TCS Daily


The Sinister Secret of Abolitionists - Part 2

By Lester Jackson - February 23, 2010 12:00 AM

Continued from Part 1...

NOTE: Page numbers and footnotes in brackets refer to documentation in the detailed paper downloadable here; those in parentheses refer to all other linked sources. What follows refers only to activists, advocates and government policy makers (unaccountable judges; defiant elected and appointed officials).



THE COLD CRUELTY OF COMPASSION
The landlord court asserted (27) that "every segment of society has obligations to aid in law enforcement and to minimize the opportunities for crime." Obviously, executing murderers and keeping violent convicts permanently incarcerated would "minimize the opportunities for crime." That is indisputably very harsh - and likely unthinkable for today's dominant judicial and media elites. "Compassion" is their zeitgeist.

What, then, do they think is thinkable? Keep murderers alive; free the violent. That is compassion for the thoughtful. But do they ever think about the cruelty inflicted by their compassion? Condemning to rape, torture, maiming and murder those who have never harmed anyone? That is the tragic result of what they think is thinkable - except, of course, the elites would rather not think of victims at all [1, 5-7]. Indeed, there are U.S. Supreme Court Justices who have all but explicitly stated that they value the lives of murderers far more highly than those of innocent victims [43, 47ff.; n282], even to the point of seeking to deny victim status to many who suffer the most [n305].

How can a state policy of imposing suffering, including murder, upon new victims be viewed as anything but capital punishment of the innocent? Is this any different from "shooting into a crowd, placing a time bomb in a public place, or opening the door of the lions' cage"? How can advocates of such policy credibly deny they support capital punishment of the law-abiding?

If the "abolitionists" actually oppose "foreseeable, state-sponsored murder," shouldn't they oppose policy that guarantees recidivism?

Let a defiant Mike Huckabee label "disgusting" his being blamed for freeing, over a prosecutor's vehement protest, Maurice Clemmons from a 99-year prison sentence. The fact is that, in exercising his official state authority as governor and to see himself as compassionate, he condemned to death four police officers and inflicted lifelong suffering on the parents, spouses, children, siblings and friends of Officers Tina Griswold, 40, Ronald Owens, 37, Greg Richards, 42, and Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39. This was not Huckabee's first official imposition of a death sentence upon unknown future innocent victims; previously, Carol Sue Shields, 39, and Sara Andrasek, 23 [n49] suffered the consequences of Huckabee's compassion. When Norman Mailer and his fellow literati succeeded in freeing Jack Abbott [nn.50, 324], they condemned to death newly married Richard Adan, a 22-year-old with his whole life ahead of him. When, in 1972, after 175 years, in a bare 5-4 epiphany, Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White and Marshall suddenly found the death penalty was unconstitutional and saved the lives of numerous convicted murderers, including Kenneth McDuff, they simultaneously condemned to death countless new victims (e.g., young pregnant mother Melissa Ann Northrup, 22, and popular accountant Colleen Reed, 28).

The litany never ends [9-10]. Suffice it to say, when government officials and activists pursue policy guaranteed to cause the death of innocent people, they effectively have sentenced those people to death.

The policy succeeds partly because the victims have no faces and no names when sentenced. Although victims receive scant attention, a feeble effort was made here to name a tiny few because the theft of personhood is cruelty's ally. It is less easy to be "compassionate" if one must confront the agony of compassion's victims- once vital, upstanding, loving human-beings, brutally and prematurely robbed of life in the interest of granting mercy to the merciless [e.g.: 2-3, 54; n315]. In an ideal world, the "abolitionists" would have to think about all of them. They don't. Lip service, absolutely; but not more.

Concern by the likes of Mike Huckabee, Sister Prejean [2, 38] and Bryan Stevenson [41, 54] is for the most brutal. To them, victims are "chopped liver." Justice Ginsburg has shed tears and felt stress for executed murderers; a search for any sign of similar concern by her for their victims would likely yield the same results as Diogenes' quest for an honest man.

If hoteliers, landlords, employers, bar owners, etc., are responsible for the safety of strangers victimized by the crimes and negligence of other strangers, why aren't Huckabee, Mailer, the ACLU, the DPIC and, above all, judges and justices responsible for the multiple repeat crimes they cause?

To use a cliché, there is no free lunch. There can be no generosity to criminals without creating new victims, destroying their well-being and very lives. Compassion for the cruel is itself cruelty - cruelty to the good and decent.

This all answers the mystery of what kind of people fanatically protest 1,188 executions of convicted murderers for 723,000 homicides but not the incalculably greater number of executions of the law-abiding resulting from endless state recidivist leniency. Why, of course, they are the compassionate - the cold, cruel compassionate.


"DEATH ELIGIBLITY" FOR "SERIOUS" ADVOCATES
The ACLU avers: "no one seriously advocates" a policy of executing all convicted murderers in order to prevent "occasional[]" recidivist homicides by some of them. "Occasional" recidivist murders are thus implicitly acceptable. (Imagine the reaction if a car maker said we must accept "occasional" highway fatalities in lieu of making safer automobiles.) In plain English, for the "serious advocate," the proper policy, which we now have, is: for the greater good of convicted murderers, others must be condemned to death. Just who are they?

In eviscerating capital punishment [1, 29-30, 43] for convicted murderers, the Supreme Court concocted and repeatedly "narrowed" the notion of "death eligibility" [38]. Justices boast [n250] of rendering entire categories of murderers death penalty "ineligible." For example: the allegedly mentally retarded who capably plot rape and then murder to avoid victim testimony [11-13]; 17½-year-olds who commit premeditated torture murder (they have a "right" to "attain a mature understanding of [their] own humanity") [7-8]; those who commit insufficiently depraved murder (e.g., one using a rifle to kill his wife and slowly reload to first terrorize and then literally blow his mother-in-law's head off and brain out) [n288]; rapists who have already committed murder and attempted murder (thus avoiding any punishment at all for the new rape) [n265]; murderers serving life who commit new murders [42], etc., etc.

By judicial fiat, nearly all convicted murderers are not "eligible" for the death penalty. But eligibility has not been narrowed for those upon whom abolitionist style capital punishment is imposed. They are law-abiding, preferably far away in space and time, chosen at random [44] and anonymous - most especially, anonymous. They must not be visible to the people, especially judges, who protect murderers, so that the protectors do not have to think about the consequences or acknowledge their complicity in causing unimaginable and unspeakable avoidable suffering [42]. Accordingly, these death-eligible are sentenced and condemned in absentia, and denied any right to a lawyer, any trial (let alone multiple trials) and endless appeals lasting decades.

In sum, death penalty eligibility is severely restricted for duly convicted murderers but unlimited for everyone else. The first is a penalty for the guilty; the second is reserved for the innocent.

Accepting highly dubious and dishonest "exoneration" claims, Carl M. Cannon declared that "the right question" is whether government should execute murder convicts "knowing to a certainty that some of them are innocent." That has been answered. The truly "right question" is whether government should pursue policy it "know[s] to a certainty" will cause the execution of law-abiding people who have never been convicted of anything - and in astronomically greater numbers than the bogus alleged "exonerations" and lawful executions.


THE BOTTOM LINE
Like Gov. Huckabee, the Pontius Pilates of abolitionism will seek to wash their hands of responsibility for the inevitable results of their zealotry. Denial is their right. But the rest of us must understand what they really stand for.

A policy of unleashing the brutal to attack the tame, clearly recognizing that this will result in new vicious crimes, including numerous murders, is government imposition of the death penalty. In abolitionist argot, it is "premeditated, violent homicide as an instrument of social policy."

If the values of the elites in charge of our society dictate that the law-abiding should suffer death to advance the interests of convicted criminals, so be it. But there should be no pretense that there is a "debate" in which one side favors "state killing" and the other opposes it.

Self-styled death penalty opponents are fully aware of the consequences of the policy they promote. The government adopts and pursues it, also with full realization. Can we then accept that advocates and government bear no responsibility and this is not a knowing state sentence of death upon countless innocent people?

At the end of the day, the horrific reality is clear. Abolitionists oppose the death penalty for those who have been convicted of murder. But they support "state-sponsored murder" of the law-abiding - a calculated policy "ritual" of "human sacrifice" on the altar of pretenders to sainthood whose compulsion to compassion extends only to the barbaric and the murderous - and not at all to tortured innocent victims.


