2D or Not 2D

History sometimes coalesces around a few serendipitous events that momentarily converge to divulge a deeper social meaning. And so we witness today upon our national stage the spontaneous juxtaposition of the micro with the macro - the portentous with the inane. Can it be purely coincidental that Obamacare, legalized pot and the revival of big screen 3D pictures pop their Orwellian heads through our Spenglerian door collectively at just this precise moment in history? Maleficently imbued within this seemingly unrelated trio we could very well be witnessing a newly minted triumvirate for mass social control. Marijuana has clearly become the Soma* drug of modern America, lifting spirits and minds away from the arduous reality of the daily grind while simultaneously softening the wills and self-direction of its habitual users. At long last, Saint Alice B Toklas be praised, it looks like we’re going to finally have legalized pot in California, in all likelihood releasing a tide of similar legislation across the country as the billions of deperately needed tax dollars begin to flow into the coffers of our most profligate and fiscally irresponsible legislatures. But really, doesn’t it seems oddly convenient that the incipient smell of our nation’s first state sanctioned cannabis wafts woefully just as millions of Americans are propping cheap 3-D glasses on their soon to be collectively stoned and health-subsidized noses escaping into the fantasy world of Avatar ( Beam me up James C. to enviro-nirvana ), Alice in Wonderland ( Isn’t there a hookah smoking caterpillar in there somewhere? ) and Clash of the Titans ( Who needs God, let alone Gods )? Let's get 'em all stoned and send them off to see the latest politically correct Hollywood flaptrap!

And now with Obamacare it won’t be long before we can get Uncle Sam to pick up the tab for our prescription medical marijuana. After all, isn't marijuana abuse a disease like any addiction? How can it be purely accidental all this happening under the stewardship of our first self-admitted President that inhaled? Don’t you think health insurance should be required to cover my Zig-Zag rolling papers and bong pipes? Do you think it's possible that somewhere in that two thousand page health care bill there's a subsidy for Hollywood or 3D movie production? ( Hell, details are still leaking out what's in this thing ) Damn it all, I have a right to get high and see first-run 3-D pictures in Cinemax to relieve my clinical depression caused by my Bush-induced two and half years on unemployment through no fault of my own! I just can’t make up my mind whether I’d ultimately rather get high and live my state subsidized virtual life in the 3-D Pandora or the more visually passe’ 2-D Tolkien Hobbit's Shire?** Maybe I should ask my Facebook friends?

Do pot smokers ever get paranoid that the government they previously feared was going to bust them is now almost encouraging them to get stoned? What a long strange trip it's been.....

*Soma was the mythical drug prognosticated by Aldous Huxley in his famous dystopic novel Brave New World
** Damn I hope Peter Jackson's new Hobbit film is in 3D. That would really help to take my mind off my negative home equity!

M.D.T.

Zombie Nation

My take on the new 'health reform' bill? It is, literally, the proverbial straw. America's is now bankrupt. It just doesn't know it quite yet. But a good portion of the citizenry suspects it - feels it - viscerally. The country can't possibly shoulder the overwhelming weight of this latest multi-trillion dollar entitlement on top of our already egregiously underfunded Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public employee pension plans. Just before the federal bailout of our largest banks last year there was talk amongst the financial community of the danger of creating 'zombie' banks; banks that could never stand on their own feet again; hooked up eternally to the life-sustaining I.V. of government subsidies. Or creating 'zombie' car companies like the once proud GM, now linguistically derided as our 'Government Motors', it's heart, the profit motive, ripped out of it's obese, dying no longer competitive carcass. Tragically, and I truly mean tragically, we, in time I fear are doomed to become, sooner rather than later, a 'zombie' nation, cursed to a kind of living dead status, perpetually failing, overspending and endlessly bailing ourselves out, like only a corrupt government and complicit federal reserve can do with its printing press. The price? Nothing less than the American Dream itself. Feel better now?

The problem with socialism is that sooner or later they run out of other people's money.... Margaret Thatcher

M.D.T.

