Home » Knaves or fools revisted

Comments

Knaves or fools revisted — 97 Comments

  1. Of course, to the left-of-center crowd, intent is everything, or almost everything. The lefties rarely examine seriously the outcomes of their “good” deeds (e.g., welfare dependency, appearing weak before cultures that wish us ill, etc.). On the contrary, lefties tend to bask in the glow of their good intentions, even as they shun the allegedly sinister motives of anyone who thinks there are better ways than the leftie way, to lift up humanity.

    M J R

    .

  2. Neo–I see a lot of merit in looking at results, rather than motivations and, as I see it, the results so far have been disastrous. But I also believe that opposition to “knaves” would have to be of a different character, and much more determined, much broader and much stronger than opposition to mere “fools,” so a judgment as to “fools” or “knaves” is vitally important so as to determine the type of opposition to mount.

    Let’s face it, if the advocacy by Representative Louise Slaughter, Chairman of the House Rules Committee–no less, of the President signing into law a Health Care bill that has not been voted on by both Houses of Congress–a direct violation of the Constitution’s Article I, Section VII, Clause II:

    “…But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

    isn’t deliberately advocated, in your face Tyranny and Revolution, and a fundamental, brazen violation of her Oath of Office, I don’t know what is, for if there are no recorded Yeas and Nays, democratic government ceases to exist, and it is just government by fiat and “force majeure.”

    Moreover, I do also see a couple of other issues here.

    For one, if Obama & Co. are merely or mostly fools, you would think that they could be warned off, be deterred by the rising tide of citizens protests or would “recalibrate,”would change their objectives and approaches but, if they are knaves–even if only bumbling, not very efficient knaves–and intent on “Cloward-Piven” and Revolution, then it would seem likely that it would be much harder to deter them, and that they would likely just ignore citizen protests, and proceed single-mindedly on their course toward bringing about their Revolution. So far, on this score, I think the evidence points solidly towards a diagnosis of “knave.”

    Next, if Obama & Co. were mostly fools, they would not be quite so single-minded, efficient and thorough in launching such a wide array of attacks, such a Blitzkreig; attacks always focused–however characterized or disguised–on reducing and narrowing the individual liberty of citizens, and on increasing the size, power and control of the State.

    Last week, it was the Treasury and Labor Department proposal to takeover individual IRAs and other retirement accounts–so as to shield us clueless investors from “volatile market forces,’’ don’t you know–and to force their partial or total conversion to government guaranteed annuities backed by federal paper i.e. they are proposing to “make us an offer we can’t refuse, ” to steal our money, and force us to take Treasury bills, notes and bonds in return; “full faith and credit” investment vehicles that pay a low return, in return for what has been their rock solid reputation and “safety,”, and whose “return” and “safety” is going to be even lower, because their solidity, investment quality and rating are decreasing due to the actions of Obama & Co.

    This week, came the news that Obama & Co. are intent on much more closely regulating–i.e. reduce and or ban (take over)–citizen’s fishing on and use of our coastal areas, lakes and inland waterways, are going to tack legislation for a complete and total Federal takeover of the current privately run student loan industry onto the Health Care Bill, and that they are also pursuing a national biometric ID card, under the guise of “Immigration Reform.”

    Then, there is–as you yourself pointed out–the very telling fact that all of their initiatives have resulted in destruction, in making things worse, rather than being curative. Again, another indicator for knaves rather than fools, for if they were fools, you would think that among all their actions, initiatives, and proposals they would have to get at least something right, sometime.

    Finally, let me point out that in the background–as the backdrop against which all of these Obama & Co. initiatives in a myriad of fields are playing out–the economy is sick and continues to get “sicker”–with major indicators of things like employment/unemployment, housing starts/sales, mortgage defaults, the precarious state of trillions of dollars of mortgages in the commercial real estate sector, and retail sales–indicators which are usually not being fully reported, or given the “glass half full,” rather than the “glass half empty” interpretation, or the recurring bad news is reported–over and over again each week or month–as an “unexpected surprise.” All these bad economic indicators, and others as well, like the massive and accelerating budget, deficit and debt, the status of Social Security, Medicare and Medicare’s so called “trust funds,” are foreshadowing real trouble down the road and perhaps, as Glenn Beck believes, are telling us that the economy is going to get a lot, lot worse than it is now, and that perhaps–a year or two from now–the Great Depression might start to look good in comparison.

  3. ”Or perhaps we are wrong and too alarmist, and all will be well.”

    Quite possibly. I think on the healthcare issue that it’s a combination of fear of change, fear of the unknown and distrust of politicians.

    When a US soldier visits a US Army doctor, the doctor’s focus is on how best to treat the patient, not whether he will get paid. The question doesn’t enter an Army doctor’s mind because he receives a salary every month, as do the nurses.*

    That’s essentially how it works in the UK – just like soldiers, tank drivers, pilots or colonels going to a US Military Medical Facility. No forms, no insurance paperwork, no doubts over policy inclusions and exclusions. We’re all treated the same regardless of ‘rank’ because we all have a role. Our rank and role is only of interest to the doctor if it has medical implications, otherwise a doctor wouldn’t even need to know. A US military doctor wouldn’t know the rank of a patient in a hospital bed who was without uniform. It’s immaterial — the patient is the patient.

    (*In reality, there are a many remuneration packages, dependant on factors far too numerous to list.)

  4. Wolla Dalbo,

    You make a reasoned and persuasive argument for the point of view you advance. You may well be ‘right on the money’ in that assessment.

    If so, the ‘knaves’ will at some point be decisively and unequivocally blocked such that the only way they can advance their cause is to seize power in an indefensible and undeniable fashion, such that all will see it as an illegal seizure of power.

    If they be knaves, this must come to pass because the US Constitution is set up to limit the power of the US government. But for the knaves agenda, controlling our economy, citizens and nation will require a greater degree of control than the Constitution allows… and then the mask of deception will fall away for all to see the true nature of “the men and women who would be king”.

    Some will say that the ‘Slaughter solution’ at the least, comes dangerously close to doing this and it does. But because the SCOTUS still retains the power to rule that ‘solution’ as unconstitutional (which it will surely do) it can be argued that we are not yet at that point.

    If and when we do get there, the second American revolution will have begun. And that is a war that the left cannot win.

    Whether they be fools or knaves or some combination thereof, how they react to being stopped, will determine what their intent, truly be.

  5. Martyn of England,

    If I recall correctly, you are from the UK.

    If so, you cannot be unaware of the articles in the major English newspapers that regularly describe the incidents of patient abuse, neglect and intentional denial of treatment that regularly occurs in the UK and are unknown in this country.

    Given that you must know of this, you sir, are a knave.

  6. Martyn of England provides a truly hilarious account of healthcare run by the government. First of all, the US Army doesn’t accept patients with preexisting conditions for the most part. For the second, they don’t treat you the same according to rank. Third, look at the stories coming out of England! A patient in a British hospital recently died of dehydration. He had called the police because no one was getting him water. REcent scandals have shown that thousands have received terrible care in these dirty run down facilities. Doctor’s are people just like everyone else. They care for their patient, but if the paymaster is the government then ultimately the patient becomes secondary.

  7. Wollo Dalbo covers it pretty well.

    The essential problem with knaves is that they have no desire to learn from foolish mistakes, other than to be more effective knaves of course.

    Foolish Knaves might be an apt description of what we are facing.

    Martyn, your example is about as naive as it can be. As a 25 year Navy veteran I assure you that not everyone is treated the same. Yes, I believe that everyone gets the best care available; but the little courtesies and niceities certainly increase with rank. Of course, for the ultimate in government health care for the privileged, consider that certain ancient and senile Senators actually lived for extended periods in suites at the National Naval Medical Center, and were hauled out to make votes, while this facility was straining to care for the wounded of war. However, I am sure there is no differentiation of care in England; and that there would be none under the Obama plan. I am also convinced that pigs could fly if they can just get their velocity to the unstick level.

  8. Right Martyn…we’ll all be the treated the same once the government takes over. Just look at the evenhanded treatment of tax cheats – you could never evade paying taxes and stay out of jail…unless you are part of a privileged group known as democrat appointees, in which case you can run the IRS. I eagerly await the unicorns.

  9. Medicaid, ObamaCare, and the Doctor

    We should be frightened about the reports of medical care in England, Spain, France, and Japan. But, we don’t have to wait for data from ObamaCare. The performance of Medicaid is known now, government healthcare for the poor.

    Dr. Zane F. Pollard posted a frightening article describing Medicaid, and by extension ObamaCare.

    Medicaid pays for medical services to the poor, and in this case to poor children who face vision impairment or blindness. Regardless, Medicaid denies and delays their care.

    Consider that Medicare/caid are intentionally underpaying for the medical care that they mandate, even for the most needy children.

    The government is proud of how they are negotiating lower prices for the ‘caids, but they are still going bankrupt with exploding costs.

  10. By intent, They are knaves; and by execution, fools. But the People remain the greater fools, to put up with what has already occurred- the abrogation of contract law as an example. Never mind the billions and trillions, which the People have hardly noticed.

