Friday, November 26, 2010
Liberal Fascism Marches On
The New York Times tips its hand as to why, "But the Obama administration should weather this storm by realizing these attacks are purely partisan and ideological. Americans know the difference between a big scanner and big government." The NYT's defense is partisan and ideological. Not supporting or understanding freedom and privacy, but having the same fascist tendencies that run rampant in today's liberal (the ideological part) thought, the NYT supports the Obama administration because its the Obama administration (the partisan part).
The difference between big government and a big scanner? Big government is an entity consisting of pompous power freaks wanting to micro-manage and control every little aspect your life and society. A big scanner is one of the tools they use to micro-manage and control every little aspect your life and society. And the fascist, liberal newspaper spread the lie that this is good and necessary.
If there were a Republican President, I'd bet we hear no end of punditry defending these searches as "necessary to the post-September 11th world." And if Democrats tried to complain about the new measures, they'd be asked "why do you want to make this easy for terrorists?" I know this because that was the line from September 12, 2001 to January, 2009.
You can either complain about the underwear bomber being the government's fault, or you can complain when the government tries to check your underwear. You can't have it both ways. We have the right to travel, but we don't have an inalienable right to travel on an airplane, and that has justified plenty of government shenanigans long before September 11.
That's the real argument here, and it has little to do with politics or ideology. These scanners and the pat-downs are as bi-partisan as they come because each party wants to protect and subsidize the airline industry.
Which is all this security theatre is: because the airline industry holds zero accountability for security lapses, and the TSA gets to be the "big, bad, government boogeyman."
Virtually all the politicos are too cowardly to speak out against these draconian measures. Many pundits are afraid to criticize politicians on their side of the fence because they're afraid this will contribute to losing on other measures. (If you check you'll see Instapundit has consistently been against this stuff.)
After a lot of compromising values, we end up losing much more than we gain. We end of in the realm of "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" and "A coward dies a thousand deaths..."
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]