Message from Morlockland

Gentle readers, I got this message in my spam filter, and I could not tell if it had been written by a robot or a man, if it were directed at me, or was part of an anonymous mass-mailing. I wrote a note to the address, to find out if it were robotic or human, and as of this writing received no reply, so I yet wonder.

Savor the voice of those who sit in the seats of the scornful:

Oh wait… I thought “the issue” was abortion for you… The issue that defined all others. Guess that was yesterday.

So if you hate debt so much how about the next time a republican manufactures a war you bring up that wars cost money, and recommend that this president pay for his multi trillion dollar hissy fit in Iraq? The way wars are paid for (besides blood, and I would go into that waste of life but this is on the debt… So allow me to stay on track) with “taxes and bonds, and bonds and taxes” not by “tax cuts for the rich and hey why don’t y’all go shopping”?

I know that war is not a popular topic these days, but if you want to look at where all the money went, and is still going, avoiding the topic is like looking at an empty sink and wondering where the water went without looking at that big whole in the middle of the basin. That war (and I refer here to Iraq, because we had good reasons to invade Afghanistan, and had we stuck to invading the people who attacked us and taxed accordingly I do not believe we would be in the mess we are in now) continues to be a drain; it drains us of the interest we pay on the debt we incurred to invade that country, it costs us in the lost jobs of those who got sucked into the recession ushered in by the GOPs complete lack of fiscal restraint when they had their way, and it will cost us billions in caring for those who were wounded and have every reason to expect the support of a nation that sent them to harms way. I find it disingenuous that the same party that now screams “fiscal responsibility” treated the US treasury with all the responsibility of a drug addled teenager with their mothers Visa card.

Now about getting out of the gigantic hole the right dug for the rest of us; cutting your way out of spending is like trying to bail out a leaky ship with your hands instead of borrowing a bucket. If you want a look at where austerity gets you look no further than Greece. The more they cut the more their economy collapses. If they are any more successful at it they might have the fascists in power by 2014. The better solution is not to spend less, but to spend wisely, on investments that create increased productivity.

Now I am not saying the government does not waste money. We keep building landing craft. The last landing under fire in our history was Inchon during the Korean War. We are building fighters when the current fighters are still the best on earth. And I am sure there are others. But cutting health insurance is a net loss; people still get sick and without insurance they end up in hospitals, costing us all more in the long run. Short changing schools simply leads to less productive workers as time goes on, simply cutting services is pointless unless we are willing to the Ron Paul/Randian extreme of letting people die unless they can pony up the money for health care, or food if you cut food stamps etc. I will take this moment to point out that Paul did not obtain the GOP nomination much less the presidency so I would argue that the nation as a whole have looked at his worldview and found it lacking. As we are unwilling to sink to that level, the best choice is to be smart and leverage our public investment to its greatest extent (think Medicare, as opposed to Medicare part D) to reduce the expense of our humanity. And when it comes to protecting the children (all of them not just the fetuses) things like food stamps, chip, Medicaid have done more for them then a million well meaning churches or words about the sanctity of life; social security means my mother has a place to live after a lifetime of toil and Medicare means she can get the medical attention she needs to have some quality in that life. That is money well spent… The amphibious landing ship? Not so much.

My comment: If I were Mark Shea, I would post this under the tag ‘sin makes you stupid’ while emphasizing the line where it is stated that food stamps and welfare have done more to protect human wellbeing that the Church and her talk of the sanctity of life.

Being a Houyhnhnm, I will instead point out that, logically, if life is not sacred, there is no duty to preserve it, either by food stamps nor any other means; and if it is sacred, one cannot end the life of helpless in the womb without abrogating that sanctity. If feeding the destitute is a sacred duty, exterminating their children desecrates that duty.

Again, a progressive or a eugenicist, attempting to outwit this paradox, could argue that some human life is sacred and other life is not, and that the state has the right to decree who is human and who is not, or grant to certain individuals that right.  The Negro and the Jew were, in times past, were called less than human, and now it is the turn of the unborn. Logically, the progressive argument assigns greater sanctity to the power of the state than to human life. Even granting this dubious assumption, however, the same paradox arises: if human life is not sacred, the state cannot sanctify it by fiat; and if it is, the state may not desecrate it.

