November 2007

I Love Birthdays. First there’s the gifts…then there’s the cake!

Asta's 14th

He cautions you, however, to avoid conflagrations due to excessive candle use.

The acting Surgeon General of the United States, Rear Adm. Steven K. Galson, couldn’t resist weighing in on Santa Claus’ ample waist line. In remarks to a Boston Herald reporter after a lecture on obesity in Boston recently, the General took aim at the bad example that a rotund St. Nick provides kids and adults alike. “It is really important that the people who kids look up to as role models are in good shape, eating well and getting exercise. It is absolutely critical…” he said.

Earth to General Galson…Santa Claus is a legend! He’s a construct…a myth…a secular totem of the Christmas season. Obviously, the Surgeon, and I mean this with all due respect, is mental!! With so many other pressing health-related issues affecting and afflicting real-life, average American citizens, he seizes upon the Santa-is-fat issue as being of critical importance. Why not focus on autism, cancer, lead in Chinese toys or many other deadly health issues?


But this assault on Santa is just the latest in a line of “Santa Smackdowns” that have occurred during 2007. Some notable examples of Santa behavior modification are:

  • In Sydney, Australia, Santa Clauses (Father Christmases, there) were warned not to exclaim the traditional “Ho, Ho, HO”, lest small children be frightened AND that women be offended. Seems that some brainiac down under reasoned that the HO that Santa shouts could be confused with “ho” — the appellation that semi-literate hip-hoppers here in the good old USA use to identify fallen women, and that scores of Aussie women could suffer insult and indignation. Whats next? A ban on the sale of “Ho Ho’s” or “Ding Dong’s” in the land of dingos and kangaroos???
  • At various mall Santa training sessions around the USA, wannabe Santa’s have been warned not to reach down and grab children but rather to request that the parents place their child on his lap. Furthermore, it was suggested that the Santa’s have their hands visible at all times during the Santa-child interaction, particularly when the picture being taken. And it’s “Ix-Nay on the Istmast-Cree-tray” for Santa’s workshop…Santa has been chided that it is not acceptable to display a, dare I say, CHRISTMAS TREE in his mall lair lest he offend non-Christians. If he does choose to display this insensitive totem of Christian religious hegemony, then it should only have “secular” decorations and it should be conspicuously labeled “Holiday Tree”. It was also suggested that Santa not have a pipe or any tobacco-related object or product visible in his little “Santa kiosk”. Finally, in a final stab at morphing Santa into some plain-vanilla average Joe…the Santa’s were told to refrain from saying “Merry Christmas” in favor of the less offensive “Happy Holidays”. I wonder who would come in contact with Santa Claus that might be offended by “Merry Christmas”. After all, he does the supersonic toy distribution, climbing down the chimney thing on flipping CHRISTMAS eve only!! Right?

A person would be hard-pressed to dream this stuff up! We have finally gone off the edge. It’s official — political correctness has gripped most of us, not the least of whom is the Surgeon General! Where do we go from here? Where is the next beachhead of PC madness? Keep watching as only time will tell…

Question: Where in the world can you face the fear of execution for naming an inanimate object “Prophet” or “God”?

Answer: The Sudan.

It seems that British citizen and teacher Gillian Gibbons has really set the oh-so-tolerant Islamic faith upon its ear with her brazen teaching style. That’s right…Gibbons, 54, who is a teacher at Khartoum’s Unity High School, allowed her 7 year old students to name their class teddy bear mascot. The naming was done democratically, with the name “Muhammed” winning the student poll. Innocent stuff so far, eh? Innocent that is, until word of the naming incident got into the general public. This is where the fundamentalist whack-jobs went ballistic, and demanded that the government do something.

The something that the Sudanese government did was to arrest Gibbons and charge her with “blasphemy, insulting Islam and inciting hatred”, and they promised a speedy trial. There was also talk of charging her with the far more serious crime of sedition, just for good measure. Good to their word, the Sudanese government tried Ms. Gibbons in an obvious fair and impartial trial, and summarily found her guilty and sentenced her to 15 days in prison, and expulsion from the Sudan. Lucky for Ms. Gibbons that she avoided the maximum prison sentence of 6 years and the added bonus of 40 lashes for her “crimes”. Probably just as lucky a stroke for her is her impending deportation.