    The critical question remains unanswered, deferred til November: what will They do when their power is frontally challenged? What will the People do when They refuse to let go? I am leaning to the belief force will be required. Who, if anyone, will be our Patrick Henry?

  11. If those inside the beltway were to have the same healthcare as they are attempting to shove at us, I might just believe they were sincere in their efforts.

    All the Obama administration’s bailout and change efforts have done is to benefit, basically, union people – private and public sectors, and Wall Street, and foreign banks. We still don’t know what the fed is doing with the money they have received. They won’t tell any body. None of this hope and change has a done a thing for those of us from which all the money is going to come from to pay for it all. As we all know, one cannot manage his personal affairs in the same manner the government has been managing our national affairs. Our government is flat broke. The promises to pay are being squeezed out of people who aren’t even born yet. When are we going to realize it is insanity? Regardless of “intent” it’s not sustainable. People are going to have to be, at some point in time, forced to live with it. That’s how i see it. Will the American people buy into it, or rebel against it? Too bad there are no more new world’s to go to. It is easy for me to see that had i lived in thiose days, I would have been a pioneer. Far and away as possible from government.

  12. Thank you, Neo, for highlighting my comment.

    I may comment further later on this thread. For the moment I’ll just hold back and allow others to comment. I do appreciate, either pro or con, the seriousness others have taken my words.

  13. Martyn of England – I had 8 years of experience with the U.S. military medical system when they used to treat family members. You’re correct in that the doctors are great and are only interested in treating patients. However the infrastructure around them is maddening and dangerous.

    To schedule an OB/GYN appointment, you could only call at 7:00 AM on the first Tuesday of the month. Every other woman in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area was calling at the same time. By 7:10 or so, all appointments for the month were taken and you had to try again the following month.

    My sister was married to a Marine and is a survivor of ovarian cancer. She was to be checked every 6 months. When she tried to make 2 appointments per year instead of one, she was called selfish and was hung up on. My parents paid for her to be seen at a civilian doctor where they discovered more tumors. If they hadn’t had that option, she’d be dead.

    Another time went to the Portsmouth Naval hospital where I was sent to the lab on the 8th floor. The elevator was broken. While I was trudging up and down the steps, my name was called and I missed my turn. Too bad for me.

    Another time I waited 4 hours at the pharmacy for a prescription. When I got to the window I was given a medication different than what my doctor ordered. When I pointed it out I was told I was lucky to get that.

    The day I escaped government-run health care was a very happy day indeed.

  14. http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/fools/fools.jpg

    In The Ship of Fools Bosch is imagining that the whole of mankind is voyaging through the seas of time on a ship, a small ship, that is representative of humanity. Sadly, every one of the representatives is a fool. This is how we live, says Bosch–we eat, dring, flirt, cheat, play silly games, pursue unattainable objectives. Meanwhile our ship drifts aimlessly and we never reach the harbour. The fools are not the irreligious, since promiment among them are a monk and a nun, but they are all those who live “in stupidity”. Bosch laughs, and it is sad laugh. Which one of us does not sail in the wretched discomfort of the ship of human folly?

  15. The odds of passage at Intrade.com have risen to 7:3. Maybe it’s my imagination, but a bit of fatalism might have crept into the conservative blogosphere.

    Commenter Tom@5:42 pm wonders what will happen in November. Here’s a conjecture. The Senate bill will squeak through the House and Obama will sign it. Then the Democrats will campaign against those mean-spirited obstructionist Republicans for resisting all the “refinements” and “improvements” during reconciliation. As Obamacare’s problems pile up, the Democrats and MSM will accuse the Enemies of the People Republicans of sabotage.

    Obamacare is a great system. It just isn’t being implemented properly. Where have I heard that refrain before?

  16. Wolla has covered this pretty well, and intelligently too, and thanks for that.

    But Betsy Blabbermouth lives ( 🙂 ), so:

    I think we would do well to remember that Obama made it clear during the 2008 campaign that his intention is to fundamentally transform this country. No one should have thought he was kidding, and everyone should have paid more attention to what he might have meant. Huxley, I think, would have us assume he meant nothing much beyond the rhetoric, and would further have us assume that the Constitution and election cycles will work their eternal, innate magic. But we are not in a court of law, here, where judgment must depend upon elimination of all reasonable doubt, and where furthermore intent is a factor only in establishing the degree of the charge.

    It’s important to remember that the Constitution is not self-enforcing, and our system only works when all parties agree to observe it (and we do seem to have a tendency to assume that everyone on all sides will have equal respect for Constitutional norms). I recall that Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked, when the SCOTUS ruled against his favored side in Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The Constitution has over 200 years of precedent and respect behind it, but it’s still a pretty thin reed if those in power decide not to respect it. SCOTUS rulings are only rulings, and are dependant upon the accession of the other branches–to say nothing of (here’s that phrase again) the consent of the governed. The SCOTUS is additionally known to be reluctant to hear cases against the other branches, so there is no certainty that a remedy can be expected from that quarter (Bush v. Gore to the contrary notwithstanding–which wasn’t really about other federal branches in any case). There might be such a remedy, but we’d be foolish to bet the farm–or the country–on it.

    My own thought, precisely put, is that these wizards don’t have a clue what they’re messing with, and to that extent the “fools” appellation may fit better than knaves. But I also think it is knavery that is making them so foolish. So–again, a bit of both.

    I do not know whether Martyn of England is in this country or in Old Blighty. If the former, he is welcome to return the the tender mercies of the NHS at any time, and I am sure we will all be pleased to bid him a fond farewell. There are NHS/NICE horror stories in the alternative press nearly weekly–JB has pointed out just one of them. Theodore Dalrymple (a Brit) had a piece in the WSJ last summer in which he pointed out that the problem with the NHS and like systems isn’t that the care is uniformly awful–it isn’t. The problem is that, when it is awful (as it is in a non-trivial number of cases), you have nowhere else to go. The system reduces citizens to the status of supplicant paupers. If Obama and the Congressional Democrats cared about that, they would be more sensitive to the concerns of the majority of American citizens in this matter. They clearly don’t give a tinker’s damn what the American people think. Obama, in all his storied coolness, is neither unaware nor deluded about the people’s will. He is contemptuous of it. I make this statement based on the evidence: He has had the people’s will pointed out to him in several public venues, including the famous Blair House “summit.”

    It’s growing pretty clear that this is about a lot more than health care. It has been all along for the Democrats; it’s getting to the point where a lot of the rest of us are waking up to that reality, as well. I wish I didn’t think it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

  17. I think it is impossible that they are not knaves. They must know what they are doing and what will happen. It is therefore intentional.

    On the odd chance that all of them don’t know (hugely unlikely) they are still responsible. The evidence is out there for what works and what doesn’t; what will result from one thing or another. They more than anyone have a moral obligation to know such things.

    We are way way way too forgiving and excuse-making for these people. We are no better than good Germans who gave crazy Hitler the benefit of the doubt. History judged them as harshly or more so than it judged him.

  18. Geoffrey writes: ”Martyn of England, If I recall correctly, you are from the UK.”

    Wow – you’re smart. What gave it away?

    JB writes: “First of all, the US Army doesn’t accept patients with preexisting conditions for the most part.”[sic]

    You’re wasting your time trying to disprove something I did not assert. Here’s what I wrote and the point being made: ”When a US soldier visits a US Army doctor, the doctor’s focus is on how best to treat the patient, not whether he will get paid.

    Both JB and Geoffrey seem to be suckers for mainstream media stories, and don’t realise the whole thing is…shall we say…distorted.

    Of course, there are always cases of medical errors and negligence in any system. In the UK, deaths by medical errors run at around 3500 per year in a population of 60 million. With a population of fives times the size of ours, the USA should have around 17,500 deaths (5 x 3,500) each year through medical errors and negligence. In fact, the number of deaths by medical errors and negligence in the USA is a staggering 100,000 per year

    Oldflyer writes:”…your example is about as naive as it can be. As a 25 year Navy veteran I assure you that not everyone is treated the same. Yes, I believe that everyone gets the best care available; but the little courtesies and niceities certainly increase with rank.”

    You seem to be contradicting yourself in the area of medical treatment. First you say that not everyone is treated the same — then go on to say everyone gets the best care. ???? Which?? Let’s not worry about a few courtesies and niceties, though we get those as well; the aim is to get better.

    Oldflyer writes: “However, I am sure there is no differentiation of care in England; […] I am also convinced that pigs could fly…

    Unfortunately your attempt at sarcasm has fallen flat. You’re right — though obviously you didn’t expect to be. There might be minor variations region to region, and there might be human failures as mentioned above, though not as bad as in the US, but overall the system does not discriminate against anyone. As I said previously – the patient is the patient.

  19. Again, thanks to Neo for highlighting my comments. I think of it as an honor to be so quoted.

    We, on this board, have a lot of things in common. I would say we all generally agree that the ship this captain is sailing is headed for an iceberg, and we have to get it to stop. I also wholeheartedly agree with Neo that it is “much better . . . to be safe than sorry,” and that I would rather err on the side of over-defense of liberty with the result of ultimately saving it, than leaving liberty under-defended and seeing it lost.

