If I'm going down, I wanna go down FUCKING!
Fukushima Spews, Los Alamos Burns, Vermont Rages and We’ve Almost Lost Nebraska
Things don't look especially hopeful at this time and in this part of the Universe. A full account of all the trials besetting us humans could drive Pollyanna to draw a nice warm bath and open a vein. Me, though? Frankly, I'd hafta say, since there really ISN'T bloody-the-fuck all ANYONE can do about ANY of it, why don't we all get naked, get stoned, fall in a heap, and fuck our brains out. Optimism is a sham and a delusion. This is the time for pessimism.
I haven't been scrupulous enough weeding the WackloonLibeRanTardians off my Facebook wall, so occasionally something really creepy intrudes into my usual run of inventive invective, canny critique, and scurrilous snark. The following marks just such a case.
In reply to an odious visual canard (which I will not repeat for you here, since it's probably before your breakfasts) speciously equating national healthcare with the "nanny state," I opined:
Needed: Life-long, single-payer, national health care provision.. In return I was asked if I also believed in willy wonka. I replied:
Anything less is an abrogation of the responsibility of the State to promote the "general welfare."
What's wrong with Obama-care is the private insurance part. And the fact that it's not universal.
James: Do I take it from your "ironic" question that you find my statement fanciful?The host of the page intervened with the obligatory Jefferson quote about deciding food and Medicine. I replied:
What possible reason can you summon to explain why the People of a State should NOT expect that State to provide for their health care? We manifestly cannot heal ourselves of even our most trivial injuries. I am a "doctor," but one who can only explain spot-structural semitiotics to you while you bleed out--well, in your case, I'd explain My Pet Goat. But you get the picture? We need help to survive.
In the condition of 'civilization,' in cities, in a "money" economy, we cannot provide for our own subsistence. There are too many of us to be able to maintain even clean water without some sort of social/structural organization. That's why we have States: to provide for us, the people, collectively, the services we cannot provide for ourselves.
This is especially true. you'd think, in a State in the preamble of whose Constitution there was inscribed a statement whereby the purposes of said State are set forth, explicitly, and one of them--among only five--is "to promote the general welfare." Is there a condition among any polity which would promote the general welfare BETTER than the provision of guaranteed, universal health care?
Okay, a guaranteed annual income. I betcha you'd be opposed to that, too, huh, James
Noble sentiments, agreed, Steve.There occurred some by-play among the drooling Libertardians, from which I mainly abstained. Then returning later, I observed:
What question was he answering when he also had children by his slave women, which children he kept as slaves, and did NOT manumit them on his death? I'm sure there was a noble principle at stake there too...
In the second place, Jefferson was an agrarianist. The USofA is--in case it escaped y'all's attention--no longer an agrarian state. The "government" has been deciding "what foods we eat and what medicines we take" since the onset of the Industrial age. Wanna give up penicillin? Polio Vaccine? Chuy...
It's instructive that, for the "freedom" folks, what's at stake is the "freedom" to take advantage of anybody who's weaker than you, and that any interference from the collective--whatever you wanna call it: state, community, society--in that predation is a violation of your "fundamental rights." At least it tells me all I need to know about 'em...Here's the link to the whole 'debate.' I advise against wasting time there; I only did so cuzz I was bored.