Categories:

64 Comments

So called compassion.. California style
Budgets and overcrowding are blamed for compassionate release of thousands of criminal prisoners from state and county prisons and jails just now. No thought for public safety will reverse this. Already we have had the innocent victims complaining of their brutilization publicly, and the media putting up little in the way of support for their bruitilizing and no constructive support for organized protest of the state's mindless policies.
The state is acting like a mindless beast with a slavish interest in pleasing its masters... the unions and the statist ideologues running the place.
California is in a bad place... put there by a populous that thinks they can get something for nothing and everything by voting their feelings without engaging in serious thought.
Statist based compassion has it's Armageddon on the near horizon... nearer, and its greedy heart-beat can now be heard far and near.
Watch California for a picture of what the progressive vision leads to. Watch what they do.. not what they say... and then watch what happens.

Question
There seems to be a conflict in your position. First, you are against the State's use of power, but then you're complaining that the State doesn't build more prisons to detain more people indefinitely. People who have no function and have not been well socialized, so they end up preying on others.

So which is it? Should the State just wither away, and leave people to their own devices? Or should it impose strong controls on us, forcing us to obey its stern laws?

Joe Arpaio for Attorney General
He shows the proper degree of compassion to his prisoners.

Texas justice
Here's a good article on how questions of guilt and innocence should never stand in the way of a good execution:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/22/is-texas-about-to-execute-anot

Off-topic HC newsflash
Here's an important update to the HC scene regarding liberals quest for aCanadian style socialized system.

Last week the prime minister of one of the provinces there(like the governor of a state), called Newfoundland(an island in the north atlantic that belongs to canada & is one of their f10 provinces), need to get a heart operation.

It was not even open heart surgery or anything so intense, but he claimed he couldn't get it done in his very own province, nor in any of the other ones in the whole friggin country(althoug that was denied by some doctors in those places).

So guess where he ended up? Florida, yes, it's true even politicians who say their stalinist system is good enough for common people is not good enough for the elites.

In a related story, some commentators said that he could indeed have gotten the same operation somewhere else in Canada, but he didn't want to risk dying while waiting in the line for service, like normal people have to.

...the rest of the story
Actually, the fact is that Newfoundland's well out in the boonies, and doesn't have a decent heart unit on the entire island. Naturally Williams looked elsewhere for a first rate hospital.

"Conservative Senator Wilbert Keon, a retired heart surgeon and professor emeritus at University of Ottawa, said Newfoundland does not have the special pumps and post-op technical support to allow all advanced complicated procedures to be performed there.

"Nevertheless, Keon added, "I can't imagine anything that couldn't be done in Canada that is done in America."

"He said "virtually all" complicated heart surgery can be done at Ottawa's Heart Institute and in Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/759760

You go on to expand on your homily, "but he claimed he couldn't get it done in his very own province, nor in any of the other ones in the whole friggin country".

If you could find the exact quote from him, that would be very helpful. Canadian news sources don't seem to carry anything like your spin on it.

Yup. Watch them get bailed out, too.
:)

No way in HELL the Dems will let California go under. No way.

Or, if they do, then they'll have a helluva lot more probs than voter wrath over all the other suicidal screw-ups they've done so far and will do in the future.

See, California can't easily raise taxes. Prop 13 amended the state constitution so that the legislature requires 2/3 vote in both chambers. And since the Reps have enough in at least one of those all the time to kill any tax increase, well...the union flackies and liberal social programs will get hit instead. California's population is akin to the entire population of Canada, so millions of liberal constituents will get nailed to the wall in that case.

Case in point: The CTA (CA teachers' union) is already airing radio ads with scare stories of 100 student classrooms and to call Sacramento to demand that won't happen.

I just think that when push comes to shove, there ain't no way the Obamunists will sell them out.

So, as I've stated repeatedly on TCS going back to last year, get ready to bend over and take a few pokes for the California Statist-based Compassionists! (bring your own K-Y)

story is...he's a queque jumper
That's what they call it up there when you bud into line. And that's just what everybody does in places like Canada with it's Stalinist style rationed, bare-bones HC system.

It's normal up there but just a bit of a surprise because for politicians and their families and cronies they usually use the secret facility the reserve for themselves. That's why some people think that such a modern operation wasn't possible in Canada.

You might remember that the former PM of Quebec also went overseas some years ago for cancer treatement; and everybody knows the US has better cancer results than Canada(& perhaps everywhere else).

Anyway it was a huge scandal up there, I hope Michael Moore takes note since he's such an advocate of canadian HC. I just wonder if he would have also gone to Florida.

Stalinist style?
a) Have you ever even been to Canada?

b) If their government is Stalinist-style, is Stephen Harper their Stalin? He and his government are considered to be strongly conservative, you know.

c) "everybody knows the US has better cancer results than Canada(& perhaps everywhere else)"

You should be very careful of the things you think everybody knows. First, not everybody thinks alike. Second, not everybody knows what they're talking about.

As is to be expected, Canada is better in some categories, like the infant mortality rate, overall life expectancy and per-capita spending. While the US is better in others. In overall cancer mortality (five year survivability) they found that

* For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
* For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

So the US scores higher in this category-- but not that much higher. And we pay twice as much. The reason for our success, as the article goes on to say, is that we pay for a lot more preventive care (regular screening) than do the Canadians. So we tend to catch cancers at a much earlier stage. And so, have better outcomes.

To me, this indicates a government having to stay within the confines of its budget. It does not indicate a "Stalinist style" dictatorship.

If you cared to educate yourself about the actual comparison between the two systems, you could do worse than to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

stalinist style & queque jumping
I said a stalinist-style HC system, because it closely resembles the one in the USSR in terms of the near monopoly in hc there; it's very dictatorial in that manner.

So does you reply mean he's NOT a queque jumper?

Did you mean that politicians in Canada don't have a (formerly, and tried hard to keep it)secret private for themselves?

Do you mean that the former pm of Quebec, Robert Bourassa didn't go to the USA for his treatment?

Why would even politicians who try to brainwash the people into believing their fed run system is the best, themselves not use it, and even become medical tourists?

All these things are true, but you just don't like it when the results of authoritarian solutions are pointed out to you.

BTW, I've been there, and follow many of their dysfunctional attempts at socialism-lite.

Into the morass
Your thoughts here seem very muddled. Let's address them one at a time.

First, it looks like in your mind the word 'Stalinist' means the same thing as 'socialist', and that the Canadian system can be summed up with that word. This kind of thinking is just plain erratic.

'Stalinist' is a perfectly good word for a dictatorial method, or for the imposition of a totalitarian society. But it doesn't begin to apply here. You're just slinging mud around.

So is the Canadian HC system socialist?

"In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States." (from Wikipedia)

It doesn't look that different from our own, mixed system. Except in degree. Their national plan works a lot like our Medicare-Medicaid. And in any case, it has nothing to do with any methods identified with Comrade Stalin.

"So does you reply mean he's NOT a queque jumper?"

I'm having trouble following you. Who is "he"? And what is a "queque"? Is this some kind of slang for "Quebecois"?

"Did you mean that politicians in Canada don't have a (formerly, and tried hard to keep it)secret private for themselves?"

So what is their secret? I'm losing my place in your thought process.

"Do you mean that the former pm of Quebec, Robert Bourassa didn't go to the USA for his treatment?"

What does this have to do with anything?

"Why would even politicians who try to brainwash the people into believing their fed run system is the best, themselves not use it, and even become medical tourists?"

Your argument here is quite faulty. Every nation's system of HC, whether public or private, has some faults and some advantages. The issue before us is this: our own system is clearly faulty (in that we can't afford it). How can we improve it?

If the entirety of Canadian HC can be PROVEN as being faulty by the fact that some Canadians go abroad for treatment, what can we say about the Americans who go to Canada for treatment they can't afford here?

In fact, what can we say about all the thousands of Americans who go to Brazil, or India, or Thailand, for medical vacations? Isnt it true that in those places they can get first class treatment PLUS a luxury hotel stay in a pleasant locale for a fraction of the cost of the treatment alone in the US?

Does that indicate that there is NOTHING good about US health care? Or does it just prove my point, that there are problems in every approach? Your absolutist style of thinking is inadequate to describe our complex reality.

Please try to figure this stuff out better. You're in a muddle.

Roy, your buddy Chavez is running scared.
How could you have expected anything less from socialism?

" Not all is going Chávez's way. At the end of 2009, a banking scandal shook Chavismo with the arrest of some Boligarchs, pro-government businessmen. Chavistas, the opposition and ordinary citizens alike are asking Chávez to account for the past decade's $950 billion in oil revenues. Ministers have resigned and, most recently, the Chavista governor of Lara. Nearly two thirds of Venezuelans don't want Chávez to seek reelection. Lean economic years are now the norm.