    I also happen to like gcothan’s re-do of the Reagan slogan, “trust but verify,” into “distrust but verify.” I would agree that Obama and his allies in Congress have done much to lose our trust, regardless of whether such lack of confidence has come from bad intent on their part, or not. As the last paragraph quoted by Neo from me states, I do believe that, intent or not, Obama and his allies are causing harm and we should make strenuous effort to stop them.

    However, I will acknowledge that I am not as willing to assert, as a certainty, that Obama’s actions are the result of bad intent. I respect those who do feel that way, and I believe I have conceded that Obama & co., have done enough to create such suspicion. But, I still am not able to fall in line 100% with that line of thinking, and I will try to show why as follows.

    I have read, with great respect, Wolla Dalbo’s argumentation in favor of the view that the actions of Obama and his allies in Congress are the result of bad intent. (I believe the original argument about intent regarded intent to undermine the rule of law , so I will base my following argument on that.) Wolla Dalbos argumentation in favor of this view asserts the following points:

    A.)“For one, if Obama & Co. are merely or mostly fools, you would think that they could be warned off, be deterred by the rising tide of citizens protests or would “recalibrate,”would change their objectives and approaches but, if they are knaves–even if only bumbling, not very efficient knaves—and intent on “Cloward-Piven” and Revolution, then it would seem likely that it would be much harder to deter them, and that they would likely just ignore citizen protests, and proceed single-mindedly on their course toward bringing about their Revolution. ”

    B.) “Next, if Obama & Co. were mostly fools, they would not be quite so single-minded, efficient and thorough in launching such a wide array of attacks, such a Blitzkreig; attacks always focused–however characterized or disguised—on reducing and narrowing the individual liberty of citizens, and on increasing the size, power and control of the State. “

    C.) “Then, there is—as you yourself pointed out—the very telling fact that all of their initiatives have resulted in destruction, in making things worse, rather than being curative. Again, another indicator for knaves rather than fools, for if they were fools, you would think that among all their actions, initiatives, and proposals they would have to get at least something right, sometime.”

    D.)“Finally, let me point out that in the background—as the backdrop against which all of these Obama & Co. initiatives in a myriad of fields are playing out—the economy is sick and continues to get “sicker”—with major indicators of things like employment/unemployment, housing starts/sales, mortgage defaults, the precarious state of trillions of dollars of mortgages in the commercial real estate sector, and retail sales–indicators which are usually not being fully reported, or given the “glass half full,” rather than the “glass half empty” interpretation, or the recurring bad news is reported—over and over again each week or month—as an “unexpected surprise.”

    I’ll continue on a following post…

  20. Betsy, if the Administration were to challenge the principle of Judicial Review, we would be in dangerous Constitutional waters and the Administration would not be able to survive: it would either face impeachment or it would need to steal elections so openly that popular rebellion and subversion by local governments would be inevitable.

    I can’t believe that a Leftist administration would be so reckless as to throw out the mechanism that has allowed them to create an unimpeachable super-legislature in the Court, because the courts has been their main vehicle for driving policy to the left, because such policies have been and are deeply unpopular.

    Similarly, if Reid destroys the filibuster as a tool of resistance, we will not have to wait too long before the Left is begging to re-instate it. Hoist on their own petard won’t begin to describe it. They may be fools in a lot of ways, but not about this.

  21. Throwing out Judicial Review would mean throwing away the benefits of the Long March through the legal profession; an act of self-immolation.

    I say that, but with this gang, you can’t rule that out. I wonder how long it will take them to figure this out.

    Maybe it will be like the case of parts of Roxbury that decided to propose secession from Boston in 1986 to protest something or other. The gesture lost its force when community leaders realized that the rest of the city might just say, “What a good idea!” They had to scramble to get their followers to oppose the referendum they had proposed.

  22. Continuing from my previous post…

    I’m sure that if one is inclined to think that Obama and his allies in Congress have intended from the very beginning to undermine the rule of law, then all of these arguments, A through D, probably initially will sound like good reasons to support that view. But, I think that a careful look at most of the arguments presented find that they really could go either way. Which is really the point I’m making: that intent (to circumvent the law) is not as clearly deciferable as some make it out to be.

    I realize that my analysis of it will probably differ from that of a great many people on this board, and that this is my view of the matter. I could well be dead wrong, which is part of the reason that I still think there is cause for alarm, and that we ought to err on the side of vigilance in the defence of liberty.

    But still, I would suggest that in at least 3 of the arguments, there is nothing in particular that points more to the “knave” theory than to the “fool.”

    I disagree that, as Wolla Dalbo says in argument “A”, that if Obama & Co. are merely or mostly fools, you would think that they could be warned off, be deterred by the rising tide of citizens protests or would “recalibrate.” No, actually, just the opposite. Its in the very definition of “fools” to not be persuaded by practicality. It is equally possible to believe that Obama & co.’s failure to be disuaded by impending doom is a direct result of unthinking (and foolish) belief than it is of bad intent.

    I also disagree that, as stated in argument “C,” that the “very telling fact that all of their initiatives have resulted in destruction, in making things worse, rather than being curative” is a sign of bad intent to subvert the rule of law. Again, this comports perfectly with foolishness. Foolish initiatives fail.

    Then theres “D,” which simply points out that the economy and other societak factors are not going so well at the moment. That may be true, but I fail to see how that implicates Obama & co. as intending to circumvent the rule of law. That his policies have failed to correct these problems show that he is ineffective. I would agree with that. But, how do they show bad intent?

    I think the one argument from Wolla Dalbo that most strongly supports the view that Obama and his congressional allies have the intent to undermine the rule of law is argument B. I dont know if I would agree that the Dems have necessarily been so “efficient and thorough,” and I would also argue that the inflammatory word “Blitzkreig” is hyperbole.

    But, getting past that, I would agree that the leadership has been unusually “single minded” in trying to pass legislation that expands government, limits liberty, and contradicts the will of the American people. Now, this, by itself, may be just foolish. (See my comment regarding argument “A”.) But that is coupled with some examples of sneaky politicking surrounding the actions of Congress under the present leadership. The suggestion floated by Rep. Slaughter recently (perhaps part of “a wide array of attacks”) to use a rule as a means to sneak in enactment of Obamacare without a legitimate vote is outrageous.

    So yes, there is something to the argument that there may be intent within Obama and his allies in Congress to circumvent the rule of law. I’m not dicounting that evidence. But I suggest that it needs to be taken together with all other evidence. As far as I see, much of the evidence goes either way.

    Remember that my point wasnt that there couldnt be arguments as to whether Obama is a “fool “or a “knave.” My point was that, for the most part, all of this argumentation is superceded by the grave reality were facing. That even if Obama’s “knave-hood” can’t be fully ascertained, that nevertheless he and his allies have still caused sufficient harm, and are causing sufficient harm whether by intent or by negligence, that they need to be stopped.

  23. Martyn, I rather liked my attempt at sarcasm. Sorry it didn’t reach your standards.

    Now, I greatly respect those DRs who treat our troops. You may or not be aware that many of them are in uniform because they were provided with medical school, or advanced medical training, as an inducement. Many of them will serve their obligated time and depart to civilian practice.

    Salaried Drs are like salaried employees in other fields; some are more motivated than others. I can tell you that my wife suffered many years of excruciating pain and discomfort because two salaried MDs, working as gov’t contractors, were either incompetent or just not motivated enough to undertake prompt treatment.

    Your argument does not hold much water in my house. I guarantee you that we choose our DRs with some care; and if we are not satisfied we find others in whom we have confidence. We can do that under our system.

  24. “Foolish knaves” seems to cover the situation adequately.

    However, I don’t think that they have any conscious intent of trying to undermine the law; you see, in their own minds they own the law. They say what it is and what it means, and its only reason for being is to help them effect their ideas of equity and cosmic “justice.” This is the only way you could get people talking about the “Slaughter Solution” and not understand how it sounds to lots of people outside the Circle Dance.

    If a Fool would persist in his folly, he would become Wise.

    –William Blake

    I suspect that Mr. Obama is on the path to wisdom by that reasoning.

  25. We should all resolve to ignore Martyn. We are not debating here, Martyn.
    This is not the place for you, Martyn, to cite very crude estimates as facts (the US 100,000), and not the place for the self-serving reports from your NHS (3500).
    I could respond by citing the sole pathologist given the NHS task of diagnosing ALL childhood skeletal and soft tissue malignancies in the UK. Over ten-plus years her getting it often wrong on several hundred kids led to needless amputations (calling benign biopsies malign) and deaths from non-treatment (calling malignant biopsies benign). This despite the year-after-year protests to NHS by pediatric surgeons and oncologists calling for her removal for cause. I am citing facts here, not BS estimates.
    But such debate is not for this site, because we are not policy wonks or moral relativists. We discuss rather than debate. We here will do best to simply ignore your goads and gratuitous distortions. Perhaps you will go away. Please stay on your side of the pond in your self-immolating country with your NHS.

  26. Tom,

    Would you post a link to the story(s) about that pathologist at the NHS? I don’t doubt it; I’d like to cite it as an example of government rigidity.

    In a market, you can go to someone else with a better reputation. In government care, you can wait 20 years to vote out the administration, maybe.

  27. With regards to Martyn of England, this is place where Free Citizens of an endangered Constitutional Republic discuss things.