Being from a military family, and being an attorney who used to do personal injury lawsuits, all I can say is the argument that the government should not fund a new generation of fighter jets on the grounds that the old ones were already the best in the world applies with equal, if not greater, force to the argument that the government should not socialize the American medical industry on the grounds that the free market model was already the best in the world, the one which subjects suffering under socialized medicine in other lands fled to when they craved the latest and best life saving procedures.

But, without addressing the argument further, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the tone. The first line is an accusation of hypocrisy. Against whom, I am not sure. It does not seem to be addressed to me. The accusation makes no sense even on its own terms: as if anyone not a monomaniac were insincere. To accuse the motives of the foe is the only argument of the Left.

The rest follows in like manner: mere pontification, self-glorification, sneers, scorn, disorganized and illogical thinking.

The argument, first announced during the Cold War, and older, if memory serves, than the Johnson ‘Great Society’ programs, that we should spend more on welfare than warfare comes from a time when the military budget did exceed federal expenditures on payments to the poor. This was circa 1964, when I was three years old. I am now fifty-one winters. The slogan is nigh unto half a century out of date.

It is boilerplate thinking, one unexamined stereotype after another. The same so-called argument could have been constructed by walking through the parking lot of a Democrat Party convention, or Woodstock Reunion, and writing down the slogans on the bumperstickers.

To him, the Global War against Jihadist Terror is …. wait for it … a ‘hissy-fit’. (I trust any feminists who, by unhappy mistake, have stumbled in horror upon my overly-masculine blog will nonetheless pause to note that I, whom feminists wrongly account their enemy, have never insulted the gentle sex as this Morlock does. Of course, it is possible that, in the modern world, the origins of the phrase has been consigned to the unisex memory hole of the Ministry of Truth: it refers to the hysteria of a menstruating woman.) But, in any case, the entire Terror War boils down to the evil and absurd motives of one man. Again, the only weapon of the Left is to accuse motivations.

Again, the mere fact that a close reading cannot reveal, at least to me, whether this was meant to answer an article of mine or  a comment of yours, dear readers, is telling.

A more charitable and, indeed, reasonable assumption is that this was a reply to a comment I had not read, merely affixed by a careless button-fumble to the wrong comment-thread.

But here I assume there was no carelessness, because I have seen such language used far too often by the dishonorable opposition in the culture wars. My admittedly uncharitable assumption is that the Morlock  lacks the basic skill of tying their comments into the topic being discussed; and so it is left to the imagination to discover whether the words are intentional, meant to be part of a conversation, or not, a blind mass mailing.

You see, the Morlocks raised in modern schools are not taught to use reason or rhetoric. They can neither persuade the intellect with prose nor rouse the passions with poetry.

All they can do is vomit scorn.

Such is the voice of the Morlocks, gentle reader. These are the kind of half-formed and foetid thoughts which the cannibals craving to consume our nation, our life work, and our lives tell themselves as they take our goods, our taxes, and our liberties.

25 Comments

  1. Comment by Curubethion:

    Also, factual point: the Church is behind massive contributions to the welfare of society. We’re talking millions upon millions of dollars spent towards charity.

    So, that line about food stamps and welfare also misses the point that (very probably) the Church’s charity has done as much to help people as said welfare has done, on a purely material level. And a more efficient level, I might add. I’m willing to bet that Church charity is far more cost-effective than food stamps.

    • Comment by Mme Scherzo:

      Indeed. But many of the Church’s charity have gone to undermine the very pro-life tenets of the same church. Much of the money has gone to advocating for homosexuality and the destruction of what the Church has defined as marriage:
      http://www.churchmilitant.tv/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2012-11-14
      There are other exposes in that list about where the money of the faithful is actually going.
      The Church was the light of the world, but its quest for modernism and relevance have left it a very darkened lighthouse.
      A good state-sponsored culling might work wonders, though.

