Emboldened emphasis mine.

Who in today’s world would dare admit to being prejudiced? Not many. In the modern mind, to be prejudiced is to be racist, narrow-minded and backward. We are all supposed to be free-thinkers, to question everything we have been taught, to own our mind as completely as one would a home of his own construction. But this is simply not possible. No person can question everything and rethink, from first principles, all of their beliefs. Prejudice (the acceptance of inherited ideas as truth without questioning them) is a fact of human life (for both good and bad) and always will be. Why, then, do modern people insist on believing in an idea that, because it is impossible, requires intellectual dishonesty?

Dalrymple points out the real reason behind the modern popularity of the idea of the totally free-thinking individual: we don’t want any restrictions on our actions but rather complete license to do whatever we please. The modern embrace of the pure rationalism championed by the likes of Descartes and Mill is simply an excuse for a philosophical disputatiousness that rejects all authority regarding moral behavior, whether that authority is religion, history or social convention. Custom and etiquette are diminished, and society thus loses important regulators of anti-social behavior, whether it’s illegitimacy or littering. Without self-policing of one’s behavior, the law is the only force that can mediate the resulting rights conflicts, and thus it should not be surprising that the government’s power grows to the point of authoritarianism.
- “Prejudice“, The Skeptical Doctor

Oh, snap. That was a delicious summary.

Steve @ The Skeptical Doctor presents us with an essay presenting Theodore Dalrymple’s case against healthcare as a basic human right. From what I gather, much of this is spoken of in his book An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Medicine. Something tells me that I’ll be adding this book to my library queue very soon.

Some highlights from the essay:

The first step is to dismiss out of hand the absurd idea that anyone has a right to healthcare. No one has a right to healthcare. Indeed, where could such a right come from? The increasing tendency in modern society to treat all goods, and all human desiderata, as the American Declaration of Independence treats life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is extremely foolish, for reasons I shall explain. The problem of the metaphysical origin of human rights will not go away. It should be remembered that the American Declaration of Independence asserted the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the belief that all men were created equal and that these rights were endowed upon them by their creator. In other words, the Declaration was, if not a religious, than at least a theist, document. Take away God, and the origin of the rights asserted becomes completely mysterious.
- Theodore Dalrymple, The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Medicine

It does not follow in the least, of course, that healthcare should not be available for people. The satisfaction of rights does not exhaust moral duties. A society in which the ill are well treated is better (at least in this regard, though not necessarily in others, since health is not the whole purpose of human existence) than one in which they are not. No one would want to see a society in which the ill were denied help: but this is because human kindness, decency, solidarity and sympathy demand that we succour the sick, not because the sick have rights.
- Thomas Dalrymple, The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Medicine

Hayes does not distinguish between moral responsibility and the kind of inescapable philosophical demand that requires recognition in law. For him, the choice seems to be that we either establish a legal right to healthcare or we allow the poor to die. He does not seem to believe that compassion and charity can exist even when it is not legally required.
- Steve, “A Right to Healthcare?”

Read the essay in full here.

No political schemes this morning. Just some thoughts.

But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.”
~ Matthew 10:36-37 (NKJV)

And an excerpt from the book I’m currently reading. Emphasis mine.

Jesus most fully reveals what it is to be human: to lose ourselves in love and to be obedient to what love calls us to do. But it is precisely our fear of loss of control and our lack of faith that compel us to crucify him and thus keep at bay the obedience to and gratitude for God’s love that his life represents. The stunning claim of Christianity, however, is that our violent efforts do not defeat God’s love for us. Christ’s resurrection means that love keeps coming and is made available to us so that the relations frayed or destroyed by us can again be made healthy and whole.

~ Norman Wirzba (Living the Sabbath: Discovering the Rhythms of Rest and Delight, p. 44)

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared “cyber emergency.”

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what’s being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

…

According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation “addresses our country’s unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure.”

In a statement explaining the bill’s introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on.”

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, “If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

…

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.”

