Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

The Wicked Witch of Washington lets the truth out
by JimK

You know how some people say that “Liberals” and Democrats want to control every aspect of your life? And often when you hear that you roll your eyes a little, because after all it does sound a lot like saying that the Jews run the banks on behalf of the Illuminati. It just seems so out of whack that it’s easy to discount the idea that any organized political party would want to control everything about your life. And then you hear the Speaker of the House say this:

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

“We have so much room for improvement,” she said. “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility.”

THE. HELL?

Let’s break it down a little. In order for a politician at her level to say a thing out loud, a large number of people had to have input. Her staff, the lobbyists that work to persuade her staff, the activists that tirelessly work for organizations that hire the lobbyists, etc. This is not a sentiment that sprang wholly formed from the mind of Nancy Pelosi. This is not just one politician saying something crazy one time.  It’s a sentiment that has been spoken before by many, many Democrats that have actual power over our lives. In short, it’s not new for the Democrats. It’s business as usual. Every “crisis” we face requires that some aspect of our decision-making be given over to government. Specifically the Federal government.

Anyone here, even those of you on the left, do any of you think that government should be this intimately involved not just in your daily life, but in what decisions you make within that life? Or worse, that they should be allowed to take away the ability to even make a decision in the first place? When Nancy Pelosi says “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” do you trust her to be honorable and do only what is actually best for you and your family?

Liberty in this country is dying the death of a thousand cuts. How many times do these scum-sucking pieces of garbage have to slice you before you say “ENOUGH?”

Update:

Forgot the link, sorry. Fixed

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 10:35 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 05/28/09 at 10:57 AM from United States

I expect that, most likely, we’ll see the What They Really Meant spin from supporters. As I’ve said repeatedly, this treatment of Obama extends down to all his underlings now, and the first line of reaction to anything a Democrat or leftist gets caught saying is “That’s what they said, but obviously what they meant was this whole other thing that I think they should have meant. If you weren’t a completely rabid foaming-mouthed conservitard, you’d have been able to see that!”

No doubt CNN and Sully are trying to decide what to tell us Pelosi actually meant when she said that our way of life should be dictated by global warming believers.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 11:00 AM from Canada

What is the source of that quote (would like to see it in context and without the ...) (you usually provide a link).

I agree that people should give themselves an environmental audit of sorts to see where they can make improvements to their so-called eco-footprint. Not only is good to know where you can make improvements for the environment, but it can save you a shit load of money as well. Out of context, I can’t tell if Pelosi was saying that the government will be doing this audit, or if she was saying that individuals should do it.

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 11:09 AM from United States

Couldn’t this be taken as each individual must be presented with the facts and then they should take a personal inventory of how they personally take responsibility?

That’s how I interpret it from the context provided by what you’ve quoted.

Now one may interpret “the facts” differently - that’s not my point. My point is that I think the statement means we should be taking personal inventory - not that the gov is going to be taking that inventory for us.

So, if the facts presented don’t stack up for you feel free to poof up your bouffant with aerosol hairspray riding down the street in your rag top El Dorado or maybe you might feel better about yourself if ya replaced all your incandescents with those corkscrew thingys.  I’d need to see more before I’d be willing to buy this as an assault on civil liberties.

I’d like to see what was cut for the ellipses in the last part of the quote.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 11:20 AM from United States

One good thing about the extreme leftist whackjobs coming to power: they quit pretending to not be extreme leftist whackjobs and just let it all hang out under the assumption that they “won” and that their agenda has been accepted.

The backlash is coming....

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 11:21 AM from United States

That’s how I interpret it from the context provided by what you’ve quoted.

Of course it is. Because you approve of this kind of federal power. You have advocated the position that groupthink should trump an individual’s right to make a decision on many an occasion. I think that position is idiotic, insane and delusional, but I will give you this; you are consistent. You consistently want to give up liberty in exchange for...something.  What you think you will get I don’t know, but it won’t be fairness, security or liberty, I know that much.

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 11:23 AM from United States

Sean, when you see the context...if you aren’t put off by this kind of talk, then there is nothing in you that loves the idea of individual liberty. She is talking about government taking control. It’s blatant.

“I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer,” she said at Tsinghua. “It’s a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right.”

