A brown blizzard from the far right
Published on -10/9/2009, 2:38 PM
Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story
Bob Hooper
People who offer political opinions in print (me) get mail storms. Until it gets to "you already sent that," I like seeing what's up coming down. I get a skift from the left. The blizzard, however, comes in bullying brown drifts from what I call the poopflake right. The intent -- no matter the circumstance, no matter how inaccurate -- is to bury the Obama administration. A recent flurry:
A Californian who loves Faux Snooze writes, "All the doctors I talk to say they're gonna leave the country if there's a public option." The truth: 73 percent of M.D.'s nationwide want a public option or a single-payer system..
The Californian's ditto-head 14-year-old sends a link to a story intended to prove that the Massachusetts example is a government takeover of health care which would bankrupt the country -- as it nearly has that state. But Massachusetts does not have a public option, certainly no single-payer system.
Mitt Romney, then Massachusetts governor, admits, "Our plan did not include a government insurance plan. ... Instead, we relied entirely on private market-based insurance plans to help people get insurance." Quoting the New York Times: "... government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next five to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending." Doctors there are advocating for a single-payer system -- which would actually save money.
A local e-mailer forwards a chain letter (unsourced, like most) claiming the Cash for Clunkers program grant is taxable income. Nope, ain't so. He adds that dealers jacked up sticker prices after learning of the program. Wouldn't doubt it -- but, gee, would that be the nasty old government doin' some price-gouging? Or would it be some saintly, unregulated private free marketers putting the screws to customers? I report, you decide.
A global-warming denier argues that respected German meteorologist Professor Mojib Latif has reversed his opinion about man-related global warming last year. Well, not really. Here's what the study Latif co-authored actually said, "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." Key words: may, suggest, temporarily.
" 'People will say this is global warming disappearing,' Latif told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference, but 'I am not one of the sceptics.' " (from the BBC)
A dual resident of Kansas and Arizona e-mails, "When I google 'global warming skeptic scientists,' I find over 300,000 entries. When I google 'global warming skeptics' I find over 800,000 entries." I'm not sure what his hot air is intended to prove. I've invited him to trot out two or three specific sources. No luck. In the meantime, I googled "pooper scoopers" and found 59,200 entries. I've ordered one for the next e-mail I get from this guy.
Another gentleman says (after I'd used Snopes to debunk a claim he'd sent) he don't trust Snopes -- no mo'! He sent along an unattributed e-mail saying Snopes was run by stinky liberal, Obama lovin', Democrat crazies. As just one example, the e-mail said Snopes ain't a'takin' the birther business seriously. The gentleman doesn't think I can be "enlightened" (at least by him) so for the straight skinny he's goin' to Truthorfiction.com, dammit. Well... okey dokey.
Truthorfiction condemned the anti-Snopes e-mail. "Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded e-mails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do. ... The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don't like the truth you've reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did." Factcheck.org, another investigative site, adds: "This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors ..."
I just got a letter from a "tenther." (Tenthers are born again birthers.) My correspondent thinks the 10th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the federal government from instituting a public option in health care. Since health care isn't mentioned in the Constitution, he says it's a right exclusively reserved to the states. Of course, for consistency we'd have to roll back Medicare, the National Institute of Health, the Centers for Disease Control -- and a few other things like food and drink standards.
Two years ago, an area resident challenged my saying that the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction. They had been "carted off" to Syria, my critic said, and dang it, Saddam did have significant ties to al-Qaeda -- even though the Republican-chaired (Pat Roberts) Senate Intelligence Committee and administration investigations had then, nor now, found zero evidence supporting those claims.
Last Monday, the same guy wrote the local paper bragging up Glenn Beck, Faux Snooze and fellow winger Jack Krier. Need I say more?
Bob Hooper is a fourth-generation western Kansan who writes from his home in Bogue.
celtic@ruraltel.net
Ashley, thanks for a thoughtful reply. You practice what you preach. When I think of our democratic republic, I recall what Churchill said (in substance), "It's a terrible form of government, but it beats the alternatives." It would be wonderful if we could all just get along, but passionate differences are inevitable. The wisdom of our Founders wasn't so much that they were "Christians" (some were, some weren't) but that they understood and feared the accumulation of power by any one person, any one party, any one religion, or any one division of government--and in fact, following the philosphy of John Locke (and I suppose, if the full truth were known) and others of the Enlightenment and leading up to it. Here's a video I like, and there are others on the same site you might find interesting. (You may need a high-speed connection, or be prepared to wait several minutes as it downloads). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poO5BgU2PZo&feature=related It's short. Best wishes, Bob Hooper
(Posted by: Bov Hooper)
Campaign reform: 10/18/2009
It is definately needed and would be part of a solid plan to get to what I would consider a respectable government. I can appreciate the situation that politicians are in, but since they are the ones who have to change the landscape it upsets me that few ever seriously consider it. Of course those who claim to champion reform are quickly forced to the fringe and labled as crazies. I find it interesting that the popular path lately seems to be that anyone who disagrees with your ideals is a nazi, loon, crazy, etc... Whatever happend to people acknowledging a difference in opinion. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. While I disagree often with people, I try to listen to their opinions in case they do have a better way of handling something. Imagine what might happen if this was the attitude of our lawmakers rather than immediately dismissing someone because they were a member of some other political group. The name of the game today is sensationalistic statements in order to draw as much attention to your ideas as possible, or to draw attention to the flaws in your opponents ideas instead. I find it hard to believe that bipartisianship is even possible anymore on divisive issues. There seems to be no compromise, just whichever party is in power ramming things through if they can. This isn't a trait of Rep. or Dem., it's a trait of both parties. It reminds me of a couple of children at school trying to put eachother down every time they get the chance because of some long forgotten disagreement that caused them to dislike eachother in the first place. I think starting over with a fresh crop might be a worthwhile effort. I dream of a government where no one was beholden to the people who paid to get them elected and they are only there for few years and have no benefit to voting for their next term. Impossible, probably, but it's what I would like to see.
