S-CHIP and The Dream Act -- It's All About The Kids

One of the great contributions of the Clinton Administration (perhaps the greatest) to the revival of the "progressive" agenda is to label previously-unpopular initiatives as being for the benefit of "children", thus pricking the conscience of the youth obsessed (and increasingly childless) white middle class and mostly put the conservatives (who, after all, are the proponents of "family values") on the defensive. This "camel's foot into the tent" tactic allows the gradual introduction of programs and the setting of precedents for them; every expansion is just a little step (naturally, also for the benefit of the "children").

S-CHIP and the "Dream Act" are two classic examples. For S-CHIP, after introducing the program, naturally we must increase the covered class for the "health of the children" (WHO could be against that?) and, "oh by the way" we need to cover their parents. It wouldn't do to have the parents of the "children" die prematurely and leave them orphans (Bush put a stop to that, at least). Next would have been their adult guardians, etc. etc. The aim, of course is to have Government financed and run health care for all. If that is the goal (and it may be a good goal, any way), "progressives" should have the courage of their convictions and SAY what they are trying to achieve, even if their plan is to do it in an orderly manner, in stages. Just have a plan and SAY IT, and let the country decide.

The "Dream Act" is another effort in the "progressive" agenda to wipe out any limitation on immigration, especially of the poor and "people of color" to hasten the arrival of the Liberal Nirvana , a "majority minority country" - and, incidentally, to increase their electoral base. Next would have been the granting of amnesty for the parents of the "dream kids"; after all, would we be so heartless as to leave these poor kids all alone in this big cruel country, separated from their kin?

Liberals: Have the courage of your convictions.

Another Casualty Of Ideological Correctness

Goodbye, Dr. Watson. Your apologies and supplication were for naught. Trying to correct unacceptable views never gets you back in the good graces of the thought police. Alas, even science has them now.

All your years of eminent work in science have been wiped out because you dared to voice contrary opinion, whether it may have some basis in fact or not. It really doesn't matter.

On certain subjects, it is impermissible to raise unpleasant doubt. Scientific enquiry or speculation are simply not permitted on on sensitive topics. So much for freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Poor Dr. Watson

It seems that Dr. James D. Watson, eminent geneticist, has committed the ultimate sin: talking about race and intelligence. He was dis-invited, ostracized, humiliated and made to eat his words post-haste. Liberals (and cowardly conservatives, too) freely admit that this subject cannot be discussed, let alone researched scientifically. They spout all kinds of gibberish justifications about how intelligence can't be defined; different kinds of intelligences; etc. etc. ; a cloud of obfuscation to hide in.

The bottom line is, of course, that they cannot accept the risk that there is some correlation between racial groups and any type of intelligence, however many types there are or however defined.

The question is: what are they afraid of? Could it be that they really suspect/expect that there is a strong genetic (not necessarily "racial") aspect to mental capability which is inherited? Logically, of course, there must be, since everything in our physical make-up, including the brain and the nervous system, is generated through the instructions in our inherited genes.

The arrogant "knowledge elite" must feel that only they are sophisticated enough to make the subtle distinctions in the findings of any research that is conducted; the rest of us "can't handle the truth". Such a mind set insists that any race-related physical or mental differences must be denied and denounced rapidly and emphatically, before anyone can draw any unpleasant conclusions or make embarrassing assertions. It leads to ridiculous denials, for example, of racial differences in athletic abilities, requiring people to deny what is obvious, measurable and plain to see.

These are the same people who insist that all things must be submitted to scientific scrutiny, including, of course, the creation story in the Bible. What is theirs to assert is truth, what others may wish to assert or question, any "inconvenient truth", must be denounced vociferously as "RACIST" - the ultimate denunciation

Ahhhh it must be wonderful to be the keeper of the flame of political correctness and righteous opinions.