An Eruditious Antinomy

Though it's certainly cynical to believe that both political parties just take all our taxes, and then some, to pay off their own individual constituencies, it’s worth at least considering that at least when the Republicans are in power and cut taxes for the wealthy and funnel billions to the military that the country at least benefits economically by creating new jobs, higher GDP, more rich people plus arguably slight economic improvements over time for the middle and lower classes. But when the Democrats are in power and raise taxes and funnel billions to their constituency of unions, public employees, the educational system, politically correct scientists and the downtrodden, both real and imagined, the economy stagnates and no one does any better economically except those with a government job or those receiving grants, subsidies or stipends of some nature from Uncle Sam. I think it was H.L. Mencken who touched eruditiously on this antinomy when he said,* ‘Democracy is an exercise in pillage and each election is a referendum on future stolen property.’ The antinomy being that from a flawed system driven by a ostensibly single underlying, corrupting, political process, the greater economic common good is better served by the one party favoring self-interest and the more productive elite minority.

Voting for Democrats is, at least in respect to America’s economy, quite simply throwing out the good in pursuit of the perfect - the practical for the ideal. Americans seem to have a terrible time these days accepting that timeless colloquial maxim, that everything in politics is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Sorry guys, but just because you don’t like either Party very well, you still gotta choose. So you might as well be practical and choose the one that at least has a vague recollection how to balance a checkbook, has the 'immoral' constitution necessary to terminate an underperforming employee and knows how to create something other than a government job.

Politicians who believe they can 'fix everything' historically and inevitably do more damage than good. This widespread belief that America is broken and needs to be overhauled is dangerous. We’d all be a lot better off if our leaders and our citizenry were content with making small improvements over time. I apologize for raining on many of the idealistic Obamanista’s parades out there, but as far as our economy is concerned, trickle down is better than nothing and there is no 'third way'.

*I very well might be the first person in human history to use those two words together in the same sentence.

M.D.T.

Was Santa Clause a Conservative?

Thank you Doug. You and I have concertedly for most of a year now strived our utmost to throw light on the most perplexing issues of our era. I now propose to you and our listeners that we not only have a cultural war on our hands, but worse yet, a ‘Santa Claus Crisis’! It all goes back to that ‘naughty or nice’ thing. Have recent generations really been rewarded differently when they were children dependent upon their individual good or bad behavior? I know I had my doubts early on, since even though I was clearly the more exemplary child in every respect, my two brothers enjoyed consistently equal holiday compensation.

Did Santa Claus ever deny a child a present because they were just plain rotten? Did drugs? Cheated at school? Tortured the family cat?

I’d like to think that at one time, a long time ago, it made a difference to Santa and others how kid’s behaved. But clearly today that would be impossible since it would require making an actual personal judgment about what is good or bad, naughty or nice. Plus we’d have to hold children responsible for their behavior. Just think of the irreparable psychological damage that could be done if we denied one of our children a Christmas present for any reason! It’s bad enough that some children get lavish, expensive gifts while others receive only menial K-Mart trinkets! On the grounds of the need for achieving higher self-esteem for young people everywhere I propose immediate emergency national legislation to equalize the monetary value of Christmas gifts to all children under 18, even those in prison. None should receive a gift worth more than $29.95, the national mean average for a Christmas present! ( Price check by Amazon.com )

Yes, friends and listeners, we have a Santa Clause crisis. Are we a nation where wealth and position are determined by virtuous behavior and individual judgment, or a ‘St. Nickocracy’ where all benefit equally irrespective of their individual hard work, free decisions and self-restraint? Can we ever agree again, as a people, on what behaviors should or should not be rewarded?

Alas, I’m afraid Santa is no longer a conservative. Though at one time I think that he most certainly was. If he hadn't been, he would never have imposed such ridiculous conditions like being “naughty or nice” as a prerequisite for judicious Christmas remuneration in the first place.

MERRY CHRISTMAS FREEDOM FORUM LISTENERS AND THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN TO OUR PROGRAM!

FREEDOM FORUM – 12/18/99


M.D.T.

Done Gone Rogue

You know, sometimes I think it would almost be worth it, to me, to live in a country where everyone was middle class or less just so I wouldn’t ever have to hear again, ‘In such a rich country it’s a shame this… or a disgrace that...’ Now listen up s.f.b.’s ... COUNTRIES WOULDN’T BE RICH IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY HAD DIVIDED UP THE WEALTH OF THOSE WHO HAD ATTAINED IT! DEVELOPING COUNTRIES THAT ADOPT THIS LEFTIST, NEO-MARXIST, CLAPTRAP IDEALOGY REMAIN POOR FOREVER! That’s why liberals only exist in rich countries: there’s no ‘somebody else’s money’ to spend more compassionately in the poor ones. Leftists in poor countries are revolutionaries, not liberals. They simply physically expropriate, at the point of a gun, wealth from the few remaining 'haves' to pay for their cigars and the people’s annual medical exams* . Not a bad definition of a liberal enshrouded there; a liberal is someone who wants to force someone else to spend their own money to assuage what they and their ilk perceive to be the world’ s injustices.