    Socialist peasants of Eurabia really ought to talk elsewhere, imho. Just be careful what you say. We wouldnt want your socialist masters to prosecute you for hate speech. They got your guns without a fight. They are giving your country over to the Muslims. You are not a free people anymore.

  28. Lets say were all on a cruise ship, and the captain is about to direct the ship right into an iceberg. We can all argue about the “intent” of the captain. In the end, we really cannot decifer whether he is actually intebnding harm, or whether he is just a total fool. He could be either.

    What we do know is that the ship is being directed in a manner that most passengers believe, with good reason, will result in the destruction of the ship at worst (or at best, the sustaining by the ship of substantial damage), and the probable (or at least possible) loss of life.

    I can’t resist the urge to be pedantic here.

    If the Titanic had hit the iceberg head-on, its bow would have been damaged and a few crew members would have been killed, but the ship would have remained afloat.

    As it happened, they tried to steer around the iceberg and the Titanic struck a glancing blow, which ripped open several compartments and caused catastrophic flooding, and doomed the ship.

    OK, that has nothing to do with Hell Care. But I couldn’t help myself.

  29. Just a brief comment:

    I’ve been re-reading my comments, and I get the feeling I’ve been over-doing my criticism of “hyperbole.” I did it in this thread, and in another thread. When I was reading my comments, I thought to myself that I must be coming accross like I’m the “language police”.

    Anyway. I assure everyone here that my disagreements with anyone are intended to be completely respectful. If any comment appeared otherwise, its just because I was in the process of typing a long post, and trying simultaneously to cover certain issues quickly. So, my apologies for any rough edges my comments may have had.

  30. Martyn of England Says:

    “When a US soldier visits a US Army doctor, the doctor’s focus is on how best to treat the patient”
    US Army doctors are notoriously distrusted as not competent.

    We will have something similar happen once the government takes over paying private doctors. The good ones will leave the system one way or another. Highly competent people who want to be paid based on their abilities will self select out of medicine in the future. That and/or we will learn from the NHS experience and doctors will opt out of the system sooner and charge on a cash basis. Maybe someone clever will offer ‘international’ health insurance (to avoid the US regulations) to Americans that we can buy to pay the private doctors with….

  31. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Given that you must know of this, you sir, are a knave.”

    I was thinking more fool. 🙂

    He probably has the lefty fascist / magical thinking that concludes the crappy results are ‘better’ since they’re economically class equal (even though imposed via government force) and not based on profits.

    Of course, once you look past old Marxist notions of [economic] class consciousness…. and look at results… public universal coverage simply creates new forms of ‘classes’. Such as the ill and not ill. With the not ill sticking it to the ill but feeling good about themselves because it is not based on economic inequality… as if this means anything to the ill.. especially those who’d have been willing to pay for better insurance or coverage had the majority not gotten in their way…

  32. Hi Neo,

    The argument around Knaves and Fools is beside the point.

    Obama and his gang are leftists. Leftists believe that the poor people in this country (and the world!) are poor because the wealthy make them, and need them that way. They believe that life can be much better for the vast majority of people if the government is given enough power.

    They honestly believe that, and they honestly believe that their enemies don’t care about the poor or anyone else either.

    Because they believe these things, they are fools. But they are very intelligent, suave sophisticated fools. They know a lot about strategy and winning elections and holding on to power. They will do anything they can to maintain power, even if it means breaking the rules once in a while. They honestly believe that they should do this, so that humanity can be better off.

    In sum, they have a real political belief system that disagrees with yours. It probably disagrees with reality as well. They have a plan, and we should try to stop it. Arguing about intent isn’t relevant to anything.

    As an example. Let’s say that Pol Pot really did believe that he was going to create a paradise on earth once all of the proper people were liquidated. Do you really want to decide if that constitutes good intentions or not? Its a waste of time.

    I think a lot of this “intent” discussion is really driven by a leftist impulse that has somehow infected the right. When George W invaded Iraq, the left spent all of its time talking about his bad intentions. He did it for the oil. He did it to avenge his dad’s attempted killers. He did it for Haliburton contracts.

    But all of that is just leftist diversion. Invading Iraq is a good or bad idea regardless of the thoughts going through W’s head. If it is the right thing to do, its right even if W has bad intentions. Likewise, if its the wrong thing to do, its wrong even if W wanted the best for the country of Iraq.

    Likewise for healthcare. If its wrong, our belief system has to be used to persuade others that its wrong. Saying that the other side has bad intentions really doesn’t help that cause.

    James

  33. With regard to fool or knave, I could quote with justification Hoffer’s entire The True Believer but these lines stuck me as being particularly apt in evaluating Obmessiah, “the fanatic…embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness and holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold on to.”
    Allow me to play Freud and mention a childhood full of desertions and betrayals.
    “He sees in tolerance a sign of weakness”

    “uncompromising, intolerant, proclaiming one and only truth”

    “he relies on miracles”

    ” He destroys his country and his people rather than surrender”. Include the Democratic Party in that list.

    Based on the above an evaluation of whether fool or knave appears an unnecessarily sophisticated approach, a simple “he’s a dangerous nutcase” seems an adequate working model of his personality.

    I am with Tom (allow me to paraphrase); The critical question remains unanswered, deferred till November: what will his power hungry, self-anointed, anti-democratic party do when their power is frontally challenged? What will the public do when The True Believers refuse to let go? We can, at the very least, expect them to try and corrupt the electoral process a la Chicago.

    No one argues that Obama’s attitude towards democracy is one of contempt. That was demonstrated by his behavior towards Honduras, the Cairo speech, the indifference to Arab and Iranian liberals, his friendship with tyrants and his appointment to of communists to positions of authority (Wilson, Van Jones).

    I should mention the behavior of the electorate in the last election justifies this contempt (someone please argue that I am a fool for writing that).

  34. I can’t help but note that some of the terms used here to describe others and their viewpoints could have been more tactful.

  35. When a US soldier visits a US Army doctor, the doctor’s focus is on how best to treat the patient, not whether he will get paid.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    19 years experience with Army Medicine. For openers, you don’t even have to go to a US medical school to be an Army doctor.

    Here are my experiences:

    1) Anaphyaxis due to a hornet sting: Overdosed with benedryl. Prednisone and epinephrine administered. Overdosed on prednisone. IVs and delerium for days. “Thought we almost lost you there.”

    2) Mononucleosis: “You just need some more physical training and water!” Later misdiagnosed as strep. Treated unsuccessfully with antibiotics. Passed out during morning run. Misdiagnosed as dehydration; screwed up my electrolytes and put me into shock. “Thought we almost lost you there.”

    3) Strep throat. Diagnosed as strep, but only given 7 days of antibiotics: “that is how we do it, soldier.” Violent recurrence with sepsis. Week of IV antibiotics. “Thought we almost lost you there.”

    4) Tooth abcess. “It’s an 8 month wait for emergency dental care. If it goes septic, we can get you into the hospital for IV antibiotics, but not dental care. Try a civilian dentist.” $1500 later lost my tooth. Not visible. Good ol’ private dentist….

    5) Pneumonia. Incorrectly diagnosed as allergies: “You need plenty of physical training and water. Try some triaminic cough syrup for those allergies.” 103deg fever. Passed out at my desk taken to Army hospital. Days of delerium. IV antibiotics. “Thought we almost lost you there.”

    6) Knee meniscus and ACL tear: Incorrectly diagnosed as hamstring pull (really). “Here’s an Ace bandage and some Motrin. You need plenty of stretching and walking. Here is a ‘no running profile.'” Me: “I heard something crunch in my knee.” Stupid-assed old Colonel: “Goddamnit Lieutenant! Where the F%$# did you go to medical school! I’ll tell you what your problem is!” I later snuck into the hospital when that stupid-assed old Colonel wasn’t there and got sent to a civilian MRI.

    7) Food Poisoning. Misdiagnosed as indigestion. Fever, passed out on a civilian airliner. Sent to some civilian hospital in Denver. Weak, thready pulse, dehydration and oxygen. 2 days in hospital on rehydration IVs. “You were in rough shape; thought we almost lost you there.”

    Really, Martin….. You could not have picked a shittier example. It was my choice to join the Army. I am a volunteer. I knew what I was getting into and I will take my lumps. I love the US Army and I am proud of my service. However, if some c*&^suc*&# forces my family into this kind of system, I will raise the kind of Hell only an American can raise.

  36. At Kimbrough (nicknamed Killbro) hospital at FT Meade, Maryland, they killed my units’ Sergeant Major following surgery for diverticulitis. He was 40 and passed out during a run from after his ill-sutured bowel leaked into his body. Peritonitis.

    During the course of the infection, he was transferred to Walter Reed. He was misdiagnosed with diabetes, ‘cuz they lost his medical records and he was incoherent. He lost part of his legs, gained a couple days of lucidity to talk to his wife and our Commander.

    He died raving out of his skull on the floor of his hospital room 2 days later.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256082,00.html

    How uninformed are you about the US, Martin?

    I signed up for this kind of nonsense, knowing what I was getting into. I don’t want my family to be forced into this.

