Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Archive for March, 2012|Monthly archive page

Maybe Sandra Fluke lives in the wrong neighborhood?

In Opinion on March 3, 2012 at 3:15 pm

One man’s slut is another man’s rape victim

And

Rush Limbaugh is a lyin’ ass bitch

1.  Earlier in the week, Sandra Fluke testified [under oath?] before a Congressional committee.  She claims that she and many of her friends (“40% of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy”) can’t afford birth control unless their university (where they pay approximately $45,000 per year in tuition) pays for it through its insurance program.  She insinuates that her and her friends’ [sex] life might not be worth having without a subsidy.  [We have yet to be told what they’re doing without the subsidy, by the way.  Paying with their own money, rhythm method, abstinence?]  (NOTE:  I intentionally ignore the portion of her testimony about a friend who needs birth control pills to address a health matter unrelated to sexual activity or reproduction – I don’t think that was central to her testimony; I’ve seen a red herring before.)

2.  Rush Limbaugh, provocation being his stock in trade, says that Sandra Fluke is a slut.

3.  The world, including the POTUS, rushes to Ms. Fluke’s defense.  Well, sort of – I’ve yet to hear one of them say “she is NOT a slut” so maybe they’re just angry that Rush called her one, but that doesn’t really matter.  Then, of course, the chorus repeats, in its standard tolerant tone, its well-known opinion that Rush is a big, fat, rich, Oxycodone-addicted, Viagra-using, four-times-married, childless-so-he-must-use-contraception, backward-thinking, rude S.O.B. who doesn’t deserve to be listened to by more people than any radio broadcaster ever.

I’m thinking that maybe, just maybe, Rush has it wrong.  Maybe she’s not a slut, maybe she is not having nearly as much consensual, casual sex as Rush has inferred from her testimony about the high cost of her contraception.  Maybe it’s something else.

My theory – she’s surrounded by a bunch of rapists!  She doesn’t need contraception, she needs a bodyguard and better police protection in the Georgetown neighborhood.

That makes me wonder.  I live in Georgetown.  If Rush had made that accusation, would anyone, stand up and defend me, would the President call me on my cell?  “Jeff, you’re not a rapist and your parents should be proud of you.”

Or, maybe this isn’t really about her promiscuity, my alleged misogyny or even Rush Limbaugh’s uncivil, insulting language.  (More about which, see HERE.)

Maybe this is about two things:

1.  Health insurance coverage (a group paying money into a common fund out of which will be paid the cost of any unexpected ailments or accidents befalling the unlucky few) should not be viewed as pre-paying for health services or a scheme in which someone else pays to help me prevent an event that is not a sickness, and

2.  Even if we can’t re-learn that definition of insurance, we all should nonetheless enjoy the freedom from being forced to subsidize any part someone else’s life.  Whether it involves Ms Fluke’s desire to twirl a baton or play the flute or relates to her sex life, she, not her fellow students, is responsible for buying her own equipment.

Advertisements

Mother MAY [or MUST?] I? What’s the difference?

In Opinion on March 1, 2012 at 10:49 pm

Democrats and their media enablers think they have it all figured out.  Because they are opposed to ‘intrusive government’ they are against laws that stipulate that a woman MUST have an ultrasound exam before she MAY terminate a pregnancy.  AND, they are for laws that say an employer (church or otherwise) MUST provide its employees a health care policy that pays for contraceptive drugs for women.  The Democrats are confused and disturbed – and I am too, disturbed, but for a different reason.  In one case they think they want MORE government power, while in the other, they think they want LESS government power.  (They’re not only inconsistent, they’re delusional – see below.)

Not only is that not a sensible position, it’s not really what you’d expect in the laws of a nation that reveres life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is it?  Government power is not so finely calibrated and so carefully and disinterestedly deployed as to let its administrators choose when it should or should not pull its guns in grey areas – a legitimate basis for laws must have only bright lines – See Frederic Bastiat, The Law – and must be just and moral.

But, back to the Democrats.  Query:  Have any of them read the ObamaCare law?

Do they realize that the result of that law will be a government menu for health insurance.  That menu will include exactly FOUR choices of insurance policies, each with a set price.  Under that law, every person (not just pregnant women) will be forced to buy one of those four insurance policies or else suffer the punishment of being fined [or in Chief Justice Roberts’ words, ‘taxed’] (with small print that says no one can be punished for not paying the fine/tax – yes, really!) .

And so?  Well, those government-designed policies will determine, no dictate, what treatments and services are covered.  Now, of course, the stated intent is that everything will be covered (birth control, treatment for acne, depression and Hyper-active disorders, and on and on) since government health care is presumed to be, well, magical, and so magical that it will be “free.”  All kinds of preventive care and every previously unaffordable luxury will be available to anyone who can wiggle her nose (a la Bewitched).

But, since there are only so many mammography machines, only so much gauze, so many tongue depressors, scalpels, bed pans, X-ray machines, stethoscopes, and doctors and nurses, eventually some method (NOT price, of course, since that would be unfair) will have to be devised to allocate those finite resources.

What method will take the place of price?  Rationing.  There is no other possible answer.  NONE.  The government will tell you what policy you MUST buy and what you MAY have as a result.  The government will possess the power to enforce the allocation of goods and services established by the rationing regime.  And enforce it shall!

So, why are the Democrats delusional?  Is there really any difference between the power needed to enforce MUST and the power to enforce MAY [or NOT]?  ‘Thou shalt’ is the same as ‘Thou shalt NOT’ when it comes to enforcement, isn’t it?  A government powerful enough to make me pay for HER birth control is powerful enough to make her get an ultrasound, isn’t it?  They assume that they can control government power and assure it is only used for sweet outcomes.  NOPE.  Never has happened.  Ever.

Wake up, America, left and right.  No state has ever exercised this much power for the ‘good of the people.’  The state always, and every time, exercises this much power to pulverize opposition, to silence dissent and to mame the human spirit, making it dependent on the state.

Orwell, a leftist, didn’t write 1984 as a fantasy novel.  He warned us against state power, left, right and center.  We’re approaching 30 years since 1984, so he was off by a few decades, but take no comfort.  Well-intended state power destroys all of humanity that gets in its path – every time.

Mother, why do I have to ask?