Daily Archives: May 4, 2012
The President goes on Obama-friendly TV shows like The Jimmy Fallon-Gong Show for the purpose of slow-jamming.
He makes speeches in front of rent-a-crowd university audiences who are cheered by his promise of federal student loans (and perhaps someday, a student loan bailout).
Along the way, he uses Air Force One to haul him to his $40K per seat appearances with the Hollywood cool (and rich)-kids.
Is the President’s bubble getting smaller, tighter, and thicker?
Johnny Cash, in the Shel Silverstein penned song A Boy Named Sue, sang of an absentee father who gave his son a girl’s name in order to toughen him. The father—otherwise a degenerate scumbag—viewed the act as a way to help prepare his son for dealing with the world.
As opposed to Sue’s father, government wants federal programs to ensure your teeth are flossed (and did you get enough vegetables today? Exercise?), to read you an approved secular bed-time story, and in all other ways delay your entrance to adulthood/the real world.
In other words, Uncle Sam wants to be your father and mother. But since fathers aren’t really needed in a postmodern world, Uncle Sam wants to be your mother. Yet, because the family itself is archaic, let’s say government wants to be your benevolent caretaker.
As many of these federal desires are somewhat impractical, government has decided to instead give out “free” things (healthcare, food stamps, cash vouchers, other handouts, etc.) and manage the rest, in what seems to be a reflection of cumulative government guilt (guilt for what reason remains unknown) or a patronizing act of power preservation (you don’t need to learn how to cut your meat or tie your shoes; let the government do that for you).
However, because the government cannot create value, the “free” part of their free initiatives are paid for by taxpayers or is financed by government debt.
Government, having succeeded in creating perhaps well-intentioned but clearly destructive social and economic programs in the forms of public housing, food stamps, non-competitive public schools, housing loans for the unqualified, abortions, Indian reservations, bailouts of all sorts, green “jobs,” subsidized illegitimacy, sanctioned gambling, and more, now feels the need to create still more dependency as it regards health care.
The attempt to satisfy this need for an ever more dependent populace is seen in the Administration’s cartoonish The Life of Julia effort. The conclusion a woman is supposed to draw is this: Uncle Obama is there to cut you a check, have someone tell you (or your child) to floss, take care of your contraception needs, and he hopes to someday have a government employee come by and read you that story.
I, for one, don’t really want a government storyteller. And we’ve already been told enough fairy tales.
Dana Loesch at Big Government (has there ever been a more appropriately named site?) provides an awe-inducing take down of the dependence thesis as delivered by the Administration’s Julia campaign. Loesch points out the Julia campaign infantilizes women, seeks to force them towards the security of the state, and in effect says Your life is too complicated to handle yourself. Why don’t you leave it to us?
It’s nothing more than an effort to scare women into yet more government dependency and to once again place government closer to the controlling center of all aspects of one’s life. Given the trend-line we’re on, soon freedom will have to be redefined. I’ll offer this as a starter: freedom—the acts of an individual providing service to that which is benevolent, that who grants rights, rights wrongs, makes the difficult less difficult, and always has your best interest at heart.