You see today, thousands of Sudanese protested the “light” sentence meted out to Ms. Gibbons. She was decried as “…teaching our children a hatred of Muhammed.” Armed with clubs, axes and knives, this enlightened lot chanted and marched, and also demanded that Gibbons be executed by firing squad!

I wonder in light of these events if Ms. Gibbons regrets this obviously ill-chosen career opportunity?

Listen, this is Exhibit A for us to be steadfast in our past, present and future conflict that we have had, have and will have with fundamentalist Islam. The Islamo-fascists live under this code of conduct…the most Arcane, 7th century interpretation of the Koran and Islam teachings, coupled with the most barbaric and Draconian punishment or retaliation for any perceived slights or offenses to their religion. For anyone who doubts just how crazy religious fundamentalist zeal can become needs only to look to the plight of Ms. Gibbons. In the name of Islam and God (Muhammed), logic and reason have been replaced with insanity and over-reaction.

There is a silver lining to this brouhaha, however. It seems that most Muslims in Western nations are perplexed and outraged by this obvious minor cultural misunderstanding. British Muslims, by all accounts, are outraged and saddened by the Sudanese reaction. However, we don’t know the status of the outrage in other third-world and southeast Asian Muslim countries until the reaction boils over into the streets.

I hope that eventually the Muslims will use the model of religious moderation that was followed Christianity, and the Catholic Church in particular. It should be remembered that there was this brief period of insane religious zealotry, only lasting 6 centuries or so, called the Inquisition. Innocent and guilty, believer and non-believer alike were tortured and/or killed in an effort to squash “heresy” and to preserve religious purity. All of this was in the name of God and religion. All of this was just more truly sinful human madness!

Don’t hold your breath until the Muslim religion moderates in its practice of faith. It took Catholicism a long time to experience its catharsis and eventual humanistic enlightenment. I fear that because of the ignorance and intimidation of the Muslim masses, coupled with the fact that they don’t have a titular head of their faith like the Pope, that it might take much, much longer for the Muslims to come to their collective senses. If ever!

In the mean time, the Ms. Gibbons teddy bear incident becomes just another unfortunate footnote in what is sure to be a larger conflict between people who hold reasoned, humanistic religious values and and those who favor insane, retribution-driven fundamentalist zealotry.

The countless legions of the socially offended apparently get little sleep. They spend countless hours searching for any insult or slight and then use prevailing institutional guilt (and the legal system) to punish the perceived “offender”. All this is done in the name of racism, segregation, intolerance or myriad other insensitivities. Jesse Jackson has raised this practice to a high art…followed by Al Sharpton: They use a combination of false indignation, self-proclaimed advocacy and blackmail to extract money, influence and power from corporate America. Just ask some of the “quota CEO’s” that have fallen into their gravitational pull.

Now, we have grassroots offense monitors dictating which plays a school may perform. This is what occurred in Liberty Township, Ohio (the name is ironic, if anything), when an NAACP official protested to school officials in this Ohio community that the upcoming stage presentation of Agatha Christie’s “Ten Little Indians” by students at the Lakota East High School. The play is also known by the alternative title “And Then There Were None”.

NAACP president Gary Hines complained that performing the play was racially insensitive because of the original name of the play — “Ten Little Niggers” (most publications call this the N-word or N——”). This title was scrapped by Ms. Christie’s publisher over 60 years ago. That’s right, 60 years! Mr. Hines cited the 1939 title of the play and the fact that the cover illustration depicted a black man and a noose. Since the play had this tarnished history, then in Mr. Hines’ opinion it was wholly unacceptable to be performed. Obviously the school officials concurred, because they canceled the play, to the consternation of the school staff and the students.

So now we have these apparently boorish, racist and intolerant student actors and their high school advisers who dared to put on this play with callous disregard for the feelings of their black brethren. Huh? How could these kids have possibly known about this title change? How can a long-ago renamed play possibly be offensive to anyone? Where does the reach of indignation and offense begin and end?

I understand that the former name of the play is offensive. The so-call N-word represents world-class ignorance and bigotry. BUT, the blade cuts both ways: I just yesterday watched the movie “Antoine Fisher” and that offensive word was used probably over 50 times in the dialog by the black actress who played the title character’s foster mother. And Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Tyler Perry as well as most characters in a Spike Lee film use this word as frequently as the word “the”! I get it, if you’re the “right” color, you are accorded Carte Blanche usage of the word by the arbiters of all things racially offensive. But if you’re in the cross hairs of the NAACP, Jackson or Sharpton, suspected or accused of “racism”, then you are guilty, guilty, guilty.

