Archive for February 6, 2024

Captain Jean Luc Picard: Professor, this situation is more serious than you realize. In less than five hours, those two planets will collide and a new star will form. Unless we move to a safe distance, this vessel will be destroyed.
Professor James Moriarty: I’m just a fictional character. I haven’t much to lose.
Captain Jean Luc Picard: But surely you wish to live like the rest of us?
Professor James Moriarty: Not alone. Not without the Countess.
Captain Jean Luc Picard:: We’ve discussed that. We are studying means of bringing her safely off the holodeck. But five hours is not enough time.
Professor James Moriarty: I’m not so sure. A deadline has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind.

Star Trek The Next Generation Ship in a Bottle 1993

We are Less than 10 months from the presidential election and that deadline has, in the wonderful way a deadline does, suddenly focused the mind of the left to the point where they are afraid that their open boarder policy plan to replace the existing electorate with one that might support them with the financial help our our enemies might actually produce an election backlash beyond the margin of fraud and remove them from power.

Since power is the primary goal of both the left and the deep state that tolerates them a “compromise” bill was put together. Said bill was crafted behind closed door because such a bill debated openly could not stand the scrutiny of light and then released all at once with billions of funding for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the border, but a lot to do with the left’s objectives tossed in.

Alas in this computer age it didn’t take long for the text of the bill to be examined and the various provisions including allowing thousands to cross illegally daily, money to the left’s NGO’s we now have the spectacle of democrats DEMANDING the bill be passed at once and claiming that the GOP is not serious about the border if they don’t play along.

Now there of course is a very obvious solution to the problem at the border and that solution is this:

Enforce the already existing laws.

If the already existing laws are enforced the border problem is solved, however such an approach is not acceptable to the democrat left for some simple reasons:

  1. It doesn’t give sufficient opportunities for graft
  2. It doesn’t provide billions for their priorities that they can’t get passed otherwise
  3. Their goal is to APPEAR to address the border rather than actually doing so.

Thus a new bill that gives plenty of opportunities for graft (in the form of payments to the left’s NGO’s) and addresses democrat priorates ( again a source for graft) while actually codifying thousands of illegals crossing daily and most important of all gives them a chance to say: We Did Something to Fix it.

One of the advantages of age is memory and as I recall going all the way back to Reagan, deals have been made concerning the border with the left. These deals follow a familiar pattern where the left has repeatedly taken Amnesty and cash offered while failing to actually enforce laws concerning the border that they always vow to do in exchange for them. 

So let’s cut to the chase and ask a question so obvious that I don’t understand why it isn’t being constantly repeated.

Given that historically the Democrats in general and this Administration in particular have been unwilling to enforce any existing border law why should we believe that once all the funds the left wants from this deal are appropriated via law they would actually enforce any provisions concerning border security?

Spoiler alert: they won’t be!

So I submit and suggest that rather then giving them a billion dollar source of cover for the 2024 election the GOP needs to have a single message on the border:

ENFORCE THE LAW, PERIOD!

End of discussion.

Extinction vs. hope

Posted: February 6, 2024 by chrisharper in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

By Christopher Harper

Extinction panic. That’s the latest worry that The New York Times says we must be concerned about. 

Tyler Austin Harper, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Bates College in Maine, writes an extensive analysis in DaTimes:

“What makes an extinction panic a panic is the conviction that humanity is flawed and beyond redemption, destined to die at its own hand, the tragic hero of a terrestrial pageant for whom only one final act is possible. The irony, of course, is that this cynicism — and the unfettered individualism that is its handmaiden — greases the skids to calamity. After all, why bother fighting for change or survival if you believe that self-destruction is hard-wired into humanity?”

Harper [no relation] blames politicians left and right for what he calls “doom-mongering.” He writes: “One way to understand extinction panics is as elite panics: fears created and curated by social, political, and economic movers and shakers during times of uncertainty and social transition. Extinction panics are, in both the literal and the vernacular senses, reactionary, animated by the elite’s anxiety about maintaining its privilege in the midst of societal change. Today, it’s politicians, executives, and technologists.” 

He cites several potential sources for extinction worries: Middle East war, “climate anxiety,” artificial intelligence, and China. “Climate is driving new fields in psychology, experimental therapies, and debates about what a recent New Yorker article called “the morality of having kids in a burning, drowning world.” 

Only once you dig into the analysis does Harper finally show his cards. His solution to extinction panic is to give the government more power. 

“We have gotten into the dangerous habit of outsourcing big issues — space exploration, clean energy, A.I., and the like — to private businesses and billionaires,” Harper argues. “We need ambitious, well-resourced government initiatives and international cooperation that takes A.I. and other existential risks seriously.”

After COVID, people may be even more prone to worry about extinction and perhaps turn to the government for solutions. 

I hope people remember just how badly that solution worked!

Instead of wringing one’s hands, I suggest that people read a few books about faith and hope. Education scholar James Fraser has one that fits the bill.

Fraser’s History of Hope chronicles “American history through the stories of the individuals and movements that dreamed of a better future and then took action to make that dream a reality, arguing that the much-heralded American spirit was not born as a gift of our founding, but was forged through our adversity and triumphs.”