The democrats have been playing them and Melissa’s been noticing:
Because “government-run health care” — both the phrase and the actuality of the idea — go over like a lead balloon with the American people, the Democrats have chosen new language hoping to obscure their intent to remake the health care system. The new language key word: “reform.”
Reform is a good word. It sounds like making something that’s okay a lot better. You know, get rid of the bad stuff, add some good. Unfortunately, the changes in the system are not reforms which suggest refinements. Rather they’re wholesale changes that will remake the very fabric of American society should they be implemented.
Just as an example, John David Lewis, a college professor read the bill and came up with some questions, the answers from the bill, and the implications.
:
What is described in the bill here is not simply a reform. The tax code, legal system, hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, and the patient experience are radically changed. Radical change does not suggest reform. It suggests transformation.
The administration, by pushing toward taking the “public option off the table,” is taking quite a gamble here but they really don’t have much of a choice. The country simply isn’t going for it. The hope now is to pass a “Camel’s Nose In Tent” bill so that the government can take over this industry at a later time. That’s good for the hardcore fringe statist crowd, but the matter remains about how to get large numbers of suckers and chumps to go for it. The point to the public option was to get “everyone” covered and take care of those 47 million mythical paupers wandering our streets with their inflamed appendices hanging out of their bellies because they can’t get health care.
Now, the pitch has devolved into something more absurd: There is a pressing urgency in getting our health care system screwed with, just for getting it screwed with.
I look at the “faith” people seem to have in state run health care, and I notice every single one of the advocates either have some kind of exit strategy which would spare them from having to put up with it for their own health care needs, or else they live in another country that has state run health care already. I can’t escape the notion that perhaps, when your own system of values burps out only a tiny bit of value for human life, your tendency is to become resentful of anyone else who places more value on human life. I also can’t escape the notion that this entirely explains this push toward a government/healthcare intermixing that doesn’t really offer anyone any benefits that anyone is willing to openly discuss.
I’m pretty pleased at this point with America’s current, if only momentary, return to her roots. Bureaucrats deciding for us what crooks can enter our homes, what organs will exit our bodies, and later what thoughts are in our heads? No thanks, this is America! And not a single tear shed over how many other “wise” countries have already accepted what we’ve rejected. Well done, America. Let’s lock it in place: How about a “Separation of Hospital and State” amendment? Maybe it’s time.
If you were to have jotted these events down in manuscript form before they actually occurred, no publisher of fiction would accept it. It’s all too surreal, too absurd, too astonishing, too preposterous. It would never happen in real life. This is a new low nadir. This takes the cake. It descends beneath “[illegal aliens] are doing the work Americans won’t do.” It descends beneath Howard Dean yelling “YEEEEAAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!” It descends beneath John McCain suspending his campaign to fix the mortgage crisis. It descends beneath John Edwards screwing around on his cancer-stricken wife, and Gov. Sanford hiking in the Appalachians.
So 
How far into the depths of dumbth can our young Clinton/Obama 
Wrecking balls are fun to watch. Their mission is far, far simpler, and so they enjoy the benefit of moving in a straight line…to such an extent as they don’t want to move that direction anymore, then they swing back again. With sufficient inertia as to overpower everything else. A wrecking ball can afford to move that way — because it is concerned only with destruction, not with creation.
How could it be? It should be obvious to anyone who uses his head as something besides a hat-hanger. There’s nothing about being a left-winger that can make anybody a better person. The quotes that Blogsister Cassy has rounded up here, are from hardcore types that are not only unfulfilled and unhappy — but angry, pissy, petulant, acrid, shrill, nasty and, worst of all, frenzied. Just like sharks at a feeding frenzy. The more blood they get the more they want. And if Cas wanted to make her list twice, three times, ten times as long, you know she’d be able to do it. She’d find the quotes. They’d be there. These people have the venom, and the need to spew it.
Now here’s the ugly part that smears all of us whether we’re liberals or not. When you know deep down inside that you really ought to be doing something, and you decide, for whatever reason, not to do it — deep down inside, what’s going to happen to you is you conceive the rage that has no home. You become bitterly angry, already, in that moment, but you don’t know it yet because your anger hasn’t yet found a target. When someone else comes along and does the thing you know darn well you should have done, just like an electrical storm finding a lightning rod, your anger finds the target. Think about the guy in 
It’s a pretty tall order. Eco-feminism is inherently incoherent because as a collection of alternative values and scruples, it is designed to oppose something else. And it isn’t willing to admit this. This is why it consists of so many things that are bound together even though they are unrelated. Rather like a homemade kitchen gadget built from oil filters, band-aids, coathangers, silver dollars and cotton swabs. The parts don’t fit together; ecology has very little to do with upholding equal rights and privileges for women.