapist said, "There's nothing you can do, so just sit back and enjoy it." The fix is in. Just watch it unfold. As Mark Levin says, regular Americans are just too busy to protest. Image from the LA march of Illegals on Parade, via Moonbattery
 This man cannot help pandering to, or seducing, or flattering anyone he encounters.
It is a disease in him. At Gateway, Clinton tells the Brits that their economy and system is the envy of the US. Let's hope the Brits don't believe that steaming pile of happy horsesh-t, because not a solitary soul in America envies the Brit government-stifled economy. And very few envy their antiquated socialistic and statist tendencies, and their Nanny-style emasculating Government. On the contrary, Brits have every reason to envy the US economy and American freedom from an oppressive state. Image, from Gateway, of Clinton reacting with his trademarked modesty to applause, recently in Britain.
Thursday, March 30. 2006
First, read this advice and these US State Dept. 
rules and regulations. Second, read this on Mexican immigration laws and regulations. Remember, it is a felony to be in Mexico illegally. And their jails are not very nice - no TV and no A/C. And their guards and police are not well-schooled in multicultural sensitivity. And the suggestion for the Minutemen and those who wish to support the laws of the US: Get a thousand folks to cross the border into Mexico without money and without passports. Seriously. See what happens. It would make an effective statement.
 The world is nuts. From Heather MacDonald with yet another great Heather MacDonald piece in City Journal - read it all, but here's a quote:
And so the future is clear. That rustling sound you hear is the migration of university deans and associate provosts, “managing differences” consultants, and ed school faculty to the next big employment bonanza: helping boys succeed! Boys are poised to become the newest victim class, requiring a sturdy structure of advisors, trainers, and counselors just to get by. The requisite helping apparatus is already in place: the professions and academia overflow with committees on the recruitment and retention of minorities and women; they will undoubtedly be only too happy to expand their mandate to boys. But what, you say, about girls’ hallowed victim status—how can it co-exist with a newly designated male oppressed class? Not to worry. The great thing about victim thinking is that it is not zero-sum; it is win-win. Each individual, each group, can be a victim in his or her or his/her own special way.
Hahaha. What a funny spat. At least The Globe didn't refer to Scalia as "a Sicilian jurist." That would be racist, right? Let's see... I guess we have two Jewish Jurists, two Italian Jurists, one Irish Jurist, one African Jurist, is it three Catholic Jurists, two or three English Jurists (not sure what white-bread country Roberts immigrated from). Gee, don't we need some American Jurists?
Wednesday, March 29. 2006
Murray's idea is far too rational to be tried, but it's a darn good mental exercise. Count me as being in favor of it. One quote: We start with a country that is the richest country in the world, with most of its people having lots of money (compared to any historical standard), ample money to provide for their own retirements, medical care, and the rest of it. On top of this national wealth, we then add more than $1 trillion to help people provide for comfortable retirement and medical care, and so forth. And guess what? We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate medical care. And only a government can spend that much money that ineffectually. The alternative I suggest is give every adult American, age 21 and older, $10,000 a year. And let them run with it.
Read the whole thing - link above.
Gwynnie notes: It is a rare moment when a multitude of swirling ideas merge into a coherent concept, but the anti-semitic rants of a couple of Harvard profs and the admission of a Taliban spokesman to Yale did it. They are so similar to the relatively innocent "Mules" that the drug lords of Medellin use to move narcotics into the United States, and both are the unwitting messengers of Evil (remember Evita: "There is Evil, ever around us ..."?) Well, both the Harvard profs and the Yale admissions folk are clearly the mules for Evil, but how? What is the key to their voluntary yielding to dark forces beyond their comprehension? Hatred -- the door through which Satan enters each one of us fallable mortals. In the current case it is Bush hatred, but we have also seen Reagan hatred and, yes, Clinton hatred and Kennedy hatred (there wasn't much LBJ hatred - it was more like bi-lateral contempt). Hatred of Bush has led these ivory-tower educational employees (hard to refer to them as intellectuals) to take leave of their moral senses, and it leads them into becoming another example of our oft-discussed phenomenon of liberals not holding "brown" peoples to the same standards as "whites" (remember the 3 million Cambodian deaths - which the Left didn't protest?) We cannot believe so few people discern this incredibly clear pattern! Satan - Evil, if you will - is exploiting Mules blinded by hatred, and leading them to advocate for and even praise genocidal killers like Hamas, the Taliban, and Pol Pot, and even the Nazis if so doing might in their twisted view hurt the target of their hatred and impotent rage, "dubya", the democratically-elected President of the United States.
