Updated: Octuplets One Can Get Behind: Apu & Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon's

libertarianism, Media, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

I’ve been able to avoid commenting on the curious case of Rod Blagojevich, the creepy politician who’s been singled out for special attention by an equally creepy media and Blagojevich’s crooked peers.

I see I’ll not be spared the scourge of single mother, Nadya Suleman—the interest in the woman who gave birth to octuplets in California last week is simply too great. Suleman, 33, “already had six children before giving birth on Monday,” and now has 14 kids below the age of eight.

The public might not be too enamored of Suleman, or support her plans to hawk these poor mites on Oprah, reports the Times of London, since,

“Many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget.”

And:

“Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilisation (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos.”

Does the Times mean to imply that if the insane sow Suleman had been implanted with, say, four embryos only the dilemma would be no longer?

Talk about asking the wrong questions.

The question a moral society would ask is this:

How does an unmarried, unemployed ho, with iffy finances, and no partner, get fertilized again and again with potential children?

Under libertarian law, such transactions, of course, would not be banned. Since a welfare society would cease to exist, the incentives to manufacture these mites would diminish. One can trust accredited, professional, medical societies to police themselves.

And, of course, neither the government nor the market can eliminate a freak head case like Suleman and the odd quack who’d gratify her craven, selfish needs.

The first problem we have is an extant and growing welfare society that encourages and subsidized degrees of depravity (although Suleman is pretty far gone).

The second problem is immorality: A culture in which the consensus keepers refuse to condemn—or allow a condemnation of—laziness, self-indulgence, and lax morality. Look, Angelina Jolie has an unhealthy fetish she indulges: having or acquiring kids. She clearly gets a kick out of popping them out or adopting them. Once they grow into spoilt, insufferable, stupid brats, she’ll be less enamored of them, although still more than able to provide for her brood.

The thing is, Jolie can afford her fetishes; Suleman can’t.

The risky medical procedure, notwithstanding, my favorite octuplets were Anoop, Uma, Nabendu, Poonam, Pria, Sandeep, Sashi, and Gheet. They were born to a celebrity, married couple: Apu and Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon of The Simpsons. Those were octuplets one could get behind.

Update (Feb 2): “Octuplets mom gets TV, book offers” (via Roger).

Updated: Octuplets One Can Get Behind: Apu & Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon’s

libertarianism, Media, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

I’ve been able to avoid commenting on the curious case of Rod Blagojevich, the creepy politician who’s been singled out for special attention by an equally creepy media and Blagojevich’s crooked peers.

I see I’ll not be spared the scourge of single mother, Nadya Suleman—the interest in the woman who gave birth to octuplets in California last week is simply too great. Suleman, 33, “already had six children before giving birth on Monday,” and now has 14 kids below the age of eight.

The public might not be too enamored of Suleman, or support her plans to hawk these poor mites on Oprah, reports the Times of London, since,

“Many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget.”

And:

“Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilisation (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos.”

Does the Times mean to imply that if the insane sow Suleman had been implanted with, say, four embryos only the dilemma would be no longer?

Talk about asking the wrong questions.

The question a moral society would ask is this:

How does an unmarried, unemployed ho, with iffy finances, and no partner, get fertilized again and again with potential children?

Under libertarian law, such transactions, of course, would not be banned. Since a welfare society would cease to exist, the incentives to manufacture these mites would diminish. One can trust accredited, professional, medical societies to police themselves.

And, of course, neither the government nor the market can eliminate a freak head case like Suleman and the odd quack who’d gratify her craven, selfish needs.

The first problem we have is an extant and growing welfare society that encourages and subsidized degrees of depravity (although Suleman is pretty far gone).

The second problem is immorality: A culture in which the consensus keepers refuse to condemn—or allow a condemnation of—laziness, self-indulgence, and lax morality. Look, Angelina Jolie has an unhealthy fetish she indulges: having or acquiring kids. She clearly gets a kick out of popping them out or adopting them. Once they grow into spoilt, insufferable, stupid brats, she’ll be less enamored of them, although still more than able to provide for her brood.

The thing is, Jolie can afford her fetishes; Suleman can’t.

The risky medical procedure, notwithstanding, my favorite octuplets were Anoop, Uma, Nabendu, Poonam, Pria, Sandeep, Sashi, and Gheet. They were born to a celebrity, married couple: Apu and Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon of The Simpsons. Those were octuplets one could get behind.

Update (Feb 2): “Octuplets mom gets TV, book offers” (via Roger).

Updated: Why Support IlanaMercer.com Through This Winter Of Our Discontent

America, Barely A Blog, English, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, Israel, Justice, Media

On the front page of ilanamercer.com, under the heading “Contribute,” linked to the words, “here’s why,” is an essay detailing the reasons to support the site and its proprietor. The essay, “WHY SUPPORT ILANAMERCER.COM,” has been updated with the following compelling inducements:

THE WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT (January 31, 2009): The economy is not the only object of cooling; the weather appears to be freezing over too. This is why the gabbling, hot-and-bothered Al Gore has substituted “global warming” with the more versatile “climate change.”