To achieve this, Pelosi said governments would have to make decisions and choices based on science.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 11:24 AM from Canada

JimK: There is nothing in her quote as presented by you that indicates this is a federal program. That is why having the whole quote and a link would be helpful. Maybe a federal program is the context of what she was saying… but that can’t be evaluated on its face from that selected partial quotation.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 11:25 AM from Canada

oops… just saw the link. Thanks!

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 11:28 AM from United States

I assume you see her talking about government being the solution now?

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 11:36 AM from United States

consistently want to give up liberty in exchange for...something.

Okay - I just finish talking about individual informed choice and taking personal inventory and reponsibility and above is your response.

Go ahead and keep trying to cram me into a corner that you feel comfortable attacking and I’ll stick to the actual words typed.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 11:54 AM from Canada

JimK: The first quotation in the original posting here (the inventory quote) seems to me to be a call for people to themselves take stock of their personal environmental “footprint” of sorts so that they themselves can work to reduce it. In “getting” people to cut down on their footprint, she did not indicate a federal program that would reach into your home and rip out your 40 year old furnace and single paned windows (or whatever). Maybe you’re reading much deeper into what she’s saying that I am, but I just don’t see a massive federal infringement upon American civil liberties.

The second aspect is government environmental policy. This is already an existing long established federal area of policy, one that I imagine the current administration feels has been a bit neglected over the previous administration, and that they will be re-asserting federal policy in this regard. Whether or not the environment should be a federal concern is another argument, of course, but as it currently stands it is, so the debate it over how far should decisions and policies reach. It is great that decisions and policies in this regard will be “based on science” (though, I’m not naive to think that politics doesn’t influence science). In otherw ords, she appears to be saying that the Fed will set an environmental course, which has been its perogative for what? 30 years? Every administration does this.

This is the first time, I think, though, that environmental policy has been expressed as a human right, which definitely could have policy implications. Keeping in mind that this was said in China, land of a shit load of poor people, no human rights, and the worst pollution on the planet. I see that as more of a shot against China.

I’m not sure how much gravitas I place on all this. It appears to indicate the shift in environmental policy thinking that is a logical extension of what Obama spoke about in the campaign (and was elected, in part, upon). So… nothing really surprising or terror inducing in that. I think you might be making a bit of a strip mine out of a pothole.

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 11:57 AM from United States

Salinger, what you said was you trusted that she was saying it should be individual choice.

1. She was not saying that. That is indisputable when you read the full article, and I apologize for not linking it in the original draft of this post.
2. They never are saying that, and yet you always come down on the side of trusting the government to decide. A good portion of the time, when you are faced with a choice, you choose letting the government make the call.

You can cry about it all day, but your comments are here for anyone with time and an inclination to search. So, go cry a river somewhere where they don’t have your number, dude. The martyr act isn’t working around here anymore. And I’m going to call you out on these two things every time I see it...both your inclination to want and trust government to decide over the individual and your tendency to crawl up on the cross.

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 12:04 PM from United States

Well Sean, like so many other things about US politics, we vehemently disagree. You trust her, I do not.  I see where her words lead to redefining climate change as a human rights issue, and how that leads directly to the government actively getting involved in forcing you to change your lifestyle to meet whatever standard they deem appropriate.

This is not an isolated comment made while on foreign soil. This is part of a long, deep orchestrated effort by Pelosi and many other Democrats to wrest control away from the chattering classes and put it where she and others think it belongs; in the hands of people who are smarter and better than you (well, not you personally, you’re Canadian, although i have no doubt Pelosi thinks she could run your country better as well) and can decide for you better than you can.

They’re from the government, and they’re here to help.

Right?

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 12:05 PM from United States

That is indisputable when you read the full article,

I found and read the full article before commenting - even before you put the link up there. And I still dispute it. Interpreting it as meaning informed individual responsibilty is not beyond the pale.

They never are saying that,

Paranoid much?

The martyr act isn’t working around here anymore

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 12:14 PM from Canada

JimK: It isn’t so much that I trust her, it is that I don’t take away from this article the same long term implication as you do. Maybe you’re right… I have no idea. I don’t think the evidence presented there is overwhelming, though.