  2. Comment by Sean Michael:

    Dear Mr. Wright:

    You dignified this repulsive specimen of Morlockian pseudo thought with far more care and analysis than I would have! And, yes, this bit of anonymous drivel is far too typical of how so many on the left thinks.

    I THINK I first came across the phrase “hissy fit” when another person used it to refer to Henry VIII’s reaction to Clement VII balking at granting him a “divorce” (the correct term in Catholic theology is “annulment”). Henry’s reaction was to drag the Church in England into schism from Rome and set himself up as “Supreme Head.”

    Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

  3. Comment by Paul Weimer:

    To him, the Global War against Jihadist Terror is …. wait for it … a ‘hissy-fit’.

    To be fair, John, he called the Invasion (and aftermath) of Iraq a hissy-fit.

    Pre-invasion, Iraq was a deplorable place run by an unrepentant dictator that is better off dead. However, at the time, it was a secular and not a Jihadist hell-hole. (to the point that Al-Qaeda disliked Saddam nearly as much as us). Of course, Saddam kept it secular by terror and repression.

    By toppling Saddam, and having an incompetent in charge of the war not understand how to conduct the aftermath (see the work of Tom Ricks for details) , we MADE it a hell-hole of religious conflict that we subsequently poured trillions of dollars into trying to fix.

    I can’t grok why President Bush attacked Iraq. “Hissy-fit” is less conspiracy theory than some of the other things I’ve read and heard (e.g. to secure rights to the oil). It had nothing to do with dealing with Al-Qaeda. Nothing. Bin Laden probably did the Muslim equivalent of lighting a candle for Pres. Bush when he invaded Iraq.

    And to the point of the Morlock, we didn’t raise taxes or revenues to pay for our Iraq Invasion. And we should have. Instead, we didn’t even account for it in the official budget for years. It was a stunning note of fiscal insanity that makes up a significant chunk of our national debt.

  4. Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

    This sentence seems to be missing something:

    if it is sacred, one cannot helpless in the womb without abrogating that sanctity.

    Whimsy begins.

    hissy-fit

    Ought this not to read ‘hersy-fit’, in analogy with ‘herstory’? Additionally it would cognate (is that a verb?) with old Norse ‘hersir’, meaning ‘warlord’ or “important warrior”, which in modern Norwegian becomes ‘herse’, a verb meaning ‘domineer’ or ‘bully’. Which is of course the purpose of hissy-fits.
    Whimsy ends.

    Back to the substance of the post: It does seem to me that the wars could have been fought rather more cheaply. The model should have been punitive expeditions into the Northwest Frontier, rather than the decades-long occupations of Germany and Japan. If you want to topple an uncooperative regime, go ahead and topple it; he’s sure to have some local enemies, who will happily run the country when he’s gone; and while there’s no gratitude among nations, they will presumably be sharply aware that the army which shot one emir can march in again and shoot another, if it wants. There’s no need to occupy the land afterwards, unless you want to loot it. On that model the US Army would have been in and out of Iraq in 2004 at the latest, after they found Saddam. What do we care whether Baghdad rules the Kurds, or whether the writ of the Emir of Kabul’s runs in the Pashtun borderlands? Nothing. What we care for is that they should not send terrorists to hijack our planes, or build nuclear weapons.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Thank you for pointing out the typo. I will correct it.

    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

      We should care for reasons Strategic and Tactical. First, because not caring after WWI lead quite clearly to WWII. Rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII gave us a lasting peace with both, and wonderful trading partners, which is how America has always made it’s money. Second, it is to get control of said hellholes that the terrorists are sent against us. Much as you may not like it, we are the World’s Police, and those who hope to change the current geo-political structure are going to deal with us, one way or the other. Witness Saddam calling the State Department to see if it was O.K. to invade Kuwait.