A few weeks ago, Fidel Castro dispatched Ramiro Valdés to Caracas to help with electricity shortages even though repression is his true vocation."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/25/1498904/is-chavez-running-scared.html

muddled morass? moi?
When I say it's a 'stalinist-style' hc system, the word stalinist is supposed to be a degogatory, mocking term of abuse to it's dictatorial nature.

It is totalitarian in many respects. A doctor can't just hang up his shingle and practice. It is a one payer system, and regulated on all counts. They try to say that doctors and x-ray clinics are private business, but they are de-fact civil servants because they can only conduct business on the governments onerous terms. They may not just provide a service and get paid.

Also, to criticize the dysfunction, second most expensive hc system in the world, does not automatically mean that I think the US is wonderful,as you imply. It's also lousy and I think both should be totally free systems.

No Americans go to Canada for the rationed health care there, but go to buy drugs which are subsidised, so they get some cheaper. On the other hand, many canadians go to the US for expensive drugs, but the newest ones that are not even available in canada because some burocrats think common people don't deserve them, but that the politicians do.

When I said secret, I referred to the fact that since the hc system that the politicians say is good enough for common people, they had established their own secret, private services, just for them and their cronies. They tried hard to keep it secret because it's very humiliating for them to say the the public system is so good, but just not good enough for them. But the word got out via the employees there, and now they can't even deny it.

When I referred to the queque jumper it was the pm of that province I told you about that went to Florida for his operation instead of waiting in line. It was a massive scandal there last week. Queque is ther term they use for a line-up, so he jumped the line, presumably because he didn't want to die or deteriorate as most people there have to. That's why medical tourism is such a big business there. From the US it's mostly for financial reasons.
Then I referred to another politician , R.B. the permier of the province of Quebec who some years ago also went to the states.







More misperceptions and fuzzy thinking
Oh I see, with you 'Stalinist' doesn't mean anything in particular. It's just a general slur, like 'stinky'.

And even though private insurance holds a 30% share in the industry, the government is being 'dictatorial'. I guess that's another of your 'stinky' words.

Let me ask you a question. And I want you to answer it honestly. You don't have to say anything to me, just be honest with yourself. You're telling me "They try to say that doctors and x-ray clinics are private business, but they are de-fact civil servants because they can only conduct business on the governments onerous terms."

You say the payer has stipulations? Do you think there is one single private insuror on either side of the border who does NOT have stipulations? They all, private or public, tell the doctors, hospitals and clinics how much THEY'RE going to pay.

Isn't that right? So explain to me the difference between Aetna's terms and Medicare's terms.

As for your original word 'queque', you've obviously never heard of the word 'queue' before. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary?

The Newfoundland PM didn't "jump the queue" because there was a long line in front of him. He left NF because it's a backward, rural province with no decent heart unit on the entire island.

You should read up more on the famous long waiting lists for Canadian HC. It turns out they're only long lines for elective procedures. For emergency and serious procedures, the wait time is as good as anywhere in this country. You get wheeled in immediately when your life is at risk.

I can't complain about how dumb you are, you can't help that. But at least try to be well informed.

misperceptions? moi?
I guess that means that you had to accept some of findings, but still you fuss over other ones.
Of course you woudn't like the term of abuse and mockery like stalinist because you are a big government guy, so you don't mind the nanny-state telling you what to do.

Your comment isn't valid re insurance companies either because in can. there is no choice. But still, even though the politicians claim the system is the best in the world,(and don't use it themselves), people still do get top up plans, because the stalinist system doesn't even cover everything.

I don't bother about the spelling of queue, or any other word because as already noted, I leave that to old school marms and other pedants.

When you mock NFLD as backward, that still doesn't explain why he would have it done in another canadian province instead of going to florida.

I hope I've been prompting you to study up more on the health care scandals in canada, but not just by reading left wing biased reports from say, WHO or other such outfits. Check more about it, and soon you'll probably sneak away from commenting about how wonderful it is up there.

Check out about how people die up there while waiting for their heart operations, etc. then get down to hip and knee replacements. Sure I admit that if you were in a car accident and your guts are hanging out, you only have to wait for some hours while lying in a corridor with the packing crates to be served.

Then when you've got it, tell us how many millions it is that can't even find a family doctor, I forget if it's 4 or 5, right now. Those can go and wait in the emergency room, just like in the US.

Roy's unicycle is in the ditch
Roy.. "you are against the State's use of power, but then you're complaining that the State doesn't build more prisons to detain more people indefinitely."
Me .. No I didn't say that. That would be dumb to say that. You made it up. You alone are saying it.
I would be for jailing people for the length of time they were legally jailed for. Leftist dictator Castro puts people in jail indefinitely. I am definitely not a leftist.
I would like to see more privatized prisons and tent cities such as Sheriff Joe's to cut costs and cutting out the unions completely however. Nothing like what leftist union supporters would prefer, but it would make financial solvency a reason to expand rather than contract jailing cutthroats and crooks.
To your last point about the state withering away... I like it and my privatization proposal would move things in that direction.. at least by shrinking Leviathon's strangle hold on prisons.
Your idea.. not mine.. Roy "Should the State just wither away, and leave people to their own devices? Or should it impose strong controls on us, forcing us to obey its stern laws" seems like one Stalin or Castro could make. I would never. Statists want that to be the choice, and freedom loving people know it is a false one.
Lessening the state's roll in other than dispensing its constitutional duties will not wither the state entirely, but will lower the threat of statist takeover. An entirely good thing.
Your .." People who have no function and have not been well socialized, so they end up preying on others" .. is another indictment of the public school system isn't it? Comparing prison pops with private and home schooled citizens I mean. Public schools failure to educate may help explain prisoner demographics, and again I would urge we remove the state as the only alternative for the poor as partial remedy for huge prison unsocialized prison populations.

Socialism, Stalinist socialism and the forgotten men
The differences between Stalinist socialism and other varieties of socialism are largely the the frown you get from them when you defy the plan and the happy face you get when they tell you how wonderful and human its face is.
The physical violence these systems use to enforce their plans also mark their differences.
The unseen victims of these systems .. the "forgotten men" and women also differ in their sufferings and should not be allowed to be submerged and drowned by the likes of a Michael Moore, Castro or Hugo Chavez, et al. FDR's forgotten men are only now getting their fair hearings. The progressive memory hole is very deep, dank and dark, and the happy face they publicly present hides the scowl and reality. Until their power and control is threatened of course... when the mask is removed and we find the cost of ceeding control of our lives to these guys.

A new low, even for you
"The differences between Stalinist socialism and other varieties of socialism are largely the the frown you get from them when you defy the plan and the happy face you get when they tell you how wonderful and human its face is."

Words just don't mean a thing to you, do they? They're just bludgeons.

Instead of nattering on at length about Michael Moore, Hugo Chavez and FDR as though they're all in the same club, why don't you read a biography of Joseph Stalin and find out what makes him different than other men?

Canada and US, compared
"I guess that means that you had to accept some of findings, but still you fuss over other ones."

You haven't given me a single 'finding', only some opinions. And those have all been wrong. If I've neglected to address every last one of them it's only because there's only so much time in the day.

The main one here, though, is this. You're telling me "I said a stalinist-style HC system, because it closely resembles the one in the USSR in terms of the near monopoly in hc there; it's very dictatorial in that manner."

And I'll ask you again. How can a system where 30% of the bills are paid by the private insurance market be dictatorial?

Also, a point you still don't quite grasp. When you write anything for the consumption of others, be it a post here or work on your job if you have one, it's worthless unless it is UNDERSTOOD.

And your use of the non-word 'queque' detracted from anyone being able to understand the sense of your argument. Communication is NOT just for "old school marms and other pedants." It's so you can make your voice heard in the real world.

Why didn't the Newfie PM just go have work done elsewhere in Canada? You'd have to ask him. Had you read the article I offered you, you'd have found that Toronto has a heart unit as well regarded as any on the continent.

Not that Canada's system is the best on earth. In fact it's only the thirtieth best system on earth.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Which still makes it better than Costa Rica (#36) or the USA (#37). And god knows it's better than communist Cuba, which is only #39.

Now I'll issue you a challenge. You throw down this gauntlet: "Check out about how people die up there while waiting for their heart operations".

Okay, you first. Give me some solid statistics on how many heart patients in Canada DIE while waiting to have heart operations? Compare to the frequency of death in the US or in Scandinavia (an area for which we also have good statistics). And tell me the reason for any delays in treatment (i.e. whether for medical reasons, cost or due to inefficiencies in the system).

