Category: Deep Thoughts

Hates

Deep Thoughts, Marxists, Modernism

Bill Bryson (yes, him again) suggests that everyone should be able to have ten things (people, concepts, activities, whatever) that they can hate, without apology or explanation.

Longtime Readers will know that I would have difficulty keeping the list to ten — as Insty would say, I really need a bigger blog to contain all the things that truly make my trigger finger itch — but if I can create universal categories of hatred, I might be able to give it a try.  Let’s see how this goes, and in no specific order, my ten hates are:

  1. Anyone affiliated with the Democrat Party since 1880
  2. The music recording industry
  3. Modern architecture (brutalism, Bauhaus etc.), its creators and practitioners (Le Corbusier, Van der Rohe, Jahn, Pei etc.)
  4. All music composed and released since 2005 — performers, producers, composers, whatever
  5. Automotive design since 1990
  6. Google — everything about it
  7. Journalists, almost without exception
  8. Anarchism and anarchists
  9. Large corporations (referred to as Global MegaCorp on these pages)
  10. Wokism.

Note that I have excluded mere irritants like astrology, veganism, libertarianism, cyclists, the 9mm Europellet and similar nonsense from the above list, because they are largely the result of stupidity rather than actual evil.

As for the list itself, however, I put it to you that if by some kind of magic all ten of those things were to disappear tomorrow, the world would be a far better place to live in.

Feel free to add your own hates, in Comments.  Remember:  no explanation or justification is necessary.

Not So Sure

Deep Thoughts, Marxists, Patriotism

I’d like to believe this, I really would.

…but I can’t count the number of times I’ve been energized by some kind of conservative uprising — first with Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, then when the Tea Party took to the streets and finally, during the Trump phenomenon.

Every single one of them showed promise, and every single one of them failed in the face of concerted opposition from the massed forces of socialism:  academia, the mainstream media, Democratic Congress, pretty much the entire legal establishment (activist lawyers, Soros-sponsored prosecutors, liberal judges, a supine Supreme Court).  And then we had the outright — and so far, unpunished — lawlessness of a fraudulent and stolen election, to end all hope of peaceful, Constitutional change.

(Incidentally, Jim Hoft has done an excellent job of putting this into context, with details.)

For the first time in my life, I’m starting to understand the appeal of a “strongman” dictator like Franco or Pinochet, because the Augean Stables that this nation has become seems to be both unworkable and irredeemable.

Maybe I’m just too old for this anymore.  So yeah, Mr. Sleeping Giant:  go ahead and wake up, for all the good it will do.

I’ll do whatever I must when the forces of evil come knocking on my door;  but until then… I’m kinda where this guy is standing.

Good Question

Deep Thoughts, Grammar Nazism, Health

From Insty:

…also: “Whom do you vaccinate first?” [takes off Grammar Nazi armband]

That irritant aside, the question is a good one and is especially troubling in a case such as now, when the quantities are likely to be quite limited at first — especially when viewed against the global population of some six billion.

I’m going to be completely on the side of civilization here and say that whichever country developed the vaccine should have first call on the stuff (the dreaded “nationalist” worldview, fuck off, snowflakes).  The fact that Brits, Americans or Europeans (i.e. Western civilizations) would end up being likely ahead of the hapless denizens of sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia… c’est la vie.  So that’s easy:  Western civilization (as the creators) benefits its members first, the rest later.

Let’s look at the situation within two countries who might develop the vaccine (needless to say, at huge cost in terms of research).

Ordinarily, vaccinations start either with children or with the most in need of vaccination — i.e. the populations at greatest risk from whatever pox is being vaccinated against.

Doesn’t work today, though.  In the first place, kids are the ones least at risk from Teh Chinkvirus, so there’s no need to start with them.

Of course, the population group most vulnerable to death from the Chinese Pox is that of the elderly;  but in today’s culture, where we Olde Pharttes are but a step or two away from being shoved onto ice floes by politicians and State institutions (cue:  granny-killer NYGov Cuomo and Britain’s NHS), there would be fainting fits all over the place at the thought of “wasting” the vaccine on people who don’t have long to live anyway.  So those two groups are, arguendo, excluded.  Which leaves the rest.

Then the “meritocracy” argument begins.  In Britishland, it’s easier at least for the first half-dozen or so available doses:  the Queen, and those members of the Royal Family closest to the line of succession.  [cue the Socialists’ and republicans’ grumbling]

Over Here… well, that’s a little problematic, isn’t it?  The thought that a President (any President) should get the first shot is justifiably abhorrent to us egalitarians, ditto any members of government — and of Congress, we will not speak.  (“Fuckem” would be the most common sentiment, I suspect, and rightly so.)

Then we come to the closest group we have to British nobility:  Teh Rich.  Uh huh.  In twenty words or less, explain to me why Bill Gates, some Saudi “prince” or that asshole who runs Google are any more deserving than the guy behind the counter at your local 7-11.  [hands out popcorn]

And the same is true for anyone else whom society may deem “special” and worthy of being at the head of the line.  The thought of Kim Kardashian being more worthy of the vaccine than, say, my Son&Heir… [hands out more popcorn]

The simple truth is that nobody “deserves” to get the vaccination ahead of anyone else:  not in the U.S.A., anyway.  So what’s the solution?

Actually, the answer is really simple:  hand the job over to Social Security.

