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 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