Here's some info I found easily about wait times for a common surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery:

The National Review, wanting to make a point, says "Patients can wait as long as 26 weeks for bypass surgery, and even the highest-priority cases can wait as long as two weeks for treatment."

http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=OGRlNDNiZGI0YjJlZjQwNWRiZGVlOTU1YjAyNGE5MGI=

Now let's look at the wait times in the US. Looks like it's 40-85 days, averaged for all cases, both emergency and elective (nonemergency).

http://www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/features/cabg-waiting-times-update.aspx

Which one's generally better? We need more information. Find it.

Stalin's crimes and progressive biographies
I have Stalin's bio and progressives proved useful idiots and worse. HG Wells said of the man of steel "I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest.." and thought "before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraind of him but I realize that he owes his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him"
Shaw also helped propogandize for and sell Stalin's system.. saying of Stalin "There is an odd mixture of the Pope and thee Field Marshal in him: you might guess him to be the illegitimate soldier son of a cardinal with perfect manners, if only he had been able to conceal the fact that we amused him enormously".
Conquest's bio of Stalin and his crimes reminded me of how progressives failed to analyze FDR's creations. Progressive biographers such as Lion Feutchtwanger made Wells and Shaw's and the long train of progressives looking to Stalin's system for answers pale for its idiocy and pathos. FDR's Stalin and Mussolini admirerers handed out pro fascist tracks on the Dem convention floor, but that is another episode that got swallowed down the Siberian memory hole progressives have created.
Stalin was fond of telling credulous leftists that the Kulaks only feared the poorer peasants and not him or his system.
I am afraid progressive admiration for Stalin and Mussolini won't go away Roy. The hole isn't deep enough that can swallow that episode and progressives culpability and credulity.

Progressive biographies portrayed Stalin and Mussolini with their customary credulity.
We get the same thing today from leftist university profs in all kinds of matters, so I don't think the left has changed much from the progressive era either. I have debated many leftist apologists for Mao's and Stalin's and Lenin's and Pol Pot's and the left does seem to have increased its productivity in this one area. You could sum up more than half of them with a common "capitalism made us do it" heading.
Words don't mean anything to Marxists... even commandering art when and where it can to propogandize.. something Orwell noticed regarding the Marxist left. (Read his All Art is Propoganda essay). Marxist methods permeat much of what the left calls education nowadays. My problem with that is both that it is wrong headed and bad that it gets a free ride among many of those who know better.
A current university vice president once told me he is a Marxist when it comes to historical analysis reminds me that the far left's critiques of anything needs to be challenged and is desperately in need of same.

Respect for the law
Your opinion is full of inconsistencies. First you say "Budgets and overcrowding are blamed for compassionate release of thousands of criminal prisoners from state and county prisons and jails just now."

So which is it? "Compassionate release"? That indicates the reason is because someone thinks the original sentences were too harsh, and the offenders have been successfully rehabilitated. Or, is it for budgetary reasons (which, in California, certainly make a lot of sense)?

Or are the CA prisons overcrowded? That is, are they facing a court order to thin the population? These are three mutually exclusive reasons to furlough prisoners.

But that's not even the worst inconsistency. The CORE problem with your thinking is that on the one hand you disagree with "the state", and think that everything it does is wrong. And on the other hand, well, in your own words, "I would be for jailing people for the length of time they were legally jailed for".

So that when the Rockefeller laws were enacted, and suddenly a kid selling an ounce of pot to an undercover officer was liable for a 25-year sentence, that was okay? Because it was legal?

There's a big fat flaw there. If every law they pass is fine with you, how about if later this year they decide they should solve the deficit problem by doubling the tax rate? It would be okay I guess, because it would be all legal.

So are you in favor of sentencing laws, just because they are "the law"? Or isn't that just part of the pattern of that "statist takeover" that worries you so much?

Your fuller response would help me sort through your position on this.

Root causes of criminality
"Your .." People who have no function and have not been well socialized, so they end up preying on others" .. is another indictment of the public school system isn't it? Comparing prison pops with private and home schooled citizens I mean."

Certainly a legitimate question. And an important one. Yes, schools are at fault. They're mostly only good at preparing the academic fraction of their student body to go on to college and beyond. But that's only a fourth of the population they're charged with teaching. Or, to be precise, about 27-28% of us go on to get their bachelors or postgrad degrees.

So the public schools fail the rest. Half of them do well because they either train on the job or prepare for their careers by going to community college (a really first class system nationwide, mostly run by the counties).

The remainder just fall behind.

But that's not all the blame. Firstly it goes to the parents, who never ground their kids in the social contract, whereby society owes them nothing just for being cute. They breed irresponsible kids with unrealistic expectations for what awaits them after they get bored and drop out of school. In other words, they bring their kids up to be just like themselves.

And to me there's another level of blame. I'm not with you, thinking that the world is just like it was back in 1787 and the state should confine itself to making war on all the other states. I think it has a role to play in shaping society, under the clause that commands it to "promote the general welfare".

And the plain fact is, there are no jobs out there for a great many of us. And our failure to find a way to provide those jobs means that the people who are only capable of them have no purpose. So they get themselves into trouble. Gang behavior is a good indicator that something is amiss, when large numbers of teens and young adults go feral because they have no purposeful mission.

It used to be, back in Old Europe, that the crowned princes and heads of state would periodically pick fights with one another. And the purpose of those fights was merely to put large numbers of these excess people into uniform, give them guns, and find a field somewhere they could have at each other.

I'm not recommending that we do that now-- although in a very real sense, that's why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think it's a failure to plan when we don't find some other useful occupation to employ them in.

And there's a very practical reason behind that. It costs society more to repair the damage these kids do, then to run them through the legal system, then to pay their room and board for years and years on a system that doesn't rehabilitate them... just to find half of them returning to the system again after they're let out. It doesn't work and it costs us way too much.

Instead I'd bring back the CCC. And I wouldn't do what the government does now, just let out a fat cat contract so someone got rich running the program into the ground. I'd run it as a federal personnel program. One EXACTLY like that other big program, the armed forces.

And I'd let young men with shovels address all our hazardous waste sites, created by industry and then left behind for someone else to clean up. It would be a good place for good sergeants to train an unruly workforce in hands-on responsibility to one's platoon-- and to society.

It would make men of them. And it would cost us far less than the broken system we have now.

Privatising prisons
This is an idea that sounds really good while you're sitting in your armchair, passing judgment on the world. But I'm very familiar with what actually goes on inside our prison systems. And I can tell you it's been tried and does not work.

Prisons are normally way underfunded. State budgets are always tight, and fat has to be trimmed every year. But every department in the state system is someone's sacred cow-- except for their DOC (Dept. of Correction). So that gets cut every year to take up the slack.

The functions considered to be 'least essential' are the ones that seek to rehabilitate. Work-release programs, individual pre- and post-release counselling, job readiness programs, training sessions and college coursework. All are considered frills, and get cut for budgetary reasons.

So when prisoners get released they have no grounding in how to progress away from the life that led them there in the first place. And in time they come right back. And the prisons get overcrowded. Which means the DOC has the problem of trying to control a crowd that's constantly expanding on a budget that's constantly shrinking.

You should really listen to me. You might learn something.

Anyway, it goes on like this until someone gets the bright idea that the whole mess ought to be turned over to Prison Industries, Inc. That way it's off their hands. So they let the job out for bid.

And the cheapest bid gets it. They're offering to do it for even less than the state. Plus, they have a fat profit built in now. So the net amount going to population control and plant maintenance has shrunk severely. They hire dumber guards, from the same pool of unemployables the prisoners come from. (In fact many of these guards and prisoners know each other. So dope comes in and violence increases on the inside.)

Health services? Forget it. Prisoners die because their conditions aren't treated. This is a very big issue. And mental health is even worse.

Think about this for a moment. What slice of society ends up in prison? Isn't it mostly the low-intelligence crowd, the emotionally unstable and the ones with serious psychiatric issues? I'll give you the answer. That would be a Yes.

There are relatively few intelligent, 'crafty' or career criminals in most state run systems. The prisons are our housing for the lowest segment of society. The ones that can't find productive work.

So when the answer becomes privatisation, they get housed like animals, neglected and abused. And unless their sentence happens to be Life Witghout Parole, we then release these beasts at some point into the general civilian population.

Nice system. The head of Prison Industries Inc, however, does very well indeed by it. He builds a nice castle with a good security system.

I've seen it. That's the way the experiment worked out in real life.

Show me the goods
You're making a classic mistake that's so common around here it must be a generic one, specific to libertarians. You take all of history as though it's still happening today.

All that happened eighty years ago. The world was different, and Marxism was a brand new social experiment. In 1930 there were a great many intellectuals who had hopes that it would cure the world's problems. And they deceived themselves for years about the wonders of Soviet style communism.