Social Security numbers are arguably the closest thing we have to a national ID (I know, I know), and it would be the work of a few hours to create a lottery system which would rank the universe of SocSec numbers into some random order which would leave the delivery of vaccinations to pure chance.  Unfortunately, this would exclude all those in this country who are here illegally and thus don’t have a Social Security number, but I see that as a feature, not a bug.

When it comes to survival, life in Earth is pretty much a crapshoot anyway, so why should this situation be any different?

Post-Worthy

Deep Thoughts

From Comments comes this thoughtful piece by Lo-o-o-ngtime Reader GMC70:

So – we have to consider how to live in a nation where, at least at this point, national politics is rigged and, if the Senate falls Democratic, is possibly rigged in perpetuity. One way is to ignore national politics, live in your local area, and get on with life. In a society where individual freedom used to be valued, it is going to be hard to get used to the idea that ideas can lawfully be suppressed. But we’re rapidly entering that age.
Another possible consideration, depending on the state you live in, is simply secession. If you’d asked me a decade ago, or even less, about that, I’d have laughed.

I’m no longer laughing.

Finally we all have to consider where our individual red lines are. What is the red line which will change you from law-abiding citizen to outlaw? I know where a couple of mine are: I will not register firearms (if, of course, I actually had any). At that point I will be an outlaw. I will not comply.
I will not give up my religious practices. Period. Nor will I tolerate any regulation on my church’s practices, decisions, or doctrine. And yes, that one’s coming, too.
If our red line is crossed, what will we do? I’m getting older, and the older I get, the less the threat of prison means to me. I have no desire to go to prison, but I will not compromise or give in certain areas.
And I will not go quietly into the cattle cars some on the left have planned for me and those like me.

What he said.  Only with more cursing.

Words Of Wisdom

Deep Thoughts, QOTD

From Professor Glenn Reynolds, Blogfather of us all:

“Of course, there’s no action so vile that you can’t find an academic to defend it.”

I’m reminded of the old one:

“Whenever there’s a Communist boot stomping on a face, there’s always an affluent liberal to point out that the face has free medical care and education.”

 

Rocks And Hard Places

Deep Thoughts, Essays

One of the problems with having a Bill of Rights and the Constitutional freedoms thereof is that as with all absolutes, there are times when compromises have to be made, even if temporarily.  We’re all familiar with the doleful example of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (anyone remember those?), and I will reluctantly concede that the right to keep and bear arms should not necessarily include the possession of tactical nuclear devices.

The recent lockdown has given us a few more examples.  I know that various Democratic elected officials have used the occasion of a purported pandemic to indulge their inner Mussolini, but ignore that for a moment while we ponder the big picture.

The best example of a situation requiring a temporary freeze on a Constitutional right is that of religion, where church services were banned (amazingly, not for Muslims but that’s a discussion for another time) because it is completely logical to suppose that it may not be in the public interest to have hundreds of people crammed into a single room, breathing all over each other and touching hands, etc.

And of course, the First Amendment’s rights to peaceable assembly and practice of religion would both stand against prohibition of said services.  At the same time, however, the potential risk of wholesale infection would seem to support such a Constitutional abridgement —  provided that it was temporary, of course.  (And the stupid politicians did themselves no favors by even banning the congregation of worshippers in the churches’ parking lots, which is so stupid a ban that it defies both logic and commonsense, but that’s politicians for ya.)

On the one hand, therefore, it is  a perfectly-natural impulse of people to seek comfort where they can during a time of disaster.  My own take is that people need to be realistic about this kind of thing — God isn’t going to punish you for not going to church in times of an epidemic or pandemic — but at the same time I understand and indeed sympathize with people for having that urgent need for the solace of religious congregation.  All religions are inconvenient, behavior-wise, and this is just one manifestation thereof.

On the other hand, the society requires a sensible public policy to prevent mass infection.  (In the case of the Wuhan virus, the dangers may have been overstated, but that too is a discussion for another time.  For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that the pandemic was going to be as dreadful as first thought.)  Had governors (at all levels) done nothing to try to prevent the rapid spread of infection, for fear of running afoul of Constitutional infringement, they would have been excoriated (and rightfully so) for their negligence and disinterest in the welfare of their citizens.  (Hardcore libertarians, take note.)

The problem with accommodation of said Constitutional abridgements and infringements is that there is always the risk that said governors will not only take things too far (right now, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer’s ears should be aflame let alone burning), but will use the opportunity to increase still further the State’s power over the populace — which they have done, almost without exception.

That still doesn’t negate the fact that occasionally, hard choices have to be made;  and it’s all very well to say things like “We will allow our rights to be infringed, but only temporarily” because in the case of communicable disease or other illness, there is always going to be the question of “How long is temporary?”  At what point is it safe to say, “Okay, as you were” when the risks of pandemic are, almost by definition, unknowable?

It’s a tough question, but on the whole I think that we managed to dodge this bullet better than the Europeans and Brits have.  (The foul “track and trace” proposals as proposed by the various politicians Over There will never fly Over Here, and thankfully so.)  The exceptions — where we were screwed by the governors — are primarily to be found in states governed by people for whom power is the sine qua non  of political existence (unsurprisingly, the socialists like Cuomo, Whitmer and Newsom being the best / worst examples thereof).

I think that the lessons we have learned on this topic should be both memorized and debated long and hard, and  I hope this post can serve as a starting point.