Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

 

White House Petition On ACA Deferral

Wednesday, July 10th, 2013

I posted a petition on the Whitehouse site on the Obamacare deferral. If the answer interests you, please sign it here. Text is below:

Under what authority does the President think he can defer implementation of the ACA?
The President has recently announced he is delaying implementation of the employer mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as Obamacare. The law, however, states that it is to go into effect in 2014, not later.

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This would seem to state that the President MUST execute the law as written. The petition signers are confused as to what authority gives the President the right to choose not to enforce particular laws.

So the petition signers request that the President explain himself, and detail under what authority he believes he can defer the implementation of a law given Article II Section 3 of the constitution.

 
 

The Giving Of Thanks

Wednesday, November 21st, 2012

And so it was, yea verily, when some 5,000 years ago, or so, as there are some disputed among theologians, the Earth was born. And some seven days after the birth of the Earth, all the plants and animals had been born. Mankind was vegetarian, of course. And by mankind we mean the only two of the human species who cohabited the Earth with every animal that ever existed, dinosaurs included. They lived in Missouri. At some point, the first man and woman decided that they wanted knowledge of how the world worked, which the acquired not by observation of the world around them, nor by hunting and eating meat and growing their brains, but rather by eating from a magic tree. And upon gaining said knowledge, they noticed that their genitals were exposed, and that they enjoyed eating meat. So they set forth, and populated the Earth.

A small tribe of people, who existed at the nexus of three major continents, Asia, Africa and Europe, was made up of some 13 tribes, some of whom departed from their homeland never to return. As it turns out, those very people were the original settlers of the American continents. In their homeland they were known as the Jews. In their new land, they became the Nephites and the Lamanites. One of them was white, and they got eliminated by the dark skinned Jews, who had completely lost their way with the Lord. At some point, the last white man alive in North America (before the arrival of Columbus) wrote down the history of these lost Jews on gold tablets, ad buried them in the hills of upstate New York.

Some 128 years after Columbus became the first non-Jewish white man to set foot in the Americas, religious zealots from England landed in Massachusetts. They nearly died in their first winter, but the Jews, who the pilgrims thought were from India, helped show them how to farm the land, and thus they had a bounteous feast that year. The centerpiece of their meal was a bird that the English speaking peoples had mistakenly named believing it has originated in the Ottoman Empire. This is the bird that we typically eat this time each year.

Some 210 years after the pilgrims arrived in North America, a man named Joseph Smith discovered the tablets buried by the last white North American Jew/Indian, and he launched the only true church according to the wished of Jesus Christ, all others being an abomination. Joseph Smith himself ran for President of the United States, as sort of a theocratic candidate. He lost obviously, but not before he made a prophecy: that someday the US Constitution would be “hanging by a thread” and that it would be a member of his Church who would become president, and set things right.

Almost 200 years later, the US Supreme Court declared that the power to tax includes the power to tax not for the purpose of raising revenue to act upon its enumerated powers (as the constitution says), but rather that it can be used to compel behavior in the citizenry. The case which was being decided was over a bill designed to eventually socialize the medical care industry, such socialism being well outside the framework of the Constitution or the thinking of any of the framers.

And so it came to pass that a Mormon was running for president, just at that moment, when the constitution was hanging by a thread. But alas, something was amiss. This Mormon had himself implemented a miniature version of this form of socialism in the state in which he was governor. And when running in the primaries, he had said that he didn’t want to repeal the offensive law, but just to fix the most offensive portions of it. And after obtaining the nomination, rather than going hard against the man after whom the legislation is colloquially named, he went hard after the most strict constitutionalist in the Republican party, the Ron Paul acolytes, who were playing by the rules to gain positions in the party to prepare for an eventual Rand Paul presidential run. Got that? Going against the man who is eviscerating the constitution, use kid gloves. Going against the Ron Paul folks, go for blood. Perhaps they weren’t white and delightsome enough for him.

Eric Fehrnstrom, the Mormon candidate’s campaign manager or whatever you want to call him, was so devoted to the Mormon candidate that he was fond of saying to the rest of the staff that they should all feel privileged, thankful even, to have had the opportunity to work with such a great man.

Whatever.

So what am I thankful for this year? That we’re rid of that douchebag once and for all.

 
 

Rob Sama Grand Plan – Tax Rectification Act/Amendment

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

Rob Sama Grand PlanSo it’s been a while since we’ve added to the Grand Plan here on the samaBlog. And I’ve had this notion ruminating in my head since the Obamacare decision came down. But I haven’t had the spare cycles to devote to writing this until now. So excuse me if this seems a few months late.

