When broken down into its most basic form, the United States’ system of government is a simple one. The founding fathers formed what is known as a federal constitutional republic. By definition this is a nation where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government's power over citizens. The fact that the elected officials’ decisions are subject to judicial review makes this form of government a republic. The key principle here is that the elected officials are supposed to be representatives of the people. This is a corner stone that appears to have been ignored, not only by the Obama administration, but also by the Democratic members in both the House and the Senate.
Although poll numbers are not always completely reliable, and can sometimes have a tendency to be skewed due to how the questions are worded, when multiple polls tend to show similar results one can generally believe the information to be accurate. When polling of Americans show the majority are opposed or in favor of legislation, according to the United States system of representative government, logic would follow that the congressional voting on the issue would closely mirror these numbers. After all, a representative’s only job is to vote how the majority of their district or state would vote if every single eligible voter were to cast a ballot on any given issue. Unfortunately this has not been the case with the Obama administration or with the majority of Democrats in Congress, in fact just the opposite has occurred with no foreseeable change in tactics in sight.
The first glaring example of this disturbing trend was evident with the new health care laws. Although many different kinds of questions were thrown out by pollsters, the general consensus was that a majority of Americans disapproved of the actual bill that was passed. The fact that the Democrats had to use reconciliation to pass the bill, which had never been used on any major legislation before, speaks volumes about the laws popularity with citizens.
Now Arizona has passed an immigration enforcement law which closely resembles the existing federal immigration enforcement mandate. This new law is supported by the majority of not only Arizona citizens, but the majority of Americans as well, and yet many Democrats and Obama himself have come out and said that the Arizona state legislature‘s efforts are “misguided“. Misguided? Actually the Arizona legislature is a prime example of how the our government is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to pass laws that the people want, not pass laws in which they are against. Its truly mind blowing how the overall simplicity of the process seems to escape the liberal powers that be.
With legislation on issues such as “cap and trade” and immigration reform forthcoming, it is imperative to not only recognize but also demand that our “representatives” be just that, representatives. George Washington urged against the forming of political parties. He simply saw no need for them. If every elected official was to vote in a manner consistent with the beliefs of their constituency on every issue, then the whole party system would, in turn, be unnecessary. In his farewell speech in 1789 he stated, “they (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Sound familiar?
Calvin Parker
Friday, May 7, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
More Daily Propaganda with Jon Stewart
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has not been relevant in years due to its partisan agenda, but in a recent segment entitled “Inethical Basterds,” Jon Stewart hit a new low.
The segment derides insurance companies for seeking loopholes to the new healthcare legislation, which prohibits them from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Jon Stewart contends that looking to deny children coverage is unethical, and comically asserts that the insurance companies must be looking for a fast track to hell, rather than taking the less direct route they have been paving for years.
Though the crowd laughs, this segment isn’t funny. It’s sad, because it is indicative of the widely kept viewpoint of the left. Here Jon Stewart is preaching that insurance companies are devilish entities, somehow responsible for children lacking healthcare coverage. And to give added value to the propaganda, the segment insinuates that those who oppose this healthcare bill are heartless for rejecting legislation that would force insurance companies to cover these children.
But the simple fact is that few rational Americans would oppose federal funding being used to provide underprivileged or unfortunate children the right to healthcare. If this healthcare bill were simply about establishing a charitable pool of federal funds with which these children could be provided care, there would be little to no opposition.
Most aggravating, though, is that Jon Stewart and his audience think that private insurance companies' coffers should be used as that charitable pool of funds. Insurance is a technical and private industry that follows strict policies to maintain profitability. So what right does the federal government have to lay a mandate upon private insurance that they must amend their practices to become charitable institutions?
Yes, Americans are anxious about this healthcare bill. Not because they are afraid that children might get health coverage as Jon Stewart suggests, but because Americans can remember when such federal policies have created huge fiscal problems. After all, we just need to look back a couple of years to see the latest example.
On par with the over-securitization of debt, one of the largest contributing factors in the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 was the institution of federal policy in the 1990's that required private banks to forego their own business practice regarding restrictions in sub-prime lending. The result was that less-than-qualified applicants received home loans, and later foreclosed in record numbers while the banks were left with huge deficits on their balance sheets. And we all know what happened then. The federal government had to step in and bail out the crumbling banks. The national deficit skyrocketed with the taxpayer being the only one left waiting to pick up the check.