  37. A story about socialized medicine; I never experienced Britain’s socialized medicine but I did experience Israel’s. I remember a doctor coming to our house in the middle of the night because we called about a sick child. We may have not spoken the same language but the doctor did come and the expense was negligible.
    I make no claim to being in the least knowledgeable about national health programs and I do recall that it was a “rugged’ program, something one would expect in the Soviet Union rather than the US, but it was there. To make it work one had to manipulate the system, which means dealing with more bureaucrats than I ever did here. It is done but you always are reminded that the government is bigger than you are.

    The attitude towards government is very different. It is both one’s master and mother, always present to a far greater extent than in the US. And always in the way, and often incredibility foolish, and often incredibility supportive, and always its intentions are good.

  38. However, Martyn of England is correct about one thing:

    Everybody gets shitty care in the military irrespective of rank. They kill Privates, Captains, Sergeants and Generals alike.

    Which is, of course, the primary goal of socialized medicine: to equalize the misery.

  39. Gray Says:

    “Try a civilian dentist.” $1500 later lost my tooth. Not visible. Good ol’ private dentist….”

    Get a chest xray sometime to verify your heart is ok. As the one example where they didn’t almost kill you, you should rule out… that they didn’t actually almost kill you (but in slow motion)…..

    Anyway, I had a jaw infection and later came down with heart failure. If there is any damage, best to find it early. If there is a damage, once it gets past a certain point… they’re maintaining your decline vs. getting better.

  40. PS
    If I’ve already mentioned the above advice, it’s a side effect of the heart drugs. CRS. 🙂

  41. I was watching Star Wars Episode III again tonight and it again was amusing to see the end again. Last time I saw it Bush was still in office and I had to roll my eyes on the language at the end about “with me or my enemy”, “This is how democracy ends”, and such. Especially true given how *none of it occurred until Obama and the dems made it in*.

    I have to note – much as we noted a while back when playing the Dems speaking about the “nuclear option” when they were a minority – that in the end they became what they were ranting about for the reasons they were ranting about.

    As such I do not see them as “fools” – they are *obviously* are capable of following the logic that leads to what they are doing now. I do not think people are *that* much of a fool, especially ones that are in power now. I can not believe that anyone who can so clearly see that chain falls for it (well, I can an individual but not so many) – same is true of the crap the Republicans do. Look to many of their complaints (and note they are *not* the same ones we voice) to see what they will do next.

    As such I think the question is answered – it is just a matter of if people are willing to internalize the answer or not. Some do not want to see it bad enough that they can not other support it enough that the are running cover.

  42. “19 years experience with Army Medicine. For openers, you don’t even have to go to a US medical school to be an Army doctor.”

    I’ll throw in another story.

    One of my friends on college had been a Sergeant in the Marines. He had *sprung* his ankle playing basket ball quite badly but they decided to do exploratory surgery because they weren’t sure if it was something else (apparently the later Doc though this was OK – so not the story here).

    They screwed it up badly, I do not really know how mut the end result was that they gave him a special shoe and brace. It was a large metal contraption that fit up at his knee and semi-duplicated his ankle structure in the so called “exo-skeleton”. Really though, this bit of engineering was quite good and worked fairly well.

    However it caused a great deal of pain at best and they prescribed him a mix of pain killers and “uppers” to counter them for normal functioning. The mix wasn’t anything unusual for people with that type of pain (though there is a funny story or two there when he let another friend take a couple of his low strength uppers to study for a test – ended up a bad idea, long story short said person didn’t sleep for a little over four days).

    I had seen him take his brace off, forget he had done so, and prop his leg up on a desk. His ankle could (and did once while I was there) dislocate and his foot be at, well, not correct angles is the only way I can explain it. There was a resultant scream and trip to the VA hospital (which was on campus – one of the major reasons he chose our University).

    Obviously he was not very mobile – no sports (basketball was how he did the initial injury) and had to take it easy for the most part.

    After a number of years (three that I knew of – at leas two before that and I do not know his date of discharge) of VA hospitals he finally got far enough in his education (Biomedical Engineering Technology) to have a good enough salary to afford private care. Turns out that all he *ever* had to do was 30 minutes of weight lifting three days a week on his ankle. No meds, no brace, could play most sports, and obviously random dislocations.

    My understanding is that if you get a ride to Walter Reed you get top notch care there but you do not want that ride. The only ones that do are the truly serious cases. Get blown up, multiple gun shot wounds that are life long debilitating, massive infection, large area burns, etc and you get top notch care. Otherwise – I know of no one that chooses to go to a VA hospital and I know a fairly large number of Veterans.

    It may be lack of funding, lack of modern equipment, lack of an ability to fire bad doctors (which is what got my friend – that coupled with an inability to change, he got who was assigned to him), or any other number of things. The VA has some fine doctors, our chosen family doctor quit his practice and volunteered (was an ex-marine, though I guess not “ex” anymore) and I as much as I miss him as my doctor I do not begrudge him doing that, but it is also infected with ones that could not make it in the private sector due to incompetence.

    Further one would also note that those that can’t make it in the VA system are shunted off to reservations.

    Both the VA system and Medicare/Medicaid are broken. Under Bush this was obvious to all and was a large issue that it be “fixed” We were wasting money in Iraq when it could be used to fix it. Now they are models of efficiency. In this case the Dems did their job well – they convinced people over a long period of time the system was broken and needs fixed (and in this case they were correct).

    Now, without doing the work to convince otherwise they want to model *everyone’s* health care after a system that mere months ago was broken beyond repair and was going to bankrupt us. That fight hasn’t gone as well as the other.

  43. Knaves or fools? This is a false alternative, based on false premise that leftists live in the same moral universe, with the same basic notions of what is right and what is wrong, and only either do not understand real-world consequencies of their behavior (fools), or for some selfish reason chose to embrace evil (knaves). Reality is more complex and more frightening: their basic moral principles are different, they are distorted and devolved into some primordial paganism, antithetical to Judeo-Christian moral. Let call spade a spade: leftism is a kind of moral insanity, mental abnormality, to which the proposed alternative is not applicable. At least, Dostoevsky had seen it thus.

  44. What are practical consequences of this understanding of leftism as a contagious moral insanity, an existential treat to the foundations of civilised society? First, drop any attempts to have rational debates with affected individuals or to keep dialog intended to reconcilation of contradictions. They are beyond reasoning, no reconsilation is possible. Try to isolate and marginalise them, made the brend of progressivism radioactive. Moral indignation and ridicule are the best tools. Stop any their initiative in its track. Create a climate of intolerance, contempt, even of mass hysteria and witchhunt, when possible. Intimidate and silence them. This is an existential ideological war, its goal is destruction and eventually extermination of the enemy, and so it must be conducted accordingly.

  45. that his intention is to fundamentally transform this country. No one should have thought he was kidding, and everyone should have paid more attention to what he might have meant. Huxley, I think, would have us assume he meant nothing much beyond the rhetoric, and would further have us assume that the Constitution and election cycles will work their eternal, innate magic.

    And this is where detailed EXPERIENCE (even second hand) makes the difference. the conversations between groups of americans of birth and those who came here from other places are like night and day. those who come from third world despotics are divided between the big man who is doing good but cant, and the evil man who is raping their people and there is nothing to do.

    the americans are in the la la land described by betsy. where they think that the morality, the work ethic, the thing that makes americans americans is not something that is maintained and cultivated, but is manna granted by god by living here on this continent. and then there are those who are refugees of similar solutions to living. where death and starvation became norm because amoral incompetency was allowed to trump moral competency. they see the same thing that is happening and they cant convince the supra moral, those who have taken a level of morals in which their points are stretched to dysfunctional absurdity. one of those being to question what an person says in the extreme as being improper EVEN for rhetoric!

    the immigrants understand why america is america and what she offers infinitely more than the americans who were born here and have been here severl generations (or whose imigrant parents censored their past). they understand what is going on, and they are afraid. we let the lazy and the not to bright, play games of poseur to reserved judgment and intelligence they dont have spend lots of time smoothing things.

    as i said, these are the most dangerous people as they are the ones who make the unreasonable reasonable. was it reasonable for a candidate to say they are going to violate their oath of office before even taking it? to the reasonable, and somewhat smart, once they accept that reason changes things, they can be convinced by some line of thought that what is wrong is ok in context relative to things rather than to some fixed absolute measure. and they pass on their work, they learn from those in the past who use lack of failure as proof of success.

    their logic is the logic of grizzly man!!!!!! that as long as he is with the bears and they are not killing him, then everything is right, and all his choices are right, and there is no reason to think otherwise. when applied to bears most of us get it. when applied to people and forgetting that people can be bears to other people, we dont think much. we look at hitler and he screams and yells and says extreme rhetoric and say, how could they be so stupid. but we dont look at all the reasonable people who smoothed the way to make such rhetoric normal by getting used to it and ignoring what its signifies because what comes later springs forth from thousands of such utterances with no seeming real outcome.

    like the man who everyone yells get off my lawn and has done so for 40 years… we are surprised when he shoots someone… why? in earlier times we would have been surprised that he waited so long! because we understood UNREASONABLE, and we had not drunk the cool aid of TOLERANCE defined as ignoring everything.

