My PC sister, bless her heart – Commentary by Michael Kilpatrick, 3/24/10

It's more than likely most of y'all have a relative or acquaintance with whom, in erratic episodes, you engage in 'discussions' about current issues. I find that they usually don't enjoy hanging out in the arena of ideas nearly as much as I do, but I'm thankful for the insight those rare treats afford. And I get the distinct impression that they're generally unfamiliar with reasoned objections to their ideological shibboleths, and despite their vaunted 'tolerance', find it nearly impossible to gamely consider alternatives to the PC gospel.

Here's a representative example in an ongoing, fairly amiable, discussion with my dearest sister... bless her heart (due to gender and ideology, grammar suffers at times from hiccups of emotionalism - not that mine's pristine - and has been left intact):

Dear Michael,
It seems like real discourse have given away to characterizations. And it is on both sides of the track, you are right about that. But I'm kind of tired of the labeling. The new negative characterization du jour is ' Washington insiders'. Frankly, I have a great deal of respect for a lot of the people inside the Beltway. Some of them are really smart, hardworking people, who take a lot of crap and spend a lot of hours (more than most of us work) trying to do some good and I may not agree with all of their ideas but I respect them. Not all of them, obviously. Some are real losers and bums but I think a good many are decent and are getting a raw deal.

I am also frustrated by the fact that no ideas can get out of the starting block these days because things are so partisan. Jim DeMint of South Carol ina declared that the Republicans were going to make the health care reform Obama's Waterloo before the first ideas were ever discussed. That tells me that he pretty much doesn't give a hoot what's in the bill but if Obama is supporting it, it's dead in the water. That is not serving the country.
--Carol

---

Dear Carol,
I think at times we tend to allow a little more emotionalism to intrude into our deliberated responses than is warranted. But I know it's my fault... and I'm used to it after being married all these years.

I also think that "labels" or "characterizations" are decried more because liberals (or 'ism-ists') are loathe to be pinned down to a defined point, than the claim it's 'offensive', or distasteful. It's much easier to be a constantly moving target, than to defend a position from solid conviction.

These difficulties and more are, in the greater part, all founded in the intractable clash of worldviews: materialism vs. Theism, man's innate goodness vs. man's innate sinfulness, collectivism vs. liberty, etc. More labels. But what are we to use to describe our defining presuppositions? It reminds me of my college student 'determinist' friend who says that all language is oppressive and meaningless, and then proceeds to tell my why, using language, rather than just shutting up as he would do if he actually meant what he said, using meaningless words to say so. Madness. What do 'open, reasonable debate', much less 'bipartisanship' mean in that context? "Bipartisanship", like Islam, doesn't mean peace, it means submission.

You believe that government is the answer. I believe that government is the problem. Obama believes that the Constitution is too restrictive. I believe that it's been nearly nullified. You believe that politicians (or a certain party of politicians) know better than we do how to conduct our lives. I am dead certain that I know better how to conduct my affairs, and what's best for my family. Etc, etc.

On health care: There is no "health care crisis". The problems with health care, such as they are, can, and should be answered privately, with as little State oversight as possible. Tort reform, portable policies, removing arbitrary mandates for including mental health and maternity coverage for people who have no need for those, and many more practical solutions. Along with Social Security, and Medicare, the current entitlements are unsustainable along with the meteoric rise in other spending as well. There are innumerable ways gov't. can get out of the way, stop making things worse, and let us run our own lives. It's worked quite well that way for a couple of hundred years. This is another example (housing 'crisis' anyone?) of government causing a problem (deliberate, or just stupidly arrogant?), and proceeding to exacerbate it by 'helping'. Ban salt?... GO AWAY, AND LEAVE US ALONE!

This is likely to cause even more of an emotional reaction, but - this "crisis" is merely the last best hope of the Left to destroy and socialize our free market Republic (you can't have the one without the other). Nothing less, but much, much more. It's the culmination of sixty some odd years of a slow, and generally patient 'progressive' coup. The global warming ploy is headed down the tube, along with cap and tax. The deliberate collapse of the economy might do the trick, but so far the American 'beast' is only staggering from the wounds inflicted by its erstwhile stewards, and time is running out to "transform the nation", whether it wants to or not. So unless Obamacare passes, by any means necessary, it will likely be a 40 year set back. But 65% or more of the people don't want Fedzilla style health care, so the pressure is on to force it through, literally regardless of the wishes of the peasants, er, I mean constituents.

Blessings, Michael

---

I was 'discussing' the health care coup with some random moonbat-tess and she announced health care was a "right." I said that's fine, but is it also a right to keep the wages earned by the sweat of your brow? Or is it, along with health care, a right for you to vote for someone who will legalize the theft of the property of my labor, at the point of a gun, and give it to someone who hasn't earned it, so you can have an emotionally titillating vicarious charitable experience? Is that not involuntary servitude - otherwise known as slavery? If you know someone who needs medical insurance, and can't get any for whatever reason, why don't you buy them some... with your money. You already have that "right."

The answer? You guessed it: I'm a racist.
---Dirt Road Scholar

"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals." --Selwyn Duke, from The Pathology of the Rich Socialist, 12/13/09

Michael Kilpatrick is a painting contractor in Macon, husband of one wife, father of nine children. He is a firearms enthusiast, troubler of the 'progressive' elite, and a Christian, Southern, Constitutionalist.

"The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. ... Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event."
---Samuel Adams (From The Rights of the Colonists, page 419) [Bold emphasis is ours]