That kind of thinking had withered away entirely by the time Stalin died, 1953. There was by then no more Communist Party in the United States, only people hastily burning their Party membership cards.

So you persist: "I am afraid progressive admiration for Stalin and Mussolini won't go away Roy."

Okay. Find me a contemporary reference. In fact, find me something written by ANY AMERICAN, since let's say 1960, that shows admiration for Stalin and Mussolini. Maybe I can learn something from you.

Again...
"I have debated many leftist apologists for Mao's and Stalin's and Lenin's and Pol Pot's and the left does seem to have increased its productivity in this one area. You could sum up more than half of them with a common "capitalism made us do it" heading."

That's funny. I like to think of myself as being one of a vanishing breed, an actual leftist. And I don't believe I have ever met anyone like that. My contention is that there are no "apologists" for those kinds of monsters.

But you say you've debated many of them. How about naming some names? Give us something to go on, an article praising Pol Pot, anything to make your case. Don't just ask us to take this great absurdity on faith.

Make sure the dateline on your evidence isn't 1930.

Canda vs. US, not even comparing
Oh my goodness, there must be a misunderstanding.

I thought you accepted the fact that at least TWO prime ministers went to the US to get HC, and paid a fortune for it, when they could have got it in Canada.

I though you accepted the fact that americans only go to canada for subsidized drugs.

I thought you accepted the fact that some drugs are not even available in canada, so they have to go to the US to get them.

I thought you accepted the fact that in ottawa there is a (formerly)secret private system for the elite politicians.

I thought you accepted that only Cuba and North Korea have thought it would be a good idea to copy Canada's HC system, but no other countries in the world.

I thought you accepted that there never can be a Mayo clinic or any other top notch outfits in canada, all hospitals are government monopolies.

Not only do I know more about the HC system in canada, but I have more sources than you do since I have relatives in can. who constantly deliver me a litany of scandals.

But there is also a good podcast you could check out for more stories about how dysfunctional their hc system is; White Coat, Black Art, by the CBC, (warning, they are biased; it's the left wing official organ of the government propaganda machine, which the tax payers are forced to pay for against their will).

In your research did you find anything like the following:
"Currently, the estimated wait for a CT scan is 5.5 weeks and 14 weeks for an MRI scan."?

Let's say you find out how long it takes in your town, and I will ask my relative how long it takes in their town.
Remember too, they don't even have access to the specialist how might authorize it, but must also wait in line just to see a specialist.

I think that you would stick up for an otherwise dysfunctional hc system, even though you don't know much about it, just because it is run by big government, so it's on ideological grounds, not empirical. And of course it's run by force too, which you're always in favor of.

Leftist Pol Pot supporters
You wouldn't know the fellows I met in the leftist hangouts here in our city. They had filled their heads with leftist tripe and blamed America for all the world's ills.. and still do, only they forget their former supportive words for Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao. I took a class at college that brought in the Maoist supporters who were international union members, who lead us in mass Maoist chants and exercises during class.
Don't have much time this am so if you want more details I will be glad to provide them.. check out this Guardian article on Malcolm Caldwell which mentions Chomsky's supportive role in this leftist mass murder investigation.
Thanks for asking about this.. The last leftist I queried about this kind of thing threatened my life, rather than ask for clarification.. You seem to have right wing tendencies when it comes to free speech and inquiry in my opinion. Don't try that on a leftist controlled campus today.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/10/malcolm-caldwell-pol-pot-murder

Ridiculous, unfounded claims
You haven't offered the slightest bit of evidence to back up any of these claims. And with many of them I couldn't have agreed or disagreed-- because I'm hearing them here for the first time.

So let's take them one by one:

"I thought you accepted the fact that at least TWO prime ministers went to the US to get HC, and paid a fortune for it, when they could have got it in Canada."

You brought up the PM of Newfoundland. Who's the other one?

"I though you accepted the fact that americans only go to canada for subsidized drugs."

No. You said that, without any supporting evidence. I think that remains to be proven.

"I thought you accepted the fact that some drugs are not even available in canada, so they have to go to the US to get them."

Likewise, first I've heard of that. So how could I accept the fact?

"I thought you accepted the fact that in ottawa there is a (formerly)secret private system for the elite politicians."

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Well, for that matter our own politicians get gold plated health care unavailable to us mere mortals. Right?

"I thought you accepted that only Cuba and North Korea have thought it would be a good idea to copy Canada's HC system, but no other countries in the world."

The US is the only major nation on earth that has NOT accepted the premise that the right to health should be guaranteed to every citizen, to the extent available funds make possible. It should not be limited only to those able to afford it.

You should also be aware that there is no simple dividing line between public health plans and private plans. Every national system differs in detail from every other. The German system's very good. France has an excellent, but underfunded, system. And so forth.

"I thought you accepted that there never can be a Mayo clinic or any other top notch outfits in canada, all hospitals are government monopolies."

Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. You are telling us that a "top notch" hospital in Canada is impossible merely because it might be publicly funded. You really can't be taken seriously.

Here's an article that an intelligent person would benefit from reading. It describes how Canada's tax burden is almost exactly the same as the one here. But in Canada they keep their budget balanced, and still manage to put a secure health maintenance floor under everyone in the entire country.

One way they save money is this: "The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered."

Furthermore "Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services."

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

well-founded claims
You admit that the pm of nfld went to the US and paid a lot for an operation when if theory he was supposed to have been able to get in free in Canada.
The other one was Robert Bourassa the pm of Quebec that I mentioned already. It was also a scandal when he went to the States.

If those are just two well known ones, I wonder how many other ones have gone to the States.

Re americans who go to canada, it's certainly only to get the subsidized drugs. They would not want to go there to wait in line for service the way canadians have to.

Then, if you haven't heard that canadians go to the states for medicines that are not avialable in Canada just shows that you know less about the situation there than I do. Canadians do not have access to the the latest block buster drugs, so they willing pay for them in the states.

Even other countries that have socialisded HC systems are much freer than canada's; none but cuba and norther korea are like it. In places like england and sweden and germany they have private doctors and clinics, etc. not so in canada.

You reject my notion about there being no Mayo style clinics or the good private hospitals of the US like John Hopkins etc.,; name me any such one there.
Indeed, let's imagine that the place in miami florida that did the operation on the canadian politician wanted to set up and do the same operation in canada, so people could have it done there instead of the US, and charge the same amount?
What would happen if they tried it?

You're also wrong that canada has a balanced budget, it's in deficit and they also have a huge national debt. Like americans they expect their grandchildren to pay it off.

That canada promises free health care, is not the same as delivering on the promise. If a person has it in theory, but dies or deteriorates while waiting in line, it's tantamount to not having it. Here's another article about waiting times; funny you can't find them yourself.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

Chomsky & Pol Pot
I remember that too about chomsky trying rationalize pol pot; but I guess he tried to distance himself from it later on; sort of the way most leftist grudgingly tried re Stalin too.

Sure, I believe you
Okay, I can't address it when you put it like that. Everywhere else in the USA, the last Stalinists died out by 1955-- although a few still exist in places like Nepal. Yet in a mysterious town you identify only as "our city", they are thick on the ground, plotting the takeover of America with their Soviet values.

And they lead people in "mass Maoist chants". And exercises! It's apparently a large and deadly cult centered on "our city". One that has never gotten in any newspaper.

Yes, I do require more in the way of evidence. This is unadulterated BS, as I'm sure you're aware.

I will congratulate you for at least making the attempt to produce evidence-- your article on Malcolm Caldwell. Of course, first, he's not American, he was British. And second, he was active back in the 1970s, not today. Third, he's been dead since 1978.

But you say this person, an alleged "cheerleader for Pol Pot", is apparently representative of all leftists in the US today. And I can't see where that follows.

Before suggesting that you find someone who is both contemporary and American, who cheerleads for Pol Pot, I will call your attention to a biographic fact.

As a doctrinaire Marxist, he was naturally in favor of the Khmer Rouge Revolution when it first occurred. But at that time no one knew anything about it-- because the Revolution had closed the borders. Gladwell was in the first party of westerners to be allowed in.

I'll tell you what we knew on the eve of his trip. Nothing. Pol Pot and the KR had never been seen by westerners. They were a rumor in the jungle. BUT-- they had overthrown a terribly brutal and corrupt government, that of the tyrant Lon Nol. So many might be inclined to think well of them.

Shall we continue?