Sunday, March 26. 2006
 ROSALIA Puerto Rico,
You lovely island . . .
Island of tropical breezes.
Always the pineapples growing,
Always the coffee blossoms blowing . . .
ANITA Puerto Rico . . .
You ugly island . . .
Island of tropic diseases.
Always the hurricanes blowing,
Always the population growing . . .
And the money owing,
And the babies crying,
And the bullets flying.
I like the island Manhattan.
Smoke on your pipe and put that in!
OTHERS I like to be in America!
O.K. by me in America!
Ev'rything free in America
For a small fee in America!
Entire lyrics here. Image: The Rio Grande. It gives me a migraine to think about the illegal immigration issue, but I think I understand what is going on. My view is simple. Our representatives make immigration laws that hopefully serve the nation and reflect the feelings of the people. People who break these laws are working the system. That is not the right way to begin a new life in a new land. And it especially saddens me when it can be so difficult for people who want to come here legally - it's a hassle, there are quotas, employers have to demonstrate a specific need, etc. Without boundaries, a country isn't a nation - it's just a place. But no ordinary place: it's a place to which countless millions in the world would come, if all they had to do was wade across the Rio Grande to get here. I know why the Dems are inclined to support illegals - they want their votes. And the Repubs not only want their votes - their business supporters want their cheap labor. I believe the majority of Americans, on the other hand, want their borders and laws respected, and do not want to be flooded by a de-facto invasion on which they were never consulted. Thus the majority of citizens are at odds with both parties of professional politicians. Being a regular sort of guy, I expect most Americans have the view that I do: Hey, illegals - stay home and fix your own countries, and make them be like us. Rick Moran has written a fine and calm piece on the subject. Update: In an email, Rick mentioned the "racism" charge which is often used against those who want our laws respected. Answer me this: If you were asked to vote in a poll for 13 million Brits, Poles, Irish, Yugoslavs or Russians to be shipped illegally and covertly to America, who would vote "Yes"? Damn few. I like Larry Kudlow, but he is wrong on this. Americans do not hate Hispanic people. Why would they?
Thursday, March 23. 2006
A glance at the current issue of the International Socialist Review: Noam Chomsky on Latin America. I don't know what authority Chomsky possess beyond that of any ordinary blogger, but these comments aren't his usual loony rants. (The article, "Latin America at the Tipping Point," is not online. Information about the magazine is available on its Web site.) Challenges from Latin America are "bubbling up" for policy makers in Washington, writes Noam Chomsky, the controversial author and professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Countries across South America are growing "completely out of control, with left-center governments" that are increasing their trade with China and the European Union, he says. Even in Central America, he says, "the lid is barely on." Indeed, writes Mr. Chomsky, "the noisy protests during President Bush's trip in November 2005 to the Summit of the Americas, in Argentina, amplify the dilemma." Washington's thorniest problem at the moment, he writes, is Venezuela, which provides almost 15 percent of the oil imported by the United States and whose president, Hugo Chávez, has accused the United States of supporting a 2002 military coup to oust him. Venezuela already has a closer relationship to China than does any country south of the United States, he says, "and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on a hostile U.S. government." Compounding matters, he writes, is the close relationship that the Venezuelan government is establishing with Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba. The two nations have arranged a barter system whereby Venezuela provides Cuba with low-cost oil in exchange for help with literacy and health programs. "Joint Cuba-Venezuela projects are also having a considerable impact in the Caribbean," Mr. Chomsky writes. He mentions as an example a program under which "Cuban doctors are providing health care to people who had no hope of receiving it, with Venezuelan funding." According to Mr. Chomsky, "Washington's Latin American policies are only enhancing U.S. isolation." One example that he cites is the United States' trade embargo against Cuba, which the United Nations recently voted to condemn for the 14th straight year. The vote on the resolution was 182 to 4, he notes.
Tuesday, March 21. 2006
As the Republican Party hosts more and more black candidates, blacks continue to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Why aren't blacks voting somewhere closer to 50-50 like the general population? From a piece by Shadroui at Intell. Cons: There are core issues around which whites and blacks can and should rally: economic empowerment, local empowerment, states rights, cultural renovation, school choice, the sanctity of unborn life, etc.
Fifty years later, conservatives and Republicans are still trying to convince African-Americans that these causes are not code words for racial attitudes held half a century ago, that many Americans sincerely believe that the path to empowerment now longer lies in Washington, D.C. or Jesse Jackson, that our nation, already tested by so many issues domestic and foreign, still offers opportunities that will benefit their children if they do the hard work of preparation.
Read the whole thing.