Here at the Weather Underground (and @ilanamercer.com), I’ve encapsulated the Gorian illogic thus:

“Evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate Chicken Littles enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.”

As Karl Popper reminded us, “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is,” of course, “non-scientific.” What eco-idiots have done is to immunize the theory of global warming against the dangers of scientific refutation.

LET THE SUNSHINE IN. Readers of Barely A Blog were, moreover, introduced, before most in the mainstream, to the concept of “sunspot activity.” In March of 2007, I published an article written exclusively for BAB by N. Baldwin, Jr. It was based on our friend’s book, “Global Warming: CO2, SunSpots, or Politics?”

The decrease in sunspot activity—the sun having entered what appears to be a period of solar inactivity, resulting in all likelihood in global cooling—was reported a year and a half later by “Space Daily.” Fully two years after our report, sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions have entered the overheated debate about the climate.

Having failed their readers time-and-again, the establishment media is struggling to survive. Good. Why support a source of propaganda that blows hot air about global warming and is cool to the market economy, the source of our splendid standard of living? Why contribute to the success of major media that have failed miserably and consistently to predict the outcomes of unjust wars, or warn ahead-of-time of the economic havoc wreaked by profligate administrations and their printing press?

The role of the contrarian who cleaves to the natural laws of economics and justice is even more crucial in times of crisis. To get by, such commentators rely on discerning patrons.

You, the reader, are my mainstay. I know you value the ability to come to a place in cyberspace where you’re heard, challenged, entertained—even regaled—and (gently) guided. But understand: This is hard work. It cannot be done without your assistance.

I appreciate your generosity.

ILANA

Does He Cry? Is There A Twinkle In His Eye?

Barack Obama, Bush, Democrats, Economy, Political Economy, Republicans, Socialism

That’s the substance of press conferences with BHO’s press pimp. And: Where will He watch the Super Bowl? Who’s invited to His White House Super Bowl Bash? How late does He work? What’s He reading?

Seriously, when Obama screws you over, it just feels right. He has that certain je ne sais quoi.

Indeed, Obama governing means that at last a “moral” man is in charge of deficit and bankruptcy-based spending. We’re safe; someone good has assumed control of the printing press. And what a relief that is. You just know that Obama spending the country into oblivion is vastly different from the Republicans doing the same.

As proof, under Obama’s tutelage, the elites have already formed a new task force to minister to middle-class Americans. It’ll be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden (a millionaire whose charitable giving is a fraction of the much-maligned, middle-class, Palin family). Right there is an example of the new goodness at work, to say nothing of a classic government make-work scheme.

So far, Obama and the Obama Nation demonstrate that their understanding of government’s role is of a piece. And, frankly, not much different to that of the Republicans, who agree with the principle of stimulating in public, but prefer that it not be as vigorous as Obama likes to stimulate.

Only a few weeks back, the Republicans voted for the outgoing thug’s bailout bonanza. Of course, in highly discerning Republican minds–the kind of Ben-Stein discerning–there is a difference between stimulating the financial sector and lavishing stuff on any and all à la Obama. To those of us who want to return the debate to the proper, constitutional role of government, there isn’t.

One thing is manifestly clear: If the Republicans were in power, they’d be doing pretty much what Obama is doing.

Based on the Republican Party’s unimpeachable record as an engine of government growth over the decades, it is quite clear that any show of principles by the Republicans is politically expedient and certainly fleeting.

Come to think of it, in the Republican opposition to the “stimulus” I have yet to discern an abiding principle, except one that reiterates my characterization of them here:

“How much to hand-out; who to hand it to; which hand-out makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

For example, Susan Collins, a Republican,

said she wants to work “with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a final stimulus package that will indeed jump-start our economy.” But she worries that not all of the proposed spending — an aide points to a proposal for research on pandemic flu — is appropriate for the stimulus package. “We need to try and achieve the right balance, the right size, and the right mix of tax relief and spending proposals,” Sen. Collins said. “I am not at all certain that we have achieved these goals in this bill.”

It is not that the opposing Republicans don’t approve of the Keynesian model being followed by Obama (and Bush before him); they do. But they’d prefer to find spending programs that are in line with their “values”: faith based initiatives, rather than planned parenting. Again, I don’t detect any fundamental shift in principles among the party that cheered Bush’s bailouts and his stimulus. Correct me of I’m wrong.

Incidentally, even for a commie Keynesian like our Kenyan, this path is not beyond reproach. The Economist makes the following point:

“Mr Bush and the Republicans in Congress repeatedly gave voters goodies without paying for them: tax cuts without tax reform, subsidised prescription drugs without Medicare reform, and so on. Mr Obama must not make the same mistake. His stimulus plans may include cherished giveaways such as tax credits for low-paid workers, expanded unemployment insurance benefits, and investments in alternative energy. [NOT] All have their merits; all will also increase the hole in the books. Despite some earnest waffle about addressing the long-term fiscal challenge, Mr Obama has been short on specifics.”