Unfortunately I stumbled upon this gem by Alan Blinder, which is either satirical journalism at its best or just another delusional leftist rant. His purpose is to challenge the purportedly mouth-breathing notion that Obama is socialist.

Considering an objective summary of Obama’s words, positions, history and actions, how anyone could question this fact is perplexing.

Ever since President Barack Obama released the budget last month, we have been hearing a fusillade of criticism claiming that the president, contrary to previous advertising, is not a centrist, but a “leftie” intent on leading the country down the path of socialism.

Let’s see. Socialism means public ownership and control of businesses, right? So which industries does the president propose to nationalize?

The short answer is all of them - I would venture to guess. But, he’s smart enough to know that such a transition cannot be thrown on the country in one fell swoop, so he’ll push just up to the point of chaos, back-peddle a bit, reposition, repeat. This is the standard tactic of prudency for aspiring tyrants.

Right off the bat we see Mr. Blinders obtuse definition of Socialism which he seems to be using in an extremely narrow sense. Are we to assume that by his standard a nation that is fully Socialized save one Grocery store in some American town is not Socialist?

A more accurate gauge is to evaluate the extent that a nation considers individual rights as sacred pillars of freedom.

Socialism is the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. To the extent that such notion is a nation’s guiding premise, that country is Socialized. No, America isn’t fully Socialized. And no, Obama hasn’t yet prescribed full Socialization, but the very nature of such a society is recursive and self-perpetuating. Controls breed controls - and once the the footing is compromised, the path is downhill unless the fundamental philosophical thrust of the nation is altered.

Banking? Well, no. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has made it clear that he opposes nationalizing banks, despite much outcry from the political left — and even some from the right — to do just that.

Again, no - banks aren’t fully nationalized, but the wedge is well in place. This, and the most recent administration have redistributed looted wealth in the form of subsidies to corporations. The subsidies came with invasive stipulations. The subsidies weren’t optional, but mandatory. Even if a slave owner limits his restrictive tenets to only a few prohibitions, he’s still in control.

What about health care? Doesn’t Mr. Obama want “socialized medicine”? No. He wants to reform the current system so that it costs less and covers more people. Disgracefully, the United States is the only advanced nation in the world that fails to cover every citizen — even though we spend vastly more on health care than other nations.

Some reformers want the U.S. to adopt a single-payer system like other countries, such as “socialist” Canada and England — which run firmly capitalist economies, by the way. But regardless of whether single-payer is a good idea, it’s not Mr. Obama’s. His health-insurance reform plan emphasizes choice (keeping what you have if you like it), greater efficiency (partly by utilizing information technology), and portability (your health coverage will follow you from job to job). Which part of that is socialist?

Exactly how can he reform it without violating the rights of all parties involved? What’s disgraceful is that America has sunk into the altruist-collectivist abyss so far as to condone and prescribe threatening one man’s life to support another - by force. And exactly why do you think we spend more? Because we’re already subsidizing the parasites in this country who won’t support themselves. Doing so on a wider and more explicit scale will only drive costs up and value down, not to mention the crippling effect that nationalization will have on the competitive and creative forces of innovation. To the extent that a man is rational, he will not work under compulsion.

As far as England and Canada (or any country in the world) being Capitalist, surely you jest Mr. Blinder?

As the law now stands, when a family that does not itemize deductions on its tax return donates $100 to its favorite charity, the donation costs the family $100. But when an itemizing family in the 25% bracket donates $100, it costs them only $75 after tax. And when an itemizer in the 35% bracket donates $100, the after-tax cost is only $65. Thus the richer you are, the less it costs. Is it socialistic to say that seems a little backwards?

Not necessarily socialist, but it’s preposterous to imply that an individual who diligently complies and attempts to wrangle our nightmarish tax code shouldn’t be rewarded. This is the same line of thought that claims it’s an injustice for an individual who doesn’t pay taxes to not get a tax refund.

So where does all this leave us on the road to socialism? If Mr. Obama is able to get all of these proposals through Congress, the U.S. will have a fully private banking system, propped up with temporary government support; a uniquely American health-care system that covers virtually everyone; and a somewhat more progressive income tax.

If this is socialism, then let’s make the most of it.

Fully private eh? Except for thousands of pages of regulations, a mandatory phony currency, and that pesky Federal Reserve pulling the strings that drive the whole show. Temporary huh? Would that be “income tax” temporary, or “public education” temporary? Uniquely American? Except that it’s rooted in the same poisonous altruist-collective nonsense that leads every subscribing country to stagnant mediocrity, poverty and ultimately destruction. Our particular blend of the freedom/statism concoction may be non-essentially unique, but the course will lead to the only possible destination - misery.