But what about the play? Where is it’s offense, excepting of course for its original title in 1939? The answer is that there simply is NO offense! This whole situation could have been used by the NAACP and the Lakota East HS administration as a meaningful “teaching moment”. It would have been a more measured response to this situation if Mr. Hines had approached the Lakota East administration to request that he or a surrogate be allowed to speak to a school assembly. They could have related to the kids the history of the play and the hurt and intolerance that the original 1939 title represented. Rather than use the unknown history of the play to put the kaibosh on it, Mr. Hines could have used this opportunity to sensitize the kids to the pervasive racism which permeated 1939 America, and to frankly discuss his feelings about the original title.

But the only thing that Mr. Hines’ objection did was to create ill feelings among the staff and the students at Lakota East HS towards Mr. Hines and the NAACP. This is definitely a case where Mr. Hines could have better picked his battles, as sometimes there can’t be enough said about the value of discretion.

Call it deja vu, but the PC nuts are at it again! In my fair state, Massachusetts, there is a measure before the state legislature to criminalize spanking your child. You see, corporal punishment is a self-esteem busting technique used by diabolical ersatz parents, and Arlington nurse Kathleen Wolf wants to eradicate this practice. Calling all grief counselors!

In the state where the citizen-mandated roll back of the state income tax to 5% has been summarily ignored by our “representatives”, there was at least moonbat politician that has submitted Wolf’s proposal for legislative consideration. This legislator is Jay Kaufman, Democrat of Lexington, who also courageously declined to take a position on corporal punishment.

The government has so many pressing issues to worry about, so why would they even consider this action? Spanking is not a barbaric practice. It doesn’t leave lasting physical or emotional scars on the “spankee.” Rather it is stick-and-carrot behavior modification. Children cannot reason the same way an adult can, and sometimes they need a little “incentive” to behave. I know it worked for me!! My parents weren’t ardent practitioners of the spanker’s art, but I remember the THREAT of spanking more than the actual event — which I think numbered less than five times (I guess I’m a quick learner!!). But the threat worked because I vividly remembered the posterior-brightening event. How can a post spanking legislation child find similar threat in a world without the threat of corporal punishment? Simply put, they don’t…no matter how many crispy-crunchy parents insist that their little angels, who have never been spanked, are just “perfect darlings.”

I hear so many young parents call their child “Buddy”, or treat them like a downsized peer. Everything they do as a parent is a negotiation with their kid(s), and the kids learn in short time to play their parents like a fiddle in order to ultimately get their way. It’s a fools errand to try to attempt to reason with their child(ren) when they act up or create a scene in public. I personally look forward to a belligerent five year old screaming and acting out in a pricey restaurant, only to be temporarily placated by a passive adult. I’ve sat through meals where this act up/simmer down cycle was constantly repeated from my appetizer to dessert! The kid obviously deserved to have his/her derrière paddled by a parent who is also an adult. Instead, the adults abdicated their responsibility to their petulant child.

Kids should never be abused or beaten — nobody should be. We have abuse laws to deal with this situation. However, there is a tremendous difference between a loving parent who, by the way spanks their child, and a brute who takes any occasion to smack their kid around. Because there is a difference in intent (parenting vs abuse), the government should stay out of this issue…and let parents be parents.

Otherwise, we could have a situation set up where disgruntled or vindictive kids will drop a dime on parents whose only crime was rubbing little Bobby or Mary the wrong way. Do we really want to be adjudicating family disagreements, or giving easy target parents a criminal record? I seem to remember children who were encouraged to report their parents to the authorities for the smallest of infractions in mid-twentieth-century Europe. The Nazis believed in getting them while they were young…and creating their master race from youthful, malleable true believers.

I don’t have kids, and I’ve never needed to personally cross the spanking Rubicon. But I won’t (and refuse to) pass judgment on my neighbor’s parenting if they do choose to spank their kids. And I don’t want the “authorities” sticking their nose into their house to find out if a parent does what a parent should do.