      Tactically, we should care because we are human beings, and if we can help stop wholesale slaughter, we should. Especially as cheap as the War on Terror has been, with a spike in the deficit to start the war, followed by a steady drop in same, until the unhappy day that “Porkbusters” gave control of Congress to the Democrats. Really, how silly to complain of the cost, now that Obama has shown us what wasteful is. I have heard the price tag of the War estimated at one trillion. Perhaps, in a vacuum, that was too much to spend to free millions of people, people being used as human mine detectors and fuel for wood chippers. But compared to the trillion we spent to pretend for a year or two that green energy made sense? Please……

      • Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

        free millions of people

        I would be more sympathetic to this argument if the people of Iraq were rather freer from oppression than they in fact are. Elections, however popular, are not the same as the rule of law. In any case the US citizenry does not elect its government to guard the freedoms of other people. There used to be the saying that “The US is the friend of liberty everywhere, but guardian only of its own”.

        As for your argument of preventing Iraq and Afghanistan from being used as terrorist bases, fine, but this does not require occupation by the American army. It requires giving local allies a somewhat better grade of weapons, and letting them keep order. The Kurds are doing a fine job even now; why should we care whether they are ruled from Baghdad or Mosul? (I do see a case for avoiding Tehran, admittedly.) As for the Pashtuns, they troubled Alexander, they troubled the British Raj, and they will no doubt trouble the Zimbabwean Hegemony of the twenty-third century; but there’s no reason we should actually occupy their valleys. Send a punitive expedition when they make too much noise, kill some of their fighting men, and herd their goats and sheep down in India for sale. You can’t suppress them completely but you can make it clear that you’re not to be trifled with, all without the constant drain of blood and treasure to keep men in their valleys on a permanent basis.

        • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

          They are certainly freer then they were under Saddam. I think the core problem you and many others have is that the press did not cover the Crimes of Saddam (lest they lose “Access”, as the president of CNN admitted to.), while they were happy to show the trivial acts of a few low level prison guards. Please look again at the unbelievable terrors of the Iran Iraq war.

          As to “The constant drain of blood and treasure”, once the men in their valleys leave, you will very quickly be trifled with, as the return of the Pirates should make obvious. 9/11 showed that we can fight them there or we can fight them here. Going “Boo” and leaving them to fester didn’t work. The World has gotten very small…..

          • Comment by Carbonel:

            Hussein’s genocide against the Ma’dan, or Marsh Arabs (~84% destroyed) was visible from space. Details may be found in articles concerning the draining of the Mesopotamian marshes; post Bush-invasion the area is recovering, though pace the Bad Catholic post, it’s going to take a lot longer to restore them than to destroy them.

            • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

              Indeed. You think the econuts would have given W credit for actually helping the environment, even if they don’t see the Iraqs as people. But that didn’t happen, did it? Vile bottom feeding Watermelons.

  5. Comment by Stephen J.:

    The biggest counterpoint to this person’s criticism, of course, is the numerically incontrovertible fact that the monies spent in ramping up the U.S. national debt over the past five years (since the Democrats first had control of Congress; I personally blame Pelosi and Reid far more for the current economic hole than I do President Obama, who reminds me of a milquetoast Zaphod Beeblebrox more and more by the day) far exceeds the monies spent on Iraq and Afghanistan together — and that the Democrats had full control of those monies for three years and veto control for the next two, and did nothing in either period to dial them back or permit them to be dialed back (for three years the Senate has not even done its single requisite job of passing a budget against which their spending can be measured, a responsibility no Senate under Bush failed to meet). It is a legitimate criticism to point out that the Republicans started driving this car towards the cliff; that does not mean that the Democrats’ choice to slam the pedal to the medal once they got behind the steering wheel is therefore somehow sensible or forgiveable.

    As for the “protect all the children, not just the fetuses”, that argument has ceased to hold any water for me since I realized it was like accusing a firefighter of “not caring about human life unless it’s in a burning building” because he doesn’t walk a police beat on his off hours. Nobody who makes that accusation ever sincerely believes it is an accurate description of the accused’s motives, beliefs or attitudes; they simply want to morally delegitimize the accused by making him look inconsistent.

    • Comment by Tim Ohmes:

      “I personally blame Pelosi and Reid far more for the current economic hole than I do President Obama, who reminds me of a milquetoast Zaphod Beeblebrox more and more by the day”

      Loved it.
      Although I have come to see him more of a Marxist Dudley Doright!

