Thursday, March 25, 2010

I am not Emmanuel Goldstein.

In George Orwell's 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein is public enemy number one. He's a terrorist, the biggest threat to the government, and the subject of the famed two-minutes hate. However, the reader discovers toward the end of the book that Goldstein most likely doesn't even exist. So why all the attention and vitriol toward a fictitious entity? This alleged threat to the ruling party was more likely than not an elaborate orchestration bent on keeping the people psychologically dependent on Big Brother. In other words, if the ruling class can marginalize its enemies while keeping them close to the stream of social consciousness as ever present threats, then the easier it is for the ruling class to gain and keep the favor of the masses.

This is what I see happening to me and the entire Tea Party, 9/12 groups in this nation. Because I espouse conservative/libertarian/Constitutional principles, I am diametrically opposed to the direction our government is taking the country. All the legislative compromises throughout the history of this country have inched us closer and closer to increased government control. I mean we certainly aren't moving away from it. We started out right of center, but bill after bill, executive order after order, and Supreme Court ruling and another has landed us squarely on the left. I mean, we can barely see the center anymore.

Therefore, the current powers that be and many of their supporters have created an Emmanuel Goldstein of sorts out of this movement. This straw man they've created hates the poor and wishes the speedy demise of those without health insurance, all in the name of greed. They've bolstered the Goldstein image by taking the theatrical manner in which Glenn Beck conveys his message and negatively linking it to those who agree with his political ideology. Never mind the message! Just LOOK at THAT CHALKBOARD and those cascading TEARS!

Many at the town hall meetings across the country last summer voiced their discontent to their elected officials, but due to the impassioned way in which they did it, all of a sudden everyone associated with this movement is a rabid, racist, fear-monger. This is why we see a push to associate the alleged death threats against our elected officials to conservative talkers and the Tea Party movement. They're trying to marginalize us! That's why Pelosi exultantly walked to the Capital last Sunday afternoon with gavel in hand to pass Obamacare and did so directly through the crowds of opposition. She was trying to incite the opposition to violence so that she and others in power could further demonize them and everyone associated with them.

Now, if your view of this movement on the right is or has been clouded by this straw-man, Emmanuel Goldstein type propaganda, then I urge you to cut through the hype and fallacy and look for the merits of the principled argument. We're not as divided as you may think.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Questions regarding Obamacare

For those of you who received yesterday’s news from the House of Representatives with celebration and rejoicing, I sure would love some accountability and serious responses to the following questions. Please, no pathos or obfuscations.

I hereby candidly but respectfully call you out! Your silence may speak volumes about your position.

1. Based on principle, how can you justify infringing on the inalienable rights of many in order to enhance what you consider to be the rights of others?

2. Defend the premise that free access or government mandated lower costs to health care are inalienable rights.

3. Given our current economic situation combined with our debt obligations to other countries and our total national debt, how do we pay for this? How will we pay for a single payer system, which is the president's desire and the desire of many others in power?

4. How is it not selfish and unconstitutional to require by law that everyone else satisfy your individual wants and needs regarding health care?

5. Just because advancements in medicine extend the average human life span longer than ever before, why should you or anyone else get free access to the benefits of those advancements when they were innovated and developed by the hard work of others?

6. How is it an infringement on someone's rights when those who provide medical care require compensation proportionate to their skill, experience, and expertise?

7. How is it not an infringement on someone's rights when the government requires you to purchase a service or product at the threat of penalties, fines, etc?

If you were bent on the passage of this bill, then I don't think some well thought out answers to these questions are too much to ask.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The State Religion of Irreligion

Living in a Time of Ironies