OKAY, I admit it. I’m a staunch Republican. I’m “conservative”. Maybe I just don’t get the message of the Democratic candidates because I’m not privy to the answer play book or secret decoder ring that I may fully appreciate the enlightenment found in their debate responses. I hear the rabid supporters cheer and clap after each answer, but to me it’s like ordering a thick steak dinner and being given a pail of sand to enjoy instead.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. My dad always taught me to “say what you mean, and mean what you say.” Well, listening to the recap this morning (I could not sit through the pain of the actual live debate without doing harm to myself) and reading the transcripts, I am amazed that the Democrats can actually support this group of prevaricators and obfuscaters. Simply put, they don’t have a solid viewpoint or belief. They have a great sense of balance, however. You must posses this attribute if you’re constantly darting back and forth between polar opposite opinions on the same issues. Last debate, Mrs. Clinton regaled the audience with her insipid repartee:

Tim Russert: “Sen. Clinton, do you support Gov. Spitzer’s plan in your home state of New York to give licenses to illegal aliens?”

Sen. Clinton: “Tim, Hunina, Hunina, Humina…Yeahno.” “I’m not in favor of the favorability of the favor.” “I favor illegals while not favoring the licenses.” “You know, the Bush Administration is to blame for this crisis of licenses. They just plain suck!” [Standing ovation]. “And if I am elected President, then I will bring all the troops home from Iraq in a time that is pleasing to all undecided voters.” [Another standing ovation].

Sen. Barak Obama, not to be outdone, came up with his version this week:

Wolf Blitzer: “Sen. Obama, do you support giving licenses to illegal aliens?”

Sen. Obama: “Wolf, It’s not as easy as yes or no.” “It’s not a question that has an answer.” “I’d also like to blame the Bush administration, it seems to curry favor.”

Blitzer: “Sen. Obama, that question is one that lends itself to a yes or no answer.”

Obama: “Yes.” “Er, no.” “Yes.” “No.” “Yes.” “Certainly.” “Maybe not necessarily.”

Apparently the only adult on the stage was Sen. Joe Biden. He wasn’t buying into “the ambiguous answer is an answer” mantra. But try getting Clinton, Obama, Edwards or even Richardson to reveal their exact, pin-point stand on the license or almost any issue and you get smoke blown up your nether regions.

That’s what you’ll get and we will all get if the anti-Iraq folks vote just on this monochromatic issue. It’s obvious that these candidates are enjoying the anti-Bush (Bush hatred, actually) and anti-Iraq sentiment that prevails today. It’s too bad that the big three candidates didn’t believe in SOMETHING, and further could elucidate this belief to the electorate. And forget about Kucinich…his “modern Athens” view of the USA — “Strength through Peace”, coupled with his belief in aliens (space aliens, that is), will certainly get the USA blown off this planet. And he is so rabidly anti-war, that he can’t see anything else.

Until then, expect political “balance”…with more of the Yes-No-Yes-No-Yes-No answering to the same question, with a pinch of kicking the old, despised dog “W” thrown in for good measure. It’s OKAY to be against something, but it is a requirement to be for something, anything and declare that fact to the world if you are running for President of the US.

So far, at least on the Democratic side of the election aisle, we just don’t know what they believe at their cores.

Yesterday (Nov. 13, 2007), Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts signed into law a new regulation providing for a 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The old buffer zone around the entrance of abortion clinics was 18 feet. “Women in the Commonwealth have the right to obtain medical care free from violence, harassment or intimidation, and this new law will guard that right,” Patrick said in a statement. “By widening the buffer zone around reproductive clinics we will protect patients from the harassment that so many have encountered as they seek care.”

Why is the enactment of this law so critical? Why did the buffer zone have to be increased? The answer is that this is another example of political pandering to a very powerful political constituency — politically active women. The answer is that except for an increase in harassment and demonstrations, there has not been an increase in violence associated with abortion or “reproductive rights” clinics. According to federal statistics, there have been seven deaths/murders at abortion clinics from 1993 to 2006 in the United States. If we include death threats, attempted murders, and assaults into the analysis, then the number rises to 563 total instances in the United States from 1977 to 2006.

Any death or intimidation of death is unacceptable. Period. But what makes this circumstance at abortion clinics any more important, or meriting new legislation, than say deaths caused by drunk drivers? After all, the deaths caused by drunk drivers was a staggering 13,470 people in the United States in 2006 alone. Why isn’t there a similar urgency to get serious with drunk/OUI drivers in Massachusetts? After all, 171 people died from OUI accidents (39% of the total motor vehicle fatalities!!) in Massachusetts in 2005, which is the last year that statistics were available. These 171 people account for almost a third of the “incidents” at abortion clinics that occurred over a 15 year period, in a single year!

