US Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Health Care Act

[kandrathe]

Count me among the "chorus from the liberal intelligentsia" who says it's just freedom of speech, and anyone opposed is a prude or a fascist.

To me, fascism rears it's ugliness when governments legislate censorship against ignorant people perpetuating stupidity like holocaust denial, or in the rule making in our own FCC on what can be said/shown on the broadcast air waves (cable still gets a bit of a pass it seems). Fascists value security over human rights (e.g. Abu Garib, Guantanamo, TSA), and justify excessive spending on security and military items even in times of peace (or invent phony wars). For fascists, fear is the primary motivational tool to herd the sheeple, and/or co-opting the dominant religious rhetoric (often against its tenets) to manipulate public opinions. The fascists are empowered by an industrial and business aristocracy which creates a commensal relationship with the ruling elite -- and ergo, unions are suppressed. They are also fearful of "free-thinkers", and so repress or are open hostile to higher education, the arts, and academia in general. They are obsessed with stamping out crime and creating more prisons -- often trampling civil liberty in the name of their patriotic duty to make our streets safer. But, on the other hand their regimes are rife with cronyism, scandals, corruption with their "free" elections dominated with smear campaigns, assassinations, and voter fraud.

A prude? It used to mean (in Old French), honourable woman. Now its an insult implying a fear and contempt of human sexuality. In our society it is wielded against anyone who expresses standards of modesty or even any moral standards and beliefs.

It's a reading from Charles "Bell Curve" Murray...

I can see your point on questioning the controversy -- in some ways I think his research danced too close to the fire and he got burned. He has stated (over the past 17 years) that he never implied a connection between race and intelligence(or potential) that was widely attributed to the two chapters in that book. I think in retrospect he'd have burned those chapters, rather than suffer being branded a racist. Still, I feel he is getting close to something in examining the deterioration of our society and its impact on children. I tend to view his work as unabashed (hence the attacks), but motivated in uplifting all people from poverty in ways amenable to libertarian values. I'm skeptical of IQ (and testing) as a single variable being capable of measuring potential -- I believe there are many other success factors such as work ethic, "emotional intelligence", and "common sense" that we don't quantify.

It probably wouldn't shock you; but I've read from all spectrum of political beliefs, and discern for myself any valuable bits from the dross. The danger is always when we put our faith behind the thinker, rather than the thought. Even our oft quoted paragons of thought and virtue, such as Abraham Lincoln, need some close scrutiny. We tend to become blinded by idolatry. That, and we tend to believe what we want to believe and ignore evidence to the contrary.

Even acknowledging all the challenges (globalization, the decline of manufacturing, mass low-skilled immigration) that have beset blue collar America over the last thirty years, it is still the case that if you marry the mother or father of your children, take work when you can find it and take pride in what you do, attend church and participate as much as possible in the life of your community, and strive to conduct yourself with honesty and integrity, you are very likely to not only escape material poverty, but more importantly to find happiness in life. This case for the persistent advantages of private virtue does not disprove more purely economic analyses of what’s gone wrong in American life, but it should at the very least complicate them, and suggest a different starting place for discussions of the common good than the ground that most liberals prefer to occupy. -- Ross Douthat, Op-ed, New York Times, What Charles Murray Gets Right