Most of the time, I see no need to mention things that appear in the Opinions section of the newspaper. The section is designed to be a place where anyone can say whatever they want, and I understand that that means I'm going to disagree with a large amount of what is written, and because of that I can ignore most of the idiocy that populates the page. However, when something is grossly idiotic, disturbingly misleading, or both, I cannot stay quiet. That brings me to the subject of today's post. Martin Henrichs is a retired former teacher from the Valparaiso area. Much of his time these days is spent working as a board member for Lutheran Hour Ministries, whose web site can be found here; in short, his primary area of expertise is indoctrination. For reasons unknown to myself, and I would hazard to the paper itself, he has a regular column approximately once a month. Please keep in mind the fact that he has as many credentials as I do in terms of writing newspaper editorials; most everyone else that has a column possesses some level of knowledge in a specific subject or writes for a major newspaper (the Washington Post is most common, but there are some others grabbed off the wire services). His columns are always filled with completely insane statements, none of which are backed by facts, designed to appeal to those whose primary instinct when confronted with anything remotely resembling change/progress/whatever-the-opposite-of-status-quo-is is fear. I've decided that, quite frankly, I can't let this go anymore. I'm going to do something fairly rare for me: I'm going to break down his entire column, piece by piece, and expose him for the mentally defective charlatan he is. His words are in italics, mine aren't. Let's hop in:
I am perplexed about so many issues in the news that I can only ask questions today. Maybe someone else has the answers.
Right away, this should raise some red flags. When someone poses only questions and never posits any answers of their own, there is no interest in discussion, primarily because the asker has no answers and no ideas. Immediately we know that Mr. Henrichs has done no legwork in researching his topic and instead simply wishes to raise moral indignation in his readers.
* Why is the issue of health care being decided by government and not by the consumers, health professionals and insurance companies? Isn't government the one that can't defend our borders, win the war on poverty or control the cost of stamps? And if Medicare and Medicaid are rampant with corruption and cost overruns, what will government do to a much broader program?
And the stupid settles in rather rapidly. First, let's get this whole "health care reform" thing out of the way. Of the major fully developed nations (for the sake of discussion, this includes the EU, Japan, Australia, and Canada), ours is the only country where a government-run option for the general public does not exist. No other country spends as much per person on health care as the United States, and no other country has anywhere near the number of uninsured. This is due in large part to allowing insurance companies and health professionals decide the issue of health care. Insurance companies reject customers and refuse to pay for even medically-relevant services based solely on whether that customer will cut into profit margins. Health professionals can set exorbitant prices for services because those services are necessary and there's nothing to stop them from gouging (there are other issues involved in this as well, but to get into all of it would push this past 10,000 words easily). Given that we spend so much, it's sickening how little we get. As for government's other weaknesses, the comparison is laughable. It's impossible to win a war on an abstract idea, so there's really no point in blaming the government for failure to eradicate poverty (which, for those of you playing along at home, can be partially attributed to the broken health care system. You can read more about that here.) any more than you can blame it for losing the "war on drugs," the "war on illiteracy," or even the "war on terror." Medicare and Medicaid corruption typically isn't related to the government itself; the fraud is usually on the part of unscrupulous doctors/pharmacists attempting to defraud the government of extra money. Cost overruns related to those two are due to the aforementioned absurd prices charged for medical services. Finally, the government DOES control the cost of stamps. They're the ones who set the prices. Stamp prices increase due to a number of factors, ranging from inflation to hiring additional workers to meet demand, from pension costs to (surprise surprise) health care costs for their employees.
* Why are the 10 poorest cities in America the ones that always elect Democrats to public office? Is it because their solutions to problems is welfare, not work?
