Fish in a Barrell

The mood is not upon me to offer a column, so I thought I’d just provide some wisdom from the lunatic fringe, Obama division, and brief commentary thereon.

My county Dem organization links to an entity with the catchy title, "Less jobs, more wars." Anything with such rotten grammar in its title (that’s FEWER jobs, dearie) is probably an interesting read, so I proceeded on, to discover that John McCain would deprive women of birth control options because – GASP! – he voted against a bill to compel insurance companies to pay for it. In other words, if we don’t force someone else to pay for something, it won’t exist. Who knew?

Oh, the humanity!! Imagine having to shell out a whole $25 a month or so for birth control. And they pay for VIAGRA!! (Not that there’s any mandate for that, mind. Besides, the correct analogy would be paying for condoms, and no carrier of which I am aware does so). The sexist dogs. There’s a misogynist hiding behind every ... nah, the politically correct types would never forgive me for that particular idiom.

Wonder why insurance costs keep increasing? Now, you know. One mandate after another. (And dollars to donuts says that the cost of the scrips will rise now that the consumer doesn’t care what they cost; someone else is paying.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the comments on this section demonstrate a similar, thoughtful quality.

"What most women, poor people, people of color, queers people, and disabled people etc. want is freedom from an oppressive system in this country that preferences money, jobs, and power to white, straight, nondisabled, wealthy men."

(This from a (male) college student -- presumably in the remedial writing department -- with the unmitigated presumption to speak for "most women, queers people", etc.). Likely, in order to deliver us from an "oppressive system" – that is, one which leaves us pretty much alone – we require a massive governmental edifice to dictate outcomes. Slavery is freedom, right?

And, then, consider the commentary from the keeper of the site.

"I, personally, don't want to be rich. Richness implies having more, and that can only happen when other people have less. What I want is equality, where everybody has enough. But that's just me."

Wow, and you thought economic illiteracy wasn’t a national crisis? People can only have more if someone else has less, eh? Remedial econ ain’t enough for this guy. Jeeze, here you were thinking that the Soviets fell in 1990. Apparently, some of their old central planning department landed here (those that didn’t land on the Times editorial staff).

"McCain is a moran!"

(Well, maybe. One Irish name is pretty much the same as another, no? He might have a Moran in his ancestry.)

Another commentator offers this as the Republican legacy:

"War, Outragous Gas Prices, Horrible Ecomony, Weak US Dollar, Highest Employment Rate (22%).

22% unemployment? Woof. How did the Times miss that? I didn't notice almost a quarter of my neighbors out of work. Where could this legion of unemployed be hiding? Heck, only for about a year during the Depression was unemployment that high. Who knew this was 1933?

And, of course, not a single Democrat voted for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, or made statements about Saddam’s possession of WMD which made Bush look positively restrained. (Jay Rockefeller, call your office).

Leave aside the spelling of "outrageous" and "economy"; anyone can present with typos. But if gas prices are outrageous, same being a product of supply and demand, might not one look at, oh, say, the enviro wackos who prevent essentially any new energy development in the entire country? The Brits, the Norwegians, the Cubas, the Venezuelans, the Russians, all drill or plan to drill in coastal waters. Not us. We might tick off a few fish. Much Russian oil is located in Western Siberia, probably similar in climate and environment to ANWR. They move full speed ahead; we allow a few misbegotten caribou – who would probably like the development, as did their Prudhoe Bay cousins – to stand in the way.

Horrible economy? We’ve had decent, albeit unspectacular growth. But I’d be the first to admit that, with lower corporate taxes, fewer regulations, the elimination of the economic dislocations caused by abominations like the Farm (corporate welfare) Bill (for which every New Jersey Congressional Democrat voted), lower governmental spending, entitlement reform, etc., things could be much better. But they ain’t gonna get no better with a President Obama imposing hundreds of billions in new taxes, bloating the size of government, and cutting off international trade. What the economy needs are more true conservatives in Congress, not FEWER.

Nuff of this; too easy.

Alas. Would that the level of political discourse and political education – especially economic education – were somewhat higher. But if everyone were thoughtful and educated, with whom would a good conservative debate?