So the Roberts Obamacare decision comes down to this: the power to tax as expressed in the 16th amendment to the Constitution is unlimited, and any objective that cannot be met by using any of the enumerated powers can be coerced of the citizenry by means of the tax code. So while the commerce clause doesn’t give congress the right to compel people to buy insurance, the tax code in effect does.

It goes without saying that this interpretation of Congress’ power to tax, an interpretation which contradicts Supreme Court rulings from the time of the 16th amendment’s adoption, grants effectively unlimited powers to Congress to compel or outlaw whatever behavior it so chooses, so long as it is clothed in the power to tax. Anybody with half a brain can see how such a power is incompatible with the idea of a free society, and can and likely will lead to abuse in the future. And so we ought to propose the tax rectification Amendment, which would read more or less as follows:

The power to tax is limited to raising revenues to enable the federal government execute the enumerated powers given it by this constitution. Congress may not, under any circumstances, require abusive or excessive taxation, or taxes which are which encourage changes in the behavior of the citizenry.

I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I would be open to better wording from someone who has been trained in the art of such things, but you get the drift.

The problem with such an amendment, of course, is that it would not just invalidate Obamacare. It would lay waste to much of the tax code as it currently exists. I am in favor of such destruction, but it seems to me that many in congress are not, especially on the Democrats’ side of the aisle, given their proclivity towards Obamacare (and telling people what to do generally). And so should the Tax Rectification Amendment be rejected, we shall motivate those who differ from us by exercising our newfound powers under the Roberts decision, and enact the Tax Rectification Act. The Tax Rectification Act, of course, is just a series of punitive taxes against hot button cultural items that are adored by the SWPL crowd. I came up with a few ideas off the top of my head. Surely by the time the new congress takes power, we can come up with a mile-long list that will infuriate the left. But here’s my start for now:

  • 100% tax on organic produce
  • $1,000,000 annual excise tax on food trucks
  • $1,000,000 annual excise tax on any restaurant or food establishment that does not serve meat
  • $2,000,000 annual excise tax on any restaurant or food establishment that does not serve animal products of any kind
  • $1,000,000 annual excise tax on every institution that performs abortions. Couple with a $10,000 excise tax on every abortion performed
  • 500% sales tax on any sticker, flag or other item sold with a rainbow on it
  • $10,000,000 excise tax on every motion picture produced in the United States
  • $1,000 excise tax on bicycle helmets
  • $500/lb excise tax on the production and sale of tofu
  • $100 excise tax on every bumper sticker produced
  • $1,000,000 annual excise tax on medical marijuana dispensaries

I could go on, you get the drift.

But you object, and exclaim, “But Rob, I despise Obamacare as much as you. But I enjoy some or many of these things on this list too. I watch movies, and eat at food trucks, and ride a bicycle..” To which I say: you’re missing the point. The point is not to actually put all these things out of existence, but rather to tell those on the other side that we are willing and able to use this new fangled power in crazy ass ways to destroy the things that you hold most dear. And that the longer you wait on ratifying the Tax Rectification Amendment, the more likely you will reap irreparable damage to those you hold dearest. So Join with us and pass the amendment. Yes you lose Obamacare, but you also gain the assurance that we won’t tax the accouterments of the SWPL lifestyle just out of spite. Indeed, it is designed to give those on the other side a newfound appreciation of why limited government is a good thing. And such an appreciation will only have good consequences over the long term.

 
 

Another Bush Appointee Proves Himself To Be A Liberal

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

So Obamacare was constitutional after all, apparently. Now we are going to have to elect that douchebag Romney in order to get it repealed. But make no mistake about it, we live under a federal government that now claims power to compel you to do anything at all, no matter how minute.

I am reminded of an Ann Coulter column on John Roberts back when he was being nominated. Not that I’m a huge fan of Coulter, but her words were prescient, and deserve repeating in full at this time:

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.

Will he let us vote?

Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid “womenfolk”?

Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights”?

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one.

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-’93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.’s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying: “Hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job.”

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.

I believe their exact words were, “Read our lips; Souter’s a reliable conservative.”

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued ? free of charge ? before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I’m glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend we’re the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too.

Finally, let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.

It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, he’d better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections ? seven of the last 10!

We’re the Harlem Globetrotters now ? why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork … and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.

Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lifetime tenure on the high court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.

As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights and property rights ? liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People for the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.

The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.

And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground ? substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn’t be a game of Russian roulette.

BANG!

