The very premise of Jimmy Kimmel's “Rest in Peace, Wheezy” bit is that a democratic society largely sharing his attitude should have a say over your health care.
Time Stamps:
Opening/Announcements (0:00)
Demonstrating the Worst of Us (2:05)
The Absurd Fantasy of Democratic Socialism (7:10)
A Moral Compass Cast Aside (9:00)
Please Make it Sound Much Nicer (12:06)
The Gushers of Bidenomics (15:26)
Vodka on the Crypto Train (18:59)
Pump to the Moon? (23:09)
Demonstrating the Worst of Us
There's something about Jimmy Kimmel's rightfully reviled “Rest in Peace, Wheezy” bit that demonstrates something so profound and worth our examination.
The number of new cases is up more than 300 percent from a year ago. Dr. Fauci said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, [we may have to] make some very tough choices about who gets an ICS. Choice doesn't seem so tough to me.
Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right in and we'll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, Wheezy.
I'd love to do it justice, as it opens up the portal as a dispiriting reflection of our culture. Frankly, it demonstrates the worst in us and our potential for evil.
And Wheezy? What kind of stupid insult is that?
The potential for evil and power and what seems to be a reinforcing relationship.
Andrew Breitbart famously said politics is downstream from culture. If it starts with culture, somehow it's quickly co-opted into the political world. Those pervasive vices come to infect the body politic. Perhaps it's gotten to the point where you can't even tell the chicken from the egg.
I want you to relate that to power itself.
The very premise of Jimmy Kimmel's “Rest in Peace, Wheezy” bit is that a democratic society largely sharing his attitude should have a say over your health care.
If you make decisions for yourself and your own family that Jimmy Kimmel disagrees with or doesn't understand, he’d forcibly deny your access to medical care. If he had the following to tilt the balance, that's precisely the implication.
The Absurd Fantasy of Democratic Socialism
Should we acknowledge that perhaps democracy reaches a point where it's excessive?
Richard Wolff, an economist, professor, and democratic socialist, was recently asked what his preferred system would require in order to obtain a PlayStation 5.
Here's the clip.
So think about that for a minute.
What follows from this can be applied to anything you enjoy. A video camera? A dog?
You better check with all the co-workers first and make sure that they approve of your recreational desires in some way.
If it isn't ridiculous by now, I don't know what to say to you. It's profound that this is the kind of society that anyone wants to live in.
A Moral Compass Cast Aside
Former Congressman Ron Paul wrote a book called Liberty Defined, which was published in 2011. It has a chapter called Morality and Government, which says:
The US government has been operating without a moral compass for decades, and without a moral compass, the rule of law is meaningless…
The prevailing attitude in Washington has evolved because there has been no moral compass or respect for the rule of law or individual liberty. Regardless of what party is in power, social welfarism, government regulation of personal non-violent habits, and foreign military entanglements never change despite the campaign promises regarding the Constitution, or freedom. Policies are dictated by prevailing attitudes and influenced by the ideology of the establishment that supports unlimited government.
So-called conservatives’ support for premium for preventative wars, or preventive wars, and so-called liberals’ support for social welfare policies always prevail in the moral vacuum that exists. Everything that happens in Washington is done in defiance of the moral precepts that undermine individual liberty.
Without a foundation to government policies. The purpose of government no longer has any resemblance to the intent of those who settled our country and rebelled against the tyranny of King George.
Erosion started early, and it can be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle. That was embedded in the Articles of Confederation in spite of the early erosion of personal liberty, it was in the 20th century that the moral compass guarding our liberties was completely cast aside.
What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize we would live in a world of peace, prosperity and freedom. This system is called classical liberalism. Liberty is not complicated.
Please Make it Sound Much Nicer
You may recall in Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, when she got herself in a little trouble with both the Obama camp and the McCain hacks when she suggested that Obamacare would be tied to death panels.
Now it's interesting to note that President Obama also told the New York Times that an “independent group” would have to make difficult ethical decisions when the government has a role in the delivery of health care.
Thomas Sowell offers additional details.
As for a "death panel," no politician would ever use that phrase when trying to get a piece of legislation passed. "End of life" care under the "guidance" of "some independent group" sounds so much nicer-- and these are the terms President Obama used in an interview with the New York Times back on April 14th.
He said, "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there." He added: "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."
This makes for a great politician's cop out.
“Do you mind? I'm trying to buy votes here!”
But isn't that implicit in what Jimmy Kimmel said?
The death panel says, “rest in peace, Wheezy.”
The sleazy omnipotent state has spoken.
