Redistributive Vocabulary

June 25, 2011

What is a liberal? Look it up in the dictionary and you’ll get confused. That’s because in most of the rest of the world, “liberal” basically means conservative or more specifically, libertarian. This is because, some years ago, Progressives figured out they were unpopular so they began identifying themselves with Democrats. When Democrats realized they were identified as “liberal” and that was unpopular, the move back to “progressive” was on. They didn’t change their policies or ideology. Instead, they changed their label.

“Words have meanings” is a common political football of a phrase. Nobody knows this better than the party of a thousand verbal disguises. Ronald Reagan made one of the best references to this phenomenon when he criticized JIimmy Carter for saying that the US was not in a recession because of the very technical definition of the word that Carter fished out of a textbook. “Millions of Americans are suffering and Jimmy Carter chooses to hide behind a dictionary.” That’s not an exact quote but it’s close enough I don’t feel like looking it up.

Most people will be familiar with many of these ploys. Take for example “illegal immigrants” who are now “undocumented workers” much as I was an “undocumented pharmacist” many years ago. Not only is the attempt to shift public opinion by infusing the label with excessive nuance, it’s also an attempt to shift the debate by changing the definition. If “illegal immigration is a problem, we look to the LAW and IMMIGRATION to formulate a solution. If we like our law, then the solution to illegal immigration is to enforce immigration law. If the problem is “undocumented workers” we’re talking about people who are working (supposedly but irrelevant) who lack “documentation” (something that is in the left’s wheel house – more bureaucratic busy-work we can use to funnel taxpayer money into the hands of ivy-league pencil pushers with law degrees).

I was in an argument with your average twitter liberal/nihilist troll yesterday in which I was maintaining that Barack Obama was a War Criminal. He called me a liar. My response was thatCongress had debated about whether or not the President had violated the War Powers act and, in a bipartisan vote, decided that he had. So I argue, he broke a LAW concerning WAR – hence he was found “guilty” by a jury of his peers, or as close as you can come to it. Simple, really, but NO…we had to debate whether or not this was a formal charge. We didn’t even get into the President’s ridiculous claim that he was in the clear because bombing Libya didn’t constitute “hostilities.” SRSLY?  If you buy that line of crap, I feel like I can take all your stuff and argue it wasn’t theft. Words may have meanings but that hardly matters to the ideology and attached political party that has brought you such classics as “Well it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”


10 Things Liberals Hate…About the Health Care Bill

August 13, 2009

I have a hard time admitting it myself, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone. I have liberal friends. As difficult as this may seem sometimes, it does off me a unique opportunity. I have observed over the last few weeks those arguments against the current incarnation of “universal health care (nay! insurance)” which have been most effective in convincing them to a more reasonable point of view. This is important as public sentiment right now is tilting heavily against the House and Senate bills. Most conservatives and a clear majority of independents already oppose the bill. Time to get your liberal friends on board or off the fence. As I have been trained in formal debate, I offer ten points to discuss. These are not typically “things everyboy hates” about the bills, it’s special and for our lefty pals.

1. The “Exchange” and anti-trust language enshrines “big insurance” execs as semi-permanent public employees. Here’s how it works: Section 102 of HR3200 phases out private plans that don’t meet the conditions of the “Exchange” which will be how everybody will have to buy private coverage. Specific language in the bills prevents companies that participate in this Exchange from being sued for anti-trust violations. Current “evil” insurance companies become part of a corporatist bureacracy.

2. Neither the House nor Senate bills is “universal coverage.” We don’t have to spend a lot of time reminding liberals how many campaign promises President Obama has broken because many of them are counting, too. Needless to say, the President now fully admits that the bills before congress will not cover all Americans. I knew liberals were mad about this the day Obama announced that his “deadline” really wasn’t set in stone.

3. Both bills maintain three-party payment systems. This is simple enough. Either Obama is clearly lying and the bills are meant to end private health insurance or they’re going to maintain the “profit-sick” system that liberals despise. If health care is a “right,” why would the federal government allow profit in the insurance industry?

4. Passing current versions of the bill would kill HR676. Aside from the obvious point that the bureaucracy in the current plans would make a universal, single-payer system like what is in HR676 impossible, there is also the more subtle argument that passage of something like HR3200 effectively ends reform efforts in the forseeable future. I respect Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) for his sincerity even though I rarely agree with him. Mr. Kucinich is not a fan of HR3200.

5. Civil rights watchdogs call the bill racist. The US Commission on Civil Rights is preparing an official position on the bills that calls into question specific provisions that would target medical school grants by race and ethnicity. It has been my position that providing funding to low-income women for elective abortions feeds the “black genocide” phenomenon; odd observations on proposals supported by our first “post-racial” President and his supporters. If your liberal buddies tell you that the Hyde Amendment would prevent this, just remind them that not even Senator Chris Dodd (D) will float that duck.

6. The bills violate the “right to privacy” in several ways. Chuck Norris read the bill blindfolded and found that government officials can come to your house and “help” you in your parenting. There are also a myriad of provisions, some vague and others specific, that would allow the government access to everything from your bank accounts to eating habits. Even the ACLU mocks the President on this issue. Pizza?

7. The bills will violate public trust in existing entitlement programs. The left-leaning, mostly Democrat-appointed CBO has repeatedly rebuked the White House for claiming there are “cost savings” in the bills for Medicare and Medicaid. The President seems intentionally vague on the subject when pressed. As the bills mandate cuts in spending for the two giant health programs, the cuts will have to come from somewhere. I’m guessing the cuts will be to service.

8. The bills’ vague language violates the principle of transparency. My second post on this blog was to expose a flaw in the language of HR3200. Specifically, the bill remains vague by modifying other legislation, like the social security act. Aside from that, the entirety of both the House and Senate versions are filled with so much that is left to interpretation. If your liberal friends enjoy calling you a “deather,” remind them that such theories are possible because the bill is poorly written. You might also remind them that the Senate removed language which Sarah Palin said created “death panels” but only after the President essentially called her a liar.

9. The bills were written with heavy corporate lobbying. When elements in the media became aware that insurance lobbyists were making visits to the White House, they requested visitor logs and received them, incomplete and weeks late. Now there’s word that the White House has struck some sort of unsavory deal with pharmaceutical companies. Liberals hate corporate lobbies with a capital H. This is also another fantastic example of campaign promises broken.

10. The bills contain no tort reform. This is the most obvious and popular way to reform the way health insurance works in the US. Nobody answers wrong when you ask why it’s missing. Remind your liberal friends that the Socialist Health Care Paradise of Canada actually has pretty good tort laws. Liberal patriots don’t like greedy lawyer lobbies any more than you do. If your friends on the left don’t get this point, you’ve met a real ideologue.

Go forth and spread the word. Convert the shabby liberal masses with love and light. Links are provided below, organized by point for easy reference. I have favored sources with the most left-lean first, and so on, with the exception of Chuck Norris who is never less than 100% RIGHT unless he says otherwise: