Friday, June 30, 2017
Pollster and analyst Pat Caddell joined Breitbart News DailySiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Friday to discuss the media’s freak out over two tweets yesterday by President Trump.
Another Liberal Dipshit in the media trash talking Trump but he's not supposed to respond??
The New York Times placed a bombshell of a correction at the bottom of a pessimistic piece on President Donald Trump Thursday.
(Spoiler Alert: If you find slavery or infanticide disturbing, you may be too squeamish to read further.)
A perfect crystallization of the full heart and soul of socialized or "single payer" health care is on display in the story of Charlie Gard, a ten-month-old infant with a life-threatening genetic condition, and his parents, Chris and Connie, whose desperate efforts to save their child have been diverted, and finally thwarted, first by the British government and now by an entity with the perfectly Orwellian name "European Court of Human Rights."
The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are ‘utterly distraught’ and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son – who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage – to the US to undergo a therapy trial.Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to ‘die with dignity’.
Charlie Gard and his parents
So in the name of "dying with dignity," Charlie has been denied his last hope ofliving with dignity, not to mention his last chance to live in the loving care of his parents, who have obviously put themselves through hell -- above and beyond the hell of watching their child die at the hands of a tyrannically impersonal "medical system" -- to try to save him. Meanwhile, his parents themselves are denied the dignity of taking responsibility for their beloved child's well-being and sacrificing everything to save him, as parents are (or used to be) wont to do.
So whose dignity is really at issue here? "Death with dignity" is the health care euphemism to end all euphemisms. What it really means is murder with dignity -- the state's dignity. Death with dignity is Marxist medicine's theoretical self-absolution for committing the ultimate heresy against the traditional concept of health care, i.e., forsaking life in the name of saving money, saving bed space, and saving face.
The doctors in Britain have decided, in their state-decreed omniscience, that "nothing can be done" to save this dying boy. So, having decided to do nothing, they are determined -- and supported in this determination by the full weight of Europe's progressive authoritarian regulatory apparatus -- to make sure no one else gets a chance to prove them wrong by saving Charlie's life after all.
What is the ultimate lesson in all of this, for all of us living under one degree or another of socialized medicine, throughout the allegedly civilized world?
No, it's not that a baby's life is less valuable to progressives than maintaining the necessary illusion of the State's infallibility, although that is true.
No, it's not that the wishes of parents who love their child are less important to the progressive State than the desire of the State's "experts" to make a problem (their failure) disappear, although that is also true.
The ultimate lesson, apparently a difficult one for some people to understand, is that what socialized health care means, above all else, is that the individual human being is property of the State.
The right to property carries with it the right to the use and disposal of what one owns. This is why property rights are so essential to any coherent concept of individual liberty, and why any clear theory of property begins with the right of self-ownership. And self-ownership is precisely what socialized medicine denies outright. If the government determines what can and cannot be done to preserve your life (short of harming others, of course), and furthermore has the final authority to decide when your life is no longer worth fighting to preserve, then all questions of who owns the individual citizen are answered unequivocally: the individual -- his living body, his human existence -- belongs to the State.
Under socialized health care, you are government property. The State may allow you some measure of proprietorship over your daily existence, in order to lull you into the sleepy compliance of the contented slave. But there is no doubt who holds the deed. Socialized or "single payer" medicine, a pillar of Marxist political philosophy, establishes the collectivization of the individual human being more clearly than any political structure imaginable -- except compulsory government-regulated schooling.
Together, those two political transformations -- government ownership of your spiritual development and your physical preservation -- establish the firmest and most comprehensive foundations of tyranny. All the rest of progressivism's panoply of hyper-regulation and micromanaging paternalism are mere baubles once the soul and body have been legally removed from individual and familial control -- removed both symbolically and, as Charlie Gard's unfortunate parents have just learned, removed in horrifyingly literal fact.
Chris and Connie wanted to save their baby's life, and were willing to do more for him than the government thought "worthwhile." That the government should have any place in determining what is worth doing to save this boy's life is absurd. That the government's judgment should be used as a billy club to beat back the parents' desperate efforts to give their last ounce of love to their baby, is as clear an indictment of progressive ethics, progressive politics, and the progressive mind in general, as can be conceived.
Charlie Gard, were he to be saved by the near-miracle his parents are willing to fight for, would probably live his whole life with brain damage. As a result, he would probably never be granted the right to vote. By contrast, millions of Britons and hundreds of millions of their counterparts throughout what used to be the modern world happily walk into voting booths and cede their and their neighbors' lives and liberty to progressive authoritarianism on a regular basis. And almost nobody blinks or wonders whether people that mentally deficient should be granted the vote.
Godspeed, Charlie, Chris, and Connie.
For the last several years, if you disagreed with President Obama or the Democrat agenda on immigration, gay marriage, gender bathroom rights, climate change, higher taxes, more regulations, you could be called xenophobic, sexist, racist, homophobic, and stupid.
Or to put it in brief form, as Hillary Clinton did, "irredeemable" and "deplorable."