"Caldwell was sympathetic to the Khmer Rouge. Along with Elizabeth Becker and Richard Dudman, he was part of the first group of Westerners invited to visit Cambodia since the Khmer Rouge closed the country. They were given 10-day structured tours of the country and a private audience with Pol Pot, experiences that apparently only intensified Caldwell's support for the regime. He was murdered on the orders of Pol Pot, in circumstances that remain unexplained,[6] on the eve of the Vietnamese invasion in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in 1978.[7] He was one of two British people who were killed in Cambodia along side John Dawson Dewhirst."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Caldwell

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781891620003&view=excerpt

Are you hearing this? He appears to have never made it back from his first visit (although, having been given the VIP tour, he was still said to be favorably inclined toward the regime up to the moment he was killed). So when, exactly did he become their cheerleader?

You are a very gullible person when it comes to propaganda you are inclined to believe in implicitly. Maybe you should do what I did, and check a second and third source first to see whether it's just a pile of BS.

The more accurate account
Most leftists did not 'grudgingly try to distance themselves' from Stalin. They left him abruptly, on the day the Hitler-Stalin Pact was announced, in mid-1939. And they never returned.

And I recall Chomsky as being both hopeful and enthusiastic about the Khmer Rouge back when they first took control in Cambodia. After all, they had dislodged a brutal regime (Lon Nol) that brought war to that little country after years of their being able to avoid it. How could they possibly be any worse?

As we found out more about the KR, everyone distanced themselves from them. In revulsion.

Better than your previous attempts
I don't recall your mentioning anything about Robert Bourassa. Perhaps you just thought about it.

The Newfoundland PM, however, went to the hospital he thought would give him the best outcome-- as anyone would do if he could afford to. Presumably the fellow is well paid enough to be able to afford a stay in a US hospital.

"Re americans who go to canada, it's certainly only to get the subsidized drugs. They would not want to go there to wait in line for service the way canadians have to."

Americans are not Canadian citizens. Therefore they are ineligible for Canadian healthcare coverage.

"Then, if you haven't heard that canadians go to the states for medicines that are not avialable in Canada just shows that you know less about the situation there than I do. Canadians do not have access to the the latest block buster drugs, so they willing pay for them in the states."

Most prescription drugs are made in the US, not in Canada. Therefore if they want them, they buy them from the US manufacturers.

"Even other countries that have socialisded HC systems are much freer than canada's; none but cuba and norther korea are like it. In places like england and sweden and germany they have private doctors and clinics, etc. not so in canada."

Just your saying so doesn't make this a credible rumor. Do what I do. Find a reference, and give it to us.

Here's one I found. Want to find a private clinic in Canada? Just go to this website:

http://www.findprivateclinics.ca/

Looks like you're wrong. Wow.

"You reject my notion about there being no Mayo style clinics or the good private hospitals of the US like John Hopkins etc.,; name me any such one there."

There have been several named in the articles I've given you to read. Have you read any of them?

"You're also wrong that canada has a balanced budget, it's in deficit and they also have a huge national debt. Like americans they expect their grandchildren to pay it off."

Canada does have a debt, you are correct. But it is the lowest debt ratio among all the G8 nations. Also, unlike our own, it is falling (check this out on the Canadian Debt Clock). So I will award you one-half a point for this answer.

You also get a half point for your last answer, about surgery wait times. This was for providing an informative and pertinent reference. Of course, it only gave conditions in Canada, not comparable conditions here.

Here's a useful article from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"The median waiting time for an initial orthopedic consultation was two weeks in the United States and four weeks in Ontario. The median waiting time for knee replacement after the operation had been planned was three weeks in the United States and eight weeks in Canada. In the United States, 95 percent of patients in the national sample considered their waiting time for surgery acceptable, as compared with 85.1 percent in Ontario. Overall satisfaction with surgery ("very or somewhat satisfied") was 85.3 percent for all U.S. respondents and 83.5 percent for Canadian respondents.

"Conclusions Waiting times for initial orthopedic consultation and for knee-replacement surgery were longer in Ontario than in the United States, but overall satisfaction with surgery was similar."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/16/1068

Not quite as relevant as infant mortality, or average age of death-- two of the categories in which Canada comes out well ahead of us. But a not unexpected tradeoff for the fact that the Canadian system is so much cheaper than ours. I think they're doing very well with what they have.

An accurate account
National and International socialism competed for a takeover of planet and peoples lives. Hitler stabbed its competitor in the back first is all.
Leftist scrambled then gravitated to Stalin at that time.. and for a time were very honest about it. Since that time and the drubbing they have taken over their movement's mass murders and anti human activities they have backed off being honest about it and given themselves a historical lombotomy, much like the pictures Soviets showed erasing purged characters from Stalin's presence.
They have never returned to their former honest admission for their socialist and Stalinist support nor fully examined how they gave it to him and his cause.
Since then the left must constantly disown their actual intent for the US, as the Tea Parties are constantly reminding.
(Nice to see Nancy Pelosi is a tea bagger also, given her statement that the tea parties are really getting on to her's and the Dem Party's buggaboo... special interests seeking favor in DC.) Pelosi's rent seeking philosophy knows no shame.

Caldwell's gullibility
Caldwell's gullibility got him murdered by his socialist friends. Same pattern exhibited by Stalin that. Calwell's support for Pol Pot ended at that time seems to be your point. Prior to his death he supported Pol Pot in the same vein as Chomsky only explicitly in his writings.
I posted a leftist web site's version of Caldwell's ideas and death by those who implimented those ideas to show that the left's credulity and gullibility knows no bounds.
I don't ask you to believe these far left relativists explainations.. I simply marvel in them.
As for my college classroom immersion in an international unions pro Maoist ritual.. its true, but I would love to have the video. I had several profs in other classes who claimed to be Marxists and explicitly supported crazy ideas like allowing starving nations in Africa ie Chad, to continue starving rather than have Coca Cola or Alcoa build factories over there. That would avoid both imperialism and capitalism in favor of starvation policies and more foreign aid dependency and centralization of those economies.
The left's and those professors prescriptions led to mass starvation and economic stagnation in India and wherever tried, but that's another story we can look into if you wish.
I could show you my college credits for that course... "Independent Studies" it was called, but that would not "prove" I what I and the whole class experienced. You are taking Chomsky's method for discrediting Pol Pot's victims testimony. I'm sure the left will believe you and Chomsky anytime over first hand reports.

A historical lombotomy?
Is this supposed to be satire? It's certainly nothing like analysis. Your comment is like a child's drawing of history.

You're telling us that once Hitler invaded the USSR the American Left scrambled to go back to Stalin worship? One could, by looking through the actual historic record, find maybe a name or two who did that. But along the way it would be impossible to not notice the scorn heaped on them by former CPUSA members.

Note to quill: there is no such thing as the monolithic Left. There is no such thing as the monolithic Right. It is not true beyond questioning that anyone who has EVER had a good word to say about any liberation movement automatically approves of everything Comrade Stalin ever did.

Let's take me as an example. I'm retirement age, so presumably I've lived through a few of the events in question. And I tend to favor movements of self-determination over movements that seek to take over their home countries with explicit military backing from the USA. That is, in today's terms I favor left views over right views.

I've never been a Marxist. Nor, heaven forbid, a Stalinist. Not even at 15, when these concepts were fairly new to me. Marxism always seemed to me to be simplistic, and an unrealistic cure for whatever ailed the world. And Stalin? You're kidding.

And I'm pretty typical of the left today. When we discuss the CPUSA membership during the Hitler-Stalin Pact, we're talking some really old politics, just the bickering among handfuls of irascible old CUNY radicals in Tompkins Square. Any of them who are still alive have to be 95 or older. They are not relevant to any discussion of any importance now.

Why is it that you glorify and treasure all the crimes of Communism, while excusing and ignoring all the crimes of Capitalism? Isn't that very much the same brand of chauvinism we see among intransigent Serbs, who point the finger at the acts of the beastly Croats and Bosnians, but can never seem to remember anything about their own complicity in wartime atrocities?

To study actual history, one has to be even handed. And admit the crimes of all, after evaluating all available evidence-- NOT just that from favored sources.

Seen through a very narrow lens
Not that I'm all that familiar with Comrade Caldwell, but he certainly seems to have been a particularly dogmatic, cloistered Marxist, secure in the realms of academe, up in merry old London. If I were to ever read such a person, it would only be to illuminate some very minor point of late XX c. intellectual history.

His writings, or what I've seen of them and about them, are relevant to nothing going on today. And in fact I'm finding a very close parallel to your own writings. Perhaps for Caldwell, anything glorifying the Glorious Revolution is taken as being the Marx's Honest Truth. And any evidence to the contrary must have just been pernicious propaganda, put out by the running dogs of capitalism.

Whereas for you, it's precisely the opposite. Not a good quality, my man. Not a good one at all.

