The White House recently asked that if you see a “fishy” email about healthcare that you should forward this email to them at a specified email address(flag@whitehouse.gov). Hmmm… you know the more I think about that one, the more it REALLY bothers me, and I’m not the only one. It makes me ask myself several questions.
What are they going to do with the email addresses? Really. I mean, are they going to make up some form letter to try and dissuade the person from forwarding more “fishy” emails? Are they going to answer the issues brought up in the “fishy” email? If they take ANY action on this how can that not be viewed as some type of intimidation tactic? Not that you expect Rahm and Robert to show up at your front door and brake your thumbs or anything, but… getting an email from the White House saying that you don’t seem to understand what they are trying to do… that’s kind of a big deal. It’s very much, hey we’re watching what you are doing and we know that you don’t understand this, so we are going to… set you straight here. Can you imagine if you had gotten an email from George W. Bush’s White House for sending out ‘truther’ emails about the 9-11 attacks? Or dissenting emails about the Iraq war? Can you imagine how fast the ACLU would be suing the White House for that? Of course, crazy, small government conservatives like myself would take such an email and plaster it all over blogs, facebook, forward it to news sources, and basically blow the whistle long and loud, which in the end would be bad PR for the White House. So… I really don’t think they will be sending out emails on this.
Are they going to research the email addresses and see where it originated? Are they looking for information that this all comes from the insurance industry and they are trying to tie it back to a common source? Even if they could do that, which, they just can’t because all of this doesn’t come from one source, it comes from educated people reading bills that Congressman can’t seem to find time to read, what would it prove? If a company comes out, really any company for that matter, and says “hey, the government is trying to put me out of business” I’m going to look into it and if I think they have a valid point I’m going to talk about it, blog about it, email about it, and maybe even talk to my representatives about it because that is over stepping the bounds of the government. That’s a good thing to get upset about. The government doesn’t need to be putting any businesses out of business. We need more jobs, not less. Insurance companies making profits is a good thing. When industries are profitable it attracts other people to the market, which means more competition and lower prices. Not to mention that they grow and employ more people. What’s not good about that?
Quite frankly, I really don’t know what the government hopes to do with this. I can’t think of any scenarios where this really turns out good for them. If anything it will only spur on the conspiracy theorists and has already gotten them a letter from at least one member of congress. Talk radio is going to get even more crazy about this… and I think some weird people might even be blogging about it.
Of course, if any of you think this is “fishy”, or if any of my other dozen or so blog posts on this messed up, government nationalization of healthcare are “fishy” then you should probably do your civic duty and turn me in by sending a link to my blog to flag@whitehouse.gov. No, really… the curiosity about what they are going to do with this information is just killing me! I want to know! I’ve got to know! I may turn MYSELF in!
Of course, maybe that is what they are trying to do… take any attention possible away from healthcare legislation with a distraction… hmmm….
*****Update: Greate video from NC about how the administration has been handling dissent about healthcare.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Big Brother Wants to Know...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
That is truly scary and makes me continue to wonder where on earth are we headed in the US?
Oh, don't worry Jennifer, Big Brother is nice. It's all for the 'common good'... right?
I received an e mail from AARP wanting me to forward a group of apologist explanations for the Health Care initiative. I replied to AARP and declined to participate citing apparent cost and the Federal Government as the steward of the program. They actually replied to my comment by dismissing my concern and encouraging further emails by those in favor. Maybe AARP is also getting a great deal of negative responses. Usually they don't respond.
BTW: do you think that I should send this "fishy" AARP email on to the White House?
I still like that letter that Bill had on his blog from the lady who said that we are watching and we don't like what the "big" government is doing. We need a grass roots movement to get everyone who is in and voting for all this junk-OUT!! Maybe then they would listen-if they do not have a job. Unfortunately, unlike the rest of us-if they get "fired" they still have all these payments, etc and basically would not have to work again-ever-and we will support them-lucky us! :(
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
(vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.
(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.
(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.
(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.
(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces.
Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM
by Frederick Engels
[Important Note: This was written prior to 1848 when the views of Marx and Engels really matured in the Communist Manifesto]
Post a Comment