    the immigrants from those places realize that there is nothing they can do. they cant win against those who are so reasonable. who will then make the first unreasonable act? they have been doing it already and for a long time!!!!!!!

    that is under such a formula, they get to be unreasonable in rhetoric, code, action, behavior, and choices… because we refuse to be unreasonable and stop giving them benfit of the doubt (they havent earned), stop giving them lifetime employment, remember they are our employees (so we should stop worrying about offending the contractor who we are paying), and so on..

    what happens now is that it gets worse and i mean really worse. worse like you have never seen in your lives worse. and mostly because when it was a collection of unreasonable statements made reasonable, we didnt act early when such would have been easy. but look how ‘square’ and uncool we would appear (who gave us that view?), if we just were so stodgy and voted out people for exercising free speech. after all free speech is the power to say without consequence if your a what? (what they say their sides ideology will grant over regular freedom of speech).

    i end with one point. think how long such reasonable people have kept us from being indignant and angry enough to vote out these miscreants!!!! the reasonable argument lets the kids go free for killing oppressive parents. the absolute argument says that they had other options in a free society, and so they are held responsible for killing individuals who still had a right to life in which the children had no right to be lawmaker, judge, jury, prosecutor, and officer metting out sentence…

    understanding is not absolution and the key to freedom from consequence. remember that they are pretending to BE reasonable by turning random things that are unreasonable into something reasonable by pretending to be erudite in some way. its false… its always been false.. the reasonable do not become so by finding excuses for the unreasonable. the reasonable remain such by holding the unreasonable to reasonable limits (which will seem unreasonable and oppressive to those caught by their own actions). and the former are not really reasonable as no amount of talking will turn them from a unreasonable position beleived to be reasonable.

    like living with grizzly bears (politicians) and believing that since they didn’t kill you the first week, that you are in harmony with them, and you can ignore their growling, and threats (rhetoric), and then one day surprised that they are attacking and your life is threatened (your goals replaced by their goals).

    this false practice of making the unreasonable reasonable, is what makes Czars ok, what makes crytalnacht ok, what makes removing high performing males from academia, what makes disenfranchising some to make things appear in reality different, what makes class warfare, what makes central control, what makes it all ok…

    [edited for length by n-n]

  46. Sergey said, What are practical consequences of this understanding of leftism as a contagious moral insanity, an existential treat to the foundations of civilised society? First, drop any attempts to have rational debates with affected individuals or to keep dialog intended to reconcilation of contradictions. They are beyond reasoning, no reconsilation is possible. Try to isolate and marginalise them, made the brend of progressivism radioactive. Moral indignation and ridicule are the best tools. Stop any their initiative in its track. Create a climate of intolerance, contempt, even of mass hysteria and witchhunt, when possible. Intimidate and silence them. This is an existential ideological war, its goal is destruction and eventually extermination of the enemy, and so it must be conducted accordingly.

    So far, I agree with Sergey.

  47. “Quite possibly. I think on the healthcare issue that it’s a combination of fear of change, fear of the unknown and distrust of politicians.”

    Martin of England: Uh, no. We understand the issues completely: We hate socialism, overbearing government, personal slavery and poverty. If you had any sense, you would hate it too.

    Since you are too dim to get it , you may bugger off.

  48. The way I see it, there are two basic possibilities.

    The first is that my and others alarm at Obama & Co. is wrong, in which case acting on our alarm just makes us fools and people who overreact; no harm done except to our egos, and the Republic remains safe.

    The second is that we are correct to be alarmed, and that by opposing Obama & Co. at every turn, in every way, and all across the spectrum we will have a chance of stopping them, limiting the damage, and perhaps saving our Democracy and our Freedoms; if we try and fail we have at least tried, if we hesitate to act because we do not want to be seen as alarmists, well, then we deserve anything we get as the result for our failure to act, and the Republic could possibly fall.

    If I and others are right about Obama & Co., this is a one way process, and even if we do defeat them, America is in for a Hell of a beating, and will never be the quite same again; we will never be able to go back and “be in Kansas.”

  49. I would like to add something to the OT Martyn thread. Of course we can learn from Britain and Canada and France, but learning from means honest analysis of the good, the bad, and the mediocre as well as understanding the cultural differences that support and erode the system. Martyn is not engaging us in a productive discussion; he is putting us down. We are not Britain, and anyone who assumes that we could adopt 1 to 1 the British system, even if it were perfect, is a fool. Our big, diverse country needs systems that allow breathing room for individual initiative, and that initiative will be nourished from ideas from all over. It is the top-down statist that has a closed mind.

  50. I see democrats as short term knaves and long term fools. They want their over inflated union and public sector jobs and pensions subsidized by the masses. They also know this may pay off for themselves for a while but will undoubtedly increase harm and misery to their offspring going forward.

  51. I like the analogy, but I think it plain that the Captain of the vessel has been walking around the ship for the past couple of years proclaiming that he was going to “radically transform” the course of the ship.

    52% of the electorate were seasick at the time of the election, thus they did not give adequate contemplation to the consequences of Obama’s change of course. Instead of charting a course for calmer waters, he has predictably and intentionally steered us into the perfect storm.

    Now that we find ourselves headed straight for an iceberg, it matters greatly the prior intent of the Captain. He is at the helm with the goal in his sights, yet we do not want to go for a midnight swim in the stormy North Atlantic. We need someone to turn the ship’s wheel and quickly. He has made it plain that it was his express intent to hit the iceberg, why should be rely upon him to save us in our hour of desperation? Folly. We’re going for a swim.

    It about time that we storm the bridge and remove the Captain and his loyal crew if we have any chance whatsoever to avoid our fate.

  52. My apologies for my xhtml illiteracy.

    I intended to quote J.L.’s comment:

    “Lets say were all on a cruise ship, and the captain is about to direct the ship right into an iceberg. We can all argue about the “intent” of the captain. In the end, we really cannot decifer whether he is actually intebnding harm, or whether he is just a total fool. He could be either.”

  53. These is sufficient evidence for both.

    Obama has clearly made mistakes and miscalculations, stupid stuff like commenting on the police when his radical buddy was arrested.

    He also has very real leftist tendencies. His associations with Wright’s church and terrorist Ayers were not by accident.

  54. Wolla Dalbo Says:


    The way I see it, there are two basic possibilities.

    The first is that my and others alarm at Obama & Co. is wrong, in which case acting on our alarm just makes us fools and people who overreact; no harm done except to our egos, and the Republic remains safe.

    The second is that we are correct to be alarmed, and that by opposing Obama & Co. at every turn, in every way, and all across the spectrum we will have a chance of stopping them, limiting the damage, and perhaps saving our Democracy and our Freedoms; if we try and fail we have at least tried, if we hesitate to act because we do not want to be seen as alarmists, well, then we deserve anything we get as the result for our failure to act, and the Republic could possibly fall.

    Here we can agree. I think all of my comments, including the one quoted by Neo, have acknowledged that Obama and his allies are doing us harm, and that we should act immediately and intensely to stop them. See below:


    I think, with regard to Obama and his allies in Congress, that I cannot come to the conclusion that they intend harm…But they are definitely creating harm, and I agree that the actions they are pursuing are such that alarm is called for. I believe in using all legal means possible, from protest to, if possible, recall petitions, to prevent them from passing this Obamacare monstrosity that most of the American people do not want.

  55. In reading the comments to this post, I was struck by what two of the other commenters mentioned. While I still stick by my prior viewpoint, I think these two commenters may be onto something.
    James said:


    The argument around Knaves and Fools is beside the point.

    Obama and his gang are leftists. Leftists believe that the poor people in this country (and the world!) are poor because the wealthy make them, and need them that way. They believe that life can be much better for the vast majority of people if the government is given enough power.

    They honestly believe that, and they honestly believe that their enemies don’t care about the poor or anyone else either.

    Because they believe these things, they are fools. But they are very intelligent, suave sophisticated fools. They know a lot about strategy and winning elections and holding on to power. They will do anything they can to maintain power, even if it means breaking the rules once in a while. They honestly believe that they should do this, so that humanity can be better off.

    In sum, they have a real political belief system that disagrees with yours. It probably disagrees with reality as well. They have a plan, and we should try to stop it. Arguing about intent isn’t relevant to anything.

    Sergei said something similar:


    Knaves or fools? This is a false alternative, based on false premise that leftists live in the same moral universe, with the same basic notions of what is right and what is wrong, and only either do not understand real-world consequencies of their behavior (fools), or for some selfish reason chose to embrace evil (knaves). Reality is more complex and more frightening: their basic moral principles are different, they are distorted and devolved into some primordial paganism, antithetical to Judeo-Christian moral.

    It may be that our argument over “knave” versus “fool” may actaully cover over another question, one regarding what Obama and his allies in Congress actually believe in, and whether they believe that what they are doing is actually good for America. (Also important was the original question of whether they are willfully intending to subvert the rule of law, which I think was the point of my original analysis.)

    In this regard, they could well believe that what they are doing is good for the country, and believe it earnestly, and do so in complete disagreement with the rest of the country as well as most of us here. I certainly disagree with their objectives, it was their intent that this discussion dealt with.