The things you learn in school
"I posted a leftist web site's version of Caldwell's ideas and death by those who implimented those ideas to show that the left's credulity and gullibility knows no bounds."

You mean that article from The Guardian & Observer? Now they're a leftist website? How come they offer these articles, from their Cambodia coverage back in 1975?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/feb/16/cambodia-khmer-rouge

They don't sound very "far left relativist" to me. This stuff reads like what you will find in any ordinary commercial newspaper.

"As for my college classroom immersion in an international unions pro Maoist ritual.. its true, but I would love to have the video."

So they made you sing chants to the false gods of unions and Maoism? I confess, I would love to have the video too. Because I've never heard of such outlandish goings on. Not anywhere in this country.

"I had several profs in other classes who claimed to be Marxists and explicitly supported crazy ideas like allowing starving nations in Africa ie Chad, to continue starving rather than have Coca Cola or Alcoa build factories over there. That would avoid both imperialism and capitalism in favor of starvation policies and more foreign aid dependency and centralization of those economies."

This sounds suspiciously false. And I will seriously question whether it ever happened. Although I have little doubt you sincerely believe it happened.

I will at least ask this question, for verification purposes. You say "I could show you my college credits for that course... "Independent Studies" it was called".

What school were you in? And approximately what years? Berkeley, 1968?

Oh-- another question. DCQ: "You are taking Chomsky's method for discrediting Pol Pot's victims testimony."

How? Be specific. I'm using Chomsky's method? Put words to that thought. I'm interested in seeing just how you hear me.

Finally, about Chad and our deliberately imposed "starvation policies": you're not aware that Chad has in fact been the recipient of crushing neoliberal trade policies that have destroyed their economy, by undercutting their home grown agricultural sector in favor of cheap US cotton and grain flooding the world market?

Their poverty comes not from "foreign aid dependency". The only foreign aid they've ever gotten was military loans so they could buy our own ancient helicopters and munitions. The money itself never left the USA, the Chadian government only got the arms. The main reason their people are so poor today is their farmers can't compete in the global marketplace with heavily subsidised US crops-- legal under international trade rules. You can, and should, look all this up.

And while I believe you may have had actual Marxist professors at Berkeley, I highly doubt they were ever in favor EITHER of the neoliberal trade system OR the US global arms trade. Did you, by any chance, earn an "F" in this course?

Relevance: True Believers vs competitive real world models
Caldwell was a true believer in pristine communism which the leftists usually forget to connect with Pol Pot.. These guys still exist and mostly teach I have noticed. Elimination of money, which was an early experiment in Russian communism, quickly withdrawn, when that made calculations and planning even more impossible were part of the Pol Pot cabal. Even Pol Pot needed a reason to 'smash" and kill those who represented and past and not Progress.
The USSR's early Communism without money lead to a huge black market underground economy that the left also seems to know nothing about or remember. Pol Pot evidently didn't study any economics.. yet he was a teacher by profession.
Pristine socialism without money then IS irrelevant to what's going on today at any level of civilization you might have added, but I would add, is always waiting in the far left's Marxist balleywich and balogna wagon. Yet another excuse for butchery in socialism's name and pristine form's cause.
Not much quality to any of this dogma, to paraphrase your words. Just murder on a mass scale for leftist illusions.
I have met a progressive or two on English web sites trying to work out the problem of a planned society without money, and they generally look pretty foolish.
I would say that all of this is relevant however.. Santyana said it best.. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

always better
Your site on the list of clinics is invalid. Those clinics are clinics in the american sense, like the Mayo clinic. Most of them are things like denture clinics. Dentistry is not not included in HC in canada, it's still private mostly. Same with the others in the list.
They might call it a blood clinic or whatever, but you can only be referred by the doctor you have waited in line for.
Even the clinics that list family doctors is the same, all under single payer, government conrtolled, rationed, etc.
Other ones like chiopractic don't count either, that the ones like acupuncture, homeopathy, etc are all junk science.
It's gotta be only you and Michael Moore that stick up for canadian health care.

What school taught me not to believe is more like it
I was at Sacramento State U in the early 70's. Got an A, and also got A's in my sometimes Marxist leaning history and economics classes.
The EU has the really high protectionist taxes on imports that kill African imports,(harming their own economies to boot) and it is occationally mentioned curiously by LINK TV discussions and shows on African poverty and trade. Only in passing however, and never recommending liberal free trade or eliminating protectionist practices. Unions and subsidized farmers in the EU would likely burn down their capitals if these were taken from them. Its frustrating to watch as they just point to the evil western practices, as a means of condemning the greedy west, rather than the destructive trade policies themselves.
As to Chomsky's method.. I described it pretty well. He denounced those who testified about Pol Pot's practices as exaggerators and or agents of the evil West. You didn't believe my first hand account of a leftist Mao loving union proselitizing in our classrooms and the now irrelevant Maoist exercises they had us doing. About 60 of us participated, so you may have to drag them in to testify.. It was all very serious stuff in those days.. The left was on a roll and socialism looked to be all our futures. Thats the far fetched part to me.
As for US arms to Chad, the leftist professors only supported the Marxist side (good), then being armed by the USSR. Any defense by the other side in any African state was seen by them as imperialism.. bad.
I am sure leftist profs today are just as outlandish, and their student minions just as compliant. We can only hope few will follow their advice any more than most of ours rejected the leftist nostrums of the 70's. I know the leftist attempts at censoring and harming those whose views they oppose is recieving a cool welcome at least on the internet.

This is ridiculous
The list, as you know, is full of Canadian clinics specializing in valid medical specialties. Oncology, ob-gyn, psychiatry, urology and just about every other specialty.

When you know you are flat out wrong, why on earth do you persist in showing your ass? Do you think we don't notice? To obviate, and say that the list is somehow bogus, just tells everyone you're not just willing to lie. You're willing to commit stupid, easily discoveed lies.

In the face of such 'bad faith' arguments, I'm just going to give up trying to educate you. Talk to the hand.

That's better
"I was at Sacramento State U in the early 70's. Got an A, and also got A's in my sometimes Marxist leaning history and economics classes."

That makes sense. I very nearly had you pegged at Berkeley, 1968.

You will recall what the times were like back in the early 70s? Nothing like today, right? So why act like time has stood still and everyone's still wearing ridiculous bell bottoms, smoking pot and talking revolution? The rest of us have long since moved on.

"The EU has the really high protectionist taxes on imports that kill African imports,(harming their own economies to boot) and it is occationally mentioned curiously by LINK TV discussions and shows on African poverty and trade. Only in passing however, and never recommending liberal free trade or eliminating protectionist practices."

EU trade policies are the exact analogue of our own. We're in extreme competition, if you didn't know, and both sides indulge in identical practises.

I'm sure you have something specific in mind when you mention "liberal trade practises". But the world's major trading partners mean something quite distinct from that when they talk about concepts like 'free trade' or 'neoliberal trade policies'. They mean FTAs written by the EU and US that rope smaller, less prosperous countries into no-win relationships with the giants. It's the same way we lured Mexico into NAFTA. And later had to deal with twelve million economic refugees from Mexico, when we destroyed their rural economy.

Maybe you never heard about that. But heavily subsidised US corn, wheat, cotton and chickens destroyed those four industries in Mexico back in the late 90s. And since they were all small farmers, not factory-ag operations, the farmers went broke and moved to North Carolina. They were just following their lost jobs.

If you watch LINK-TV, this is the kind of thing I understand they cover. Surely they've showed something about US-EU trading practises, and how they both collude in preying on the poorer nations so new economies don't emerge and mature to sompete with them.

So in some respects I will suggest you're a little out of date. Especially if you think we're still fighting Soviet-backed Marxists in Chad. The world has changed.

And because it has, I will suggest it is invalid to state things like "I am sure leftist profs today are just as outlandish, and their student minions just as compliant" without having looked into contemporary references.

The current modus operandi is for people like David Horowitz (a true student of Lenin's tactics) to scour the output of every history and cultural studies prof in America, even employing students to secretly tape their lectures and report in to the Borg. Then, having canvassed a thousand campuses, if they find two or three profs still hewing to the old style, they show them as evidence that the schools are filthy with communists.

So go to Campus Watch and see what those people have to say. Then go anywhere else and see whether the rest of us see any problem. My grandson, now attending NCSU, says he can't find any such activity on campus. In fact, he got kind of an odd look when I mentioned it. Like the question itself was some kind of historical oddity.

Finally, "I know the leftist attempts at censoring and harming those whose views they oppose.." etc.

This is something I would like to hear more about. Leftists are trying to bring good patriots like yourself to harm, and to attempt censorship? Where? How? Give us some details, please.