You can find all the information on the wealthiest and poorest cities in America here. Anyone with any knowledge of economics or common sense can tell you that these cities are not poor because they elect Democrats to higher office; many of the cities listed among the poorest have far more important social and economic problems, among them substantial wealth discrepancy along racial and ethnic demographics. Those issues either do not exist or are far less extensive in the cities listed amongst the wealthy. The reason these cities always elect Democrats is because the Democratic platform is geared toward the middle and lower classes. Why would a group of people choose to vote for someone who makes their plight anything less than a top priority? By the way, for those of you who are curious, 6 of the 10 wealthiest cities currently have Democrat mayors.
* Why is it considered desirable to register every uninformed voter to cancel out the votes of informed, well-educated people?
Every person has the right to vote, no matter how poorly they choose to do so. The Constitution's pretty clear on that one. Declaring that anyone should be barred from voting is disenfranchisement, pure and simple. Everyone has a right to be heard in a representative democracy, whether they understand the issues or just like the candidate's hair.
(By the way, I'm fully aware that I've stated repeatedly how much I hate when people who don't know the issues vote based on lies or ignorance. However, I also understand that, outside of a djinn granting my wish to increase the general IQ in this country 40 points, that's not something that's going to change, and the best I can do is try to inform people of the facts before they make ill-informed decisions.)
* What does it mean when cities with strict gun control laws, like Chicago and Washington, D.C., can't control gangs, drugs and shootings?
Usually, it means that the problems are bigger than the availability of guns. The two concepts don't show a direct correlation, however. Gang violence and drug use aren't related to guns in any way, outside of the severity of injury the weapons cause. The idea is simply that tougher gun laws make it less likely that someone who shouldn't have one will get one. I really fail to see the problem with this.
* Why is global warming even an issue when the increase in worldwide temperatures during the past 100 years has been only one degree Celsius and, for the past three years, has declined?
Because that one degree is enormous. One degree is the difference between ice and water. Let's get this cleared up right now: people who bitch about global warming being fake inevitably toss out the "But this summer is colder than last year" excuse or something similar. Global warming does NOT mean that the entire Earth is going to be warmer all the time; rather, it means that the extremes are going to be more pronounced. It doesn't mean that there won't occasionally be cooler summers or cold winters; it means that the hot summers will be brutally hot and the cold winters will be bone-chillingly cold. It doesn't mean that every year there are going to be droughts or floods; it means that when they occur, those events will be far more dangerous and far more deadly than normal. Some of these effects can already be seen; take a look at this list of the most powerful hurricanes EVER. Notice anything? 11 of the most powerful hurricanes ever have occurred within the last 20 years. 20% of the Arctic summer ice cap is gone. It's not coming back, ever. That's an enormous supply of fresh water, gone. That's habitat for a number of Arctic species, gone. At what point do people stop thinking these are all coincidences?
* Why does President Obama prefer to house terrorists in the United States rather than at Gitmo?
Because Gitmo exists outside due process? Because the vast majority of those being held there are being held without rights and he wants to bring us back to operating within the scope of international law? Because the stories of human rights violations offend and disgust him, as they should any decent human being? This is another one where I just don't understand the objection. Where do people think these guys are going to be sent, Arkham Asylum? We keep guys who kill and EAT PEOPLE in supermax. We've got guys in prison here who would make Vlad the Impaler say "That's a bit much" and none of us think a second thought about them escaping. What reason is there to think these guys would be any more likely to get out?
* With Cash for Clunkers and $8,000 bribes to first-time home buyers, what will happen to car and home sales when these "incentives" end? (I'm waiting for my 10 grand for grandpas.)
They'll probably decrease. What a concept, sales decreasing when a good deal comes to an end. Mr. Henrichs must be a wizard. The idea behind these programs was to give the economy a shot in the arm by providing an incentive to make big-ticket purchases. It seems to have worked. Yeah, it's not going to last forever; no one should expect it to. By the time the programs come to an end, things will hopefully be better than they were before they started. So what's the problem?
