Canada continues its long running demonstration that health care is not the same as health insurance. That ceding control of your health care based on promises from government health ‘insurers’ is a sucker’s move.
It’s been awhile since I mentioned Canada’s health ‘care’ system as a cautionary tale, but with the US Democrat hegemony piling more money into Obamacare with the Inflation Resurgence Reduction Act, you might be interested in what awaits us if the Dem’s universal health care dreams continue.
A typical Canadian family of four will pay about $15,847 for public healthcare insurance this year, according to a study done by the Fraser Institute.
“Canadians pay a substantial amount of money for healthcare through a variety of taxes, even if we don’t pay directly for medical services,” said Fraser Institute director of health policy studies and study co-author Bacchus Barua in a Tuesday statement.
Long before the pandemic hit, the myth of “free” Canadian health care gave us one of the most expensive health-care systems, with some of the longest medical wait times in the developed world, with mediocre outcomes judged by international standards.
Speaking of pandemic: Canada maintains the most draconian conglomeration of CCP virus mandates anywhere outside of China or North Korea. You can look it up. The government can do this because they can say your health insurance doesn’t apply to your health care if you don’t do what you are told.
Some looking it up examples: Make sure you find some info about Tamara Lich.
Artur Pawlowski is another example of free speech suppression. The Powlowski charges have been overturned.
This would be humorous, if it were not our government health gurus at work protecting us.
It is problrmatic for the Progressive anointed to acknowledge that Monkeypox is, for the time being, overwhelmingly spread among homosexual males who have never heard the phrase ‘impulse control.’ They represent 98% of the infections.
They identify as Monkeypox immune. And f*ck the rest of society… Which is their objective, I guess.
The same people who ranted about mask mandates, “You’re a murderer if you don’t wear one!“, can’t bring themselves to impede large homosexual sexfests in any way.
Any serious measures to discourage male-on-male orgies is at least bordering on the “speech is violence” theories of white female progs on Twitter. It’s stigmatizing gays to say, “Have sex with fewer strangers, especially groups of strangers. If you have symptoms, don’t have sex at all.” As the WaPo puts it, “As monkeypox strikes gay men, officials debate warnings to limit partners.” Debate… warnings? I guess it’s not like a mask mandate because it’s only a warning, and Monkeypox is not airborne. Although these impulse control deniers are working on helping it mutate.
And what would be analogous to mask mandates, anyway? Chastity belt mandates? Butt plug mandates? Dental dam mandates? Hazmat suit mandates? All of the above seem reasonable for people who don’t understand abstinence is for their own good. Right? Right?…
What happened to “follow the science”?
And, we obviously need Monkeypox vaccinations for kids, of course. You can no more expect toddlers and infants to masturbate 6 feet apart than you can the 98%. It can’t be that infants understand virtual sex, can it? And who knows what sex they really are?
In May the WHO said there was no urgent need for Monkeypox vaccination. We’ve heard this before. Only this time we already had effective vaccines.
The problem is there’s a vaccine shortage because HHS took WHO’s advice. HHS didn’t order bottling of doses the US already owned until June, and the FDA was slow to conduct an inspection allowing it to ship. The FDA finished in late July.
Our President has lately been fear mongering about climate change as “a clear and present danger.” A “threat to national security.”
He wouldn’t recognize such a threat even if his handlers wrote it on his mentalprompter. And stamped it on his palm with a branding iron.
He seeks to invoke emergency powers to accomplish AOC’s Green New Deal. That ‘deal’ our Federal legislators will not countenance.
Joe Biden is valorizing higher energy costs (and the consequent disproportionate suffering from food and goods shortages, employment shrinkage, and lessened government ability to respond)… as a defense of democracy.
He is playing the race/transphobe/climate-catastrophe cards all at once.
‘Climate change’ is the magic intersectional trump card – it’s claimed to disproportionately affect people of color, the 51% of our people who are actually female, the shrinking proportion of our population who are children. A group the President has abused in person, over decades, with his sniffing fetish; and now generally via his promotion of puberty blockers.
