Is “You Said It” actually “We Said It (and want you to think it)?”

In his interview with USA Today, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose just-released memoirs are titled “My Grandfather’s Son,” said, “"We are allowing ourselves to be governed by cynical people….” Nowhere is that cynicism more pervasive than in the dinosaur “news” media. All too often, “we report you decide” is actually “we spin and hope you’re stupid enough to believe.” Fortunately the so-called “new” media has the capability, if not in every instance the circulation, of countering agenda-driven establishment propaganda.

As any of its readers know, here locally in Grand Junction, Colorado, the Daily Sentinel has a column titled “You said it,” where they ostensibly encourage readers to speak their minds in two or three pithy sentences. No doubt the Sentinel receives many times the submissions that there is available space to publish, so they find themselves in the position of being forced to pick and choose (aka “edit”) which submissions they will publish.

Of course, it is to be fully expected that the Sentinel is huge fan of the First Amendment — when it serves Power (the power of the self-anointed elite to use the deception-based coercion of government to run the lives and steal the labor of those who don’t understand the “government” game). Equally unsurprising is the tendency of most establishment “journals of record” to water down their enthusiasm for freedom of speech when that freedom runs contrary to their unspoken socio-economic or political agendas. Naturally, informing the general public as to the nitty-gritty mechanics of the established order is low on the list of “professional” journalism’s priorities. It is not for nothing that H.L Mencken is credited with saying, “The men that American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”

In the 9/29/07 “You Said It” column the following submission appeared: “Bash Hillary if you want, but she is trying to get health care for millions of Americans who don’t have it. Are you?” From that sentence, it is entirely reasonable to presume that the writer is a socialist ignoramus who intended to imply the term “health care” to be preceded by the word “free.” And it is also reasonable to presume that Hillary’s “free” health care should be paid for by the tired old class-warfare notion of “tax the rich.”

Socialist ignoramuses seem deliberately oblivious to the real-life fact that the universe is a cause-and-effect place, where Nature’s first rule of economics is, “Whatever you tax (e.g. honesty, industry, ingenuity, wellness, generosity, etc.) you get less of (the power to tax is the power to destroy), while whatever you subsidize (e.g. unwed motherhood, joblessness, poverty, dishonesty, laziness, apathy, disease, greed, etc.) you get more of. In addition to abject ignorance in the area of economics, the so-called “left” loves to demonize any person who dares to disagree with their world views and political agendas with ad hominem attacks of the most malicious sort.

Bearing all this in mind, a close friend of mine submitted the following in response to the Hillary fan: “To the socialist who was whining about people bashing Hillary even though ‘she is trying to get health care for millions of Americans who don't have it.’ Who's going to pay for all this ‘free’ health care? There is no such thing as ‘free.’ ‘Free’ only means it was created by somebody else's labor other than your own. So, are you going to sell everything you have and give it to the doctors for health care for the poor, or are you going to pass a law saying doctors and nurses have to work for free. Grow a brain, for crying out loud!”

Did the Sentinel print this above educational submission? On 10/2/07 when I originally posted this blog, I wrote "No way." Today, 10/8/07, the Sentinel published the following part of the original submission: "To the socialist who was whining about people bashing Hillary even though ‘she is trying to get health care for millions of Americans who don't have it.’ Who's going to pay for all this ‘free’ health care? There is no such thing as ‘free.’ ‘Free’ only means it was created by somebody else's labor other than your own." Question is, why omit the rest of the post, "So, are you going to sell everything you have and give it to the doctors for health care for the poor, or are you going to pass a law saying doctors and nurses have to work for free. Grow a brain, for crying out loud!” Maybe the local "good old boy" club thinks it's too polarizing to talk about how the medical industry (yes, and that does include doctors' fees) has led inflation for several decades.