(Posted by: Ashley H.)
You have a point, Ashley: 10/17/2009
The notion of term limits is not new. Perhaps would be a start. However, from my perspective, there are at least some (quite a few, actually) career politicians who stick up for the people as opposed to the special interests, and it often does take more than a term or two to earn influence (chairman/womanships), for example. The primary problem, I think, is the amount of money it takes to get elected--which often involves battling very skilled propaganda attacks from vested interests. When one speaks truth to power, there's usually a price to pay. And one more thing, average citizens need to get off their duffs and spend a little time getting truly informed on issues and candidates--which often means getting out of the echo-chambers and doing a little real invesitigation. Thanks again for your comments..
(Posted by: Bob Hooper)
If I had the solution I wouldn't be here.: 10/16/2009
I don't have a solution. I am not a politician and don't want to be one. I know what I would like to see happen. I freely admit that most of my opinions lean to the right, not all, but most. I also admit that the right is often just as wrong as the left. My only viable suggestion would be for very limited amounts of time for people to hold office. Would it solve every problem? No, but I think it would curb the need for today's political elite to pander to every interest group that comes along instead of sticking to what they think is right for this country. I would have a lot more respect for our so called leaders if they would actually lead with some conviction and not flip on issues every time it's better for them on one side or the other. I feel like taking away the ability for these people to spend half their lives in office might be the only thing to keep them focused on what's best for the people and not what's best for themselves. I could be wrong, but you asked for anything I could offer.
(Posted by: Ashley H.)
Oh, Brenda: 10/12/2009
by the way... Bob Hooper's (my) name is near the TOP of the column in boldface type, along with the photo of my balding head. I'd suggest a remedial class for the "English" man, but I don't suppose he'd get what I'm saying...so you can pass it along. Thanks
(Posted by: Bob Hooper)
Aw, shucks: 10/12/2009
Brenda and English man. Thank you for reading the column, and sorry you had difficulty getting the message (Maybe you just didn't like what I had to say? Or bought into the same poopflakes?)
(Posted by: Bob Hooper)
No Idea?: 10/12/2009
It would not be fair for me to comment on Hooper's column. I tried three different times to read his writing in its entirety and just couldn't do it.
(Posted by: An "English" Man)
Ashley, thank you: 10/11/2009
for reading and responding. The question for you is this: if you have no faith in government, what is it you are proposing in its stead? Do you truly believe that no politician has the public interest at heart? I'm sincerely interested in any solution you have.
(Posted by: Bob Hooper)
Is that you Bob?: 10/11/2009
I can usually tell who's writing a comment by their writing style in the first few lines, but I had to read the entire commentary to see Bob Hooper's name at the bottom. As I was reading his rantings I thought maybe our far right radical fella from Palco had shifted to the radical far left. Mellow out Bob, your rantings are beginning to sound more emotional than intelluctual these days. I used to think that even though you and I differed on virtually every subject that you were a reasonably intelligent man, not so sure these days, your columns seem to viciously insult anyone who dares disagree with you. I'd hoped you were a better man than that.
(Posted by: Brenda out west)
It's all comical.: 10/10/2009
I find it hilarious that you think the left is any better than the right. At the end of the day politicians are all humans. Therefore they are all interested in what's best for themselves, their family, and whoever they need to "work" to get it. So, I guess the ultimate question is who would you like to get screwed by, the left or the right? I guess it's a matter of how you like your money and personal freedoms stolen and wasted. If one thing is a constant in our government, it's lies, false hope, and stubborn elitism from all sides. Until we can take away the reasons for someone to be a career politician it will continue. Of course the only people able to take those reasons away are the politicians themselves. What a perfect system for everyone but we the people.
(Posted by: Ashley H.)
: 10/9/2009
One thing seems clear: seldom has it been needed more but practiced less. An excellent book on the issue is "The Age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby. The underlying emotion on the right is fear, and its historical offspring is anger. That's not encouraging for the future of this country. Thanks for your observation, Victoria, and for reading the column.
(Posted by: Bob Hooper)
But Bob: 10/9/2009
Since when did factual information and rational thought ever apply to our political discourse?
(Posted by: Victoria Gilbert)
COMMENT ON THIS STORY
All comments are subject to approval before being posted. Please keep comments constructive and relevant. Opinions certainly can be expressed, but comments that are rude, abusive, slanderous, threatening, sexually oriented, contain profanity or are vulgar will not be tolerated. Comments will not be edited. Any comment that violates the above-listed rules will be deleted.