    I suppose there could be a discussion as to whether Obama is “to the left” in the sense of a Western European or Canadian “social democrat,” or “to the left” in the sense of an actual Communist, or in the sense of a Chavez-style government. I’ve always stressed that, while I disagree with any of these options, that I still see a definite difference between them. Havana and Caracas is not Stockholm or Toronto. (I’m also not sure about all those left-of center necessarily believing in “some primordial paganism, antithetical to Judeo-Christian moral.” But a lot of them definitely do.)

    In any case, what Obama and his allies are doing is worth being alarmed about It does have to be stopped. And I do think it will do harm to America, and is contrary to what most Americans (myself included) want for this country.

  56. We see a microcosm of what liberals are doing to the country by looking at education. Under liberal control we spend more money than ever and the people get less educated. So now we’ll spend more money than ever on molding a just society and the people will be less prosperous.

    Whoever said its about money was dead on. These greedy bastards would denounce socialism today if they thought there was a buck to made personally off the sweat of someone elses brow in an easier way.

  57. J. L.,

    Good one. I think “neo” has at times recommended a book I read several years ago myself – Steven Hicks “Explaining Postmodernism”. It is really worth reading. These guys are “postmodernists”. They do not think like “normal” people do (and by “normal” I do not mean “majority” since I think they may actually be in the majority now, having ‘educated’ the populace for at least 40 years now).

    That book will scare you and depress you. It may give some comfort at least in helping you to understand the Alice in Wonderland water they swim in.

    There is no easy “fix”. The “fix” is Aristotle. The fix is a return to classical education. The fix is a religious conversion, and/or a philosophical one, or both. The fix is starting at zero and taking children away from them and then teaching them how to read, write, cipher, and think. The fix is teaching them what art is again, and what science actually is (and not what they’ve been told it is about polar bears and such).

    The fix, i short, is the defeat of PCism everywhere and in all of its guises. I agree with Serge o how we start that – with ridicule and marginalization. You CANNOT reason with them. They do not belong to the world of reason. It’s a waste of time, mental energy and resources, etc.

  58. Sorry about my irrelevant (but factually correct) 12:16 AM comment. It was late, I was tired, and I couldn’t think of anything else to say.

    (At the old GCP site, they had a smiley holding up a sign that read, “I don’t have anything to add. I just want to be included in this thread.”)

    I have reached the point where I no longer care whether Obama and the Democrats are fools or knaves. I believe they are knaves, but others disagree. But beyond a certain point, it doesn’t matter.

    A fool is someone who doggedly persists on a disastrous course of action despite warnings from others, because he is certain that he is right.

    A knave is someone who doggedly persists on a disastrous course of action despite warnings from others, because he expects to gain something from it.

    When Hitler invaded Russia, was he being a fool or a knave? Does it really matter to the tens of millions of people who died as a result of his decision?

    I believe that the leftist freaks who have conquered our country will ram Obamacare down our throats one way or another, by any means fair or foul, come hell or high water.

    November is far in the future, and I predict a long hot summer.

  59. P.S. Here is the link for that book I menationed: Steven Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism

  60. Mike Mc: Thanks. I think I would like to check out that book. I hope its available at the local Books a Million. If not, I’m sure I can order it… either through B.A.M. or Amazon.

  61. These guys, like the jihadis, are getting to be pretty good at using our own system against us (and yes, I’m starting to think of them as a species of “Other”). I think that’s part of the significance of the “Slaughter Solution.”

    They’re also, after working at it for quite a few years, pretty good at making it all seem like just part of the normal give-and-take of partisan politics. If only the Republicans would be nice. They should just be nice. Let’s all be nice.

    Obama has “leftist tendencies?” Do tell. Let’s stop walking on eggs, here. The man is a committed hard leftist, a revolutionary, and has effectively said as much himself. Anyone who is horrified by my statement or thinks I’m headed off into the Cloud Cuckoo Land of over-heated rhetoric is welcome to be horrified and free to think that. I wish over-heated rhetoric were sufficient to the task.

    The fact that he and his legislative cohorts are using politics rather than brute force changes nothing. Pace Clausewitz, politics is nothing more than the continuation of war by other means.

  62. We see a microcosm of what liberals are doing to the country by looking at education.

    SteveH, I point to my beloved California. In my youth California was truly the Golden State; a prosperous, thriving economic, educational, scientific, and engineering powerhouse that as a state outshone almost all countries. And, need I add, basically conservative state. Even Democrats, such as Pat Brown, were conservative by today’s standards.

    About 30 years ago, California suffered from a serious infestation of liberals fleeing the consequences of their handicraft on the East Coast. They emptied out of NY, MA, NJ, and also IL and MI, to come here, where they voted to implement the same liberal agenda that they had escaped from, and consistently elected liberal Democrats to the legislature.

    Now California has the same economic and social problems as …well…NY, MA, NJ, and also IL and MI. Coincidence?

    We now have the results of both positive and negative control experiments. People who can bankrupt California can bankrupt anything.

  63. Sergey Says:

    “Let call spade a spade: leftism is a kind of moral insanity, mental abnormality, to which the proposed alternative is not applicable. At least, Dostoevsky had seen it thus.”

    That’s kind of what I was trying to get across (that they just have a different, or alien, value system). To the leftist; it’s just ok that many are screwed with bad care… as long as it is equal and/or care was not provided based on money.

    Whereas the conventional ‘rational’ western person would simply be attracted to ideas on how to minimize suffering and maximize good care.

    Obama is especially tricky in that he has learned to fake the language of being a conventional rational person and lie about being a leftist… Ergo, he will go for the leftist goals while swearing up and down he is trying for the conventional goals…

  64. J.L. I just noticed that neo-neocon has it listed on her sidebar of the main page. On the right. It’s under $20. and is worth readong for anyone who wants to know the history of modern leftism and where their ideas originated and so on.

  65. O.B.,

    I’ve noticed the same phenomenon, leftists fleeing the disaster areas they and their policies have created because, well, who wouldn’t want to flee a wasteland? And then they set in with the same destructive policies in their new homes. It seems to be happening right now in North Carolina.

  66. turfmann: excellent comment of yours at 9:59 AM. I would say, however, that 52% of the electorate were not seasick, but instead they were smoking dope.

  67. OB & BB:

    It’s also happened in Pennsylvania, as New Yorkers and New Jerseyites have migrated here. PA used to be a solid conservative state, except for the cities. But it’s been trending leftwards for a long time, and in 2008 the suburban counties voted for Obama by a margin that was shocking to me.

  68. Here are two quotes from Dr. Hicks in the interview he did with the Objectivist ceneter.


    My point here is that, if you are going to have a full account of reason, there are a number of major component ideas that must be defended. One is objectivity. Another is logic. A third idea is that it is individuals who do the reasoning, and therefore have the responsibility for operating objectively. A fourth idea is the universality of reason. Human beings have the same cognitive capacities, so that truth-seekers can collaborate and check each other. All those notions–objectivity, rationality, individuality, universality, and others–are elements in a full defense of reasoning.

    Here’s another:


    The left intellectuals were confronting the crisis of socialism. One choice was to say: “The logic and evidence show that socialism does not work, that it is discredited, and so we have to abandon socialism in order to stick with the logic and the evidence.” The other choice was to say: “We have to maintain our socialism and our advocacy of it, but we therefore have to attack logic, attack evidence, attack reason as the final court of appeal.” And the latter is exactly what all of those postmodern, skeptical, subjectivistic, relativistic epistemologies do. They, in effect, give you a set of tools. If there are arguments against the success of socialism and in favor of the success of capitalism, well, you can just dismiss those arguments on epistemological grounds. Postmodernism gives you, in effect, a get-out-of-jail-free card against any rational attack on your system. So, that is what I mean by saying, “The failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary.” Postmodernism, including its epistemological strategy, was the only way in the latter part of the twentieth century for someone to retain his faith in socialism as an ideology.

  69. J.L. Says:
    March 14th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Good quotes, J.L.

    So now the question is: How do we go about cutting this postmodern cancer out of our educational system?

  70. Literature, as usual, is ahead of life. An embodiment of postmodernism is O’Brien from Orwell’s 1984. Can you ask is he a knave or a fool? To such creatures such categories do not apply.

  71. rickl,

    It may be impossible. The task is so massive; the opposition to it so powerful.

    There may be no solution.

    The solution might be the collapse of America and rebuilding from the ruins.

    The solution might be the same solution that monasteries were in the face of barbarian invasions. You build your monastery. You stay there. After everything is broken and burned, you keep going for a few centuries and you convert the barbarians.

    Or you fight at the local level on every school board everywhere, and in every University everywhere.

    There is always the outside chance that young people rise up and throw off the servitude their parents have imposed upon them. Perhaps they will simply refuse, at some point, to pay for it anymore.

  72. Those of you talking about liberals leaving the areas they have ruined reminds me of Marc Levin’s comments on this subject. He described liberals as locusts that move into an area, vote in all kinds of taxes and regulations, then when it is ruined by those policies, they flee to another area and start the process all over again.