* Why is there so much weeping and gnashing of teeth over Burr Oak Cemetery? Didn't anyone ever visit the graves of their loved ones on their birthdays or Memorial Day to honor them? Or is there now "money in them there bones"? I found a beautiful tombstone of a relative buried in Germany in 1959. I couldn't find it again five years ago. I discovered that, because of a shortage of burial space, tombstones remain only as long as a relative pays an annual fee. Oh, well, in my opinion, it's what happened to the soul of my relative -- not his bones -- that counts.
I'm not someone who is overly attached to the physical. I'm not overly concerned with what happens to my body when I die (though being made into a diamond would be pretty badass). However, I understand the connection people feel to the graves of their relatives. It gives them a site where they can feel as though the spirits of those they've lost are still with them, a place where they can pay respect to those who meant so much to them in life. To even begin to suggest that desecration of such a place is no big deal is despicable at best and worthy of condemnation and scorn.
* Should I buy a car from a company owned by unions that caused their own bankruptcies and by a government stupid enough to invest taxpayer money to prop them up?
I'm not getting into the dispute about labor and the car companies again. I've said quite enough about it in previous posts, and I'm sick of belaboring my points. Can you tell that I'm very, very tired of this guy by now?
* Whatever happened to the great all-American principle that when a business fails, it provides opportunity for others to step in and do a better job? Has our government become the No. 1 enabler of inefficiency?
In order for capitalism to continue to "provide opportunity for others to step in and do a better job," it has to still be around. The businesses being protected by the federal government are currently so entrenched in the major workings of our economy that to let them collapse could potentially bury us. Mind you, this isn't necessarily true for all of them, but this is a place where it's a little better to be cautious. Or would you prefer unemployment to rise to a robust 12%?
* Why is the stimulus package loaded with funding that obviously will not stimulate the economy, but will stimulate people to vote a certain way?
Examples? I honestly have no idea what he's talking about here. On top of that, the Administration ultimately (for better or worse) abdicated much of the meat-grinding involved in producing the stimulus bill to Congress, which promptly altered it to meet its own agenda. That bill was then further hacked to pieces to appease Republicans who still didn't vote for it to prove a point (that point being "We don't give a damn about the country if we don't hold absolute power"). So if you've got any issues with the bill, take it up with a representative.
* Why is it that public schools that spend $10,000 per pupil can't do any better educating children than private, religious schools spending $4,000 per pupil? Shouldn't more resources go to those who succeed and less to those who are proven failures?
Again, examples? And maybe, just maybe, cite your statistics? Also, this doesn't make any sense. Giving extra money to the successful groups and diverting funds from the failing ones only ensure that the failing ones fail and the more well-to-do ones grow even more well-to-do while simultaneously excluding the possibility of any education from those who can't afford the pricier option. Wait a minute...helping those who already have the means to help themselves while ignoring the ones who actually need help...that sounds familiar. Perhaps one of my readers can help me remember?
* Why do television network news broadcasts use the term "news"? Isn't their product just tabloid entertainment? Fortunately, we still have good news -papers that do an excellent job of informing.
This is unbelievably wrong. Granted, most television news broadcasts are terrible. Some, however, are absolutely invaluable. Nightline has been a fantastic source of information for over 30 years. BBC World News is probably the single best source for international news today. In addition, most newspapers (including, amusingly enough, the one in which this column was printed) are unbelievably awful. The New York Daily News takes garbage journalism to a new low on a daily basis. The Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune have massive biases that color all their reporting, as does the New York Times on the opposite side of the aisle. Most local newspapers slant distinctively toward one ideology and filter all their information through that ideological lens.
So now, my readers, you see the kind of general psychosis that infiltrates an item designed to inform. I know it's just the opinions page, but I don't think it's too much to ask that those opinions actually be based on something besides fear and loathing. I also don't think it's too much to ask that people who refuse to cite examples or sources while using haphazard guesses and flat-out lies to make outrageous and blatantly wrong declarations of supposed fact be relegated to letters to the editor.
People wonder why thoughtful and respectful discussion no longer exists in this country.
People like this are why.
