Tag Archives: responsibilities

The New Left

Posted on by
Reply

There can be no reasoning, no rational debate anymore with the Progressive-Democratic Party and the Left in general.  This is made clear by the statements luminaries of that collection have made in recent days—confirming their behavior during the Kavanaugh confirmation process just concluded, during which they actively rejected a foundation of liberty: innocent until proven guilty.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) was the loudest on this, saying outright that then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh had to personally authorize an investigation into himself or he would show himself guilty.

It began earlier.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) called for Republicans to be physically confronted wherever they are.  Senator Corey Spartacus Booker (D, NJ) called on the Left to get up in the face of congresspeople.

Now the Progressive-Democrats and their Left are expanding on the thesis that there can be no rationality in discourse—if, indeed, there can be discourse at all—with those of us to the right of center.  Here’s Hillary Clinton, in an interview with CNN:

You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about….  That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.

That destruction is exactly what the Progressive-Democrats are attempting.  Yet, only when that Party is in control can there be any pretense of civility.  Only when the Party can require debate to be on their terms, within their parameters, can there be anything like peaceful disagreement.

The threats from the Left are palpable:

  • Senator Cory Gardner’s (R, CO) wife received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading
  • Progressive-Democrat intern Jackson Cosko has been arrested for posting the personal information, including home addresses, of Senators Lindsey Graham (R, SC), Mike Lee (R, UT), and Orrin Hatch (R, UT) on Wikipedia
  • Senator Jeff Flake (R, AZ) was trapped in an elevator with two screaming women “activists”

Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) worries about assassination attempts—a concern made concrete by last year’s mass assassination attempt of Republican Congressmen at a baseball practice.

Minnesota Special Education teacher, Samantha Ness, has actively called for the assassination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

This is just a taste of what we can expect if the Progressive-Democrats are successful in this fall’s elections.  This is a taste of Progressive-Democrat “civility.”  It isn’t republican democracy that these folks want for our nation.  Not anymore.

Roberts’ Court

Posted on by
Reply

Aside from the misnomer of the title, which is implied by the thrust of a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the hoo-raw surrounding that, Chief Justice John Roberts has a problem with the perception of the Supreme Court—according to Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin, the authors of the piece.

“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it’s a very unfortunate perception that the public might get from the confirmation process,” CJ Roberts…2016.

The Court can’t worry about perceptions, though.  It can—should—only rule on what the Constitution or law actually says.

“Every single one of us has an obligation to think about what it is that provides the court with its legitimacy, to think about how we can be not so politically divided as some of the other political institutions in the nation,” Justice Elena Kagan said[.]

No.  What provides the court with its legitimacy is its rulings based on the text of the Constitution or the law. A Justice’s empathy, or the particular wisdom of Latinas, or the concept that a judge should take account of…the climate of an era, have no place on the bench. Nor does an automatic reach for the middle.

The handling of any of those things—and they are important (as are the social climate generally; the wisdom of non-Latinas, also; empathy)—can only be done politically, not judicially.

Partisanship

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD) on his Fox News Sunday program last Sunday.

Here are some of the claims Cardin made.

The change that Senator McConnell made to the rules on the Supreme Court really caused us to be much more partisan in this[.]

And

I don’t believe that Justice Kavanaugh’s in the mainstream of judicial thought.

And

Kavanaugh’s confirmation puts at risk “the progress we’ve made on health care issues, on women’s Constitutional rights, and on protecting the Mueller investigation.”

Not quite, although this is America, and Cardin is entitled [sic] to his spin.

However.

Filibustering confirmations is by design partisan. Absent overt filibustering—courtesy of Cardin’s erstwhile Leader Harry Reid; McConnell only completed Reid’s program—engaging in character assassination and smear as the preferred means of blocking a confirmation is especially, despicably partisan.

Not mainstream?  In Cardin’s fetid imagination and that of his fellow Progressive-Democrats, “mainstream” is judges with feelz and Latina wisdom. “Mainstream” also is the Constitution meaning whatever a judge thinks it should mean instead of what its text says.  No, Kavanaugh is in the heart of the envelope: the text of the Constitution and of a law is what should be adhered to.

Regarding what Cardin is pleased to call “progress,”—health care issues, women’s Constitutional rights, and protecting the Mueller investigation—these are political matters, not judicial ones.  Cardin and his fellow Progressive-Democrats need to make their case in the political branches and quit hiding behind judges’ robes.  If these politicians are unable to impose their political views on the rest of us, they need to accept that us unwashed masses disagree with them, and move on.

In Other Parts of the World….

Posted on by
Reply

A man in Austria was shocked to be handed a bill from a debt collection agency for €10,365 ($12,000) after misplacing his hotel key….

After all,

the key was a skeleton key for the entire building, and now the owner is claiming all of the hotel’s intricate locks must be replaced.

So—a hotel is careless of its security setup, and that makes its customers responsible for any potential breach.

Hmm….

Free Markets for Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an illustration of why one is badly needed.  The Wall Street Journal‘s article is centered on health coverage plans, but the underlying problem is in health care provision and the monopolistic nature of both provision and coverage.

Last year, Cigna Corp and the New York hospital system Northwell Health discussed developing an insurance plan that would offer low-cost coverage by excluding some other health-care providers, according to people with knowledge of the matter. It never happened.
The problem was a separate contract between Cigna and NewYork-Presbyterian, the powerful hospital operator that is a Northwell rival. Cigna couldn’t find a way to work around restrictive language that blocked it from selling any plans that didn’t include NewYork-Presbyterian, according to the people.

And

Dominant hospital systems use an array of secret contract terms to protect their turf and block efforts to curb health-care costs. As part of these deals, hospitals can demand insurers include them in every plan and discourage use of less-expensive rivals. Other terms allow hospitals to mask prices from consumers, limit audits of claims, add extra fees and block efforts to exclude health-care providers based on quality or cost.

We’re on track to commit 20% of our GDP to health care costs, and the industries of health care provision and health care coverage operating outside a free market environment is the major driver of that expense.

The WSJ piece goes on at length in this vein.

If patients and our doctors were able to shop around and force hospitals, clinics, and coverage providers to compete for our business, we’d very quickly see better health care, better (actual) health insurance, and lower costs.  If our doctors had to compete for our business, we’d see just as quickly better care at lower cost.  And our doctors would need have no fear of costs—their fees—going too low: there’s a lot to be said for patient loyalty to a good doctor, both from a quality of care and continuity of that care perspective.