Barack Obama's healthcare bill portends the same result. If insurance companies are forced to go against their own practice by capping premiums and disregarding pre-existing conditions to create their risk-pools, how will they be able to maintain a profitability that will ensure that policyholders' needs will be met? The answer is that they cannot, at least not without the prospect of federal intervention that will raise taxpayer liability.
It’s simply bad business. Just as in hindsight we see that it makes no sense for the government to force a bank to offer a $300K home loan to a family with bad credit earning $35K a year, we should be able to see that it makes no sense to force an insurance company to offer a $100 per month policy to a morbidly obese man who has had two cardiac arrests. This is just common sense.
American business owners are rightfully fearful of the precedent this administration is setting. How far removed are we from the idea of laissez faire capitalism when the federal government can dictate that a private business must amend its practice to meet the redistributive common good? If the government can do this, what is to stop them from deciding that McDonalds makes too much money, and that they must amend their practices by giving homeless loiterers free hamburgers on a daily basis? After all, they are obviously down on their luck and could starve without the help of a rich company like McDonalds. But how long will McDonalds be profitable and provide their services to Americans if they are giving away free hamburgers every day?
No matter how much Barack Obama and his pitchman Jon Stewart want Americans to believe that this is a moral issue for this administration, it can simply never be so. It is about federal government wanting to “control the insurance companies,” as Joe Biden succinctly put it.
If it were truly about ensuring that healthcare is provided to unfortunate children, a 10-page bill would have been drafted and unanimously passed last year to create a federal fund for that explicit purpose. The issue would not have been addressed in an obscure monstrosity of text that concealed mountains of pork, unconstitutional federal mandates, and for some reason we’ll never know, an Easter egg about student loan reform.
Jon Stewart and his apostles need to realize that it is not the insurance companies’ responsibility to see that Americans are insured, children or otherwise. Insurance companies are simply in the business of providing the service of health coverage for those who are willing to pay for it. And they are no more morally obligated to pay for other people’s enjoyment of that service than anyone else.
Jon Stewart is often very funny, but he should be ashamed of himself for stooping to this level to demonize insurance companies.
William Sullivan
The segment derides insurance companies for seeking loopholes to the new healthcare legislation, which prohibits them from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Jon Stewart contends that looking to deny children coverage is unethical, and comically asserts that the insurance companies must be looking for a fast track to hell, rather than taking the less direct route they have been paving for years.
Though the crowd laughs, this segment isn’t funny. It’s sad, because it is indicative of the widely kept viewpoint of the left. Here Jon Stewart is preaching that insurance companies are devilish entities, somehow responsible for children lacking healthcare coverage. And to give added value to the propaganda, the segment insinuates that those who oppose this healthcare bill are heartless for rejecting legislation that would force insurance companies to cover these children.
But the simple fact is that few rational Americans would oppose federal funding being used to provide underprivileged or unfortunate children the right to healthcare. If this healthcare bill were simply about establishing a charitable pool of federal funds with which these children could be provided care, there would be little to no opposition.
Most aggravating, though, is that Jon Stewart and his audience think that private insurance companies' coffers should be used as that charitable pool of funds. Insurance is a technical and private industry that follows strict policies to maintain profitability. So what right does the federal government have to lay a mandate upon private insurance that they must amend their practices to become charitable institutions?
Yes, Americans are anxious about this healthcare bill. Not because they are afraid that children might get health coverage as Jon Stewart suggests, but because Americans can remember when such federal policies have created huge fiscal problems. After all, we just need to look back a couple of years to see the latest example.
On par with the over-securitization of debt, one of the largest contributing factors in the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 was the institution of federal policy in the 1990's that required private banks to forego their own business practice regarding restrictions in sub-prime lending. The result was that less-than-qualified applicants received home loans, and later foreclosed in record numbers while the banks were left with huge deficits on their balance sheets. And we all know what happened then. The federal government had to step in and bail out the crumbling banks. The national deficit skyrocketed with the taxpayer being the only one left waiting to pick up the check.
Barack Obama's healthcare bill portends the same result. If insurance companies are forced to go against their own practice by capping premiums and disregarding pre-existing conditions to create their risk-pools, how will they be able to maintain a profitability that will ensure that policyholders' needs will be met? The answer is that they cannot, at least not without the prospect of federal intervention that will raise taxpayer liability.
It’s simply bad business. Just as in hindsight we see that it makes no sense for the government to force a bank to offer a $300K home loan to a family with bad credit earning $35K a year, we should be able to see that it makes no sense to force an insurance company to offer a $100 per month policy to a morbidly obese man who has had two cardiac arrests. This is just common sense.
American business owners are rightfully fearful of the precedent this administration is setting. How far removed are we from the idea of laissez faire capitalism when the federal government can dictate that a private business must amend its practice to meet the redistributive common good? If the government can do this, what is to stop them from deciding that McDonalds makes too much money, and that they must amend their practices by giving homeless loiterers free hamburgers on a daily basis? After all, they are obviously down on their luck and could starve without the help of a rich company like McDonalds. But how long will McDonalds be profitable and provide their services to Americans if they are giving away free hamburgers every day?
No matter how much Barack Obama and his pitchman Jon Stewart want Americans to believe that this is a moral issue for this administration, it can simply never be so. It is about federal government wanting to “control the insurance companies,” as Joe Biden succinctly put it.
If it were truly about ensuring that healthcare is provided to unfortunate children, a 10-page bill would have been drafted and unanimously passed last year to create a federal fund for that explicit purpose. The issue would not have been addressed in an obscure monstrosity of text that concealed mountains of pork, unconstitutional federal mandates, and for some reason we’ll never know, an Easter egg about student loan reform.
Jon Stewart and his apostles need to realize that it is not the insurance companies’ responsibility to see that Americans are insured, children or otherwise. Insurance companies are simply in the business of providing the service of health coverage for those who are willing to pay for it. And they are no more morally obligated to pay for other people’s enjoyment of that service than anyone else.
Jon Stewart is often very funny, but he should be ashamed of himself for stooping to this level to demonize insurance companies.
William Sullivan
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Curious Redemption of East Anglia
UK legislators have come out and pardoned East Anglia University and Professor Phil Jones, who were implicated in the Climate-gate scandal.
Let me get this straight, because I can’t understand how the British government is in a position to do this.
In November 2009, it became accepted that East Anglia’s research was less than credible due to evidence of fabricated data. Shortly after, the UK lawmakers came out and condemned East Anglia for the data manipulation, mostly because it compromised the global perception of British science. Oh, and also because the British government was implicated in the scandal, considering public funds were used to produce the faulty data. Then, after the hubbub died down and the lawmakers had escaped the pressure, we’re just supposed to take the UK's word that now East Anglia should be exonerated, and everything was kosher the whole time?
Imagine a guy robbing a bank, and his getaway driver is right outside while the act is perpetrated. The bank robber gets caught and is incarcerated, while the driver escapes conviction but is suspected of plotting the crime. Then 6 months later after everything cools off, the driver comes out of the woodwork and says the bank robber is innocent and that he should be released. Is the court going to believe him and just let the bank robber off the hook?
Well in this analogy, imagine East Anglia is the bank robber, and the UK legislature is the driver. And the world is the court. We’re not going to believe it either, and we're not going to let them off the hook to keep pushing carbon caps and credits.
But the juiciest part of all is that they try to spin the devious verbiage in an email that says: "I've just completed 'Mike's Nature trick' of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline."
Most people will not take the threat of global warming as seriously when temperatures are declining, unless you’re Al Gore and fully invested in the belief that the world is going to climate-hell. Of course, if you're Al Gore, everything from blizzards to earthquakes is rock-solid evidence that the world is committing suicide because we’re such bad tenants.
But Phil Jones knew that most people are not so dim as to believe that "cooling means warming," and that’s why he tried to hide the cooling data.
A second grader could easily decipher the meaning of the above sentence about hiding data. Perhaps the word "hide" has a meaning that's lost in translation as it moves across the pond, like how "chips" are fries, or to "pinch" is to steal something. But I doubt it. So the rest of Western culture should be deeply offended that the British parliament thinks so little of us.
We need to just use some common sense and recognize that, yes, crucial data used in IPCC reports was manipulated, and that, yes, the veracity of the science that many had believed is now legitimately in question. And before diving headfirst into costly global carbon regulation, we should make damn sure the theory is foolproof. It certainly isn’t now, and that's why they had to fudge the data. What the “consensus” thought to be a sure thing has proven to be a bit of a long shot.
But that's not stopping the British government from betting the farm.