I can recall one incident last year, at UNC. Tom Tancredo was disinvited after a number of the students objected strongly to his racist, nativist appeals. A predominance of opinion was that he should have been allowed to speak, but that those who didn't want to hear him should have ignored the event.

The incident was not typical. Nor was another one, a firestorm precipitated by a free speech tunnel, in which people were allowed to spray paint anything they wanted to say publicly, and someone painted that Obama should be shot.

I don't say you and yours are all alike, and that kind of thing is 'just like' you folks. It was an isolated nut. So in return, please don't blame me and mine for being 'just like' the people who shouted Tancredo down.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A393805

In a word, let's try to be contemporary, relevant and even handed in our criticisms of the nutjobs of the world.

You should keep an eye on the real plots
I don't think you will find many university professors today who think a world without money can be made to work. In fact I doubt you will find a single one. But don't let that get in the way of a good harangue.

You're thinking America is full of guys like Abel Guzman. It's not.

In the 'war communism' phase of the Bolshevik Revolution, they did run the printing presses nonstop-- to tear down the edifice that old money supported. They certainly at no time intended that to be the new status quo. It was to destroy the moneyed classes. Remember?

Once that was accomplished, they found they had to institute the New Economic Policy. And had they been the sort to just do that and leave well enough alone, no one today would have thought the Bolshies were such a bad bunch. Even the French Revolution was worse than that.

But that's not at all what they were about. They were an ultraviolent criminal enterprise, bent on attaining absolute power. And as such, they had much more in common with other criminal enterprises than they did with ordinary European socialism.

The thing that makes you so much different than ordinary folks is your implicit belief that this game plan is still a part of Marxism's "balleywich and balogna wagon". I assure you that there is no such body of thought in the United States.

Not that this will deter you. We're all hell bent on "murder on a mass scale". We have secret passwords and signs, so we can recognize other conspirators. We're just waiting in the wings to butcher you, and variously either steal or destroy all your wealth.

It makes a scary ghost story. Meanwhile, Wall Street has been complicit in conducting a very real plot to destroy the world economy-- with reckless trading in all but fictitious derivatives on a humongous scale. And last year they very nearly got away with it.

PC alive and well on campusi Just not covered by liberal media
There seem to be two kinds of censorship taking place.. One is the shouting down and invasion of the speakers space with threats and violence. The other is speech codes which are to abridge speech except when, what and where approved.
Here is an article on campus censorship by John Leo, who was prevented from speaking by leftist activists... Lots of examples are out there however. I am not suprised you know of none of this. Maybe you listen to NPR and watch network tv news.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_free_speech.html

Then there are the speech codes, which remain in effect
Reason Magazine has the goods there. Reason takes the stance that speech codes hurt both left and right, and I agree with that. I just don't see a lot of non-leftist campus pie throwing incidents (A. Coulter) or shouting and threats... ie Benjamin Netanyahu at Berkeley a few years back.. or Horowitz being threatened and/or shouted down, taking place. Lots of other examples are out there and perhaps we should persue them so as to make absolutely clear who and what is taking place on campuses about the US, Brittain and the Europe. Tancredo's and others speech cannot be taken away without all freedom loving people's freedom being diminished.
Michelle Malkin suffered this treatment not long ago and people were prevented from hearing her by metal door banging and shouting just outside and creating cacophany inside. Often the campus administration either encourages these activities or refuses to enforce sanctions against the bad element.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/11/pc-never-died/singlepage

Then there are the post protest protests that seek to prevent invitations and future speakers deemed racist, or too western or some other PC crime such as I found on a Democrat web site..
HEADLINE : Protesters shout down anti-Islam speaker at MSU
Source: Lansing state journal

EAST LANSING - When British Nationalist Nick Griffin took the podium at a Friday night Michigan State University event, he tried to explain how Islam is a threat to Western civilization.

Griffin was invited to campus by a conservative student organization called Young Americans for Freedom, or YAF.
Kyle Bristow, chairman of YAF, said his organization invited Griffin to promote intellectual debate.

Junaid Mattu: "I am a supporter of free speech, but at the same time there has to be a benchmark," he said. "Why does MSU time and time again show its insensitivity to minorities by inviting racists?"
Because several speakers invited to MSU by YAF have sparked controversy, MSU Trustee Faylene Owen is asking the Board of Trustees to take action.

MSU President Lou Anna Simon said that Griffin's views on immigration and multiculturalism were "inconsistent with the values of Michigan State University."

Read more: http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/...

Here is another one.. where the bad guys were arrested

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/pro-abortion-militants-arrested-at-mcgill-university-pro-life-event/

Here's a better idea....
I referred your comments to my relatives in canada, and they said that the reason you would stick up so much for the canadian dysfunctional HC system, is the same one the Michael Moore does; you don't have to suffer from it.

They also recommend that they submit to me horror stories and I'll pass them on to you so that you can't rationalize them.

Right now they asked me to pass on this article about knee replacemtents. They're asking to check how long it takes at John Hopkins , I guess that's pretty close to your place, right? or the nearest hosptial to you there. Then we can compare on that count.
http://formosamedicaltravel.com/medical-tourism-blog/ontario-attempting-to-reduce-hip-knee-replacement-wait-times/

They also say that what are listed as, or called clinics, are not private, but still government ones.

If the Florida outfit that did the queue jumpers operation, they wouldn't be allowed to set up in Canada. There are no such private places or relationships between patients and medical people; it's all via big brother. And that anyone who can afford it, goes to the US.

Everyone should be able to speak
Somewhat interesting. In recent months I find hecklers have disrupted speeches by John Yoo, Karl Rove and Michael Oren (the Israeli Ambassador). Last year it was Barack Obama whose speech was being heckled.

When Michael Moore was invited to speak at Utah Valley State College (in 2005), everyone, on both sides, disrupted everyone else's speech. Finally they compromised, I think intelligently, by allowing both he and Sean Hannity to speak.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread327558/pg1

So-called conservative poobah Bill O'Reily disrupts every guest's speech. It's his hallmark.

Elsewhere on television, it is customary on EVERY network to only give room to guests whose speech falls within very conventional parameters. Thus guests like Michael Moore and Ann Coulter don't get much air time. This is actually voluntary self-censorship on the part of the networks.

And subjects like Obama's citizenship, gun rights and abortion rights bring out the screamers. They don't care about anyone else's rights, speech or otherwise.

What do I think of all this? I think the guest speakers of whatever stripe should be allowed to speak, with the sole exception being people who can be judged guilty of Hate Speech. And I think the disruptors should be ejected if they don't agree to be civil, wait their turn and then be given equal time to oppose.

The only thing that would remain to be defined is 'hate speech'. Otherwise, let campuses invite who they want. And let them be purposely controversial in their choice of guests.

Here is a lib who thinks he is MSNBC's answer to Oreilly? I guess
Interrupting time wasting and dodging guests in a tv interviewsisn't censorship Roy, if they get to finish. The leftist moral equivalence argument or 'everybody does it' theme is also a waste of pixels in my opinion. OReilly invites guests on who are far far left and lets them answer the questions. Here (youtube video) is MSNBC's answer to OReilly I guess.. the left's version... maybe their revenge against OReilly's 'censorship'. Or maybe MSNBC just wants to play the game leftist's practice on college campuses. Hard to say, but the guy fits in pretty well with Olberman and Mathews making a mockery of the debate idea as well so... I think that network is most like the leftist campus today.
This was yesterday on MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nObPplOGUdI

Differing versions of reality
"Interrupting time wasting and dodging guests in a tv interviewsisn't censorship Roy, if they get to finish. The leftist moral equivalence argument or 'everybody does it' theme is also a waste of pixels in my opinion. OReilly invites guests on who are far far left and lets them answer the questions."

It's funny how two different people can see the same thing and come up with entirely different interpretations. I don't watch O'Reilly very much. But every time I've seen him he's invited guests to serve as punching bags. He sets them up, lets them begin and half a sentence later shouts them down, calling them stupid morons who don't deserve to be heard.

He's quite popular. It's obvious who his audience is.

Your loudmouth on the U-tube, one Dylan Ratigan, looks to be O'Reilly's opposite number. Is he popular now? This is the first I've heard of him (and I hope, the last).

It's interesting that you should lump such a person with Chris Mathews. He's the consummate Beltway Insider. He's neither right nor left. And he does let people finish their comments before going to the next guest.

Another question. We've talked about this before. What, exactly, is the "leftist campus today"? Is this the place in your mind where Mario Savio still dwells? Or is there a real place you have visited during the past, oh, forty years?

TCS Daily Archives