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the “critical” networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

“What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are ‘banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.’ Let’s think about this,” writes Seltzer. “I’m especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash.”
- Will bill give Obama control of the internet? (WorldNetDaily)

You can access S. 773 and S. 778 at OpenCongress.org. I have to admit, I’m as disconcerted as Ultraguy on this one, although I have doubts about the concept of “Obama being a strong candidate for the Antichrist” – it hops back to the idea of “the-end-is-nigh-because-America-is-going-downhill”. Seriously, folks? I thought Laura put it rather well:

Given those examples and quite a few others I didn’t bother to list, I can understand the apocalyptic way people are feeling.  And to some extent I feel the same way, though I’m a good deal less interested in it all than I used to be.  Things are about to really suck in this country, and in the entire western world.  But I’m not buying into the idea that these things are proof that these are the “end times.”

It’s a variant of the (much despised) prosperity gospel, which more or less proclaims that God wants us to be perfectly healthy and drive a Mercedes.  The lack of a particular material lifestyle is in no way “proof” that Jesus is coming back soon.  Read Matthew 24 to learn what Jesus himself declared “the signs of the times.”

I don’t care whether you take it literally or allegorically and I’m not prepared to even get into that; that’s a serious bible study, and one which has been conducted by serious scholars over the centuries.  I wouldn’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.  What I would like to point out is that when people point to social unrest, chaos, anarchy, government oppression, extreme poverty, famine, Christian persecution and martyrdom, and the like to “prove” that these are the end times…. these things have never once stopped occurring in the world since Jesus ascended back into heaven.

To declare that “the end is nigh!” now that America may finally face some of these problems is perfectly ridiculous, and frankly, offensive.  It’s the ultimate prosperity gospel.  We’re not getting what we’re used to so that must mean that God is about to pick up his ball and go home.    Do you see the arrogance in that theory?  Imagine explaining it to a 1st century Christian citizen of Rome.  Or a Christian in, say, 1914.  Imagine explaining it to a Christian living in Darfur, China, or North Korea NOW.  Oh, now that it’s starting to happen to US, that must mean it’s the end!! Because we’re just so darned special.
- Apocalypse Later (Pursuing Holiness)

Do I think the end is nigh? Perhaps. Do I think we’re just passing through another republic-turned-democracy-turned-persecution cycle? Perhaps. Either way, the point still stands. I don’t like the idea of the government having control over the internet.

After all, who would have the power to oppose him if/when things got to that point? And how would they we organize if the Internet were ‘temporarily‘ or selectively shut off? Or what if, suddenly, a bunch of folks on an undesirables list couldn’t get access to their own medical or banking records? When your kid can’t get penicillin and you can’t pay the bills, it’s pretty easy, as a writer, to change your tone very quickly. Think Nixon but with a bigger clue, far broader ambitions and a lot more power to carry them out.
- Read This While You Still Can (New Wineskins)

One thing I have noticed is that some of the bloggers in the circles that I travel are no longer blogging. Amongst the secular circle, call it “Going Galt” (a tribute to Ayn Rand), and amongst the Christian circle, they simply feel that God is calling them away from blogging. You know, they might be doing it just in time, although it stands to reason that if your archives are still up, they’re still accessible. And so’s your information. Regardless, the slow fade of our culture should be leading to some personal changes, as Laura points out:

Regardless, if he really does believe it, I look forward to hearing about some pretty phenomenal changes in Ultraguy’s life.  After all, if this really IS the literal end of the world, then that would necessarily lead to some pretty radical life changes – rather like a terminal cancer diagnosis would.  (Except in this case, you’d be the one who would get to live, and everyone else is about to die – all the more impetus to Stop! everything else and really minister to people.)  If that circumstance didn’t lead to a radical life change of some sort – and I mean of the dramatic “sell your house and become a missionary” kind of change, not just “skip Dancing with the Stars and instead volunteer at the soup kitchen and blog about John 3:16,”  then I’d be forced to conclude that it’s just political trash talk.  Which I don’t think is happening in Ultraguy’s case.  I think he’s really sincere.  (Just incorrect.)