General Mark “Thoroughly Modern” Milley is the Patchouli poster child for those military CNN gig seeking, poseurs, wokies, stalwarts the President encourages to focus on proper pronoun usage, critical theory, and free transgender transition surgery for service members. If you missed the ‘member’ pun, assume it wasn’t intended.
Forcible modification of basic human behavior is the Utopian’s dream and necessity. It’s what the attack on free speech is about. If you can’t say something without fear of punishment, self censorship will eventually disable your ability to even think about it.
In a debate with a Utopian, you might cite the failure of previous attempts to establish heaven on earth – in WWII Germany, China during Mao’s “Cultural Revolution,” Cambodia under Pol Pot, Venezuela under Maduro, Cuba under Castro, Ukraine under Stalin, etc. etc..
It will avail you not. The fall back response is that the right people weren’t in charge. Utopia’s never really been tried.
The people currently volunteering to try their hand at being the right people run the World Economic Forum.
The WEF is an NGO apparently operating under the delusion that ‘the problem’ can be solved by instituting tyranny in multiple countries simultaneously:
World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
John Kerry’s on board, if you were wondering how stupidly bad this idea is.
If you weren’t wondering, maybe Milton Friedman can help you overcome Schwab and Kerry’s assumption that if things aren’t perfect, we can only fix them by forcibly changing human behavior to accord with the utopian visions of elite collectivists.
Take that as a 2 minute introduction to the longer conversation below. That conversation examines the results of WEF policy implementation.
Objections to the WEF agenda are often described as “conspiracy theories.” My understanding of conspiracy theories is that they describe secret plans of which only the theorists are aware.
The WEF makes no secret of its plans. Fortunately, discussions of these plans are not yet banned by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. Such a ban would also be an open conspiracy. And not a theory.
Jordan Peterson and Micheal Yon are still allowed to discuss Dutch farmer’s protests against WEF inspired ideas which would destroy farming in the Netherlands. This is an hour and 20+. It is not going to enhance your optimism. It is quite worth watching.
I leave you with one takeaway in case you do not spend the time on the video: Tiny Netherlands is the world’s second largest exporter of food. Dutch farmers arguably constitute the most efficient agricultural system in the world. Even as they are distracted by keeping their fingers in the dikes.
The WEF hegemony places them in its crosshairs. The WEF premise: Nitrogen in fertilizer is a catastrophic global warming threat. Dutch farmers use too much nitrogen. It must stop.
The Dutch government agrees. It intends to destroy its agricultural supremacy. In favor of what ecological improvement, exactly? Who will replace the world’s second largest food exporter with less environmental impact? Somalia? Bangladesh?
It won’t be Sri Lanka. Because Sri Lanka already tried implementing the same plan the Netherlands government is contemplating. It didn’t work out well. Sri Lankans are starving because food crops have been triple decimated. Fuel is not scarce, though. It is unavailable. Food exports were the major source of foreign currency to buy gasoline and diesel fuel.
This attack on farmers is not limited to the Netherlands. Canada is on the same track. Despite the horrific results in Sri Lanka.
And Canada’s plan to ruin farming is just one of their problems. If you’re up for more Peterson, this is a devastating look at Canada’s Sorry State. But, I digress.
The goal of The Great Reset is a drastic reduction in the human population through immiseration, starvation, and chaos. In Germany, for example, it’s manifesting as an energy shortage. The Germans closed down perfectly viable nuclear plants in favor of windmills, and solar panels, and Russian natural gas. They were burning more CO2 intensive coal to make up for energy shortfalls even before the Russians turned Nordstream off. Now Germans are gathering wood to burn for heat this winter.
“What did environmentalists use for lighting before candles? …Electricity.”
Warmth is marginally before food in the hierarchy of needs. You die more quickly from hypothermia than from starvation. Not a whole lot faster, but rioting warms you at least until you collapse from malnutrition.