Why isn’t the Massachusetts legislature chomping at the bit to lower this unacceptable death rate? They will point to Melanie’s Law (enacted in Massachusetts in 2005), and the punitive measures that are incorporated into this legislation. But even with this new law, we still have an unacceptably high death rate due to OUI drivers. I speculate that there is a lucrative business in the legal representation of “alleged” OUI drivers, and that many of the Mass. state legislators are also trial lawyers. Talk about your built-in conflict of interest!

So, it’s easier to restrict the “misguided” folks who protest at abortion clinics and “harass” those who patronize these places. It’s far easier to demonize the zealots who might do this because of religious conviction, lumping them in with the nuts who would do harm to another because of their warped sense of right and wrong. These sociopaths will do harm regardless of an 18, 35 or 20,000 foot keep out zone.

In the end, the new 35 foot exclusion zone is just a feel good measure meant to placate a vocal minority…one of many special interest groups…and one of many photo opportunities for the rookie Governor. But in terms of real action to save real lives, don’t hold your breath that true progress will be made reducing OUI-related deaths until we free the legislature of the very people who profit from this problem. Until then, expect more candy-coated, showpiece legislation and more carnage on the highways and byways of Massachusetts.

It’s been a tough week for Principal Evander French, Jr. at the McCall Middle School in Winchester, MA. That’s because it is a tough task to bend yourself into a donut shape, at least philosophy-wise, when it comes to determining what material a child at this school may be subjected to in order walk the tight rope of political correctness.

Several seventh grade classes at the school were scheduled to attend a stage play of “Miracle on 34th Street” at the Stoneham Theatre. Parents had signed permission slips, and the kids had already paid their $20 ticket fee. Suddenly, Mr. French steps in last Friday to save the day! According to him in an e-mail to all the parents, the trip to the play was canceled because “…the basic theme is objectionable to some members of our McCall Middle School seventh-grade community.”

Objectionable theme? You can’t make this stuff up!

I could understand if the kids were scheduled to attend an evangelical revival or some blatantly religious event. But a stage play? Well, Mr. French, ever the excavator, dug himself in deeper. “The people who complained were concerned about the very narrow focus on Santa Claus,” he said yesterday. “The ‘Miracle on 34th Street’ is not in any way, shape or form tied to our curriculum. That was brought to my attention by parents.”


“It’s a wonderful story about a miracle on 34th Street, and it’s all about Santa Claus,” French said. “It doesn’t really tie into the McCall Middle School curriculum….It would have been a nice experience, but parents can take their kids to that on their own,” French said. “Certainly, kids in Winchester get plenty of exposure to Santa Claus and all that Santa Claus represents and the gifts that he brings on Christmas morning. I don’t think they’re missing out much.”

Ho boy!

It is obvious that Mr. French is a “victim” of the tyranny of the minority. A parent or several parents had complained about this Santa-centric piece of art. I can hear it now: ‘Remember Mr. French, not everybody shares reverence for a jolly, rotund fictional elf passing out goodies at Christmas.’ ‘Can you imagine the carnage that will be done to these young, impressionable minds if they are exposed to this shamelessly bigoted and insensitive piece of stage prose?’

Well, obviously Mr. French collapsed like a cheap lawn chair on this issue. I’m sure in his mind it’s better to bar the kids from attending this play (which by all accounts they were unanimously and eagerly anticipating), and curse the proverbial darkness. With this convoluted choice, he chose the lesser of the two evils. Apparently, the evils of inclusion of all viewpoints, exposure to multiple cultures and philosophies, tolerance of all religions, and all the other PC gobbledygook slogans outweighed the evil of closing up minds and impinging upon academic freedoms.

Listen, someone is always going to be offended by every single issue or event. Do we chose to do nothing in an effort to placate the often verbal minority who trade in this victimization of the offended? I think the proper response is to allow the offended to keep THEIR kids home from school on the day of the loathsome event and preserve their antiseptic view of the world in their kids minds. The principal should be an advocate for the majority of the kids, rather than an arbiter of the “correct” thing that must be done to satisfy everyone. Who speaks for the 99% of the kids (and their parents) who were disappointed by this specious decision by Mr. French? I think that Mr. French wouldn’t have batted an eyebrow if the kids went to going to a play named “Heather has Two Mommies” or “George Bush is a Hegemonistic, War-Mongering Dolt”. I’m sure that those topics would have been perfectly acceptable in Mr. French’s mind.