All of which brings me to the point of this post.  Why would a sincere, believing Christian wait for that kind of radical life change until they were sure that these were the end times and the Antichrist had been identified?  After all, aren’t people dying every day?  Aren’t they living in misery, without the peace and comfort only Jesus can bring?

I’m already going Galt, shutting down my business, scaling back my life in ways that a year ago I could not have imagined.  Right now I’m hunkering down, much like Ultraguy has been,   watching and waiting – and praying.  I, too, have a sense that I’ve been called elsewhere.
- The Beginning of the End (Pursuing Holiness)

What do those personal changes look like for me? I’m still praying about that one. But change is certainly coming, and I don’t think it’s what Obama had in mind.

I find myself adding a line to a Casting Crowns song…

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day

The journey from your mind to your hands
Is shorter than you’re thinking
Be careful if you think you stand
You just might be sinking
It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away

It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
Daddies never crumble in a day
Families never crumble in a day
Nations never crumble in a day
- “Slow Fade” (Casting Crowns)

Hey, it rhymes, right? You know how I mentioned that the “mandatory” language had been removed from 1388?

Guess what.

All they did was cut it out and make it a separate bill. HR 1444, or “Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act“. Oh, look. It has everyone’s favorite paragraph, too!

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

There’s that word again. Mandatory.

The bill provides for the commission to be terminated … well, if you add up the time frames that it stipulates, from beginning to end it looks like the Commission’s shelf life is two years from the time it is passed, to the time it is terminated. Hey, if they can get this passed through under everyone’s noses, we could still end up with mandatory service by the time Obama (hopefully) leaves office.

Isn’t that handy?

I first and foremost must mention: I’m a fan.

Furthermore, this man’s use of the English language fascinates me. “I can’t help noting parenthetically that…” Parenthetically? I have a new favorite word. Now, on to the good stuff:

* “Prime Minister, I can’t help noticing that you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician. Namely, the ability to say one thing in this chamber, and a very different thing to your home electorate.  … Perhaps you would have more authority in this House if your actions matched your words.  Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the counsels of the world, if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country. The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around 20,000 pounds. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child!

Now once again today you try to spread the blame around. You spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls, but not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their holes, and clear their rigging. In other words, to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the waterline under the accumulated weight of your debt.

… Now, it’s not that you’re not apologizing. Like everyone else, I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s your carrying on, willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year, in the last twelve months, 100,000 private sector jobs have been lost, and yet you’ve created 30,000 public sector jobs.

Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever, squeezing the productive bit of the economy, in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession, or borrow your way out of debt, and when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well-placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like [something I can't make out] giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense! Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by 30% and soon, the voters, too, will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued prime minister of a devalued government.” – Daniel Hannan

The way he speaks of the “Brussels Racket” and the EU remind me of our current American administration’s handling of our economy and culture.Turns out, the fellow even has a blog!

Breaking the press monopoly is one thing. But the internet has also broken the political monopoly. Ten or even five years ago, when the Minister for Widgets put out a press release, the mere fact of his position guaranteed a measure of coverage. Nowadays, a politician must compel attention by virtue of what he is saying, not his position.

It’s all a bit unsettling for professional journalists and politicians. But it’s good news for libertarians of every stripe. Lefties have always relied on control, as much of information as of physical resources. Such control is no longer technically feasible.
- My speech to Gordon Brown goes viral (Daniel Hannan)

As a closet Billy Joel fan (well, all right, perhaps not so closet), I found the Obama song to be downright hilarious.

I laughed. Muchly. Kudos to Steven Crowder on this one. And on.. well..all of his clips.

Except now “We Didn’t Start the Fire” will be stuck in my head for the rest of the night.

Hey, wait a minute. I just thought of a fascinating parallel between my favorite Billy Joel Tune – “You May Be Right” – and the Obama administration!

“You may be right… I may be crazy… but it just may be a lunatic you’re lookin’ for. It’s too late to fight… don’t try to change me… you may be wrong, for all I know, but you may be right…”

Blast. Now I’ll never listen to that song the same way again…

So, it’s through the House and the Senate now. I’m taking bets on how long it’ll be before they implement it.