Mr. Blinder, if you prefer not to call our president a Socialist, how about this? He’s a collectivist thug that stands to contradict and trample every founding principle of America. Does not using the “S” word make you feel better?

His ideals, like yours, represent the cloudy, contradictory fog of nonsense that has the greatest nation in the history of mankind circling the drain.

Via Boortz, I came across one gem in response to another.

Oh boy, where to start.

The first (bad cop) is a fine tribute to how small a grasp most voters have on what really matters about an individual, especially one who’s seeking to rule you. A few citations:

“He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.

Instead of judging based the candidate’s stance on freedom, sovereignty or justice, these people are more concerned with petty physical details, which are more easily integrated attributes that require much less thought. They feel an unnamed urgency to be involved with the election, but don’t have the slightest clue where to begin. So, they resort to the most basic means of judgment - evaluation of physical features - as a way to “get involved”. Man’s mind, his intellect, his philosophy -the only import aspects of a candidate- aren’t even a blips on their radar.

The article then tries to speak out to the more scientific minded drones with an appeal to authority, and departs with a hint of suspicion.

Dr. Scheiner didn’t disclose his patient’s exact weight, but medical observers estimate that the 6-foot-1.5-inch-tall senator appears to weigh at least 10 pounds less than the roughly 190 pounds that the average American man of his height weighs. The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article.

We then get to a curious proof of Obama’s ‘keepin’ it real’ side immediately followed by the transformation of such (supposed) vice into a tribute to his near deitous status.

Sen. Obama is not without vices. According to Dr. Scheiner’s medical report, he has quit smoking “on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.” People close to the senator say he began smoking nearly three decades ago and smoked about five cigarettes a day.

Some voters say that even this adds to Sen. Obama’s somewhat superhuman persona. “I mean, really, who quits smoking and doesn’t gain any weight?” says 30-year-old Stella Metsovas, an Obama supporter in Laguna Beach, Calif.

[emphasis mine]

This article strives (in appearance) to be a candid insight into the diet, physique and eating habits of politicians in general and Obama in particular. There’s no mention as to why this topic is relevant or should be interesting. It’s written by, directed to and about those who seek the fast-food drive through election - where a brightly colored, yet simple icon will suffice as qualification for their support.

However, I think there is another motive that I’ll get to below.

So, we have irrelevant chatter.. and now an “insightful” response to it.

Timothy Noah (good cop) thinks all this skinny talk is nothing more than a facade for the real agenda - RACISM.

The promise of Obama’s presidency, in many people’s minds, is partly that America will move toward becoming a post-racial society. It’s pretty clear, though, that we aren’t there yet. When white people are invited to think about Obama’s physical appearance, the principal attribute they’re likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama’s other physical attributes can’t help coming off as a coy walk around the barn.

It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn’t asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama’s hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds.

Race certainly seems to be on Timothy’s mind.

The problem is that ‘Race’ is an indicator or ethnicity. ‘Skinny’ is an adjective describing relative body mass. Yes, Obama has a particular race. Yes, he is skinny. For Timmy to grant correlation the upgrade to causation is a major stretch. By his standard, apparently picking any physical attribute of Obama could be cast as a racial metric.

These articles are perfect examples of the “titanic deck chairs” aura of our media. Two pundits chattering about misguided and totally irrelevant topics. The former a superficial ad hominem. The latter a smearing straw man. Both come across as underhanded variants of the vicious goal - to renounce an opposing stance not by reason and logic, but by evasion, diffusion and distraction.

I think they both are on the same team. Sure they’re both collectivist, but I mean on a more concrete level.

I think these stories are supposed to be legitimate and unrelated topics - however, I think the WSJ piece could very easily be an intentional lob designed to be knocked out of the park by an accomplicing lefty pundit.

What better way to kill two birds with one stone. They know that most of their audience think and operate on a superficial level. What better way to glorify Obama’s looks as virtues in once sense, and paint anyone as bigots who consider such as meaningful in another.

This is “Good Cop - Bad Cop” journalism.

This makes me giggle ==> hope-change-future

(Adapted from the original version available here)

WASHINGTON , DC–Congress is considering sweeping legislation which will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans with No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said California Senator Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.”

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement “warehouse” stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%)

Under the Americans with No Abilities Act, more than 25 million “middle man” positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle- management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium- sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled–banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as “Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?” “As a Non-abled person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,” said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her lack of any discernible job skills. “This new law should really help people like me.” With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Ted Kennedy: “As a Senator with No Abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation.”