Synopsis: Every age seeks visionaries to leave, in the wake of their genius, a changed world – but rarely are they found without a few strikeout also-rans getting a crack first. In 2008, millions of Americans thought they had found the real thing.
Over the subsequent two years the nation moved inexorably – though rarely without battle – toward European-style socialism. Through the warring perspectives of a few powerful, deluded men and women who claim to know what’s best for you resulted a national drama rife with both bureaucracy creation and wealth destruction.
The Socialist moved from the halls of academia to the offices of ACORN to a pew in Chicago, and eventually all the way to the oval office, all the while spurred on by the heady early days of a culture-changing phenomenon in the making. In the midst of the chaos and mounting disasters, average American citizens began to object, eventually adding up to more than the sum of their parts in what has become a multifront, 21st century clash of worldviews.
This film has not yet been rated, but the story received a solid B+ from the White House. Catch the beginning of the end in theaters November 2010, with the ultimate conclusion to be seen worldwide in November of 2012.
President Obama is still hoping he gets health care socialized before fall gets much underway and the Democrat leadership is anxious to deliver their messiah something palatable (to him and them) before he spurns them and finds a new set of disciples.
The fight waged on through the summer in the halls of our elected representatives and the screens of our TVs as it seems nearly the entirety of the elite class of America seems to want this.
The idea of class and elitism is an entirely different rant for an entirely different day. However, suffice it to say, America as a whole has been enablers at the very least in this creation of a super class. A group of people who, contrary to the very bedrock ideas and ideals of American idealism, are listened to and admired for reasons not much different than the aristocracy and royalty of those whose chains we sloughed off many years ago. Because they’re glamorous and seem to lead charmed lives and are adulated and congratulated by a fawning and feeding media pandering to a fawning and frenzied populace.
But Congress has let out for the summer and those we’ve employed to carry out the duties layed before them by the Constitution and with the admonition to remain constrained by the same, are coming home for their brief stint in what little of real life they must put up with prior to returning to the insular Washington D.C. And in these times at home, in order to breath new life into the flagging support for their beloved leader’s socialized health care initiatives, they are having what are being laughingly called townhall meetings.
Seeking to conjure up visions of colonial American citizens coming together in their meeting houses while ignoring the fact those meeting houses were usually churches and usually presided over by their pastors, they are creating what they hope to be media ready events with lots of weepy sob stories about how insurance carriers have shafted and cheated and dropped and left people with insurmountable bills.
But they read wrong.
The events are being taken over by citizens concerned, not that insurers are cheating them, but that government will fail and this failure will hurt far too many people than can be forgiven.
In video after video, we’re seeing soldiers and seniors and wives and mothers, fathers and sons standing up and demanding their representatives show them where in the Constitution they find the justification to perform what will be an abominable failure. Demanding reasons why if we can’t trust to government to run even the boondoggled “Cash for Clunkers” program, why we’re to trust them with our health care.
And those citizens, spending they’re own time and money and effort to attend these media events, are being called “plants” of the insurance companies, trained goons of the Republican party.
If the idea of socializing health care is such a valid and reasonable and good idea, why won’t we accept and allow discussion, alternate ideas, and even criticism of this so perfect program?
We have a democratic republic as our form of government and society in America and there is great weight and significance in the acceptance and even promotion of alternate ideas and opinions different from our own. The divergence of ideas even insures the strength of the positions eventually taken, as they’ve had to bear the strain of testing against all comers.
To provoke dissent and accept criticism is a proud tradition in America. It is perhaps our greatest strength.
To stifle protest and dismiss digressing opinions is becoming scarily commonplace in this administration.
Yes, it was “unpatriotic” to protest the Patriot act. But there wasn’t a talking point memo being read by every major network anchor stating they were planned plants of the evil Democrat leadership. And even that suppression was for the most part unwarranted, unnecessary, and un-American.
And so I ask, where is the decency? Where is the acceptance of those truly American ideals of protest and dissent? Where is the reason surrounding what is becoming a most messy muddle of he-said’s and she-said’s.
It’s like the butter battle all over again.
Start dissenting, before it’s not just unappreciated.
The Illinois Department of Public Health director told state lawmakers Tuesday that it’s important to remain vigilant in the face of the H1N1 flu virus, but fears of a pandemic flu are overblown.
“We have to keep these things in perspective, look at them rationally, know what the threat is and deal with it in a rational way. We know right now that this virus is acting very similarly to the regular seasonal flu,” said Dr. Damon T. Arnold, head of the state public health agency.
“At this juncture, this virus seems to be in a mild course,” Arnold said. “We’re recommending now that for routine cases you take care of yourself at home as you would for seasonal flu.”