 On free speech hypocrisy in schools, by Ollie North in The Patriot Post:
"It is interesting to note that those who now proffer the most vociferous defense of these 'teachers' to say what they want in the classroom are the very ones who want to ban other educators from uttering a Bible verse, challenging Darwin's theory of evolution or noting that we are 'one nation under God,' when pledging allegiance to our flag. Not surprisingly, the so-called mainstream media has failed to note the utter inconsistency in defending the 'right' of some teachers to defame our President—while denying the freedom of expression to other educators who profess their faith in God. The consequence of the political-legal crossfire of America's classrooms is predictable. As shown by the Global Literacy Survey—and dozens of other assessments—students in public education aren't learning that which will prepare them for jobs and higher education in a highly competitive global economy. Parents who can afford to, vote with their feet. They pull their children out of these troubled schools and send them to private or religious institutions or home-school them. America's high-tech industry is constantly lobbying Washington to increase the number of visas granted to qualified immigrants—because our schools aren't producing enough competent graduates. There is no doubt that our children must learn 'critical thinking.' Before they get to politics—shouldn't they at least know geography—and maybe some math and science? It would be nice—if this is to remain the home of the brave and the land of the free—that America's students could place it on a map."
Monday, March 20. 2006
Chavez continues his charming ways: terms Bush "donkey" and "drunkard." And he continues to destroy Venezuela and there seems no end in sight. The Bridge finally collapses! "Today the bridge has collapsed, cutting the only access to modernity, to progress. The fallen bridge however is symbolic of the current state of Venezuela vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Hugo Chavez built a bridge to Havana; a second to the FARC-controlled mountains of Colombia; the third to the Foro de Sao Paulo HQs and then another to Tehran, the rest he burnt."The symbolism of Venezuela's collapsed bridge | www.vcrisis.com There is more on this sad tale hereThe Devil's Excrement .
Friday, March 17. 2006
 Psychoanalytic theory isn't really very complicated. We only have three or four basic concepts, from which a myriad of fascinating ideas derive.
One of the key basic concepts is Transference. At the risk of annoying readers who hate fashionable words like "template," I have to use "template". To keep it simple, a transference is a relationship template, usually molded during youth, and mostly unconscious - by which we mean that we aren't aware that it is acting on us. Transferences distort our relationships as our brains attempt to apply the template of prior relationships, or, more often, our distorted versions of prior relationships, onto current ones. Most common are paternal and maternal transferences, but sibling transferences, grandparent, friend and avuncular transferences are common too. (What's the female version of avuncular? Avauntuler?) Because our transferences tend to be beneath our awareness, they are usually only evident to analysts when observing behaviors or feelings which do not seem to fit the real current-life situation. Thus the less transference-driven our relationships are, the more mature and in reality they tend to be. As psychoanalytic concepts have been integrated into everyday thinking over the past 100 years, there has been a degradation of the technical terms. Thus we can talk about a "maternal transference" towards government, for example, when someone experiences their government as "need-fulfulling", or a "paternal transference" towards government when it is experienced as "opportunity-providing, demanding, and challenging." Even if such uses of the concept may not fit the technical usage, they are sometimes useful ways of thinking. For example, it is commonly stated that people tend to view the Democrats as the Mommy Party, and Republicans as the Daddy Party. It sounds like a ridiculous simplification when you hear it, but there is something to it: politics is not rational. I was moved to write this post because of a couple of items on the blog this week. Pieces about Europe: the passivity of Britain and Norway in the face of their enemies within; the economic irrationality of French socialism, etc. Such things represent what we would term "regressions" to "transferences." In other words, backwards developmental steps to more immature and less realistic ways of experiencing the world. When a kid privileged and smart enough to attend the Sorbonne feels he needs to rebel for job security, you know you are dealing with people who have reverted to a child-like, maternal experience of their government. It does not bode well for a nation whose youth seeks security over challenge, and comfort over life adventure. Similarly, in Britain, with their willful denial of the social cancer they have welcomed, we see a "regression" to a "nicey-nice" childish view of the world in which evil and unpleasantness do not exist - a Mommy World. They tried that before, didn't they? Despite all of the push in the direction of the Mommy World since Franklin Roosevelt, the US has never fully succumbed to the fantasy that government can make everything "nice." Thank goodness for that. In the US, many people tend to more annoyed when the government does something than when it doesn't. Thus the US does, indeed, tend to have less transference towards government - eg a less emotionally distorted relationship with government. Most of us want it to just drive away our enemies and to leave us alone, but we do have our share of those who wish the government could make all of our dreams come true. Lots more to say but this is getting too long. If you like my ideas, click our Psychoanalyst category and read more and get smart.
|