But, the whole thought process goes pear-shaped when we have perceived religious content or intent enter the equation. The Founders assured us of a separation of church and state. They didn’t guarantee (and I assure intend) us a surgical excising of anything religious from our public lives. The attendance of a play by several dozen kids doesn’t come close to the Winchester School system espousing Judeo-Christian or, better yet, fantasy holiday icon values…and furthermore, instilling these values into the kids. They would have been watching a play, for crying out loud. To limit their horizons and cheat them out of these experiences is a crime far worse than exposing the kids to a whiff of religious content, at least the whiff as perceived by paranoid, closed-minded parents.

I was always taught to believe that the purpose of school was to turned empty minds into open ones. It is becoming obvious that some parents (abetted by spineless school administrators), in the name of secular ‘Puritanism’, have decided to lock up their kids minds and throw away the keys!

In the debate last week where Mrs. Clinton apparently failed to recharge her cloak of invincibility, we saw the REAL Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Hillary who is more pomp than circumstance. The woman who is more style than substance. It was refreshing and exhilarating that she was smoked out of her cover by tenacious and insightful questioning by Tim Russert — although she, by her own words, did most of the heavy lifting for him. Up until this debate, she has been able to bend back upon her statements and viewpoints like a pretzel, many times stretching credibility and defying logic without so much as a challenge…and it’s about time that the true Hillary persona has been finally seen for what it is!

Maybe now that she’s somewhat on the defensive, and losing some of the luster that she had only weeks before (and some of the lead that she’s enjoyed in the polls), that the Democratic primary will become more of a horse race.

Perhaps a candidate like Sen. Chris Dodd or Sen. Joe Biden will benefit from Mrs. Clinton’s fall. I don’t agree with scarcely anything that either of these two Senators say, but I respect them because I see each one as a person of integrity rather than obfuscation and self-serving political hyperbole. They both can have their moments, but I would rather see true leaders and folks with the courage of their convictions rise to the top of the polls over the likes of Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

The only thing that we’d eventually get from these three “leaders” would be a sugar daddy government that uses other people’s money to seduce and enthrall the willing masses. I’m convinced that to these three, leadership is composed of give aways and some pesky instances tough decision making. Be reminded that give aways keep the barbarians from the gate, so to speak, and curry favor with the masses who await any self-centered reason to cast their vote. What a finer means of keeping poll numbers high — by having have those minority numbers of “rich” be taxed at increasingly higher rates in order to give “stuff” to the poor. This is the central precept of Democratic Robin Hood governance. “Progressively” increase taxes on the rich, add a pinch of class warfare, propose sweeping social programs and give aways, and shake the whole mess up REAL good. It is a recipe for SOCIALISM to be sure.

Hopefully media scrutiny will be greater, and there will be a further dissection of her “message”, whatever that is. Mrs. Clinton has been treating the whole election process, until now, like it was a coronation for her. It will be nice to see her join the rest of the mere mortals in the field of competitors and squirm a bit under the intense scrutiny that she most richly deserves.

It doesn’t take long before the REAL motives and motivations of the far left-minded politicians and pundits show themselves in plain view. Sure, the wording or actions are sometimes subtle, and there is the attendant necessity to use a decoder ring or crystal ball to tease out this real meaning. But at other times, it is a good old fashioned two-by-four across the back of your head, in your face exposition of intentions.

A recent statement regarding the S-CHIP health insurance program (recently vetoed by President Bush) by Jim McGovern (D-MA) is just such an instance. Regarding the veto, Mr. McGovern said “In Massachusetts, we have begun to address the crisis of the uninsured. We believe health care is a right, not a privilege for the wealthy.” He also added “The president’s veto of the bipartisan SCHIP compromise abandons 11 million children, including 90,500 Massachusetts children. That is unacceptable.” Followed by “…I simply don’t understand the president’s priorities. He’s more than happy to sign bills giving billions of tax breaks to oil companies and multi-millionaires, but he won’t sign a modest, fully-paid-for bill that helps millions of low-income children? He’s willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars — none of it paid for — in Iraq, but is unwilling to sign a bill that is paid for and will keep children from losing their health care?”

His justification for the passage of an extension of S-CHIP is the fact that “…This bill has the support of the medical community, children’s advocates, and even the insurance industry. There is simply no reason for the president to reject it, other than partisan politics.”