Actually heard a caller on Mark Levine state that they didn’t have health insurance but saw no reason why someone else should be taxed at half their income to provide it for them. Are there more than 10% of Americans born after 1960 that would agree with that?

*Ever heard that, ‘In Cuba at least they have health care.' ( Eee Gad )


M.D.T.

Free Will Revisited

The very essence of what it means to be human is predicated upon the existence of free will. It’s impossible to even imagine any story, book or movie where at least part of the drama or interest isn't derived from the observer's identification with a character's moment of decision; that moment when we as observers wonder what he, she or they are going ... to do next. What else are our lives but grand, unique stories that we ourselves assist in writing the pages each and every day? A human life without choice is the very definition of an ‘absurd’ existence. One’s life can never be, in any real sense, ‘absurd’ for those that have the courage, intelligence, imagination and faith to posit their own values to the world at large as 'good'. How can any chosen human action be deemed to be 'for the greater good' or to have any value whatsoever if we share no commonality of what 'the good' actually is? *To believe that all values are individual and equal is not tolerance but nihilism. If irreconcilable value systems are at the root of all war, so be it. Live free or die. Those who swim in the miasma of value relativity cannot but ultimately drown in their own shifting and ephemeral re'solutions de jour. And paradoxically, isn't the position that we should all be nonjudgmental a judgment in itself? Can't one be more intolerant of the intolerants than the intolerants themselves? Perhaps sadly, perhaps divinely, to live is to choose; and for all but the world's would be Raskolnikovs, at some point perhaps the best any of us can do is to relish this one in a gadzillion opportunity to choose our own way, day by day, and pray for guidance.

And just where does our common idea of the good come from? Now that's about the biggest question imaginable! No progress since Plato.

M.D.T.

Icarus's Wings

Leftist leaders and 'visionaries' love to take refuge in a future that’s too far off to accurately predict – slowing climate change and creating a new sustainable green economy conveniently will take decades and massive public investment before we'll even have a hint whether it's working. With the overwhelming majority of their ongoing projects it’s always too soon to tell with any accuracy how things are going plus their progress is always serendipitously too difficult to measure. How do we measure what a child is learning? Has the percentage of Americans living in poverty changed in 40 years? Are there fewer homeless per capita? Just how long will it take to achieve ‘social justice’? To succeed the Democratic agenda axiomatically seems to always require limitless money (aka 'public investment') and unspecified amounts of time. Similarly, there is no definable end nor identifiable line items that can ever be individually budgeted or checked off as ‘done’ within their agendas. Ponder just how absurd it is to ask, ’How long will it take to reduce greenhouse gases 25%, how are we going to do it ,what will it cost and can we afford it?’ Or, 'Just how much would it cost to eliminate povery once and for all and how would we do it?' Any idea how many global summits are required to achieve global nuclear disarmament? Meanwhile, all the prosaic, flat-earth, unintuitive, pragmatic (not infrequently Christian) selfish business people ( aka the mules pulling the cart ) are puting in overtime dealing with such pedestrian matters of the day as providing food to the grocery stores every morning by 6AM and gasoline that's cheaper than bottled water or developing a vaccine for the swine flu. (Though presumedly they could all do it cheaper and better if they had a little competition from the government - l.o.l.)

Is the idea of a conservative ‘visionary’ by definition an oxymoron simply due to the conservative’s inherent nature to feel compelled to supply actual constructive, measurable means to achievable ends? Wasn’t it John Kennedy that said some look at the world and say why, but I look and say why not? What if he had said, ‘But I look and say what, when and how much?' Nothing very inspiring about that now, is there! How many visionaries does it take to build a nuclear plant, a Las Vegas Casino or a new version of Windows? About the same amount as angels that can fit on the head of a pin.

Everyday necessity has a stubborn habit of consistently trimming Icarus's wings. It's a good thing too, lest the left's visionaries fly too high with our uninspired pocket books.

M.D.T.