William Sullivan
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sharpton says 2008 election was a commitment to socialism
Al Sharpton claims that the American people knew they were voting for a socialist when they voted for Barack Obama. According to Sharpton, when they voted for Obama, they "voted for socialism." (1)
But recall that in the 2008 election, anyone who used the term "socialist" in reference to Obama was immediately dubbed a racist. The expression had become a racial slur to Barack Obama's supporters, a synonym of the n-word, and was as taboo to utter as Barack Obama’s middle name during the campaign.
So it's unlikely that most Americans knew he was a socialist before he was elected. Americans only began to believe it when they saw the Obama administration seek to control the energy, banking, auto, and ultimately the insurance and healthcare industries.
But sadly, Al Sharpton is right about one thing. He said that socialized healthcare was "not some concept the president introduced after he won." Americans should have known he promised socialism, because all we needed to do was listen. There were clues every time he talked about "social justice" or redistribution of "the pie."
But rather than paying attention to the substance of what Obama was saying in the campaign, many Americans just listened to a well-oiled spin machine tell them that he was not a socialist. They just accepted the Obama campaign's word that he sought bipartisanship and transparency, and took solace in the fact that he was not George Bush. They buried their heads in the sand, only occasionally peeking out to clap their hands when Obama gave one of his wonderful “chicken-in-every-pot” speeches.
Sharpton said that with the healthcare bill, Obama “delivered what he promised” to the American people. But it’s evident now that he did not deliver what the American people thought they were being promised.
The American people have had the false promises of bipartisanship and transparency rubbed in their face for over a year, and never more shamefully than this past weekend. Obama’s healthcare bill did not receive one Republican vote, so it was hardly bipartisan. And as far as transparency, the bill itself was hidden from the public until days before the vote, and even if it would have been available for longer, it was such a convoluted monstrosity that teams of paralegals would need weeks to decipher it.
What Obama claimed to offer the American people was a reprieve from Washington nonsense. No more business as usual with lobbyists and special interests. No more backroom deals to get votes. But there were more earmarks and hidden pork in this bill than most Americans wanted to see in a decade. And to further the corruption, he bribed representatives of his party to sell out their own constituency to pass his overwhelmingly unpopular healthcare legislation, and created an expansion of debt that requires the need for an unprecedented burden on the middle class. This is not what most Americans signed on for when they bought his rhetoric about “hope and change.”
But according to Al Sharpton, that should not matter. Obama was elected, so no matter how bad it tastes or how badly they feel misled, the American people just need to deal with a government takeover of our healthcare system.
And even though it’s an ideology that is entirely contrary to our constitutional republic’s form, Americans should somehow just be alright with the fact that our president is a socialist.
We're not. And that's why we're outraged. And that's why Americans will continue seeking "change" in November.
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sharpton-america-overwhelmingly-voted-for-socialism-when-they-elected-obama/blog-283849/
But recall that in the 2008 election, anyone who used the term "socialist" in reference to Obama was immediately dubbed a racist. The expression had become a racial slur to Barack Obama's supporters, a synonym of the n-word, and was as taboo to utter as Barack Obama’s middle name during the campaign.
So it's unlikely that most Americans knew he was a socialist before he was elected. Americans only began to believe it when they saw the Obama administration seek to control the energy, banking, auto, and ultimately the insurance and healthcare industries.
But sadly, Al Sharpton is right about one thing. He said that socialized healthcare was "not some concept the president introduced after he won." Americans should have known he promised socialism, because all we needed to do was listen. There were clues every time he talked about "social justice" or redistribution of "the pie."
But rather than paying attention to the substance of what Obama was saying in the campaign, many Americans just listened to a well-oiled spin machine tell them that he was not a socialist. They just accepted the Obama campaign's word that he sought bipartisanship and transparency, and took solace in the fact that he was not George Bush. They buried their heads in the sand, only occasionally peeking out to clap their hands when Obama gave one of his wonderful “chicken-in-every-pot” speeches.
Sharpton said that with the healthcare bill, Obama “delivered what he promised” to the American people. But it’s evident now that he did not deliver what the American people thought they were being promised.
The American people have had the false promises of bipartisanship and transparency rubbed in their face for over a year, and never more shamefully than this past weekend. Obama’s healthcare bill did not receive one Republican vote, so it was hardly bipartisan. And as far as transparency, the bill itself was hidden from the public until days before the vote, and even if it would have been available for longer, it was such a convoluted monstrosity that teams of paralegals would need weeks to decipher it.