It will get worse for the Germans when they can’t import food from the Netherlands and have lessened ability to grow their own because of fertilizer shortages. The major process for making fertilizer involves natural gas. Germany is already restricting hot water, and is very unlikely to have sufficient gas for home heating this winter, much less for fertilizer production going into next spring.
Oh beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw;
Confirm thy soul in self-control
Thy liberty in law…
– Katharine Lee Bates
It’s hard to come by agreement today on striving for freedom, the mending of flaws, self-control as a virtue, or the rule of law.
I turn to the president born on Independence Day for help. Calvin Coolidge’s 1926 speech in Philadelphia, on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, is a must read counter to cynicism and despair. For example, apologies from the city of Orlando for celebrating America’s birthday; Democratic Socialists in Denver with a flag burning party; and Democratic Party officials in Prima, Arizona, hosting a F**k America themed gala.
The legacy media is silent. When did this behavior by civic officials and major political parties become so unremarkable?
Coolidge’s words are a rebuke to those who would vilify the United States on this anniversary. We need to remember them because among us live those whose great wish is to erase them.
I lift this one slice as the central point today: “grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world“.
The Founding of the United States was, indeed, a service to humanity, not just to Americans.
We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. That coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the 4th day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.
Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.
It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection. . . .
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed. . . .
In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man—these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause. . . .
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. . . .
Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meetinghouse. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.
What So Proudly We Hail
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
Glenn Greenwald’s Tweets on the hissing pussycats at “Robin D’Angelo Junior High — also known as the national desk of The Washington Post” are devastatingly hilarious. It’s a left-on-left tag-team cage-match.
The fighting started when WaPo reporter Dave Weigel retweeted Cam Harless.
No idea who Cam Harless is, but he’s irrelevant after the internecine bombardments commence. Felicia Sonmez is an aggrieved WaPo reporter, who seems unaware that “believe all women” is over since Robby Mook’s implication of Hillary Clinton in the Steele dossier psy-op. Not to mention Amber Heard, for whom I’ve heard a personal “poop emoji” has been created.
Greenwald’s commentary caught my attention because of his victim point scoring comments (below). Because, in a 2019 post – Victimhood competence hierarchies – I attempted to describe the tools needed for sorting out the victimhood pecking order. A slice from that post:
Let’s consider the complexities via example. Rate a black, homosexual male, wealthy actor; vs. a white, trans-female, wealthy former Pentathlon champion; vs. a brown, female, anti-semitic, Islamist congressional member; vs. a white, 1/1024th Amerind, biological female, wealthy United States Senator. It’s not easy, and those are only a few of the factors. The enterprise seems very difficult.
This is the type of analysis intersectionalists demand as a principle of governance. And, that’s just a poor preliminary attempt to begin to capture the variables currently driving the SJW power struggle. It doesn’t include anywhere near the required profile information. I tried filling it in for a couple of people I thought would help refine scoring. Maybe you can guess who they are.
Complicating this further, just when you might think you have a workable algorithm, someone gets offended by something you did not expect. For example, here’s an example of a lesbian, trans, Leftist, female academic in the Humanities you’d expect to score moderately well even if she is white: A concrete example against which to test our calculation of the victim/oppressor ratio.
If you think the Progs would by now have established their own official scoring system, you’re missing the point. They all aspire to be Thomas Wolsey or Torquemada in a quest to adjudicate their own martyrdom. Any reference to a set of rules could inhibit the exercise of power.
I do not have a Twitter account, and I had to temporarily drop my browser shields to even see Greenwald’s thread. It is worth reading. It’s not like you have to log in.
Anyway, this is the snippet that caught my eye:
After WPost reporter @Feliciasonmez publicly accused multiple Post reporters and editors — including @jdelreal — of supporting misogyny against her, Del Real retorted that he was the only Mexican American on the national desk and also gay. Experts are tabulating the outcome.
For those scoring the various victimhood points at home, among the starring marginalized actors in the WPost oppression drama, 2 are graduates of Harvard University (Sonmez and Del Real) while the other was raised in Greenwich, CT, and educated in Swiss boarding schools (Lorenz).