Posted by
voice_of_reason on Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:05:59 AM
This is in response to Bob Cesca's article titled
Sean Hannity's Ridiculous War Against Socialism
It is true that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck use a provocative style in attacking BO's policies. They do this to provide 'red meat' for a
certain section of their audience, who watch politics in the same way that they watch football games [seeking winners & losers, cheering for one side or another]. However, they are no different from Leftist commentators in this regard - the ones that cater to a similar audience (but with a Leftist bias).
Undoubtedly, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow et al (MSNBC commentators) were correct to bash GWB for the previous administration's mistakes. But Leftist commentators added 'red meat' flavoring that made it more palatable to the masses. You could say that without that flavoring (which converts news to
infotaintment), fewer people would care to watch news. So, maybe .. just maybe .. people like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh have done something that was unthinkable in the old-fashioned media. They have brought a higher level of viewership to political topics. The downside is that they have had to jazz-up but dumb-down the discourse to make it interesting to more people.
Bob Cesca doesn't appreciate the styles of Sean Hannity and/or Glenn Beck. That's his prerogative. But, he is wrong on substance.
America
is sliding towards Socialism. When we emerge from the current financial crisis, it will be
in spite of the Stimulus Bill, not
because of the Stimulus Bill. We
evil capitalists will have to overcome the additional burden of the Stimulus Bill. And, when I refer to capitalists, that includes everyone who uses their capital [muscles, brains or property] to provide for themselves.
Cesca is foolish in his observation that those (States) who don't support the Stimulus Bill should 'give the money back'. Why?
* the Stimulus coerces money from everyone, even those who didn't support it
* if those people who
didn't support it refuse the money, they are effectively paying
twice. Once when it was coerced from them, and the 2nd time when they allowed it to be spent elsewhere! It is not intellectually inconsistent to (a) object to coercive spending (b) lose, due to the prevailing power structure (c) be coerced anyway - and then (d) try to get a (diminished) value in return for your own money.
I would be very upset with my Governor if he stood on principle and rejected Federal stimulus funds after those funds were coercively taken away from my productive ventures. Sure, I would've supported his principled objection if he tried to defeat the bill and protect my dollars from being coerced away. But, after losing that battle (and my funds), I would at least like to get something in return - even if that 'something' was just a bunch of new roads that I could drive on. It wouldn't change my mind on the basic premise that the Stimulus Bill is wrong .. because, I just know that I could have used those funds for something better than those new roads!
Cesca derisively suggests that non-supporters of Socialism should not use State-provided services .. as if that is a novel concept. Most of us avoid the use of State-provided services, as long as there is an affordable opportunity. We use FedEx or UPS for urgent, overnight mail - not the USPS. Some parents send their kids to Private School after paying taxes that support 'free' Public Schools. Effectively, such parents are voting with their dollars (and with their feet). But, not everyone is in a position to do so. In some cases, the Govt provided 'free' service disorts the competitive market, making it difficult for Private Sector to enter.
Cesca might also consider asking Leftists - who claim that paying higher taxes is our patriotic duty - to mail in their additional tax contributions to the IRS.