Let’s take a moment to dissect Rep. McGovern’s words:

  1. This bill has the support of the medical community, children’s advocates, and even the insurance industry. There is simply no reason for the president to reject it, other than partisan politics. Of course it has support of these organizations and advocacy groups. The insurance industry would have to be brain dead not to support a measure that takes THEM off the hook for the health care of the many millions of children AND ADULTS covered by the S-CHIP program. The medical community likes the S-CHIP measure BECAUSE THEY ARE GUARANTEED MEDICAL PAYMENTS. And children’s advocacy groups…the name says it all…they will support just about any government program earmarked in whole or some part “for the children”. This is special interest politics to the maximum!
  2. I simply don’t understand the president’s priorities. He’s more than happy to sign bills giving billions of tax breaks to oil companies and multi-millionaires, but he won’t sign a modest, fully-paid-for bill that helps millions of low-income children? He’s willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars — none of it paid for — in Iraq, but is unwilling to sign a bill that is paid for and will keep children from losing their health care? Mr. McGovern resorting to a tried-and-true political technique, honed to a razor’s edge by the Democrats, in demonizing the opposition. Cripes, Mr. Bush is already the bogeyman that hides under your bed or in your dark closet at night. Why not pile on “for the children.” McGovern also stretches truth and credibility when he states that this is a modest bill, and further that it is fully paid-for. Well, in my mind a program that is estimated to cost over $40 billion dollars over a five year period is anything but “modest”. And, I dare to ask, fully paid for by whom? I’ll tell you who — those poor suckers who have jobs, pay taxes and ALREADY pay for the health insurance for THEIR kids. Now we’re all expected to pay up and cover the progeny of those who have demonstrated gross negligence by having kids that they can’t afford or they’re unwilling to care for themselves?
  3. “The president’s veto of the bipartisan SCHIP compromise abandons 11 million children, including 90,500 Massachusetts children. That is unacceptable.” Parents having kids they cannot afford and acting irresponsibly, and the President is accused of abandoning these kids? Rep. McGovern’s time would be better spent preaching social change to his constituency rather than acting like some ersatz Robin Hood! But he knows he’d be stocking shelves at the family business in Worcester’s Greendale neighborhood if he were to kindly “remind” folks of their responsibilities, rather than suggesting that we all pay for their “misjudgments”. Simply put, the parents of the uninsured kids abandoned their kids, not the President.
  4. “In Massachusetts, we have begun to address the crisis of the uninsured. We believe health care is a right, not a privilege for the wealthy.” Here’s where we hit ideological pay dirt! Hmmm…paying for your own health care is a privilege for the “wealthy”. Suddenly the countless millions of American parents and caregivers who work their collective asses off to pay for health insurance for their families are the privileged wealthy. Talk about your shameless class warfare. Listen, this rhetoric is red meat for the true believers who feel that the Federal government, simply by existing, is responsible for all facets of each person’s existence, from the cradle to the grave (and beyond with “death taxes”!)…well, everyone except for those pesky “rich and wealthy” folks. It’s their responsibility to pay for the rest of their fellow citizens. To the socialists (remember “to each according to his needs…”), the rich are a resource to be exploited and a tool to be frequently used. And by his own words, Jim McGovern has revealed himself to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. He stated point blank he believes that health care is a RIGHT. Show me the right to good health or to health care in the Constitution, Rep. McGovern. Or have we stopped using the Constitution as the measure of rights and responsibilities?

I don’t want a single child to be sick or to want for adequate health care. But where does creeping socialism end? We have seen time-after-time just how efficiently that the government runs the granddaddy of social programs, Social Security. It didn’t take long for the wheels to come off that wagon, did it? A program that was supposed to guarantee the elderly a reasonable living in the twilight of their lives has most of its “beneficiaries” eating canned cat food and picking up empty soda cans for the nickel deposit just to survive. Is this what we want in the land of the free and home of the brave? Damnable socialist co-dependency? And class warfare? It didn’t work in the former Soviet Union, and it won’t work here.

There are other solutions to this problem, including charity…if the goddamn government and our “representatives” would just keep their noses out of these issues. Because we will reap what we sow when it comes to uncontrollable social programs; the consequences will be dire. Because when there are more “have nots” demanding more from the lessening number of “haves”…then where will the money come from?

You might find someone in the former Soviet Union with a good answer to that one…

Next Page »