Two reasons: It’s a sure fix for the Social Security cesspool, and they can adjust the artificial, age-graded stratifications of service wherein those with greater potential determined by mathematically “fair” judgments of age and expected longevity.
Just a few of the many benefits of the new socialized medicine system President Obama and the Democrats laid the groundwork for in the big spending bills they’ve been forcing us tax payers to swallow since he entered office:
Reducing costs by “guiding” doctor decisions
Doctors surrendering autonomy and learning to operate less like sole proprietors
Establishes the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, whose goal would be to slow down new medications and techniques because these drive up costs
Forcing the elderly to accept the realities of aging and surrendering certain advanced treatments
It’s being sold as the solution to our current health care system. But with our current system, if the old were forced out of treatments that would improve their lives, there would be an uproaor. If the government says they can’t be treated, who is there to turn to?
It always starts as something good:
As elsewhere, the combination of an aging population and the increasing cost of new technologies has started to put immense pressure on the French health system. But the French system of compulsory insurance – something for which many Democratic leaders are calling in America – acted as a Trojan horse, allowing the government to seize control over increasing areas of health care.
When costs became a political issue, the government mounted a cost crackdown. But instead of eliminating inefficiencies through greater individual responsibility, broader choice and more competition, the French government did precisely the opposite: It sought to control costs by fiat – that is, by piling on more bureaucracy.
But don’t worry: the Obamessiah will look out for each of us with the personal care of his omnipotent eye.
Oh, and it’s also why Obama is for lawful, government funded, unlimited and unrestricted abortion: fewer of us the government has to support.
Some mornings I wish I didn’t peruse the news. Today was one of those mornings.
The stories were thick of people expecting things from the government, wanting the government to reach down and touch them, trying to get things through misuse of government power and responsibility.
The “big 3” are back in Washington, driving this time apparently for PR purposes, asking for more money. The proposed solutions generally include the government taking some significant stake in the companies. Everything from a “Car Czar” to enforced restructuring (which I would agree with IF I agreed with a bailout at all).
Then there are the world markets. Asian markets are quite happy the US government will step into the big brother mode again and prop up weak parts of the US economy.
And if you bail out the big guy, the little guy wants his piece of the pie too. In a small story blown big, Barack Obama has proven he really does care about the little guy and each individual American by themselves. He says the workers staging a ‘sit-in’ at a Chicago-area manufacturer are “absolutely right” in demanding not just their owed wages and normal severance pay but also pay for accrued vacation as that manufacturer has declared bankruptcy and is currently in liquidation proceedings.
Apparently Bank of America held the business credit lines for the company and refused to offer more credit as it saw the sales of the company plummetting.
The issues here, expounded upon by John and Cisco on the morning show on Chicago’s AM560, are these: What responsibility does BoA have after their own bailout and largess received from the government? And at what point should a bailed-out bank still be able to protect it’s assets by allowing truly faulty companies to fail.
The whole failure and bailout cycle is ferocious in that it is, more often than not, better to allow a company to die naturally than to prop up failed and faulty business models and management/labor relations.
My opinion? Because we’ve already got ourselves into this mess. The workers are justified in expecting a little bit of this themselves, but only what is justly owed. BoA should be admonished to extend enough credit to cover immediate owed wages to the workers with collateral being the amount the bank will recoup from the liquidation of the companies assets (I agree with John and Cisco here).
Jesse Jackson has likened the plight of these workers to that of the blacks during the civil rights movement.
That man has no shame. Willing to sell even his own birthright for another 15 minutes in the spotlight.
Socialist Worker has strived to be a source of information like no other, presenting a socialist analysis of the events and forces that have shaped today’s world and sharing the voices of those involved in the many efforts to try to change that world. As a result, SW has always gravitated to the stories of struggle that rarely, if ever, appear in the mainstream media–the coal miners in Kentucky fighting for their rights, the South African workers and students who toppled apartheid, the young women and men who stood up to corporate globalization in the streets of Seattle, the veterans and active-duty soldiers resisting the U.S. war for oil and empire in Iraq.
Strange bed-fellows indeed. Not that it would surprise anybody who bothered researching and learning the truth prior to Election day.
But you can smile, and mean it, and affect more people than you know. If you know me you know I like to smile. A lot. It’s just so much more fun to smile than otherwise.
So when studies are showing that being happy affects more than your immediate circle of acquaintances, but can affect people up to 3 degrees removed from the original happy person, I became very happy.
Are you happier now? It’s because I am. And so are your friends.
When left to do as they choose, people generally imitate each other