Bi-Polar Liberals?

I have to ask myself, are the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats, or LPDs, among us, aware of how crazy they sound?  I'm sure a lot of them are kind to children and puppies, and very few are hard-core crazy but they certainly sound like there is a serious wiring problem in their heads.

For example, they talk incessantly about "choice", as in a woman's right to choose.  Or "choosing a life style", which is code for appeals to the gay and lesbian community.  But even though the LPDs preach "tolerance" and "diversity" in terms of certain other "choices" they are utterly intolerant.  School choice comes to mind.  As does any healthcare choice other than the so-called public option for health care insurance.

So, are they for or against the concept of individual choice?

The LPDs support sections of the health care proposal that would involve cutting off life lengthening care for seniors on the grounds that it is too expensive and would be a waste of money for someone who is no longer making a positive contribution to society.  OK, maybe not exactly Sarah Palin's "death panels", but close enough. 

At the same time, though, these same über-liberals are completely inflexible in their opposition to the death penalty.  It would seem to me that if anyone can be defined as not making any positive contribution to society it would be those who are on death row.  But the LPDs insist that we house, feed, clothe and, incredibly, provide medical care for serial killers, rapists, and other types of non-contributing members of our society.

Likewise, why is the selection of a Supreme Court Associate Justice now predicated on the candidate's "empathy".   It's almost understandable that the judicial representatives of the people try to understand the point of view of those seeking justice before the bar, but it appears that it will be impossible to expect the same empathy for those whose only crime is being subject of the entropy that affects all living beings.

So, do LPDs favor or oppose the government determining if a person should live or die?  And if they are for the government making such a determination, what do they propose as the ethical or moral basis for deciding the question?  They're good at making an economic case, but they also keep hammering away at us on the basis that we have a "moral obligation" to respond quickly to resolve the problems caused by the crisis du jour. Or are we back to the question of "choice"?  Are they telling us that we shouldn't be allowed to "choose" for yourself what is best for you because they, the LPDs, are the only ones qualified by their educations at prestigious universities, and their incredible levels of empathy to make such determinations?  Are they implying that non-LPDs just aren't smart enough to realize without government guidance that they shouldn't run with scissors.

And this apparent bi-polar disorder reveals itself in areas other than healthcare.  Take the Global Warming (Oops, I mean Climate Change!) debate.   LPDs announce that all CO2 emissions from ANY source are evil and are in fact, according to NY Times writer Paul Krugman, "treason against the planet".   So the LPDs have determined that we must destroy our economy, reduce our standard of living, and risk the lives of the elderly living on minimal incomes by raising the costs for them to heat their homes, to ensure that the CO2 genie is forced back into the bottle.  OK, maybe "ensure" is too strong a word.  Perhaps "hope" is more accurate.

Of course China and India have both said they won't even consider making the American and European LPDs happy by going along with this idea.  In fact, the Chinese are planning to continue their massive expansion of coal fired electrical generating plants which will more than offset in CO2 emissions what the LPDs will "cap" with the Waxman-Markey climate bill. 

At the same time that we are in the middle of this debate, the Obama administration has loaned Brazil two billion dollars to help fund the development of Brazil's huge offshore oil reserves.  So the LPDs are adding to the source of CO2 gasses at a cost of a couple of billion, while demanding that we tax ourselves into poverty to reduce CO2 gas from the burning of petroleum. 

Since the LPDs purposes are always noble and just chock-full of empathy and all that warm fuzzy stuff, perhaps they could explain how these two things are not in direct conflict with one another.  And they could also explain why George Soros, the ultimate "sugar-daddy" of the LPDs, who is a major shareholder in the Brazilian corporation Petrobras that will be receiving the loan, apparently hasn't divested his holdings in protest of this despoiling of the planet.  Maybe they could also explain why he's not a traitor to the planet.

Our good LPD friends also seem to have difficulty with the word "big". It seems like it should be a fairly simple word to use, especially for those who have benefited from Ivy League educations.  But they can't seem to differentiate between hating the word and loving the word.  Just think about how it's used:

           E V I L (and should be nationalized)              G O O D  (and should be bigger)

                    Big Oil                                                                Big Government

                    Big Business                                                       Big Labor       

                    Big Tobacco                                                       Big Education

                    Big Pharmaceuticals                                          Big Media

                    Big Auto                                                                        


And of course we have organizations like AIG which are "too big to fail".  But is that a good Big or an evil Big?  Was the evil Bigness of General Motors offset by the good Bigness of the United Auto Workers?

This bi-polarism problem extends to the very basis of the entire country, our Constitution.  When LPDs want to do something distasteful, they always resort to "reinterpreting" the Constitution, discovering penumbras, and making education a function of the federal government.   This reinterpretation appears necessary, since there isn't a single word about education apparent to anyone who isn't an LPD.  So the LPDs can see as Constitutional mandates things that are utterly hidden to ordinary folks like us.  Right to privacy, rights to abortions, rights to unearned income, lots of rights.  But rights that are clearly spelled out, in English any high school student could understand, like the 2nd Amendment, seem to be beyond them.

The LPDs also seem to think that if they are directing the effort, communities organizing themselves to accomplish social, economic or legislative and governmental goals are just wonderful.  But if anyone not certified as an active LPD attempts to do the same, they are classed as evil.   They are un-American.  They are a distraction from serious debate.  The only thing that the LPDs haven't called the folks at the tea-parties and town hall meetings is "counter-revolutionary".

Again, they seem to be unable to keep from oscillating wildly between multiple definitions of the same words.

The LPDs in Congress and the White House who claim to be able to direct the entire economy, the climate, and our very right to be alive should be able to express themselves more clearly.  They should be able to think more clearly.  But apparently they can't.  

Perhaps WE should be making these decisions for THEM, since they appear to have some problems.  It's a shame that those problems would preclude them from getting medical care, now isn't it?