The Gushers of Bidenomics
I recently covered corporate welfare as a defining feature of “Bidenomics,”and a set of legislation passed that was characterized as “the biggest gusher of corporate welfare ever,” and quite possibly the largest upward redistribution of wealth in American history.
From Forbes, Willy Shih reports of another subsidy grant to TSMC, as well as plans to build another chip fab.
The Department of Commerce CHIPS Program Office announced a $6.6 billion grant to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) this morning. As part of the announcement, the company said it will build a third semiconductor chip fab in Arizona, and that it will also bring its most advanced manufacturing processes to the U.S. This is on top of the $40 billion the company is already spending for the first two fabs, which was the largest foreign direct investment in the history of Arizona.
...The rapid rise of generative AI and applications like ChatGPT is fueling arms race level spending for chips and data centers, and this boom is centered in the U.S. These systems use large language models, and they consume a tremendous amount of computing power for every query. Companies are racing to build data centers to support this demand, which one firm estimated were growing at a compound annual rate of 44% over the next six years. It seems like we will run out of electricity before that happens, but it is driving insatiable demand for chips in the meantime.
Governments are also subsidizing the AI craze and thereby creating the demand mentioned in the article. Seemingly, a propped-up demand is being chased by more corporate welfare, which is taking away what is Taiwan's most important tech asset, the semiconductors.
Is it becoming inevitable that China will attack Taiwan militarily?
As the world hegemon, your biggest fear in this situation is losing the semiconductor technology to China, bearing in mind how reliant American industry is on that technology, and how they would suffer as a result.
Vodka on the Crypto Train
Perhaps one expression of fantastic thinking coming from right-libertarian circles is the fanaticism for cryptocurrencies.
It's been said that cynicism motivates people towards gold, while optimism inspires the interest in cryptocurrencies.
While the problems of a fiat monetary system are properly identified for the most part, you might think that the optimism for the choice alternative of crypto bears a warrant. You're in good company.
With thousands of years under its belt, gold has proven to age in value like fine wine. Perhaps a belly full of vodka is a suitable illustration for the Crypto Bros.
Apart from stablecoins, cryptocurrencies are either here to stay, due to perpetual interest and enthusiasm, or it's one giant bubble, highly volatile in the long run. I'm afraid there is no middle ground.
In an effort to get a crash-course in this crypto phenomenon, one may find social media influencers all over the place who seen to wrap their identities in Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. At face value, they must have expertise. They must have answers. They must be doing well, and that's how it's done. And maybe you were one assurance away from getting in on it.
But then, you find the silo of influencers has little patience for reservations. The worst among them dismiss your knowledge altogether, apparently astonished at how little you know about the most important development of our time. The more polite ones insist “Bitcoin solves this,” seemingly, to every conceivable social problem presented.
It feels like a facade, as though you're talking to someone selling you a pyramid scheme. “Bitcoin solves this,” but it sounds like a slogan that nobody can really explain to your satisfaction. All the crypto signaling in their profiles begins to resemble NASCAR, with the sponsors plastered all over the place. Their digital personalities have become one massive infomercial. Perhaps it's all a cloning operation, and the whole point is to get you on the Crypto Train.
Now, again, maybe this optimism is in some way warranted by Bitcoin hitting an all-time high, yet again. And crypto pre-sales generate curiosity, excitement, and opportunity to get on the next big wave, ahead of time. For pennies on the dollar? Who knew Dogecoin would go from a joke to a competing speculative asset?
But if the more cynical side of this analysis is correct, I'm afraid it's a speculative bubble. Afraid, but not exactly certain.
Pump to the Moon?
I recently Tweeted this most basic concern:
Replied with spam on pumping. Oh, the irony!
But what if the hype proves temporary?
Perhaps the best-known illustration of economist Ludwig von Mises is the Master Builder analogy. The builder commits to a construction project with a finite number of materials. He surveys the groundwork and its foundations, oversizing them, but little does he know, he's made a fatal miscalculation. As the project progresses, the builder realizes that his supply of materials is insufficient to complete the project.
This metaphor served as a powerful illustration for the boom-bust cycle as a result of credit expansion, but it can just as easily demonstrate the crypto bubble if, heaven forbid, things don't exactly work out for the “Bitcoin maximalists.”
See Also:
Biden's Trickle-Down Manufacturing Crony Bomb
The Coof Clown Censorship Conspiracy
External Resources:
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul
Whose Medical Decisions? by Thomas Sowell
TSMC’s CHIPS Act Grant: Has Arizona Reached A Tipping Point? by Willy Shih
Donate to Mr. Menger:
Tip with Buy Me a Coffee
Tip with Cash App
Substack Companion Article:
Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.