What Have You Done for Me Lately Lefty?

This is a question that all Leftists (and liberals still unaware that Leftists see them as useful idiots) had better be able to answer to those in power:

What have you done for us lately?

When you either don't have an answer or finally lose something those in power wanted, below the break is a hint of what to expect as a reward for all your past service.

Really Sad

From Ed Driscoll at PJMedia.

Look at the anger in her expression and be very afraid should she have any say in whether or not you get to see a doctor.

As I posted a few weeks ago, the surname similarity (Jean Sibelius vs Kathleen Sebelius) causes me to associate this cold martinet with the Finnish composer who gifted us with the beautifully elegiac tune "Valse Triste" -- sad waltz. Her being in charge of implementing death panels is as far removed from the nostalgic feelings that an elegy seeks to evoke as anything you might consider.

So it is with some satisfaction to see this picture where the insult implied by the title of the book she has just been handed has finally dented the phony smiling facade of this supremely arrogant public servant who, when asked if she would resign due to stupendous incompetence, snipped "I don't work for my critics."

The sad thing is how much damage she and her bureaucracy will have done to America before we have a chance to legally see that she is punished for her maliciousness. This roll-out has been so bad it could not have been worse had it been planned that way.  Heads should roll for such enormous incompetence. The really sad thing is that they won't.

The Crowing of A Death Cultist

“Today, when the court sentences Steven Hayes to death,” [Attorney Thomas] Ullmann said, “every one of us becomes a killer. We all become Steven Hayes.” 

NO! I will not accept the argument that this lawyer is merely delusional and misguided. I say he is a soulless professional agent of the death cult and is trying to tarnish all of society by projecting his own life endangering cravings on everybody else. Hayes has been an agent of death. Hayes has repented enough that he welcomes his own execution. But not so Attorney Ullmann. Ullman does not wish to chill the actions of other murderers. Thus I call all those that would feel emboldened by his advocacy (to abolish the death penalty) as agents of Ullmann's. That rotter, long before Mr Hayes meets his just punishment, is even now encouraging actions such as those of Mr. Hayes.

The moral bankruptcy of Mr. Ullmann's statement is symptomatic of the death cultists that have, in my opinion, always been accepted by the Left, and who have affected liberal thought. Classical liberal thought has been warped from permitting the voicing of ideas, no matter how bizarre, into endorsing ideas that are dangerous to human life that most conservatives still call "liberal."

You can read of how awful were the murders committed by Monster Hayes by picking up the trail at this NYSlimes link.

The Need to Place Political Correctness in the Crosshairs

There are many others who comment much more diligently than I upon the many instances how Western culture in general, and American culture in particular, are relentlessly under attack by the Left and its shockingly complicit Establishment media. Particularly I have been impressed with how well S.T. Karnick makes that his regular concern.

A few days ago Mr. Karnick wrote of the criticism misdirected at MLB for the drinking and driving death of Josh Hancock, a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher. In comments to it, I made a quick point about how PC's intrusion into our culture has a bloody hand in making personal disasters of this sort more rather than less common.

Mr. Karnick concurred: "Until a sufficient number of people summon up the courage to speak out against this point of view, its ugly consequences will continue to plague us."

Now I'd like to make what I believe is a unique observation about PC. That is, I've not seen it mentioned even if its been noticed before, and I doubt it. PC's acceptance and certainly its persistence came into the forefront after much of Western thought turned in the 1960s to accept the notions of Thomas Malthus as revitalized by Paul Ehrlich et al. Merely fifteen years time after the unprecedented carnage of the Second World War, our intelligentsia seemed all too swift to accept the pessimistic notion that the number of humans on the planet was still unsustainable. In short, this is what is meant in high-minded parlance as the challenge of sustainability. (Considerable thought before WWII was moving in this direction. Indeed it appears to be a major feature in NAZI thought. In a world with diminishing resources, Hitler was moving to establish his race as the sole survivors. I plan to look into this further at a later date.)

It does not take a rocket scientist to notice the conflict between this concern and that of society's previously stated predominant concern of protecting human life in many different ways. In fact, by gum, there is assuredly a radical reversal in the way those who've risen to the top of society's institutions has gone about, ostensibly, protecting its members.

Of significant note is that which used to be called constructive criticism wound up in the cross-hairs of the heads of our institutions.

Instead of welcoming various sources of wisdom access to those who need the guidance, the PC crowd constantly concerns itself with how the feelings of the foolhardy might be hurt by those who wish to warn them. Rather than permit unrestricted passage of hard-earned lessons-learned, these "watchdogs" prefer that those whose feelings they claim to be protecting are better off with having their thinking (or unthinking) unfettered. "Let them learn the hard way where naive or ignorant or misguided choices will lead them" would seem to be their slogan.