 
 

On Contraception

Sunday, February 26th, 2012

I know that the idea that the federal government should mandate paying for contraception by means of health insurance seems odd to many of you. Indeed it is odd, and were it not for the fact that I’ve spent most of my life in deep blue enclaves, I too may find myself perplexed by the notion. And while I avowedly disagree with the idea, I am not perplexed by the notion. It’s something I’ve heard liberal women screech about for about a decade or so. So allow me to share with you my understanding.

The first part is that leftists have this fantasy that they will be able to walk into a clinic or pharmacy and get whatever they need in a timely fashion and just walk out, without thinking about it and more importantly, WITHOUT PAYING. This is a fantasy, and free stuff ultimately doesn’t work as a public policy (see Free Stuff vs. Freedom). And in light of that fantasy, contraception is just one more health related thing they want for free.

But ultimately, it’s more than that. It’s tit for tat sexism, coupled with an utter lack of understanding as to what insurance actually is. I want to show you a tweet that someone in my timeline retweeted. It’s been retweeted over 50 times, which is a fair number for an individual tweet. But it’s a meme I’ve heard from women around blue parts for some time now:


Why aren’t erectile dysfunction drugs as controversial as contraceptives? If God wanted you to have that erection, He’d give it to you.
@_joycastro
Joy Castro

The meme is offensive on a number of different levels. First up is the God reference. Certainly, few Christians believe in faith healing (though I wonder if those who do, such as Christian Scientists, get waivers from the penalties Obamacare imposes on the uninsured). And more importantly, few people who oppose Obamacare or even the contraception mandate do so on specifically Christian grounds. It is fascinating to me that the author should feel the need to load her comment with the reference to God at all.

And of course, the author completely misunderstands what insurance is. Insurance is a bet you make that something bad might happen to you. Obviously, you hope to lose the bet. The insurance company (or cooperative) charges based on the likelihood of the bad thing occurring and the cost of dealing with the bad thing when it does occur. Any extra money is either profit to the company or a dividend to the cooperative shareholders.

But what you can’t do is insure against an eventuality. All that amounts to is a weird kind of financing scheme. Even life insurance isn’t insuring against one’s death (a certainty) but against the timing of one’s death (an uncertainty). By way of example, imagine going to your insurance company to obtain toilet paper. Literally, everyone poops, on a more or less predictable schedule. Therefore. there’s literally nothing to insure. You’d be paying a premium to a company to handle your money and give it back to you in the form of toilet paper. Such a scheme can’t possibly make sense, and can only run up the cost of toilet paper for everyone involved. (Conversely, if for some reason you stopped pooping, then that would be an insurable event.)

But the real reason for the Obama administration mandating that contraception be covered by insurance is that they perceive men getting sex pills paid for, and so they feel their sex pills should be free too. Never mind that one is for a disfunction, and the other is for a normal, properly functioning body. It’s tit for tat over minutiae of the sort that plagues child siblings and those stuck in dysfunctional marriages. “Dad, he got more french fries that me!” “Mom, he’s played with it for 5 minutes, it’s MY TURN!!!” It’s the sort of attitude that causes a parent to yell at their child, to tell them to zip it. Life isn’t precisely fair, and attempts to make it so are futile and distracting. As they say in Alcoholics Anonymous:

God, Give us the grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed, Courage
to change the things which should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

Now one may argue that erectile dysfunction in men above a certain age is so common that it shouldn’t be covered by insurance. But that is a dangerous argument if you believe in the likes of Obamacare. That is an argument for catastrophic coverage, as opposed to comprehensive coverage. And in that kind of world, the sort I argue for in my Grand Plan, anything short of cancer would likely be paid for out of pocket. I would argue that such a setup would result in health care costs coming down dramatically. But such a setup would not be in keeping with the “get my healthcare for free” fantasy. Not that leftists won’t make the argument. Consistency has never been one of the left’s strong suits.

I’ve become convinced that a fair amount of modern leftist ideology is little more than thinly veiled man hatred. Count this argument as one more data point in favor of that argument.