If you dared disagreed with anything in the climate change agenda, you were called "a denier," and the public was told that you shouldn't be listened to.
Members of the Tea Party were compared to domestic terrorists.
And these days, if you dare try to fix the rapidly collapsing Obamacare, you are said to want people to die.
It has been shown that CNN and other media outlets have been willing to just make stuff up to go after Trump just to improve their ratings. Most positive things President Trump has done on energy, regulations, immigration, NATO, trade, and the Veterans Administration are virtually ignored. The New York Times intentionally targeted former Alaska governor Sarah Palin through false news reports after a congressman was shot.
Morning Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski have compared President Trump to Stalin and Hitler.
But Trump tweeted some negative stuff out about Joe and Mika, and the media decided that that needed massive coverage, and it is Trump who is described as "unpresidential."
We Americans know what incivility is. Trump's tweets don't even measure up to what we Americans have been through.
As usual, President Trump is outraging the political-media establishment, who all assume that his early-morning tweets yesterday zinging the Morning Joe odd couple, "hitting back ten times as hard," as wife Melania once characterized his tactical doctrine, were the result of some form of derangement. They are not equipped to understand the strategy that lies behind his tweets. Like fish unaware of the water in which they swim, they operate on the basis of unconscious beliefs.
President Trump understands that the current informal-but-very-real rules of the game have allowed Mika and Joe (and the rest of the media-political world as well) free rein to savage him and his family, while he is supposed to be a gentleman and just take it while they get support for attacking him.
That's what President George W. Bush did, and it cost him dearly, unto this day. His suffering may be noble, but that form of greatness does not seem to interest President Trump.
Trump understands that the culture governing D.C. and the media has to change because it systematically favors his opponents. They set the rules, and those rules give the media the ability to call the shots, and the media overwhelmingly oppose him. Media criticism cows Republicans into submission and boosts the causes of the left.
So President Trump, who is a doer, is actively working to change that culture by violating its norms. Norms are the key to the way behavior is actually regulated in the workplace (and other social groupings). Norms are the informal rules, the shared understandings, the proper way things are done in a particular group. The best way to think of them is as a shared sentiment that begins with the words "people ought to..." People within a specific culture almost never question their norms and, in fact, are unaware that they exist...until they are violated.
As a matter of fact, I spent two decades as a scholar and consultant working on modifying corporate cultures to adapt to new challenges, and I did this research in and consulting for a number of the largest corporations on earth, here and overseas. (The subtitle of my doctoral dissertation at Harvard was "Strategy, Structure and Culture.") It led to a lot of academic and consulting opportunities. When a company that started in one national culture becomes a global corporation, the ways of doing things back home and the assumptions that underwrote them no longer work everywhere the company operates. Smart managers recognize the need to reshape the unconscious sentiments, assumptions, and perceptions their members carry around. It isn't easy.
When an organization confronts a norm that has become dysfunctional, the concepts attached to it can be so ingrained that even rules to the contrary can be worked around by members of the organization. There is no alternative in some cases but to force unpleasantness upon a situation and force adaptation.
The Progressive left has been exploiting the basic strategy for over a century, attacking the norms of Western cultures. The most immediate example is the normalization of homosexuality, a process that consistently displayed provocative behavior and then allowed the resulting outrage to be mocked and eventually suppressed. The concept of "street theater" often uses violation of norms as a means of attacking them. It is a stage of the change strategy.
Right now, we are at the outrage stage, with various degrees being expressed by both the left and the right. It is clear that some of the outrage is genuine, not simply political, on the part of D.C. conservatives, such as Charles Krauthammer, who believes that Trump has revealed a defect in his character.
Of course, President Trump's supporters are comparatively few. And right now, it is only the conservative commentators less respectful of norms who are willing to forcefully state his case, such as the colorful Ace (hat tip: Instapundit, Glenn Renolds).
How can the flailing old women of the Nominal Right huff themselves up so much to pretend outrage that a guy being attacked by the media everyday decides to occasionally attack them back?I understand the leftist media's interest in pretending that they're behaving normally and haven't rewritten the professional code of conduct to allow attacks on Trump which would have been near-hanging-offenses on Obama.But what is the interest of the sissified Nominal Right over defending the media and pretending along with them?We are not in a normal situation. Why do the sob sisters and pearl-clutchers of the Pretend Right insist on pretending the media's behavior is normal and that it's only Trump who's guilty of "norm-breaking"?How much are we supposed to pretend to satisfy these sissies' demands that we pretend we're all Good Friends so that their delicate constitutions aren't too discombobulated?
Can anyone argue that "pretending we are all Good Friends" when the other side doesn't works to Trump's (or conservatives') best interest? The norms associated with it need to change. There will be unpleasantness along the way. President Trump is setting about it in his own way and in his own style, which almost always occasions outrage, as it did in the presidential election. It turns out that the norms of the Beltway elite are not universal, and that a culture far larger than the media-political elite also has a voice in the end.
This Clueless Dumbass apparently opens her mouth before engaging her Brain