(re: orchestrated effort by Pelosi and Democrats) And even if it was, however, keep in mind that she was elected to do just that, as were many/most of those currently in the majority party in Congress and the White House. So, if in fact what she was saying amounts to ... that is what the majority of American voters by and large wanted. In part, by overwhelmingly electing Democrats, they are specifically saying that the last 8+ years of environmental policy is not what they want to continue. I don’t think there is any bait and switch going on here. People are getting what they have largely asked for… as by and large they always do when they elect people to govern them.

And no, it isn’t all that surprising that we disagree on another aspect of US politics. :-)

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 12:15 PM from United States

Paranoid much?

Okay. Show me a law or even a proposed law...just one...in which this President or this Democratic Congress acted to ENHANCE individual liberty.  Not one of your “open to interpretation” things either. Liberty is a very basic concept and it like bad art or porn: you know it when you see it. So show me.

If you can show me passed law or even a bill authored by a Democrat that fits the criteria...that’s pretty good. Still doesn’t mean I’m wrong.  Now count the hundreds, if not thousands, of examples that are in opposition to individual liberty.  tell me I’m wrong about today’s Democrats.  Go ahead.

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean...” and all that.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 12:24 PM from United States

Typically, the older you get the less reason you have to actually trust government because you get to see exactly what sort of games government plays.

It’s not “paranoia”, it’s an acknowledgment of fact: the government almost never acts in such a way to expand liberties and freedoms, it acts to restrict them.  Seriously, what in hell do you think laws do for the most part?  They tell you what you can’t do any longer.  The goal of all governments is to expand in order to control all aspects of everything.  Pelosi is merely pointing out which direction that goal is now headed.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 12:26 PM from United States

“We have so much room for improvement,” she said. “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility.”

I’m sorry JimK...Nacy is a nutbag...but I think you are reading too much into that quote.

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 12:27 PM from United States

Okay. Show me a law or even a proposed law...just one

emphasis mine.

And then you qualify…

If you can show me passed law or even a bill authored by a Democrat that fits the criteria...that’s pretty good. Still doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

I take back my earlier implications that conservatives don’t have a sense of humor. At least this made me bust up.

Have a swell day.

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 12:29 PM from United States

Salinger, you just took the coward’s way out as usual. Faced with something you can’t win, even with your penchant for doublespeak, you dismiss, mock and then leave.

Pathetic. I only asked you for one example, after all. If I’m so paranoid, it should be easy.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 12:37 PM from Canada

But you did then qualify it by saying that even if he did, it wouldn’t matter… so why would he? (just sayin’)

Have hundreds or thousands of bills been proposed so far in this congress? That seems like quite a lot, but then again, I have no idea how many are typical.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 12:52 PM from United States

But you did then qualify it by saying that even if he did, it wouldn’t matter… so why would he? (just sayin’)

Because Salinger is accusing him of being paranoid, so it should be easy to find even ONE example. But even if there were one example, the fact of the matter is that even one law wouldn’t mean much in the face of the overwhelming number of laws that take away from individual liberties. In any event, the challenge was one of minimum competence and salinger punted.

The fact he can’t find even ONE law in favor of individual liberty is telling. Jim would have still have a great point about the “balance” issue, yet we don’t even need to reach the balance: The scale has a 100 ton weight on one side and no one can even find a feather to counteract it.

Anyway, Jim doesn’t need me to carry his water! =)

I like the new block quote style, by the way.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 12:53 PM from United States

JimK,

I am with you 100% in this instance.  It’s always about the general trend.  Government has entirely failed to grantany of us any reason to believe the solutions proposed in the future will somehow, mysteriously, be of a pro-liberty fundamental.  Government lies constantly.  It’s about the only thing government’s are able to accomplish in a decently efficient manner.  Therefore, is it so improper to remain incredulous with respect to the newsspeak of various politicians?  I do not believe so.  Notwithstanding the available context—which, as various historical constitution-based debates has clearly shown to be constantly inconsistent among political ideologies—Nancy Pelosi is a deplorable politician, and thus I find it completely acceptable to remain skeptical that her wishes, and corresponding future actions, will coincide with true liberty.

But hey, perhaps I am simply being obtuse?

Somehow, I seriously doubt it.

