A world without consequences

If you’re on the political Left, have we created a world without consequences?  I first started thinking this when someone I know called Bristol Palin a slut because she had a baby.  Not because she had premarital sex or got pregnant, but because she had a baby.  Girls in Marin, who are also have premarital sex and probably getting pregnant, are not sluts, because they have abortions.  It’s a perfect example of Leftist consequence-free ideology.  Not only are you free from the burdens of a baby (and, while there are joys, the burdens are undeniable), you’re also not a slut.

Confess that it was your lack of responsibility that Left four men dead in Benghazi, not to mention massive amounts of confidential information in Al Qaeda’s hands, and nothing happens.  In a normal world, Hillary would have been fired.  In Leftist world, she’s applauded for confessing.

Break all of your campaign promises — close Gitmo, lower unemployment, reduce an “unpatriotic” deficit, lower the seas, avoid involvement in other wars, make the world love us — and there are no consequences.  Instead, if you’re Obama, you get reelected.

This sounds like a pretty peachy keen world from a kids’ eye view:  Endless actions without consequences.  I’m not sure this center will hold, though.  In the 1970s, gay men thought they had it all — unlimited sex and antibiotic resistant sexually transmitted diseases — but AIDS came along.  Those women who’ve had repeated abortions have too often discovered that when they want to get pregnant, they can’t.  (I don’t know the statistics on this last one, but I know personally many women  who have experienced this.)  Mother Nature eventually makes her point.

Will the political world eventually spell out its consequences too, irrespective of human intervention?  Will the Hillary’s and the Obama’s eventually experience the natural consequences of their actions?  If conservativism comes to the fore, they will.  But what if it doesn’t?  What will be the stopping point for their current ability to behave as they will without any downside?

 

Cause, meet Effect (Volume, I dunno, a million?)

There’s something charmingly naive about the way in which the Leftiers amongst us are constantly surprised by the way in which Effect resolutely follows on Cause. This time, the unexpected (for them) surprise is that, if you legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, more people will grow more of it:

There is probably no marijuana-friendlier place in the country than here in Mendocino County, where plants can grow more than 15 feet high, medical marijuana clubs adopt stretches of highway, and the sticky, sweet aroma of cannabis fills this city’s streets during the autumn harvest.

Lately, however, residents of Mendocino County, like those in other parts of California, are wondering if the state’s embrace of marijuana for medicinal purposes has gone too far.

Medical marijuana was legalized under state law by California voters in 1996, and since then 11 other states have followed, even though federal law still bans the sale of any marijuana. But some frustrated residents and law enforcement officials say the California law has increasingly and unintentionally provided legal cover for large-scale marijuana growers — and the problems such big-money operations can attract.

As for me, I’m libertarian enough to feel that, if alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too, subject to the same legal standards: don’t smoke and drink, committing a crime while stoned is no defense, and you’re really boring when you’re stoned. Okay, the last isn’t a legal standard, but it should be.

I bring this story to your attention, not to debate marijuana legalization, but simply to point out the way in which Progressives, like babies who are perpetually surprised by peek-a-boo, are repeatedly wigged out by the obvious consequences of their actions.

(Thinking about this post, maybe I should have given it a title that’s an homage to Gomer Pyle, a show I regret to say I watched avidly as a child: “Sur-prahz, sur-prahz, sur-prahz.”)