Friday, February 06, 2004

This the third time I did this. Hopefully one of the other drafts finds it way from web Hell and shows up here.

Divisiveness. If there are two parties which each believing something different and trying to get people to vote for it, isn't it part and parcel that each party would try to divide people into one of the two parties?

Republicans appeal to the basest instinct? I doubt that. How about covetousness? As in, I covet your income and want to use it to provide for my needs? No matter if it is morally right for me to do so.

If I can get the masses to vote for me because I promise to give them other people's income aren't I trying to divide people?

Apparently not to Bob Herbert.

How about claiming that affirmative action is a civil right? Only when you define civil right as such. At least, those downtrodden benefit at the expense of those privileged. Oh wait, that doesn't happened. The realit is AA says that the poor minority takes the position of the poor majority. (This is the point HoDO has missed with his Confederate flag statement).

Maybe the Dems know this but are constrained by the rich/poor glasses they use to view the world.

Mr. Herbert seems to think the exit polls of the SC Democratic primary are representative of all voters. Not very intelligent but when your ideologically driven (and a poor communicator at that), what could you expect but behavior that attends only to that which reinforces your POV.

Also see his use of the WSJ article on the rich spending lavishly as a result of the economic recovery and Bush tax cuts. Weird. I don't recall the rich not spending lavishly, but that is what Mr. Herbert implies by citing the tax cuts. I'm sure he has reams of data to show that the rich don't spend lavishly when taxes are raised? See Clinton tax hike? Wait, if the rich are spending (consuming) wouldn't the tax cuts have helped the economic recovery? But I thought we needed tax credits directed at the poor to spur consumption?

"Possibly" a crippling blow has been dealt to government support by Bush's budget (definitely worthy of criticism)? Possibly? Mr Herbert doesn't know? Or maybe he knows that transferring resposnsibility to the State from the individual leads to a worse off individual? If he does, does he intentionally lie?

Of course, no Lefty column is complete without WMD. Unequivocally, Bob Herbert states there are not any. Hmmm. Let's assume the new McCain, David Kay can accurately assess a percent-of-completion in Iraq (a country we have been endlessly reminded is the size of Ca lee for nee ah) at 85%, how much do we need to find? A liter of anthrax? Ricin? Oh wait, already did do that. But when your party's strategy is one of moral hazard, there is no harm in saying anything. You never know if the sky finally falls. For dangers of this see Saddam Hussein.

Noble causes. Bringing freedom of expression to 23 MM people? Not for the ideologically driven. Mr. Herbert should be ashamed of his Statist addled brain. This is more noble than finding WMD and history will show this. Just as it has shown that freedom spreads like a computer virus amongst the masses.

Businesses dropping retiree insurance subsidies dismays Mr. Herbert, but it shouldn't. He should see this as a natural step towards his utopian universal healthcare. Just think. As the government provides more and more health coverage, business will stop providing that which someone else will provide and thus strengthen Mr. Herberts dream of government paternalism.

What he doesn't want to acknowledge is that 240 million people's standard of living will be worsened. Making everybody equally miserable is the end result of socialism. But of course, as long as their is a man-on-the-street, Mr. Herbert and his employer can always use his story to justify the call for more State intervention (of course predicated on dividing us into the rich and poor). (Nor does he mention that those whose premiums are no longer being subsidized only fall into that group of early retirees who do not yet qualify for Medicare.)

While I believe Bob Herbert is a poor writer and not capable of Podesta-esque think tanking, I must admit he has acted as my Thulsa Doom. For without him, I would not have had anything to write. (Or is that Darth Vader?)

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?