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 12:56 PM from United States

But you did then qualify it by saying that even if he did, it wouldn’t matter… so why would he? (just sayin’)

because BOCTAOE. Of COURSE he could maybe find *one* as an exception that would most certainly prove the rule. My point is simple: Politicians, and more so Democrats today, do not advocate for individual liberty, so to assume that from ANY potentially ambiguous statements they make - and this was NOT ambiguous IMHO but you get my meaning - is naive at best and really, really stupid at worst.

here’s the thing, Sean; He isolated that statement and attempted to disparage both me and my position by dismissing it as ridiculous. Except that it’s the opposite of what he claims. The evidence is right there in the congressional record. It’s as plain as the nose on our faces.

So the insult is not only poorly conceived and executed, it’s factually incorrect. Like so much of what Salinger posts.

He’s like our very own less-funny Janeane Garofalo.

Posted by JimK on 05/28/09 at 12:57 PM from United States

Holy shit, the third sentence in that last comment of mine?  Way, way to complicated. I need to invest in some periods. :)

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 01:00 PM from United States

Government has entirely failed to grantany of us any reason to believe the solutions proposed in the future will somehow, mysteriously, be of a pro-liberty fundamental.

Should read: “Government has entirely failed to grant any of us any reason..”

and

“It’s about the only thing governments are”

My bad.

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 01:05 PM from Canada

For reference: 2009 Roll Call Votes.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 01:06 PM from United States

Let’s break it down a little. In order for a politician at her level to say a thing out loud, a large number of people had to have input.

I’m not sure this is true.  Look at Biden…

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 01:14 PM from United States

The fact he can’t find even ONE law:

Okay - I’ll bite then back to work - I don’t have bill numbers or anything that exact but how about these larger concepts?

Abortion choice, gay marriage, medical marijuana, and numerable civil rights legislation?

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 01:33 PM from Canada

At the federal level?

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 02:05 PM from United States

Abortion choice, gay marriage, medical marijuana, and numerable civil rights legislation?

Those are talking points that Democrats have coopted and convinced everyone they’re doing stuff forward.

What have they actually DONE for any of these? And, as noted, on the federal level?

We already HAVE legal abortion, so that’s a tiger rock right there. Obama and Hillary are “marriage is between a man and a woman” believers, as are many of the Dems in congress. What has actually even been talked about regarding medical marijuana, let alone done? And nice bit of race/gender/orientation baiting with the vague “civil rights” thing. You couldn’t even put a specific name to that one, but by god if you don’t think they’re fighting for it!

Seriously, do you let your students get away with work this half-assed and slipshod? If so, I think we’re starting to see just why they’re at the bottom of the grades rung.

Posted by salinger on 05/28/09 at 02:54 PM from United States

yeah - I re-read JimK’s challenge and I did miss a couple of his qualifications:

this President or this Democratic Congress acted to ENHANCE individual liberty

I was answering the idea that government never makes a law that expands rights. I was chuckling so much over the find me ONE example I DARE YOU - then even if you do find one I’M STILL RIGHT portion of the challenge that I missed how specifically the quest was framed. My mistake and I should have known better than taking the bait.

Seriously, do you let your students get away with work this half-assed and slipshod? If so, I think we’re starting to see just why they’re at the bottom of the grades rung.

Has this argument from intimidation tactic worked out for you in the past? You seem to use it a lot.

Just to get back to my original opinion - I think JimK is overstating the gravity of Pelosi’s statement. That’s it - that’s all I’m saying - spin it at your will.

If I am wrong I’ll be sure to tell the legend of of the soothsayers who saw this coming while I enjoy my bowl of gruel squatting around the re-education camp fire circle.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 02:56 PM from United States

Abortion choice

That would be the courts

gay marriage

Which part?  Where the people are for/against it, or the courts are for/against it, or the legislature is for/against it?

medical marijuana

You mean where the feds made the stuff illegal and still prosecute anyone growing or distributing the stuff when it is legal at a state level?

civil rights legislation

Much of which is now used to enforce racism against white people?

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 05/28/09 at 03:03 PM from Canada

Actually, medical marijuana would be one example of where the President has acted in favor “liberty”.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 03:08 PM from United States

Has this argument from intimidation tactic worked out for you in the past? You seem to use it a lot.

Has trying to pick apart your opponent’s methods in snide ways instead of actually answering their questions or addressing their points worked out for you in the past? You seem to do that exclusively.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 03:22 PM from United States

Hm. I’m dubious. Mostly because of this bit early on:

Speaking with reporters, Mr. Holder provided few specifics but said the Justice Department’s enforcement policy would now be restricted to traffickers who falsely masqueraded as medical dispensaries and “use medical marijuana laws as a shield.”