  73. Humans are distingished from animals by the two attributes: ability to rational reasoning and to moral reasoning, with presumed willingness to accept the results and obey them. If a person has a damaged ability for the first, we call him a fool. If he avoids submission of his will to categorical imperative (moral), we call him a knave. But if his categorical imperative means an ultimate sacrifice: abolish his humanity and sacrifice both moral and logical truth to Party line, how we can call him? Not a human anymore. A demon.

  74. It’s all about their endgame – their progressive Eutopia; none of them worry too much about the road there.

    Face it, almost the entire Democratic party (definitely their leftwing base) doesn’t even care much for this bill. They concede, it’s far too reliant on those evil insurance companies. It doesn’t really insure that many uninsured, it will make our deficit go through the roof and it will not reduce the cost of insurance one penney.

    They are all completely aware of its shortfalls. They won’t admit it. In fact, they set up every possible smoke screen to hide the features of this lemon – but they know this bill sucks.

    They’re going for it because it is one step closer too their vision for America.

    And their vision for a better America has nothing to do with your vision or mine. It’s not about prosperity, individual self-determination, initiative, and the pursuit of happiness.

    It’s about America being a “fair” country. And, they won’t succeed until everyone is at the same “fair” level of squalor.

    Well everyone except them and the union workers.

  75. Neo neocon wrote “52% of the electorate were not seasick, but instead they were smoking dope.”

    and shooting junk.

    At last the election results make sense.

  76. betsyb;
    As an exTarheel, I agree with you on NC. 30yrs ago Asheville was a semi-dumpy town in the mountains peopled by locals. Now its on the NYT list of 10 best places for 2nd homes for Yankee fat cats. Like all places loved by liberals, it has fine restaurants and high home prices.
    Duke Medical Center was then the premier medical center of the South. But it went national, imported self-aggrandizing, arrogant and sometimes actually corrupt faculty from the Yales and Hopkinses. Out went all interest in true patient care, in came grantsmanship and lip service, and total vertical integration of health care.
    So I can’t bring myself to enjoy going back.
    Not so odd NC is now 5th worst in unemployment, at 11.5%. Textiles and furniture production no longer exist. The Durham tobacco warehouses became lofts. NC has a service economy, totally.

  77. Tom,

    One of the saddest things to me about it all is that NC has the most beautiful beaches I’ve ever seen, anywhere. My daughter and I have vacationed in Buxton a couple of times, just us girls. I love the Outer Banks.

    And I did my master’s thesis work on the metamorphic rocks of the southwestern corner of the state, near Franklin. It, too, is a wonderful area.

    I remember, when the Duke fake rape monster first broke, thinking how unsurprising it should be to anyone paying any attention to the Po-Mo corruption in higher education. Duke was one of the first places that whole destructive movement got really entrenched.

    So, like cancer, this political disease spreads by infiltration of healthy tissue. I hope it can be kept out of Texas–well, beyond Austin, anyway, which is actually pretty thoroughly infected now. Damn.

  78. Neo, thanks for the O’Brien link. I’ll check it out. This issue of postmodernism is one that I think I can sink my teeth into.

  79. rickl, Mike Mc., Neo, Sergey and all others interested.

    Re: what to do about postmodernism.

    Heres another interesting interview with Professor Steven Hicks:

    http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/03/postmodernism-unpeeled.html

    And perhaps it should give us hope that Hicks himself is optimistic about the future. Heres a quote:


    In the shorter term, postmodernism has caused an impoverishment of much of the academic humanities, both in the quality of the work being done and the civility of the debates. The sciences have been less affected and are relatively healthy. The social sciences are mixed.

    I am optimistic, though, for a couple of reasons. One is that pomo was able to entrench itself in the second half of the twentieth century in large part because first-rate intellectuals were mostly dismissive of it and focused on their own projects. But over the last ten years, after pomo’s excesses became blatant, there has been a vigorous counter-attack and pomo is now on the defensive. Another reason for optimism is that, as a species of skepticism, pomo is ultimately empty and becomes boring. Eventually intellectually-alert individuals get tired of the same old lines and move on. It is one thing, as the pomo can do well, to critique other theories and tear them down. But that merely clears the field for the next new and intriguing theory and for the next generation of energetic young intellectuals.

    So while the postmodernism has had its generation or two, I think we’re ready for the next new thing – a strong, fresh, and positive approach to the big issues, one that of course takes into account the critical weapons the pomo have used well over the last while.

  80. The knave/fool distinction holds only so long as one accepts the premise that the fool in question (FIQ) is so foolish, so lacking in basic human intellect, common sense, and the ability to understand rudimentary cause and effect as to render them blameless for the consequences of their policies and actions.

    One might argue that damage results from either state so the cause is mere semantics. However, in human affairs, intent matters, not only in judging what a given FIQ has done, might do in the near future, and might do in the far future. It also matters in assessing blame and apportioning punishment. Even dogs are capable of understanding whether they have been accidentally tripped over or kicked. Should we settle for less discernment?

    Case in point: Obamacare. We know that our current medical entitlements (to say nothing of Social Security) make a mockery of the word “unsustainable,” and will, if nothing is done, bankrupt the nation, sooner rather than later. We know that one cannot add 30 million people to the healthcare system without proportionately increasing the number of doctors, nurses and related professionals without significantly decreasing the availability and quality of care. We know that establishing more than 100 new federal bureaucracies will cost far more money than we are spending now. We know that passing Obamacare will do nothing to address the real issues of cost and quality and that it will increase premium costs and significantly raise taxes and the national debt. Even Sen. Dick Durbin, among the most orthodox of orthodox liberals has admitted it. Yet the FIQ ignores all of this and claims the opposite.

    What is the rational person to believe of the FIQ, particularly when he has told the world that his mere nomination as the Democrat candidate for POTUS will be recorded as the moment that the seas stopped rising and the planet began to heal? This is the man reputed to be one of the towering intellects of this, or any other, century. This is the man reputed to be the finest orator yet produced by the human race. This is the man credulous journalists referred to as “…like a god,” a man capable of sending tingles up the legs of hard as nails male journalists. This is the man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after only a few days in office, admitted that he had done nothing at all to earn it, but accepted it anyway. This is the man who told his fellows that electoral defeat would be warded off, because unlike in the past, they have him.

    So, as the FIQ places our collective thumb on the health care wall and draws back the Obamacare hammer, how is it that he is unable to foresee the inevitable result of the process that is soon to follow? Are we to believe that this particular FIQ is truly such a fool? Or, because we are rational people, do we withdraw our thumb, particularly when we catch the glimmer of a smirk on the FIQ’s face as the hammer begins to fall?

  81. I predict there will be a profound article written in the next 10-15 years that accurately depicts how Al Gore’s hockey stick graph was in fact a subconscious timeline depicting Progressivism’s lossening grip on reality.

  82. “So while the postmodernism has had its generation or two, I think we’re ready for the next new thing – a strong, fresh, and positive approach to the big issues, “

    A fresh, positive approach…doesn’t this presume that human nature and time-tested principles and ideas such as judeo-christian values, objectively based reason, logic and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not eternal and are therefore obsolete?

    No, this is a battle between nihilism and rationality based in logic and transcendent moral principles.

    Can there be a ‘strong, fresh and positive approach that supports time-tested principles? Yes, perhaps but what would that be?

    The ‘law’ must be fulfilled, not thrown out with the bathwater.

  83. “It’s about America being a “fair” country. And, they won’t succeed until everyone is at the same “fair” level of squalor.”

    Yes, that’s true, for the liberals, those always ‘useful idiots’. Not so, for the leftists who know full well what they do. The knave and the fool shall always be with us, till the lamb lay down with the lion.

    “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:

    1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

    2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.

    In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson

    At some point, the knaves always reveal themselves, they cannot help it, for it is in their nature to step out into the open, when it be dark enough. When they do, if we retain the right to speak freely, then the fools will have the veil lifted from their eyes and then, who shall defend the knaves from the rage of the mob?

  84. So what do we call a President who thinks nuclear weapons can be eliminated from the world? A knool?

  85. PaceThomas Jefferson, the linear combination of 1 and 2:

    3. Those who fear and distrust the people, but [nevertheless] cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe [of the options before us], although not the most wise depository of the public interests.

  86. Let’s be careful about attributing too much wisdom to Jefferson. A man of parts and an elegant writer, no doubt, but in some ways the original Limousine Liberal and proponent of Radical Chic. Jefferson always defended the French interest and the French Revolution, to the point of rationalizing the Terror. Among the Founders, I always prefer Washington, Hamilton, and Adams over Jefferson.

  87. Sergey:

    But if his categorical imperative means an ultimate sacrifice: abolish his humanity and sacrifice both moral and logical truth to Party line, how we can call him? Not a human anymore. A demon.

    Ya mean, like, oh, I don’t know, maybe…SAAA-TAN!?!?!?

  88. its interesting to see how ignorance responds

    and that vision is how i see a lot of things as i make such references (great reference Sergey, nice catch neo), and almost no one knows what was common knowlege in the past

  89. +1 to Artfldgr for bringing in the “Grizzly Man” into a discussion about Obama. Very insightful – I just hope we all don’t end up like the screaming girlfriend who was also mauled to death.

  90. Pingback:The Lethargic Philosopher » Blog Archive » Is he or isn’t he?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>