Sunday, January 30, 2011

Martini Bets a Nickel

Cuckoo's Nest Poker Game
If there is one positive thing to be said about Socialism, it is that the philosophy and its adherents are persistent, albeit on a level that could best be described as myopic. Every time and place that Socialism has been implemented has seen the eventual decay of society and decline in the overall contentment of the people on whom it was inflicted. And still the disciples try it again and again.

The methods by which it is peddled to the masses change, but the end goal remains the same; equal misery for all but the perpetrators. Some see it early and veer away in time, while the unfortunate - willing to believe that something could be better - buy it whole, only to regret it later. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, so the question begs to be asked; which group is insane? Is it the purveyors of Socialism, or is it the buyers? 

Since the people who incessantly seek to become the leaders of Socialist societies know exactly what they are doing, we must assume that they are not insane, but rather cunning and, most times, ruthless. It is the buyers who are therefore insane, clinging to the notion that the latest charismatic leader advocating socialistic Utopia will be "different" than his predecessors.

One such person is none other than Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran who earlier this week uttered a phrase that exposed him as one of those "buyers". Attempting to portray the political climate in the U.S. as racist - because President Obama is Black - Moran said the following in a post-State of the Union Address interview with Arab network Alhurra in response to a question about the midterm elections (Emphasis mine)
"It happened ... for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. Southern states, particularly the slave holding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash."
 For starters, his premise is false, since most people want a president to be "inclusive". He is, after all, supposed to be president of all the people, not just the president of those he likes. Moran's error is his seeming belief that the president should spend money on anyone. Certainly it is permissible for any president to engage in philanthropic giving with his own funds, but he has no business spending our money on others. Only a Socialist would agree with that line of thinking.

Joe Meets Candidate Obama
But the current president is among those who hold that belief. As my friend at the Obtuse Observer astutely reminds us, then-candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber in 2008 that, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody". With the majority of Americans vehemently opposed to such a concept, those who continue to propagate its alleged virtues remind me of Martini in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

One scene in the movie involves R.P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) and Martini (Danny Devito).

[the inmates are playing cards and betting with cigarettes] 
Martini: [rips a cigarette in half] I bet a nickel. 
McMurphy: Dime's the limit, Martini. 
Martini: I bet a dime. 
[Puts the two halves onto the table] 
McMurphy: This is not a dime, Martini. This is a dime. 
[shows a whole cigarette] 
McMurphy: If you break it in half, you don't get two nickels, you get [crap]. Try and smoke it. You understand? 
Martini: Yes. 
McMurphy: You don't understand. 
Then Martini continues to try to bet the two halves as a dime as McMurphy becomes more and more frustrated. Martini, for those who never saw the movie, was one of the insane inmates in a mental hospital.

Even as the electorate in the U.S. clearly demonstrates its aversion to Socialism of even the most mild variety, Obama and his ilk continue to try to implement it under the guise of benevolence. Benevolence is for kings, however, and since the United States was founded by men who fought a king and won, there is little reason to believe that their descendants would timidly accept a new one. 

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

Chudex's said...

I like read this and i got some to shared my friends