It sounds to me like they’re going to keep doing exactly what they’re doing, they’re just going to turn more of an eye to PR when they do so. So the medical marijuana places could still be raided, all that happens is that when one is, there’s a press release where they justify it by saying that they were using “medical marijuana laws as a shield”.

Really, all this seems like it will do is take a slightly blurry line and made it almost invisible.

Previously the line was “If you’re in violation of federal law, it’s very possible we could raid you, regardless of state laws.” Obviously not a satisfactory position.

With this, the line would seem to become “If you’re in violation of federal law but not state law, we won’t raid you. Probably. Unless we think you’re using state law as an excuse. Which is pretty much up to us to determine.” The progress here seems to be debatable.

In fact, if anything, this would seem to give the administration a very pick-and-choose style of enforcement, which is rife with the potential for corruption. “Hey, man, you haven’t paid me your monthly fee for assuring the government you’re not using the medical law as an excuse. Without that fee I might accidentally voice some doubts about your suitability, y’know?”

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 04:32 PM from United States

They are still prosecuting people over medical weed last time I checked.

Obama basically just got up there and lied…

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 04:32 PM from United States

Liberty is a very basic concept and it like bad art or porn: you know it when you see it. So show me.

Funny side note: one of the top definitions google returns for “define:liberty”?

Freedom of choice.

Posted by Para on 05/28/09 at 06:06 PM from Germany

Jim

What we are seeing right now is the result of a 40 year cultivation of Marxism in America that started in the 60’s, and continues today.

In the early days of this assault, the Leftists tried cramming it down our throats via protest marches and protest songs. The Americans that sacrificed so much to defeat the Axis countries didn’t quite have the palette for such an appetizer, so the plan changed to secretly slip Marxism to us for the next four decades in little doses so we wouldn’t recognize the taste.

Look everywhere, from kid’s soccer games to the pussification of the American Male, they have turned a majority of us into frightened subjects, willing to trade Liberty for Security. Only these days, it’s not the “Bad guys from across the sea” we fear, it’s our own successful citizens we fear.  We’ve been told to fear them, they the “RICH” have too much power over us, after all, we are FORCED to go to THEM , hat in hand to beg for a job. UGH!! How awful.

For 40 years, that concept has been our diet, and now we are fat from it. Fat and scared of our own successful people and we are allowing Our “Government” to dismantle their fortunes “on our behalf” and “For our own good”. We can only hope enough of them go Galt for a while until the next election.

This is really going to suck for the next 3.5 years. Obama will not get re-elected, it will be Mark Sanford from South Carolina, and he will set us right and quick. The only real danger is that we lose our tempers in the mean time and have some small form of a civil war. This budget stupidity can be undone in a matter of weeks, a civil war could last decades, smoldering like Ireland did. It would start out across economic or political lines, but eventually change to racial lines I’m afraid, and that is just the ugliest future I can foresee for us.

Let’s be careful to keep our eyes on getting a Libertarian in office in 2012. That is our mission, every thing else be damned.

Posted by HARLEY on 05/28/09 at 07:04 PM from United States

Jim, I really do think you are reading to much into her statement, but i dotn disagree that her and her ilk are seeking more and more control over us, for their own ends.

Posted by on 05/28/09 at 08:19 PM from Canada

I also think you are reading too much into a statement made to a Chinese student during a trip designed to keep Pelosi away from reporters during CIA-gate.

But I love the responses (a la Para) it provokes! Gotta love going from a nitwit statement by a nitwit speaker in a foreign press conference, to the culmination of a 40 year Marxist agenda.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 10:22 AM from United States

While it’s certainly possible she is referring to a personal inventory of each individuals impact (it’s fairly vague either way), somehow I doubt it.

All snarkiness aside, personal responsibility is just not how democrats solve problems.  Whenever they talk about “x really should be done” they don’t mean by individuals acting of their own accord.  They mean specifically by the government, coercing people in to doing what they would not do on their own.  For some things this is fine.  Police, fire protection, roads, etc are all better of done in this manner.  But as a general outlook on life, such that for every problem the answer is the same ("the government really ought to . . ."), well it’s somewhat terrifying.

Posted by on 05/29/09 at 10:33 AM from United States

Para, welcome back!

<< Back to main