What Obama claimed to offer the American people was a reprieve from Washington nonsense. No more business as usual with lobbyists and special interests. No more backroom deals to get votes. But there were more earmarks and hidden pork in this bill than most Americans wanted to see in a decade. And to further the corruption, he bribed representatives of his party to sell out their own constituency to pass his overwhelmingly unpopular healthcare legislation, and created an expansion of debt that requires the need for an unprecedented burden on the middle class. This is not what most Americans signed on for when they bought his rhetoric about “hope and change.”
But according to Al Sharpton, that should not matter. Obama was elected, so no matter how bad it tastes or how badly they feel misled, the American people just need to deal with a government takeover of our healthcare system.
And even though it’s an ideology that is entirely contrary to our constitutional republic’s form, Americans should somehow just be alright with the fact that our president is a socialist.
We're not. And that's why we're outraged. And that's why Americans will continue seeking "change" in November.
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sharpton-america-overwhelmingly-voted-for-socialism-when-they-elected-obama/blog-283849/
Friday, March 19, 2010
Insurance Reform Is Just a Red Herring
Americans have heard an awful lot of sales pitches from the Democratic Party to warrant the confirmation of the Senate healthcare bill, which recently passed into law in an historic and unprecedented vote. Historic because of the scope, and unprecedented because of the conniving manner in which the broadly unpopular bill found passage.
The most common theme in Democratic infomercials leading up to the vote was the assurance that the bill is designed as an attempt to reform insurance practice. But that just masks their true intention.
Propaganda campaigns in recent years have portrayed insurance companies as vampiric corporations that plot the demise of their policy holders for profit. Maligned as heartless villains that will not provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, insurance companies line their pockets with premium while the poor American people suffer unnecessarily. Obama’s plan will supposedly see to it that they reform their practices to run their insurance companies correctly and honestly, and that will solve all the problems.
But before we allow ourselves to believe that Obama’s goal is righting the wrongs of insurance companies, we should take a closer look at the practice of insurance.
Health insurance, like all insurance, is based on a gauge of probability called the “law of large numbers.” The stronger the likelihood someone will get sick, the higher the premium the person will pay.
Break this down to a base historical analogy. The insurance industry has roots in ancient Egypt, as people began to insure freight as it traveled on the Nile. If a merchant had cargo that he wanted to insure, any potential insurer must take into account many factors, including the cost of the cargo, natural phenomena like storms, distance traveled, and external factors like piracy. If a particular merchant was transporting a thousand pounds of gold 100 miles downriver, the insurer would require a large amount of money as incentive to insure the cargo.
Now ask this. Would it make sense to charge the same hefty premium to someone shipping a bag of clothes to the other side of the river?
Such is exactly what this healthcare bill offers. It will require that young Americans, who are less likely to get sick, pay higher premiums to compensate for mandatory reductions in premium to those who are more likely to get sick. This is the only way to compensate if there is to be any incentive to insure anyone, and it is entirely contrary to the idea of insurance.
Insurance companies cannot survive the government's plan, which by 2014 will disallow insurance companies to consider pre-existing conditions and mandate that health insurance be kept by all Americans. This will trigger a domino effect that will destroy private insurance.
Younger Americans will undoubtedly dislike paying increased premium for care that they do not receive. Yet this bill requires that they must have insurance, so they will have to go with the government plan. While insurance companies crumble without the offsets of younger policyholders, the government option will remain because it will not be hindered by such insurance constants as probability and profit margins. Profits and incentive to insure are trivial, because any financial shortfall in the government's plan can be reconciled by a seemingly endless pool of untaxed public revenue.
Insurance reform is not their aim. It is simply their expressed aim in the package they present to the public. This is because Americans tend to become tense when they hear the words, “universal” or “single-payer” healthcare. But “single-payer” healthcare is absolutely their goal.
And this should make Americans truly afraid. We have seen how such systems work. We have seen the fiscal drain on economies that employ them, and know about the necessity of rationing service and have heard about lengthy waiting periods for simple service.
Most Americans today like that their family’s health is more than just a number to healthcare providers, and enjoy quality service as a result of their payments. They shudder at the thought that one day a trip to the hospital could be remotely like a routine trip to the Post Office or DMV, where prominently cold, callous workers try to make it through the day, simply fulfilling their role as a government bureaucrat, stamping forms, and slowly processing the inconvenient requests of the masses.
But sadly this may be in America’s future, because this administration is cobbling the road to socialized medicine. They just choose less threatening verbiage and call it “reform.”
