George Rebane
Today in the 21mar16 Union columnist and RR reader Mr George Boardman reminds us of the tautology that members of our 99% also avoid accountability. He corroborates this with an anecdote or two, as if any were needed. Very little thought already reveals that the population which overwhelmingly avoids accountability resides in the 99%. I think this point could have been made a bit more explicitly to underline Mr Boardman’s ‘No need to be among the 1% to avoid accountability’.
But what I took exception to was his description of “DeVry University, a publicly traded company that specializes in signing up students to loans they may or may not be able to pay back.” The FTC’s jaundiced ruling notwithstanding, this private educational enterprise does not specialize in Mr Boardman’s claimed practice any more than do the hundreds of public colleges and universities across the land. Unpaid student loans now exceed $1,200,000,000,000 (that’s T like in trillion) and are overwhelmingly owed to government run lenders making it easy for government run colleges that lure students into costly degree programs that teach students skill sets they cannot sell in the labor market (more here and here). [H/T to Mr Gregory’s 736pm below for the correction.] The only ones hiring those so victimized are the various agencies and bureaus of our governments where competency in something useful is not a requirement. Mr Boardman’s singling out a for-profit university for such umbrage is misleading at best, and patronizes our softheaded socialists at worst.
Joel Kotkin, R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow and columnist, writes a major piece prognosticating the dismal future of the GOP and Hillary’s potential launch of our own Third Reich. He sees the formation of a third party as a political palliative, but does not seem to understand that political stability requires at least four political parties to span the ideological spectrum. Nevertheless, the worthwhile read concludes with a view of Hillary’s administration and the Democrat Party dominance –
In this way, the rest of the country will increasingly resemble what we already have in California – a central governing bureaucracy that feels little constrained about expanding its power over every local planning and zoning decision. The federal republic will become increasingly nationalized, dispensing largely with the constitutional division of power.
Centralism, as known well in California, comes naturally to a one-party state. Businesses, particularly large ones, faced with uncontested political power, will fall in line. How many times have I heard California business people, even supposedly powerful ones, tell me they are frustrated with Gov. Jerry Brown’s increasingly draconian rule but sheepishly add that they are too afraid to say anything.
Looking ahead, the only hope lies in a mounting reaction, perhaps manifesting in a new party, to over-reach. As Clinton works to serve her “families,” like public employees, crony capitalists and the academia/media PC police, she could ignite a rebellion not only among the Trump constituency but also many more moderate, suburban voters who find Trump too crude, divisive and unpredictable.
This new movement should be built around the idea that, in the information age, power can, and should, devolve to localities as much as possible. Even Californians prefer local, as opposed to centralized, control. This could spark a widespread populist rebellion which, in 2020, could finally tame the federal Leviathan and allow American politics to return to something the founders may have envisioned.
[update] George Soros has given Gov Kasich $700K for his campaign. 'What are we to make of that?', he asks with tongue-in-cheek. Talk about strategic investments that Trump and Cruz should highlight.
[22mar16 update] George Boardman has restarted his NC Roadkill blog. I went there to welcome him with - Welcome back to the blogosphere Mr Boardman. Ruminations is proud to post a permanent link to NC Roadkill. gjr - but my comment is still "in moderation" so I thought I'd repeat it here. Perhaps Mr Boardman is having second thoughts as to what time eaters these blogs are; I hope not.
The Candidates on Abortion
George Rebane
Chris Matthews interviewed Donald Trump and asked how the pregnant woman should be treated if she sought an abortion in a jurisdiction wherein it was illegal. His off-the-cuff answer was that the woman should be held responsible in some manner. Everyone on and off the campaign trail went ballistic.
Offline and at his leisure, Ted Cruz responded, “Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing the woman; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.”
Offline and after some consideration Donald Trump went on record, “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal, and the federal courts upheld this legislation or a state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing the illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this as is the life in her womb.”
Both got it wrong. Cruz was pandering to the hip level response of the mob, and The Donald backpedaled his initial honest response with pabulum in the attempt at damage control.
About Cruz leaping on Trump’s throat – there is nothing “incredible” or a “gift” to society (or mankind) about one more unwanted child that is almost certain to become a resource grabbing disaster for society. And there is no “dignity” for the man or woman in screwing their brains out with no thought to the impact of their lusty liaison. Cruz was pandering to the light thinkers and the plain stupid.
And Trump reversing himself to blame just the abortion artist is equally reprehensible. Yes, the woman and her unborn baby become the victims of an abortion, but it is a preventable victimhood to which the woman (save in rape) is a willing party. So the question becomes ‘how should society differentiate between this type of willing victimhood versus other kinds of willing victimhoods such as drug and alcohol addiction where we already hold the ‘victim’ addict accountable. But more fundamentally, why should society – i.e. the rest of us – create an environment in which lust or any other corrosive behavior can be exercised with the gay abandonment of responsibility for the impact it has on society, and the quality of life of its members? Should society have any other recourse save punishing itself for cleaning up after the aberrants?
Posted at 05:51 PM in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, Culture Comments, Our Country | Permalink | Comments (45)
Reblog (0) | |