Certainly, I don't think in history there was ever a group, so well entrenched in positions of authority, who -- wittingly or unwittingly -- were ever such an ally to predators as is our PC crowd.

Now surely there are many useful idiots in that crowd. But it is hard to imagine how they got there and how they manage to remain there unless there are significant numbers of the moneyed and influential class who believe that they are doing animal-husbandry-like work in letting the foolish kill themselves off. Kill themselves along with how many other handfuls of innocents who have the misfortune to be in their path on the way to their personal destruction.

So, for those who still retain an optimism for the potential of the human mind to meet any future shortages (be it for belief in The Creator's promise or simply from gaging how high we have risen in the face of all kinds of disasters), I bet you also have entertained the following question about how society is failing at its assigned task even as its leaders clamor for more control over our lives. Is it not a natural inclination, an imperative really, to look askance at how society has altered its approach to law enforcement?

Strict law enforcement being the principle means to protect innocents from predators was long established thinking in the West. Based significantly on the writings of Thomas Hobbes I believe, that was the be all and end all of the modern state: its raison d' ètre.

Heh, Heh. That is, that was before postmodernism turned up.

In response to my commentary about how, given the state of advances by radical Islam in the war on Terror, the currently disfavored view towards capital punishment is in need of review, reader RobC happened to opine with the ages old comment that those who harm innocents deserve only a little more consideration than that they gave their victims.

Within the confines of this essay, here is what I observe in response.

I used to know many like you, RobC. All of you have been marginalized out of hearing because Political Correctness has painted your views as beyond acceptable discussion.

Many blogs, as you suggest, will grant a hearing to your words. But more is needed to make the jump to where you will be heard in live public forums so that you may affect public policy.

My long term plan for this site (and my premier site should I get it working well again) will come up with ideas that will open up minds now trained (at best) to ignore you. I welcome suggestions and criticisms from readers to aid me in my quest. What doesn't ring bells, what has potential, and what will make good soundbites?


Also, I have had some success in the past at conceiving useful variations on how the political spectrum can be redrawn. However, that was during the Cold War so, although it still accurately reflects how power seekers game the system, it has less immediate use today in the War On Terror.

I have been brewing again a new way to redraw the political spectrum with soundbites that essentially say The Right loves life and The Left loves death. A preview can be read at comment #6 here.

More to follow.

New Reasons For Reopening Debate On Executing Killers [Updated]

Summary: Circumstances have changed since most Western countries and many American states abolished capital punishment. Sudden effacement of many key safeguards which bolstered those anti-death penalty policies demands that the conscientious reopen the debate over the need for executions of society's worst killers.

This article that appeared in the Brisbane Times (h/t Wretchard at the Belmont Club) , tells of heightened threats to public safety being recognized and seriously confronted by prison authorities. The new threat arose due to concerted efforts of radical immans to convert to Islam the most unsavory of the incarcerated in the New South Wales prison populations. The story provides more than sufficient evidence that many premises that guaranteed general public safety and were heretofore key to Western civilizations' inclination to abolish capital punishment have become perilously thin and penetrable.

Update 4/28/07:
Saudis Arrest 172 in Alleged Terror Plot . Pertinent to the commentary below is this excerpt The militants also planned to storm Saudi prisons to free jailed militants, the ministry's statement said. Do you suppose the Saudis used Western standard interrogation techniques to break up this threat?

Commentary

Time and again obstructionists to capital punishment have argued that the incarceration of murderers is all that is needed to remove their threat to society. "Life in prison without the possibility of parole" they say is sufficient to protect society from new threats from these monsters.

There are a number of other arguments that partly defeat this premise -- such as the presence of known killers in the prison population being an unmitigatible lethal threat to guards and to those convicted of non-capital offenses. But no other arguments, including chances of a breakout from prison by any one murderer, outright defeated the life-in-prison argument entirely. At least not until now.


Here are just three new developments that I can think of now that undermine the idea that killers put away for life terms will never again arise to threaten society as a whole:

1. Their continued existence makes them an object of sympathy of the radical Islamists, providing the latter another reason to lash out at our society in general.
2. The radicals may decide to attack one or more of our already high security prisons -- a threat that should already have and will increase costs of running such institutions.
3. Every murderer is now a higher risk (to society) of being freed -- an event no longer solely in the hands of parole boards, but now also in the hands of fate. The fate of a successful prison break orchestrated with Saudi or other similar limitless money.

I am sure readers can come up with more reasons. But here is a special thing to remember. No matter how many times Leftists are dealt devastating blows to their premises, they manage, with the great help of establishment media, to drown out that fact. And then they go on to insert new and preposterous arguments into the discussion as if they haven't been revealed to be wholly devoid of humility and desire to protect our societies. Please be prepared. Don't let them get away with the stunts this time.