 
 

Free Stuff vs. Freedom

Saturday, February 18th, 2012

So I’ve been waiting for someone to write the definitive piece on this whole Obamacare/Catholic/contraception kerfluffle. There is much to write about it, but to date I have yet to see anyone spell out the central lesson that needs to be learned. So here, in a nutshell, is that lesson:

Free stuff and freedom are inherently incompatible concepts. You can choose the free stuff, or you can choose the freedom, but if you choose the free stuff, you will eventually lose the freedom. Here’s why:

  1. As any economist can tell you, appetites are unlimited, but means are not. Which is to say, we all can consume unlimited amounts of stuff, but we don’t because we don’t have the money. Thus when you tell somebody that you’re not going to interfere with their freedom to consume, you’re just going to foot the bill, it should come as no surprise that they gorge like pigs at the trough. When the bill comes due, you are then forced to make a choice: curtail the freedom or the free stuff. Either you end the subsidy or you put all sorts of limits on how it can be used. Or, I suppose, you go bankrupt like Europe is doing now, and like the US is about to do soon, in which case the free stuff will go away.
  2. Even if the people consuming the free stuff don’t gorge at the trough, even if they are limited in the amount of free stuff they’re given, eventually the choices they make in consuming their free stuff will offend somebody. And because it’s their tax money, indeed everyone’s tax money, that is paying for the free stuff, those people will seek redress that their tax dollars not go to fund the free stuff that so offends them. Likewise, others will believe that because some free stuff is funded that they for some reason or another cannot put to use, that their other free stuff must also be funded in order for things to be fair. This creates endless conflicts and fights. One may think that these fights are mostly between prudes and libertines. Yet one can easily imagine passionate fights between vegetarians and Atkins dieters, or between Mayor Bloomberg and anyone who enjoys anything whatsoever. Literally, the available permutations are endless.

    Moreover, there will invariably be people whose economic interests are at stake as well. They want the stuff they produce available to be purchased as free stuff, and the stuff their competitors make eliminated. This means that they too will lobby, and adopt the arguments of their idealogical brethren mentioned in the preceding paragraph as their own.

    Eventually, someone wins out. That someone is either the lobby with the most to gain financially or the lowest common denominator amongst public opinion. But whatever it is, the freedom to choose for the person receiving the free stuff has been curtailed.

If you want to see this work in a concrete way, find a teenager at the mall and hand him your credit card. Tell him he can do with it what he wants for the time he is at the mall. By the time the bill comes due, the teenager will undoubtedly have spent more than you would have foreseen, and would have spent it on items that you would not likely have approved of. The same thing happens in the public sphere.

You can see these forces play out whenever some politician calls for banning the use of food stamps for candy and cigarettes. But food stamps are a program for the poor only. Obamacare, by contrast, is designed to manage everybody’s health care. The goal is for everybody, or at least most people, to be able to get whatever health care they need without paying for it themselves. The bill is picked up by the employer or the state. And because every decision you make in your life has an impact on your health, and the state is paying your health bill, the state will presume to have a say on those decisions. Put aside the specific reasons why the Obama administration wants contraception covered by insurance (a subject for a later blog post). The fact is that these kinds of fights and loss of freedoms will become a normal part of our life under a state run health care system. The loss of our personal freedoms, religious included, is inevitable. Just wait until the state starts monitoring your daily routines with technology like this. It will happen, it’s only a matter of time.

So apparently the Catholic Church were big boosters for Obamacare when it was being passed, being fans of free stuff for the poor and all. One should hope that they have learned something from this episode about the incompatibility of free stuff and freedom. Though I’m not holding my breath. But perhaps the rest of us might learn something instead.

Again, I’m not holding my breath.

 
 

Sputnik Misfire

Friday, January 28th, 2011

So I didn’t watch the SOTU speech, but everyone has been commenting on the Sputnik reference in it. So I thought I’d so a word search on the speech and read the reference:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t even there yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -– (applause) — an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we’re seeing the promise of renewable energy…

When Sputnik was launched, the American populace said, in 1950′s parlance, “Holy fucking shit, we need to do something!” And they launched the space program in response, culminating in a man on the moon. The president at the time, Dwight Eisenhower, thought little of the launch initially, and so it was his successor president who took action to assuage the fears of the populace.

Obama seems to take the Sputnik idea a bit too literally. Nobody is having a pant-shitting moment over the fact that China makes more windmills or solar panels or high-speed trains than we currently do. In fact, there were only two Sputnik like moments within my lifetime. The first was over 9-11, and the sense of urgency about Islamic terrorism has faded since then, to put it mildly.

The second such moment was the financial collapse that started in 2007. In particular, the fact that the facade was ripped off of our economy, wherein it was revealed that the United States economy much more closely resembles that of a South American basket case crony capitalist economy than the free-market meritocracy that we like to believe our economy has always been. That shock was doubled down upon by the massive spending programs in the stimulus and Obamacare, plus the arrival of the day of reckoning with the first of the Baby Boomers receiving Social Security and Medicare. That pant-shitting moment continues unabated, as the recession plods along and the federal government showing no interest in cutting back on its spending binge.