William Sullivan
The most common theme in Democratic infomercials leading up to the vote was the assurance that the bill is designed as an attempt to reform insurance practice. But that just masks their true intention.
Propaganda campaigns in recent years have portrayed insurance companies as vampiric corporations that plot the demise of their policy holders for profit. Maligned as heartless villains that will not provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, insurance companies line their pockets with premium while the poor American people suffer unnecessarily. Obama’s plan will supposedly see to it that they reform their practices to run their insurance companies correctly and honestly, and that will solve all the problems.
But before we allow ourselves to believe that Obama’s goal is righting the wrongs of insurance companies, we should take a closer look at the practice of insurance.
Health insurance, like all insurance, is based on a gauge of probability called the “law of large numbers.” The stronger the likelihood someone will get sick, the higher the premium the person will pay.
Break this down to a base historical analogy. The insurance industry has roots in ancient Egypt, as people began to insure freight as it traveled on the Nile. If a merchant had cargo that he wanted to insure, any potential insurer must take into account many factors, including the cost of the cargo, natural phenomena like storms, distance traveled, and external factors like piracy. If a particular merchant was transporting a thousand pounds of gold 100 miles downriver, the insurer would require a large amount of money as incentive to insure the cargo.
Now ask this. Would it make sense to charge the same hefty premium to someone shipping a bag of clothes to the other side of the river?
Such is exactly what this healthcare bill offers. It will require that young Americans, who are less likely to get sick, pay higher premiums to compensate for mandatory reductions in premium to those who are more likely to get sick. This is the only way to compensate if there is to be any incentive to insure anyone, and it is entirely contrary to the idea of insurance.
Insurance companies cannot survive the government's plan, which by 2014 will disallow insurance companies to consider pre-existing conditions and mandate that health insurance be kept by all Americans. This will trigger a domino effect that will destroy private insurance.
Younger Americans will undoubtedly dislike paying increased premium for care that they do not receive. Yet this bill requires that they must have insurance, so they will have to go with the government plan. While insurance companies crumble without the offsets of younger policyholders, the government option will remain because it will not be hindered by such insurance constants as probability and profit margins. Profits and incentive to insure are trivial, because any financial shortfall in the government's plan can be reconciled by a seemingly endless pool of untaxed public revenue.
Insurance reform is not their aim. It is simply their expressed aim in the package they present to the public. This is because Americans tend to become tense when they hear the words, “universal” or “single-payer” healthcare. But “single-payer” healthcare is absolutely their goal.
And this should make Americans truly afraid. We have seen how such systems work. We have seen the fiscal drain on economies that employ them, and know about the necessity of rationing service and have heard about lengthy waiting periods for simple service.
Most Americans today like that their family’s health is more than just a number to healthcare providers, and enjoy quality service as a result of their payments. They shudder at the thought that one day a trip to the hospital could be remotely like a routine trip to the Post Office or DMV, where prominently cold, callous workers try to make it through the day, simply fulfilling their role as a government bureaucrat, stamping forms, and slowly processing the inconvenient requests of the masses.
But sadly this may be in America’s future, because this administration is cobbling the road to socialized medicine. They just choose less threatening verbiage and call it “reform.”
William Sullivan
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
To Democrats, dissent is no longer patriotism
America witnessed a tremor in the political landscape in 2009. We know it as the Tea Party movement, a grassroots response to resist massive federal expansion.
As federal oversight in the banking, insurance, auto, energy, and healthcare industries have all been flagship issues for this administration and its supporters, it comes as no surprise that the Tea Party movement has encountered fierce resistance. Since its inception one year ago, "tea partiers" have been razed by the news media. Liberal pundits across the networks ignored the substance and reasoning for the widespread protests, and rather made sophomoric jokes about “tea-bagging.” They made accusations of political lobbies "astroturfing," and stoked racial sensitivity by perpetuating a lack of minority participation to discredit the movement as a "whites-only" club. (1)
Even elected representatives showed contempt for the apparent disapproval of these constituents. Nancy Pelosi also called the movement “astroturf,” and reduced the protest attendees to little more than Neo-Nazi racists. (2)
With many loyal media outlets by their side, Democrats just plugged their ears, kept chanting their mantra, and hoped their negative slights against the tea partiers would drown out the loud voices of dissent. They could not have been more wrong.