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        The problem is the whole culture, which informs the politics. Both parties spend without regard to the future, the Dems with gusto, the GOP with lipservice to the idea that they should not. The voters are addicted to the spending, and vote them in.
        Here is a crystal clear and very dreary example: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-bernardino-bankrupt-idUSBRE8AC0HP20121113

        • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

          Both? I keep hearing that, but every time the Republicans get thrown out of power for “overspending”, the Democrats put them to shame, as we saw with Porkbusters “success”. Before they put Congress in control of the Democrats, the deficit was going down, down, down, as you have shown on this very journal. And given that you admit that the voters are addicted to spending, saying both sides do it would seem to be suicidal. If both sides have to do it, then whining about it is pointless, and we should focus which side can spend the money wisely. Can you point out any Democrat program that reduced costs without price controls, that did not see it’s budget explode tenfold or more? On the Republican side, W’s Medicare drug program comes quickly to mind. I know I belabor this point, but ten million+ voters went missing this election, and I think that stupid thought, “Not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties!” is the core reason why. If a tenth of those voters had come out for Romney, we would be have very different discussions right now, wouldn’t we? We are the leaders, we are the ones who did not have to Google who was running a week before the election, yes? There are real differences between the two parties. Can you name the Republican rotten borough that is going down in flames like Chicago is, like Detroit is, like California is? If we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, if we give into despair, we only give victory to the party of Private Law, (“oops, a prole had an affair! Can’t have them thinking THEY are allowed to do that!”) of Corruption and Death, the Democrats.

          • Comment by John C Wright:

            Both? I keep hearing that, but…

            With no disrespect meant, we are talking about the difference between a party that increases spending thriftily versus one who increases it prodigally.

            Name for me the New Deal agencies or Great Society programs or unconstitutional federal laws repealed during Republican administrations, or when the GOP had control of Congress? Can you name five? Can you name one? Even balancing the budget during the Clinton years, under Gingrich, was not a decrease in the size of government.

            I think that stupid thought, “Not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties!”

            Forgive me if anything I said gave that impression! The GOP is stupid, and lacks discipline. The Dems are evil, and they glory in evil, they boast of it, and they seek to destroy the Republic, strangle freedom, crush the human spirit, and more admit it now than once did. There is a vast difference between the parties, particularly as of this last election: the difference between tyranny and freedom, between life and death, vice and virtue.

            • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

              Well, Slavery, of course. And they had control of all the branches of government when they did that, yes? That is the core problem. The Democrats committed their great crimes under FDR, Johnson, and Obama. FDR and Obama had veto proof majorities in Congress when they gave us the New Deal and ObamaCare, and Johnson had the bloody flag of JFK to wave, as well as huge majorities. And they were giving away “free” ice cream. It’s very hard to “take candy from a baby”, and the Republicans would need huge majorities in both the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, to repeal these programs, to take away tangible jobs for an abstract good. Especially since the Democrats have control of the permanent government, and the “Forth branch” is so biased. They have not had that kind of power since the Civil War.

              And, of course, the size of government is going to grow as long as the population increases. What matters is rate of increase, which, of course, is much, much better under Republicans. So thriftily spending is a good thing for now. We can, in point of fact, grow our way out of debt, if our increase in debt is lower then our growth rate, as W was doing, before Porkbusters got spun up by raw numbers and gave control of Congress to the Democrats during a period where the Deficit was dropping every year.

            • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

              And I would remind you of the great National Outcry when W tried to get rid of one of Clinton’s evil deeds, messing with the water supply rules. “W wants our children to drink ARSENIC!” was all we heard about for weeks! Billions wasted because Clinton wanted one more hateful jab at W, knowing the Press would back him up. And that was a rule that no one was lobbying for. No jobs, no graft was on the line, as opposed to the corrupt, featherbedding institutions all the “New Deal” agencies are.

      • Comment by Stephen J.:

        The line I always think of from HHG when thinking about Obama is “Very very few people realized the function of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.”

Leave a Reply