[MD] Imaginings

[Ham Priday]

On 9/12 Arlo continued his chastisement of Platt for "embarrassing" him by 
"pandering to rhetoric that distorts in order to subvert intellectual 
discourse."

[Arlo, to John]:
> Let me give you an example.
>
> In this week's Newsweek, in the Verbatim section,
> is a quote (I had missed it before) from a Republican Senator
> about Obama giving a speech to the schools.
>
> "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in
> Saddam Hussein's Iraq" (Steve Russell, R OK).
>
> Now. Ask yourself. Its COMMON knowledge that Bush
> gave a similar address in 1991. Its COMMON knowledge
> that Republicans BACKED this speech against some
> Democrat complaints.

I plan to cancel my subscription to Newsweek (which was reduced to a leftist 
culture photo gazette this year) but was unable to find the Russell comment 
you refer to. However, I did see ("Indignity Index", week of Sept. 14) that 
Sen. Jim Greer had castigated the president for welcoming students back to 
school as "an invasive abuse of power."

In Platt's (and the senator's) defense, perhaps they were aware that, the 
week before, an Obama video aimed at America's youth turned up at a Utah 
school, and the principle apologized to angry parents for having shown it. 
I saw this video on YouTube.  It features Hollywood celebrities pledging 
their allegiance to "change" and concludes with a chorus of voices chanting: 
"I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind.because together 
we can.together we will... be the change that we seek."

Since when did we become "servants" of an elected president?  Are children 
to be taught that Americans are servants to "all mankind"?  Clearly that 
message is not in keeping with the values of our free republic. It does, in 
fact, recall the tactics used by totalitarian regimes to manipulate their 
constituents, and as such is, indeed, an "invasive abuse of power".

I should think that any freedom-loving American who views that video would 
be embarrassed, especially considering that it was produced for an audience 
of children.  Whether Obama altered the original draft of his 'Welome' 
speech to eliminate such un-American exhortations was not reported.  (I saw 
nothing objectionable in last Tuesday's speech as shown on C-span.)  But 
having seen the earlier video, it did give me pause.

Concerning the 'Death Panel' rebukes, obviously no panel was so named in the 
Obamacare bill.  But, as Sarah Palin explained recently in WSJ:

"Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: 
He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council - an 
unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing 
Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the 
president suggested that such a group, working outside of 'normal political 
channels' should guide decisions regarding that 'huge driver of cost . . . 
the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .'

"Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly 
are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to 
rationing of their health care by -dare I say it - death panels? 
Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many 
Americans."

Now, I realize how difficult it must be for a self-proclaimed 
"anarcho-Marxist" to see things from a conservative perspective.  But give 
it the old college try anyway.  Possibly it will enable you to understand 
Platt's genuine concern over these extreme governmental measures as 
something other than a "subversion of intellectual discourse".

Peace and regards,
Ham