Well, not really.

I don’t gamble.

Edited to add:

Apparently they have (for now) removed the language involving “mandatory” service, though the bureaucracy and the format still exists. The reason? According to Michelle Malkin, it’s “raised hackles” . Heh. I love the picture. As a dog person, I can visualize it and tell you: that’s one accurate image. I’ve seen a hundred-pound dog with raised hackles. And that’s about how I feel right now. (Well, all right, so I weigh little more than that…)

</edit>

All that to say… remember back in September? I know, I’ve already said  “I told you so” once, but… look at who voted for it. Yep. McCain.

And we knew that in September, too!

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again:

And people wonder why I voted libertarian?

For as long as I can remember I’ve joked about the idea of annexing NYC off onto NJ and letting them have ‘em. This morning I was tipped off by RochesterConservative’s link to the Times Union article “The war between the state“:

Should upstate New York go its own way? And what would we call ourselves — Upstatonia? Newer York? Adirondackiana?

These are just a few of the questions raised by a bill recently introduced by a handful of Republican state senators calling for a referendum that would ask, “Do you support the division of New York into two separate states?”

The bill, which you can read in its entirety after the jump, is co-sponsored by Joseph Robach (R-56th District), William Larkin (R-39th District), Michael Ranzenhofer (R-61st District), James Seward (R-51st District) and Dale Volker (R-59th District). Coincidentally, all are upstate legislators and represent largely rural districts.

The idea of a divided New York is not a new notion.

Just off the top of our heads, we can think of a few implications of upstate becoming the 51st state — and we’re assuming that’s how it would be done geographically, as opposed to, say, drawing the border down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

• Republicans would almost certainly find themselves back in power positions.
• The governor of upstate would probably do most of his work at the Capitol.
• The New York Times would need a new city to kick around in its editorial headlines (e.g. today’s MTA-related “Thanks a lot, Albany”).
• The members of the Long Island branch of the state GOP would find themselves feeling very, very lonely.
• The so-called “Bear Mountain Pact” — the unspoken rule that, y’know, what happens in Albany stays in Albany — would have to be renegotiated.

We’ve called Robach’s office for more background.

  Introduced  by Sens. ROBACH, LARKIN, RANZENHOFER, SEWARD, VOLKER -- read
          twice and ordered printed, and when printed to  be  committed  to  the
          Committee on Elections

        AN  ACT  to provide for a referendum on the question "Do you support the
          division of New York into two separate states?"; and providing for the
          repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof

          The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:

     1    Section  1.  At the request of the county legislature or other similar
     2  governing body of any county, there shall be submitted by the  board  of
     3  elections  of  such  county  to  the  voters of such county at a general
     4  election held on or before December 31, 2010 the following question: "Do
     5  you support the division of New York into two separate states?"
     6    § 2. Such question shall be submitted in the manner  provided  in  the
     7  election law, and the provisions of such law, not inconsistent with this
     8  act,  relating  to  the  submission  of  and to the taking, counting and
     9  returning of the vote and canvassing the results upon a question submit-
    10  ted pursuant to law to the voters of the state shall apply to the  ques-
    11  tion  herein required to be submitted. The ballots shall be in such form
    12  as prescribed by such law.  When  a  board  of  elections    shall  have
    13  completed  its canvass of the results of the vote upon such question, it
    14  shall forthwith certify the results of the vote upon  such  question  to
    15  the secretary of the senate and clerk of the assembly.
    16    §  3.  This act shall take effect immediately and shall expire January
    17  1, 2011 when upon such date the provisions of this act shall  be  deemed
    18  repealed.

Well, I for one am quite interested to see where this goes. If nothing else, it’ll be entertaining to seem my fellow New Yorkers get their dander up.

Oo, here’s an idea! Let’s join Vermont in seceding! 

Ahem. That comment probably just got me on some government list if I wasn’t already on one. Oops.