‘V’ FOR VILLIFICATION: LIBERAL PARADISE, OBAMA NIGHTMARE?
Want to piss off the left? Everybody watch every single episode of the new ABC mini-series “V.” Drive the ratings through the roof. Make the show the hottest cultural happening since Seinfeld. Copy the hairstyles. Ape the fashion. Start bidding up the action dolls on Ebay.
And most especially, actually tell people you believe that this is a show about Obama and the left. It isn’t, but if you want the liberals to poop in their pants, say you think it is.
I find it not a little ironic that Jonathan Chait would see a “Tea Party Worldview” in a show that is such a hammer over the head metaphor for fascism. That’s because in the universe created for “V,” the birthers are right, the paranoid loons who believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist have a point, and there really are Haliburton built concentration camps in Utah.
Except the plot line follows fairly closely the original “V” which aired before many tea partyers were even born. This makes any overt connection to Obama problematic, although the writers manage to stick it to the president on at least one occasion when “national health care” is mentioned to describe the Visitors plans to help humanity.
The political drama of the original was replaced by a ham-handed metaphor for President Obama. The visitors are young, charismatic, futuristic, and have a one-worldish vision of peace. They target the young by enticing them to join an idealistic (but, in reality, sinister) youth group. A few perceptive humans warn of the dangers of hopping on the bandwagon before we know what the bandwagon is really about. The alien leader, Ana, promises to use futuristic technology to heal humans. “You mean universal health care!” gapes a reporter, who, naturally, has been co-opted by the aliens. Anna soothes skeptics by declaring that accepting change can be difficult. A small band of human resistors forms. The lead character is skeptical–what proof do you have she asks, besides some scary thing “you read on the internet.” But the seemingly hysterical message from the internet is true! The charismatic new leader is masking her true identity! The death panels are real! Etc., etc.
The real irony passes so far over Chait’s head it doesn’t even muss his hair. The fact is, the “resistors” are paranoid. That’s because at first, there is no proof that the aliens are anything other than benevolent souls who only want to help. It is not until the true reptilian nature of the Visitors is revealed to one of the main characters, FBI Agent Erica Evans (played by the ravishing MILF Elizabeth Mitchell) that the “paranoid” conspiracy nuts are proved correct.
Now this might be considered something of a birther fantasy come true - except the show has been in the works since 2007, according to executive producer Scott Peters:
Others on both sides of the political spectrum may point to the visitors’ explicit promises of hope, change and universal health care as a pointed reference to pledges of the Obama administration. But [Executive Producer Scott] Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was “never really a factor,” he says. “There’s no political message being shoved down anyone’s throat.”
Could it be that the outward, and unintentional parallels with Obamamania is discomfiting some on the left because the parallels to Hitler’s Germany - so obvious, so easily seen - hold implications for the ease with which many of them succumbed to the siren song being sung by the president? Not that Obama is a fascist in any way, but is Chait really upset because he and his fellow leftists might, under other circumstances and with another candidate less dedicated to constitutional order, have fallen into supporting a real fascist?
It would upset me if I suddenly realized my susceptibility to abandoning critical thinking and embracing an undemocratic leader. All that is missing from Obamamania for it to have become an American nightmare was a candidate willing to take the cult of personality he created and turn it into something that perverts democracy. The same can be said for some other political leaders in America (one - Huey Long - may have actually harbored such un-American notions).
But in Obama’s case, the ability to manipulate the media (not to mention the open cheerleading for the candidate during the race), more money than God, and the extra added bonus of being able to stifle criticism by playing the race card at the drop of a hat all combined to create an extraordinarily incendiary mixture that a man with more authoritarian appetites than our president might have been tempted to use to the detriment of democracy.
Thankfully, Barack Obama is not such a man. Sure, he tries to stifle dissent. What modern president hasn’t? Clinton blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing and Karl Rove calling war protestors “unpatriotic” are just two examples of how the presidency has evolved to control the opposition by marginalizing resisters. It didn’t work any better than Obama’s efforts to shush Fox News so perhaps we can be grateful that even with their enormous power, presidents have to put up with criticism despite their best efforts to silence it.
In the case of “V,” one wonders if the unintentional parallels to Obamania will actually force script changes down the road. That’s because ABC has decided to air only 4 episodes this month, and then send the series off to hiatus until the spring. Already, there are signs that someone is not happy with the finished product.
Naturally, when a show debuts to huge ratings and mostly great reviews, the producer’s career is golden. Not this time. Apparently the network who gave Obama an infomercial and refuses to release the “Path to 9/11? DVD decided to replace the show runner Scott Peters before the pilot even aired. In fact, ABC hosted a big visit by press people last Monday, but Peters was notably absent. Exec producer Steve Pearlman spoke with the reporters.
Peters has been demoted to exec producer, a largely honorary title and has been replaced by former “The Shield” and “Chuck” alum Scott Rosenbaum.
Was this a case of ABC purging a political dissident from the show to make it more politically subservient? ABC has been very pro-Obama. And while the president’s name is never mentioned once in the show, there’s little doubt what they’re getting at. Critics of the “V” aliens are shown to be viewed as wackos and fringe people, the same way the MSM likes to portray ordinary Americans who don’t drink the kOOl-aid. Journalists who question the motives of the V are treated like they’re “not real news”. Wink!
My understanding is that such a change is not uncommon in the industry once a series goes on the air. Still, one wonders if the writing will take a different turn for future episodes given the jawboning on the left about parallels to Obamanania.
Yes, there are superficial similarities with Obama, but perhaps because I loved the original mini-series so much (both parts), I was more focused on how closely this incarnation of the story reflected back to the 1983 version. From what I’ve seen so far, the biggest change is the strong female characters compared to the original. Elizabeth Mitchell plays one tough cookie. She is also a single mom raising a problem teenager. The alien leader, Anna, is cool, gorgeous, scary smart, and so self possessed that any male I know would fight for the chance to ask her out for coffee.
There’s also an interesting religious angle with a Catholic priest questioning his faith with the arrival of beings from another world who never heard of Jesus, and who appear to be the real “saviors” of man. I hope they develop this a little more because it certainly would be one of the major implications for humankind if it was ever discovered that an alien civilization existed.
The special effects are a lot less cheesy, the revelation that the “Visitors” who look gorgeous in their human costumes are actually dragons isn’t handled half as well, and there is less big hair and more pixie styles among the women. (Being a big hair lover, I found this disappointing). The way we discovered the Visitors were aliens in the original was when the female co-leader Diana was seen by newsman Marc Sanger who had snuck aboard the Mothership, devouring a hamster whole. Now that was great television.
The 1983 series had “scientists” who were the persecuted minority - stand ins for the Jews. Given references to the internet already, might bloggers be targets in the remake? I’m with Chait who doubts whether scientists will be the imagined “enemies” of the Visitors. I also doubt that the fifth columnists will all be filthy rich, having been promised fabulous wealth by the Visitors if they cooperate. The great columnist Dorothy Thompson once wrote a piece on “Who would go Nazi?” if fascism ever came to America. Most of her choices were Republicans. I wonder if the new series will try and advance that same meme?
Overall, I’d give the production a B+ for it’s faithfulness to the original (so far) and a B- for political content. The have yet to really get into the fascist parallels that made the original so compelling. That grade may change as the story is fleshed out more in the coming weeks.
But if you want to enjoy the show, I suggest not trying to see Obama criticism or tea party worldview validation in every scene. It’s not there, and it will take away from immersing yourself in what promises to be a good story with lots of action.
Haven’t seen the show — I have it on DVR — but thanks for pointing out an obvious fact that all sorts of ninnies never understand: movies, TV shows, books, they have a long lead time. No one creates, sells, casts, shoots, edits and programs a mini-series in the less than a year Obama’s been in office.
Frankly the 2007 timeline sounds pretty quick, so good on ‘em if they managed it that fast. At that point any political metaphor was likely aimed at the previous administration. But more to the point: there are certain rules and forms that are followed in all fiction. The plot elements aren’t typically there because writers are sending a message, they’re typically there because that’s how fiction is built.
It’s like imagining that your new car has four wheels because the designer was obsessing over the Final Four. Um, no. It just runs better with four wheels.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/5/2009 @ 10:40 am
I don’t think the fact that the original show’s emphasis’s on facism diminishes its current metaphor or Obamaism—which is probably why the show runner was replaced. He was actually making the connection to Obama more pronounced.
After all, what Obama is doing—state control over corporations, national healthcare, cult of personality—are the hallmarks of facism.
Comment by lurker — 11/5/2009 @ 11:20 am
Obamaism is a new take over that may not leave the ground but what he may be doing is implementing help for the people by evening the playing fields using your governmental rules to counter the assault America’s top 1% is implementing on this countries peon’s. Because it isnt facism that rules but capitolism where only money talks, walks, and leaves everything in its way in chalk. Don’t let good things pass by because of presumptions.
Comment by ajay — 11/5/2009 @ 11:29 am
” ‘How To Serve man’ is a COOKBOOK!!!”
Yeah, the aliens who seem too good to be true plot element has been around awhile.
But when you spend 24/7 obsessing over Obama as either the Messiah or the Anti-Christ, everything looks like a revelation.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/5/2009 @ 11:41 am
I think it is hilarious that Hollywood gets upset every time the dirty masses draw the “wrong” conclusions from their media. Happened big time with Forrest Gump.
Comment by tatterdemalion — 11/5/2009 @ 11:47 am
“After all, what Obama is doing—state control over corporations, national healthcare, cult of personality—are the hallmarks of facism.”
Lurker-I am opposed to the bank and auto bailouts, as you are. But I am curious- how do you feel about the Cheney/Addington/Yoo Unitary Executive theory, which holds that during a time of war, the Chief Executive (in this case Obama) has nearly unlimited power? Power such as suspension of habeas corpus, wiretapping, reading emails, searching bank accounts all without a warrant or judicial review?
Isn’t it possible that by seeing eveything in terms of My President (GOOD) and Your President (BAD), we miss the bigger point, which is the steady expansion of governmental power?
And if we are heading towards fascism, wouldn’t it logically follow that we should curb the police power of the government?
Comment by Reason60 — 11/5/2009 @ 11:48 am
If you can’t watch it (I retire early), record it on your DVR. The ratings will reflect that as well!
I agree, onwards and upwards! But the visitor from another planet it a whole lot more attractive than our president!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 11/5/2009 @ 11:55 am
Actually, Chait, and others, are reacting instinctively to the fact that “V” is, in fact, “talking” about fascism. It’s just that fascism is a left-wing ideology. I seriously doubt the writer had Obama in mind when developing this story. Knowing how long it takes for these projects to even get greenlit, let alone complete production, I don’t think any conclusion that the new “V” actually *is* an attack on Obama is unreasonable.
However, why should one be so shocked that a show that attacks fascism should hit so close to home for those who share so much of the same ideology, both in political/economic goals and in underlying origin?
the sinner
Patrick
Comment by Patrick — 11/5/2009 @ 12:31 pm
See, that’s what happens when there’s no edit button an you’re trying to take care of your 4 1/2 month old at the same time! Working from home is great, but trying to write a coherent thought while constantly dividing your attention between multiple obligations results in that poorly written excuse above. Thus, I edit here.
The first paragraph should read as follows: Actually, Chait and others are reacting instinctively to the fact that “V” is “talking” about fascism. It’s just that fascism is a left-wing ideology. I seriously doubt the writer had Obama in mind when developing this story. When you consider how long these kind of projects take to even get greenlit, let alone to complete production, I don’t think it is reasonable to conclude that this new “V” actually *is* an attack on Obama.
Sorry for that.
the sinner,
Patrick
Comment by Patrick — 11/5/2009 @ 12:35 pm
Yep, universal health care is fascism.
That’s what Hitler was all about: making sure that people didn’t go bankrupt just because they got sick.
Well, that and establishing a massive secret police presence, assassinating political opponents, designating certain unpopular groups as second-class citizens, then murdering them en masse, building up a huge military force and invading various countries.
But really what matters, the essence of fascism, is health insurance.
Jesus you people are stupid.
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/5/2009 @ 12:59 pm
If V is an attack on Obama it is obviously not intentional, more a case of aiming at fascism and having Obama step into the line of fire. This is hardly ABC’s fault nor should the tea party folk look a gift horse in the mouth. By all means ride this one for all it’s worth. We should understand what’s going on and not overreach.
Obama has given off several secondary markers of fascism. Obama’s cult of personality, the enemies list, picking out a commercial enemy class, the attempt at delegitimizing Fox News, none of this is fascism per se. You can find non-fascist american sources for all of it (respectively, JFK, Nixon, FDR, and Nixon again). But there is a certain rhyme to it that one can be excused for being nervous about.
US culture has reduced naziism to such a caricature that a serious discussion of whether a modern american politician is fascist or a nazi is almost impossible to conduct. This is one of the many things we need to fix because naziism is not just a historical party but a political instinct, one that will periodically reemerge and the defenses against it must be based on real information instead of caricature. Otherwise we end up no better than the UK where the literally fascist BNP might well gather an explosively large vote and have a sizeable delegation in the next parliament.
Comment by TMLutas — 11/5/2009 @ 1:30 pm
Gee. . . a tall, thin, attractive and exotic-looking leader appears out of the blue. . .and offers us Universal Health Care. . .
It MUST be Science Fiction!!!!
Still, it WOULD explain the Birth Certificate business. . .
Comment by Sotarr The Wizard — 11/5/2009 @ 1:51 pm
“That’s what Hitler was all about: making sure that people didn’t go bankrupt just because they got sick.”
And a panel truck parked outside with hoses from the exhaust sticking into the windows.
Comment by SShiell — 11/5/2009 @ 1:58 pm
The fact is, the “resistors” are paranoid. That’s because at first, there is no proof that the aliens are anything other than benevolent souls who only want to help. It is not until the true reptilian nature of the Visitors is revealed to one of the main characters, FBI Agent Erica Evans (played by the ravishing MILF Elizabeth Mitchell) that the “paranoid” conspiracy nuts are proved correct.
There’s no doubt that some, if not many, could be considered truly ‘paranoid’, but to suggest that there was no proof until the nature was revealed to Agent Evans is incorrect.
For one, the main leader of the resistance was the one who understood they were sleeper cells for some time. Considering the conversation he had with Morris Chestnut’s character (can’t remember his name right now), they have obviously received proof prior to the ‘revealing’ moment in the show. Furthermore, their actions of cutting a ‘V’ behind the ear to check if the person was a Visitor or not is further proof that they weren’t merely ‘paranoid’.
All this and we didn’t even get into the fact that Morris Chestnut’s character IS a Visitor and was helping the other guy fight against them.
I think you need to separate skepticism from paranoia.
Would you call the Father paranoid? It seems his comments regarding the Visitors were rather enlightened, and not paranoid. They were ones of skepticism, questioning, rather than blind loyalty and devotion.
Comment by Agent W — 11/5/2009 @ 2:38 pm
@Patrick:
Facism is a left wing ideology?
I’m curious — where did this meme come from? I was raised the extremes of “left-wing ideology” were communism or anarchy, and the extremes of “right-wing ideology” were totalaritarianism and facism.
I’ll have to miss this — not for any political reasons but because I haven’t watched a TV drama since The Shield went off the air (I’ll miss you Vic, you lovable murderous sociopath). If you’re looking for pop culture discussions of facism/anarchy though, I’d suggest another V — V for Vendetta (not the crap movie, but the original comic mini-series by Alan Moore). Liberals and conservatives were screaming that the movie was a statement about Bush . . . even though the series was written in the late 80s. I guess some things never change.
Speaking of memes . . .
What is this sirens song that all the Obamaniacs have fallen prey to? Let me ask it another way — were the vague, feel-good platitudes Obama said during the campaign somehow substantively different than the vague, feel-good platitudes said by every single politician giving a campaign speech ever? Certainly there are devoted, fanatical Obama supporters . . . kind of like the conservative fanatics that screamed at voters in NY-23 covered in Hoffman stickers.
I understand that you don’t agree with Obama’s campaign messages (and I can understand why — “the audacity of hope” and “yes we can” are truly terrifying messages), but how did “I don’t agree” turn into “you’ve been hypnotized”?
Comment by busboy33 — 11/5/2009 @ 3:15 pm
I saw a sneak preview last week of the first 10 minutes of the new V, and I immediately started noticing a lot of parallels between the message from the Visitors and Obama’s campaign promises and the servile, obsequious behavior of the supporters/followers.
It will be interesting to see how long ABC keeps it on the air, if it returns next spring at all, after 4 episodes this month.
Comment by SB Smith — 11/5/2009 @ 3:20 pm
The teabagger loons came to Washing today to “Kill the Bill”. Unfortunately the angry mob gets to share the news cycle with an angry shooter at Fort Hood, Texas.
Be thankful no one thought packing heat during the teabagger’s outing would be a good idea today.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 11/5/2009 @ 6:48 pm
Oh my God: the AARP and the AMA are also fascist organizations now. Old people and doctors hate America!
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/5/2009 @ 8:46 pm
michael reynolds Said: 12:59 pm Jesus you people are stupid.
CZ: Look at it this way, the more we read your smug observations and condescending rants the smarter we all become. (snort)
Comment by CZ — 11/5/2009 @ 9:22 pm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/4074905247_3faedf8d6e_o.jpg
Comment by webstyr — 11/6/2009 @ 1:29 am
Wow, Obama is a fascist,Obama is Hitler,left wing ideology is fascism. Thanks teabaggers for educating me.After hearing all that I will join your movement. Get a grip teabaggers, your spending too much time with Beck.
Comment by Joe — 11/6/2009 @ 6:14 am
Richard bottoms and all the others who insist on mislabeling the movement - they are TEA PARTIES not tea baggers (which is a perjorative descriptive term for gays). I realize y’all don’t mean to be offensive, you just did it by happy accident, right?
As to them being loons - they were reasonable, orderly and exercising their First Amendment rights to seek redress from their ELECTED representatives who are, after all, their employees! Nothing looney about that at all. People who intentionally misrepresent others who are simply exercising their constitutional rights, now THAT is looney! And none of you here would do that, right? Right!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 11/6/2009 @ 9:21 am
Gayle:
Teabagging is not specifically gay.
As for showing respect for teabaggers, you have to be kidding. I don’t show respect for PETA nuts and you guys are about two steps lower on the evolutionary chain than they are. Teabaggers are the political equivalent of Scientologists in the genus Loonis Americanis
Comment by michael reynolds — 11/6/2009 @ 10:01 am
“As to them being loons - they were reasonable, orderly and exercising their First Amendment rights to seek redress from their ELECTED representatives who are, after all, their employees! Nothing looney about that at all.”
Nope, nothing loony about saying health care is akin to the gas chambers; nothing loony about saying the President is a Marxist/Fascist/Evil Dictator; who comes from Kenya to enslave us all; who is building death camps in Nevada
Nope, the Tea Partiers are the model of polite respectiful debate…
sorry, I started giggling so hard I couln’t type.
Comment by Reason60 — 11/6/2009 @ 10:11 am
And here I thought it was a parody of Columbus when he first ran into the American Indians.
“Umm… Hi there Mr. Indian! We come in peace. Got a lot of great stuff to offer you. Check out these glass beads. Our doctors can cure you of some of the things that make you sick, and we got this nifty religion you are going to love! Say, you mind if we set up a little town over here? Might bring a couple of more of our folks over in a bit. Don’t worry, we will not be any problem at all.”
Comment by KenGirard — 11/6/2009 @ 2:49 pm
RM wrote: Want to piss off the left?
I’m a Dem and yet I feel sorry for the party that has only this sentiment to motivate them. Sorry for my country, too, which needs ideas, not silliness like this.
You have the sense of humor of a goat.
Unclench your anus and lighten up, asshole.
ed.
Comment by HyperIon — 11/6/2009 @ 4:55 pm
“Richard bottoms and all the others who insist on mislabeling the movement - they are TEA PARTIES not tea baggers (which is a perjorative descriptive term for gays).”
Dick Bottoms is just showing off his intimate knowledge of gay sex acts. A guy with a name like Dick Bottoms should be a bit more careful with using gay-innuendo smearing technique, doncha think?
Sad to see the depths to which the left will descend to avoid real reasoned debate.
Heh - this may be one of the more ironic comments I’ve seen here in a long time. Please don’t speak of “reasoned debate” after accusing someone of being a homosexual.
ed.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 11/6/2009 @ 4:58 pm
Mr Ed - Point taken viz #27. However, while I was intending on making fun of his name/moniker, inferences about Mr Bottoms proclivities were not intended beyond the conclusion that he’s acquired the habit of smearing right-wingers through over-consumption of MSNBC propaganda.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 11/6/2009 @ 11:01 pm
busboy-
Yes, it is left wing. Read any of the actual fascist pamphlets/writings prior to taking power - they all talk about the fact that Marxism would only work on a *national* scale. The Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers’ Party for nothin’. I know that you were probably “raised” believing that extreme right-wing was totalitarianism and fascism, but that is a false teaching.
Mr. Goldberg, in “Liberal Fascism,” adeptly traces the ideological roots of fascism within “progressivism.” Of course, both collectivism and radical individualism are just different sides of the same coin. Mr. Goldberg also illustrates how Moscow didn’t have a problem with the fascists, who claimed loyalty to Marx, until the fascists in both Italy and Germany refused to bow down to Muscovite rule. Then the word went out to both operatives and useful idiots, concentrated in academia, to declare fascism “right-wing.” Thus, we’ve had decades of misinformation spread by often ignorant (as in innocent) individuals and, just as often, by those who are knowingly participating in an historical lie.
One thing Goldberg didn’t talk about, from what I remember, was the fact that the fascists had no problem slipping into power for a couple of reasons. First, the people in both Italy and Germany had, for several years, languished under socialists and communists in their respective governments. What the fascists were offering wasn’t much of a difference, economically speaking. Second, and related to the first, the fascists simply pointed out the truth - that the so-called Marxists were actually fat-cats who were hardly living the “proletarian” life. In fact, the fascists were, mostly made up of the lowest elements, economically speaking, in both Germany an Italy. They were living the lives of hardships their fellow countrymen were suffering and could project of feeling of empathy.
So, yeah, you were taught wrong, as are the vast majority of people in the West. Even more in Europe.
the sinner,
Patrick
Comment by Patrick — 11/7/2009 @ 4:56 pm
michael reynolds -
Your snarky, and completely unearned, hubris aside, yeah, universal health care can very reasonably be called fascistic. It is an attempt to control people and their choices. When the controlling entity is rabidly secular and promotes a cult of personality, it is even easier to make said argument.
We aren’t stupid, we simply don’t drink the cool-aid that you appear to be drowining in.
the sinner,
Patrick
Comment by Patrick — 11/7/2009 @ 4:59 pm
@Patrick:
Where is the “cult of personality”, except in the eyes of the Right? Am I allowed to say “I like Obama” without being worshipfully adoring?
He was elected by a popular majority. He is liked (even the worst polls put his popularity at 50% of the public). Do you distinguish between a “cult of personality” and simply liking someone — and if so, what do you define the difference as?
“yeah, universal health care can very reasonably be called fascistic. It is an attempt to control people and their choices.”
hmmm . . .if we go with that definition, do you also consider public roads “fascist”? After all, they limit your choices — you can’t lay your own highway between Chicago and Philadelphia.
What choice is being denied to you by universal health care? The choice to not have health insurance? Fair enough. What about mandatory auto insurance laws? Fascist? You don’t have the choice to drive uninsured. Hell, driver’s license laws prohibit you from driving without registering. Fascist? Would you prefer I drive the same roads with you without insurance, so if I hit you you pay for my choice?
Heck, by this logic all laws are fascist. Drunk driving laws deny me the choice to drive drunk on the same roads with your wife and kids. Are you philosophically opposed to drunk driving laws? It seems that by your logic these laws are pure fascism. Do you support the freedom of choice to drive drunk? I’m prohibited from choosing the capitalist path of selling crystal meth. If I’m a sex offender, I’m prohibited from choosing to live next to an elementary school.
Is this “fascist”? Do you oppose these laws?
The bills going to vote on healthcare don’t ban private insurance. The only “loss of freedom” is being required to be insured. What makes this more “fascist” than auto insurance, or drunk driving laws?
It is inarguably an increase in government influence on private lives — you’re not currently required to be insured, so if they require you to get insured that is, by definition, more influence. But . . . “fascism”? Did you oppose those sex-offender registration laws too?
Comment by busboy33 — 11/7/2009 @ 7:45 pm
I don’t think it is remotely in line with reality to say that an individual constantly imbued with nearly mythical powers by many (if not most) of those who “support” him is not the subject of a cult of personality. That does not necessarily mean that you have engaged in such activity - only that it does, in fact, exist.
Your comparison of public roads to universal health care is inaccurate. One does NOT limit peoples’ choices, nor does it demand compliance with a particular activity for the sake of their own good. Paying taxes to pay for public roads does NOT, in any way, compare for fines/imprisonment for failure to get a state mandated minimum regarding health insurance. Not even car insurance requirements (which are state, not federal requirements, may I add) are not even that brutal.
In addition, one does not HAVE to get car insurance, you don’t have to own a car! This is not true of health care - your mere existence is enough to demand your compliance. Again, your comparison is weak and ineffectual.
Drunk driving laws also address immediate harm and danger - health care does not. Again, your choice of comparisons are wrong. And sex-offender registration laws? Really? Do you *honestly* think they’re comparable? Really, they aren’t. Breaking a law and being punished for harming others (or putting others in harm’s way) are hardly the same as doing nothing more than putting yourself, possibly, at risk of being unable to afford health care.
Your comparisons are non-starters. Please, try again.
the sinner,
Patrick
Comment by Patrick — 11/9/2009 @ 5:40 pm