In fact, the attacks may have helped the Tea Party's cause. Perhaps people noticed the movement more because, deep down, Americans knew that there was something incongruous about the Democrats’ blistering attacks upon the tea partiers. After all, the liberal establishment had spent the latter half of the Bush years peddling the slogan, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Then, in the very moment that this administration encountered opposition to its own proposed policy, dissent had lost its “patriotism” and had become the destructive plot of racists, insurance lobbyists, and ordinary people that are just too stupid to know what’s good for them.
Also ironic is that when prominent liberal Democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy found themselves quoting this maxim with regularity, it was falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson with equal regularity. (3) They apparently felt that if the phrase could invoke the spirit of the founding fathers, it would legitimize their resistance to the Iraq War.
But the thing is, if the Democrats truly believed that the ideals of the founding fathers are the litmus test for legitimate dissent, they could not find the tea partiers’ cause more reasonable. Their argument today is remarkably similar to that of the American colonials in 1776. Largely comprised of taxpayers, today's tea partiers feel that they are facing the inevitable prospect of increased tax burdens, and that they lack the representation to avoid such intolerable mandates. But rather than seeing their dissent as patriotism, Democrats feel that the the Tea Party movement should be the subject of ridicule and scorn.
It seems that Democrats want to selectively choose when citizens should adhere to the doctrine of patriotic objection, and are willing to reshape the terms when convenient. One can’t help but draw a parallel to Orwell’s iconic interpretation of elitism and tyranny. In Animal Farm, we see a ruling party amend the principle “All animals are equal” to become “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (4) It seems that upon encountering the inconvenient objections of the Tea Party, this Democratic administration also felt the need to amend its ideology, and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” has become “Objecting to George W. Bush was the highest form of patriotism, but in 2010, we should all just agree with hope and change."
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100216095241.aspx
(2)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html
(3)http://volokh.com/posts/1146554363.shtml
(4)http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html
As federal oversight in the banking, insurance, auto, energy, and healthcare industries have all been flagship issues for this administration and its supporters, it comes as no surprise that the Tea Party movement has encountered fierce resistance. Since its inception one year ago, "tea partiers" have been razed by the news media. Liberal pundits across the networks ignored the substance and reasoning for the widespread protests, and rather made sophomoric jokes about “tea-bagging.” They made accusations of political lobbies "astroturfing," and stoked racial sensitivity by perpetuating a lack of minority participation to discredit the movement as a "whites-only" club. (1)
Even elected representatives showed contempt for the apparent disapproval of these constituents. Nancy Pelosi also called the movement “astroturf,” and reduced the protest attendees to little more than Neo-Nazi racists. (2)
With many loyal media outlets by their side, Democrats just plugged their ears, kept chanting their mantra, and hoped their negative slights against the tea partiers would drown out the loud voices of dissent. They could not have been more wrong.
In fact, the attacks may have helped the Tea Party's cause. Perhaps people noticed the movement more because, deep down, Americans knew that there was something incongruous about the Democrats’ blistering attacks upon the tea partiers. After all, the liberal establishment had spent the latter half of the Bush years peddling the slogan, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Then, in the very moment that this administration encountered opposition to its own proposed policy, dissent had lost its “patriotism” and had become the destructive plot of racists, insurance lobbyists, and ordinary people that are just too stupid to know what’s good for them.
Also ironic is that when prominent liberal Democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy found themselves quoting this maxim with regularity, it was falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson with equal regularity. (3) They apparently felt that if the phrase could invoke the spirit of the founding fathers, it would legitimize their resistance to the Iraq War.
But the thing is, if the Democrats truly believed that the ideals of the founding fathers are the litmus test for legitimate dissent, they could not find the tea partiers’ cause more reasonable. Their argument today is remarkably similar to that of the American colonials in 1776. Largely comprised of taxpayers, today's tea partiers feel that they are facing the inevitable prospect of increased tax burdens, and that they lack the representation to avoid such intolerable mandates. But rather than seeing their dissent as patriotism, Democrats feel that the the Tea Party movement should be the subject of ridicule and scorn.
It seems that Democrats want to selectively choose when citizens should adhere to the doctrine of patriotic objection, and are willing to reshape the terms when convenient. One can’t help but draw a parallel to Orwell’s iconic interpretation of elitism and tyranny. In Animal Farm, we see a ruling party amend the principle “All animals are equal” to become “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (4) It seems that upon encountering the inconvenient objections of the Tea Party, this Democratic administration also felt the need to amend its ideology, and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” has become “Objecting to George W. Bush was the highest form of patriotism, but in 2010, we should all just agree with hope and change."
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100216095241.aspx
(2)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas.html
(3)http://volokh.com/posts/1146554363.shtml
(4)http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Barney Frank and the 60 Vote Rule
Barney Frank apparently fancies himself an advocate of democratic principles. Recently, he called the guidelines in the Senate “anti-democratic” for requiring 60 votes for bill passage, and suggests that an initiative be taken by Democratic senators to abolish the rule. His opinion is that the revision to lower the requirement from 67 votes to 60 was a good start, (1) so one can only assume that he would like for that threshold to be a strict majority, or 51 votes. Frank feels that this will alleviate the influence of roustabouts in the “smaller states” and diminish their role in a filibuster against a party in majority.
Barney Frank is calling for the abolition of this 60 vote rule under the guise of moral outrage and an adherence to democracy. But it is nothing more than a ploy to garner more control in Congress, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our system being “anti-democratic.”
This is obvious when we examine, for example, the healthcare reform package that his party supports. Barney Frank would argue that it should only require a majority vote in the Senate to initiate sweeping and costly healthcare reform. That would be “democratic.”
But this question looms. If he indeed values the precepts of democracy, why does he ignore the majority of Americans that have been much more prevalently against this healthcare bill? (2) This Senate majority has been blindly charging forward with their agenda in blatant spite of public opinion. By what logic is that acceptable within the guidelines of democracy?
For that matter, according to the most recent polls, the majority of Americans are against abortion, (3) despite the Democratic Party’s largely “pro-choice” agenda. Shall we ban abortions across the board because 51 percent of Americans feel it is wrong? The majority of Americans also persist in opposing gay marriage, (4) in clear opposition to Barney Frank’s obvious position in that arena. Shall we take the right to decide on this matter from the states and apply a federal ban on gay marriage because well more than 51 percent of Americans are against the practice?
With these issues, would Barney Frank stand firm with the democratic principles he claims to maintain, and support such large-scale reform on the basis of the majority? I would wager that he would not.
The fact is that Barney Frank is not truly an advocate of democracy. He is an advocate of his party’s agenda, and an advocate of any measures necessary to advance that agenda. In this case, he is just feigning a devotion to democracy to lower voting requirements, which will then allow Democrats pass their unpopular legislation without having to hide their backroom deals that grease politicians for those few extra votes.
No one knows better than Barney Frank that Americans are paying attention to Washington’s corruption and shady deals, and that they don’t like it. His home state just shouted its disapproval in an election.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
1) http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
4) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
Barney Frank is calling for the abolition of this 60 vote rule under the guise of moral outrage and an adherence to democracy. But it is nothing more than a ploy to garner more control in Congress, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our system being “anti-democratic.”
This is obvious when we examine, for example, the healthcare reform package that his party supports. Barney Frank would argue that it should only require a majority vote in the Senate to initiate sweeping and costly healthcare reform. That would be “democratic.”
But this question looms. If he indeed values the precepts of democracy, why does he ignore the majority of Americans that have been much more prevalently against this healthcare bill? (2) This Senate majority has been blindly charging forward with their agenda in blatant spite of public opinion. By what logic is that acceptable within the guidelines of democracy?
For that matter, according to the most recent polls, the majority of Americans are against abortion, (3) despite the Democratic Party’s largely “pro-choice” agenda. Shall we ban abortions across the board because 51 percent of Americans feel it is wrong? The majority of Americans also persist in opposing gay marriage, (4) in clear opposition to Barney Frank’s obvious position in that arena. Shall we take the right to decide on this matter from the states and apply a federal ban on gay marriage because well more than 51 percent of Americans are against the practice?
With these issues, would Barney Frank stand firm with the democratic principles he claims to maintain, and support such large-scale reform on the basis of the majority? I would wager that he would not.
The fact is that Barney Frank is not truly an advocate of democracy. He is an advocate of his party’s agenda, and an advocate of any measures necessary to advance that agenda. In this case, he is just feigning a devotion to democracy to lower voting requirements, which will then allow Democrats pass their unpopular legislation without having to hide their backroom deals that grease politicians for those few extra votes.
No one knows better than Barney Frank that Americans are paying attention to Washington’s corruption and shady deals, and that they don’t like it. His home state just shouted its disapproval in an election.
William Sullivan
Houston, TX
1) http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
4) http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
