Category Archives: Media

Updated: Big Daddy Dodges Questions About Healthcare Diktat

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Propaganda, Rights, Socialism, Taxation

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos exposes BO’s thesaurus of excuses for what most media are euphemizing as “a mandate to buy health insurance,” also a tax.

Writes Stephanopoulos:

“…in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.

Here it is:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax? …

[Observe the president’s slithering and sliming for yourself.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

[SNIP]

BO’s ignorance and evasion would pose no major obstacle given the dogged devotion among the dogs of the media to minimizing and covering up Da Man’s many mistakes.

However, even this master of manipulation might find it hard to slither away from his latest faux paux: The Baucus bill reads:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800. [P. 29]

Of course, the Baucus-Obama coercion is simply a natural extension of the collectivization of choices. If the state is to become the custodian of every individual in this country, and assume the onus of their care—then said serfs cannot act as they please. Big Daddy puts it as follows:

[F]or us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Being a freeman and receiving freebies from the State are mutually exclusive. A pact with the devil has consequences. These will be bearable for the parasites who demand some form of taxpayer-subsidized care. Not so for those of us who yearn to live free.

Update: Here are a few pertinent points (which, naturally, do not address rights) made by Philip Klein of the American Spectator:

“While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there’s two things that Obama isn’t taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn’t mean you elimate [sic] the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care. … Many of those who are currently uninsured simply have very low health care costs, which they are willing to pay out of pocket when they get sick. The reason why Obama supports a mandate is that he wants to be able to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, and the only way to do that is to bring uninsured healthy people into the system. So really, this isn’t about eliminating freeloaders, it’s about forcing healthy people to pay for more health care than they need to so that they can make premiums more affordable for the sick.” [My italics]

Man With A Microphone

Conservatism, Literature, Media, Pop-Culture, The Zeitgeist

“IS GLENN BECK Bad for America?”, asks TIME, in what is clearly a rhetorical question for the Magazine. Better Beck’s “pox-on-both-parties populism” than nothing (or than TIME), is my reply.

“I don’t trust a single weasel in Washington. I don’t care what party they’re from. But unless we trust each other, we’re not going to make it.” This last bit of standard Beck fare is, of course, nonsense, to which TIME, not unreasonably, responds thus:

“How can we trust each other, though, when the integrated economy of ranters and their delighted-to-be-outraged critics are such a model of profitability?”

“Extreme talk, especially as practiced by a genuine talent like Beck, squeezes maximum profit from a relatively small, deeply invested audience, selling essentially the same product in multiple forms. The more the host is criticized, the more committed the original audience becomes. And the more committed the audience, the bigger target it presents to the rant industry on the other side of the spectrum. A liberal group called Color of Change has organized an advertiser boycott of Beck’s TV show — great publicity for the group and a boon to Beck’s ratings.”

“If it’s E pluribus unum you’re looking for, try American Idol.”

[SNIP]

The most disturbing thing about the “rant-racket” is in this snippet:

“Beck recently entered into a partnership with Simon & Schuster … to create a range of books for every audience, from children to teens to adults.”

…This as writers like myself struggle to find publishers for their books.

Updated: A Windy Carter ‘Breaks News’ On ‘Countdown’

Barack Obama, Journalism, Media, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Race, Racism, Reason

Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have believed that news media could stoop so low. With his most solemn, commissar-like countenance, thought-crime investigator Keith Olbermann broke news on his Countdown show: The intensity of the animosity toward Barack Obama is based on his being a black man. So said the feeble-minded Jimmy Carter. This, by Keith’s journalistic standards, meant that the libel was true.

Olbermann proceeded to “debate” the ad hominem with the off-putting, effeminate, left-liberal Markos Moulitsas (It’s hard to believe that he served in the armed forces and has fathered children), and before him with Lawrence O’Donnell.

Such speculation amounts to psychologizing—impugning a disputant based on assumptions about his motives, instead of arguing the case based on facts and reason. Even worse: this breaking-news balderdash rested on an argument from authority. A shameless O’Donnell asserted in all seriousness that because Carter had said so, and because Carter was from the South, he ought to know. Therefore, Joe Wilson and Southern Americans must be taken to the proverbial woodshed, i. e., subjected to reeducation in the form of endless discussion about race, conducted by the familiar race hucksters.

Middle America had better stand and fight this one to the end.

Update (Sept. 17): At the time Obama ascended to the throne his approval ratings ran to 70 percent. Are we to believe this senile git Carter that between March and September of 2009 Americans developed a bad case of racism?