It appears the Sentinel's prime directive is not to educate its readers in the actual mechanics of free-market economics, but to make them think they are participating in a legitimate public discussion which might lead to enlightenment. Problem is, 1 + 1 = 3 is not a legitimate part of a public discussion on math. Likewise, socialism, which purports to pay for the elites’ social-engineering schemes with the money of the “little people” by cynically lying to them and causing them to erroneously think “free” health care is merely one more realistic economic option, in so doing, engages in the deliberate promotion of a wholly evil unspoken moral equivalency between living off of your own labor and living off of the labor of another person. Indeed, the entire elitist establishment structure is committed to obfuscating that life-and-death difference for personal financial gain.

So, what did the Sentinel choose to publish as “opposition” to the implied ad hominem of the ignorant Hillary fan? Two submissions in the 9/30/07 “You Said It” column: “Hillary thinks if the feds ran the medical business in this country, everyone could have everything, all the time, for free. Is there anyone dumb enough to believe that?” and “Why would any U.S. citizen embrace socialized medical treatment as espoused by Hillary when there is ample evidence that socialized medicine is failing in Canada and Europe?”

Is it just me, or do the words, “embrace” and “espouse” seem just a tad odd for a lay person? And who really cares about “ample evidence” from Canada and Europe, when it is entirely possible to delve into the realm of the actual mechanics of economics with virtually mathematical precision in an attempt to gain increased clarity of understanding of the subject matter?

Only the most naive among us fail to understand that “You Said It” is, at least in part, and in my humble opinion, a cynical political game. Obviously some of the submissions are from local politicos who are just trying to throw some sound-byte-ish talking points into the mix. One example of what I’m talking about is another submission which also appeared in the 9/30/07 “You Said It” column: “I hope the person who commented that the government spends money like drunken sailors realizes that for most of the past seven years, those spendthrifts have been drunken Republican sailors.”

While I didn’t vote for either Bush, only those individuals completely clueless as to history would be unaware that, historically speaking, the Democrat Party, beginning in earnest with FDR and the collectivist Ponzi-scheme chain letter that is Social “Security,” has always been the prototypical party of class warfare and Big Brother tax-and-spend totalitarian government.

In his book, “The Anatomy of the State,” libertarian economics icon, Murray Rothbard, argues that the prime directive of the self-anointed elite ruling minorities is to "purchase allies among important groups in the population." Accordingly, as Karen De Coster writes, “it is the State’s intellectuals – academics, policy wonks, behavioral police, and appointed health experts – who serve to sell the State’s version of personal ‘freedom’ to the masses. They are the intermediaries that turn propaganda into reality. The masses are led to believe that a society which is rigidly centralized, and where obedience to State rulers and their enforcers is compulsory, is somehow ‘free.’”

De Coster continues, “There’s a standard hymn that says ‘Freedom is not free,’ but what does that actually mean? What, then, is the cost of freedom?” “In a government bureaucracy, costs don’t matter. They get swept under a rug. But in a world where the human freedom and the futures of our heirs are at stake, costs do matter. The costs are all the lost liberties individuals endure at the hands of the rulers and their allied opinion molders and citizen despots who continue to facilitate a breeding ground for ignorance and passive acceptance.”

There is an old axiom which says “let the buyer beware.” It seems manifestly reasonable to suggest that “You Said It” readers might want to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism when reading between the lines of the published submissions. That way they will be better prepared to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the articulate submissions from the mindless rants of the self-possessed from any unspoken socio-political agendas which might lie hidden behind the Sentinel’s choice of which submissions to publish. Ditto the Letters to the Editor page.

In the event any person has any questions about this blog as it relates to the constitutional freedom of political speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that, here in America, it is perfectly legal to advocate, in general terms, from an ideological point of view, even the violent overthrow of the government, e.g. “the king should be shot,” or “the local good-old-boy political and media bosses deserve to be shot.” See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). Furthermore, Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution makes the principle even clearer in pertinent explicit part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject,…and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.”

So, confident in my legal right to do so, I will continue to blog merrily on, including about various truths of government criminality and good-old-boy media coverups.

ShareThis