The fact that Obama couldn’t can’t see this, and instead thought that people were shitting their pants over solar panels and windmills indicates to me that he is almost certain to be replaced in 2012 by somebody who does see it, or at least claims to. No guarantee of course that said person will deliver us from calamity, but whoever it is, he/she will be sure to talk a good game at a minimum.

 
 

Repeal Part I

Saturday, January 8th, 2011

I just wanted to take a moment to comment on the repeal of Obamacare that just passed the house. What struck me about it was just how easy it was. No arms needed to be twisted. No pork needed to be dished out. But on bipartisan lines, a vote to repeal easily passed. Contrast that with the effort required to pass Obamacare in the first place. not a single Republican vote could be garnered (or maybe they got just one in the house, I forget), and when the house finally passed the Senate bill, it was a week log excruciating arm twisting effort.

Can there really be any doubt as to what the will of the people really is?

Between court challenges and salami slicing away at the bill that is bound to take place over he next two years, I do not seeing Obamacare being implemented, at least not in the way it is currently written. And assuming that a Republican takes the White House in 2012, its eventual repeal is all but assured.

And so I ask my liberal progressive friends out there, was that all worth it? Really?

 
 

Liars and Ignoramuses

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

What is one to conclude of our media today? Consider the following:

With regards to all of these stories, the media is either blissfully unaware of the world around them, or they are refusing to properly inform their readers of important information. In other words, they are either not doing their jobs, or they are intentionally withholding context from important news stories. It is important context to understand what kind of organization ACORN is in a year in which they are to participate in helping the Census get done. It is important to ask the attorney general questions about controversial cases and positions he’s taken in the course of his duties. It is important to know whether or not climatologists faked their findings in a year when the President is proposing a radical cap and trade policy based on the theory that carbon emissions are causing catastrophic global warming. And it is important to know whether or not media outlets are conspiring with each other and with certain political campaigns. All of this has a word, of course:

Context

Which of course brings us to Andrew Breitbart. Andrew Breitbart posted a video of a woman explaining to an NAACP audience how she was racist and disliked white people, after which the audience cheered. Deriving the wrong lesson from the video clip, her employer, the USDA, fired her. It later became clear that the story that the woman was telling was not over, that hers was a redemptive tale. She was no longer a racist, but was now a commie. Cries from across the media rang out, that Breitbart has failed to provide proper context, and had clipped the video unfairly.

Jon Stewart had a different take. He declared Andrew Breitbart to be the most honest man in the controversy, because Breitbart was open about his partisan intentions from the get go. From this I would infer that someone who fails to provide context in their reporting and holds themselves out as something less than a raging partisan is either dishonest or woefully unaware of the subject on which he is reporting.

In other words, they are either a liars or ignoramuses.

Which brings us to Joan Vennochi:

While Republicans drape themselves in middle class values, they are sticking it to the middle class. It’s all in the effort to deny Obama and the Democrats any positive political message.

Last week, Senate Republicans rejected a bill to aid small business with expanded loan programs and tax breaks.

There are, of course, two missing pieces of context here. First, the tax provisions to which she refers are a provision of Obamacare which requires the issuance of a 1099 for anything purchased over $600. Insofar as every Republican in the house and senate voted against Obamacare, they already voted against this nonsense. Secondly, in an effort to repeal the mistake which nearly every Democrat in the house and senate voted for, they proposed a bill repealing the provision, but enacting a large tax increase as well. It was for this reason that Republicans voted against the bill; because it was a tax increase.

So which is Joan Vennochi? Is she a liar or an ignoramus? It is fair to mention that she is a commentator who makes no bones about her political leanings. Yet does that mean that she is an overt partisan, one who cannot be counted on to present all the facts, despite working for a supposedly objective news source in the Boston Globe?

I suspect that this is part of a new liberal meme. So I decided to look and see based on a quick news search if I could find any straight news articles parroting this line. It didn’t take long. Newsbusters is already on the case. You can search for yourself to find more, I’m out of time.

The good thing is that at this point the mainstream media have done such a good job portraying themselves as liars and ignoramuses to the American public that I don’t think this will have much effect. After all, nobody intentionally pays attention to liars and ignoramuses, unless it’s to laugh.

UPDATE: Instalanche! Thanks to Glenn and welcome Instapundit readers.

 
 

One Of These Things is Not Like The Others

Monday, March 29th, 2010

One of these things does not belong:

Found here. (Via Future of Capitalism)