Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Revolt Against the Unwashed
Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, last seen around these parts calling opponents of Obamacare "political terrorists," held a charming WashingtonPost.com chat yesterday. And by "charming" I really do mean "not charming at all." If the health care overhaul fails, get used to this kind of elite yapping at the proles' heels. Sample:
Fairfax, Va.: Why is it so many people believe illegal immigrants will receive coverage through the health-care reforms? I mean, why do seemingly so many people think illegal immigrants have the sort of political clout to get such benefits included in a bill?
Steven Pearlstein: Why do you say that? Where did you get that rubbish? Its just a lie, and you should go back to the place you got it and ask them why they are lying to you and trying to scare up an issue that simply doesn't exist. In fact, the bills make it clear that legal residency is required for participation in plans sold through the new exchanges. [...]
NOVA: First, I am not a crowd disrupter at the health care town halls. I think those people really stage their protests because Limbaugh or Beck told them too. However, I have some questions about what is being proposed in Congress. Few people would feel the Post Office, the IRS, the Pentagon, Medicare, etc. are well run government organizations. How can we feel secure in the government running health care?
Steven Pearlstein: Okay, I tried to answer this once already. let me try again.
Your smear on government is unfounded, as is your fear that the government is going to run health care. [...]
Moreover, who says government can't run anything? Those town meetings were full of old people who had been scared by right wing goons into believing that somebody was going to take away their Medicare. Obviously, they think its a pretty good program if they were demanding that nobody touch it. And I think if you ran on the platform that our boys and girls in Afghanistan were doing a lousy job, you probably wouldn't get many votes. As for the Post Office, if you think everyone hates it and nobody values its services, then why is there a public hue and cry whenever it is proposed to close one office or do away with Saturday delivery? Maybe you ought to rethink this knee-jerk, ideological view that government is always bad.
Euler|9.10.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Imagine if gruel was the only food we were allowed to eat as mandated by government. Obviously, if gruel stopped being served, people would get upset. That doesn't mean gruel tastes good, though. This guy fails at logic.
|9.10.09 @ 3:44PM|#
I think Pearlstein has gone completely over from useful idiot to
useless idiot.
Is the Vast, Left-wing Conspiracy official yet?
|9.10.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Clearly this guy is a True Believer in the Church of the Sacred Gub'ment, and anything you say against it is an untenable heresy. He even finds the frickin' post office worthy of veneration. What a douchebag.
|9.10.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Even Obama used the Post Office as an example of something badly run by the government, Steve. You fail.
WWJGD|9.10.09 @ 3:50PM|#
"And I think if you ran on the platform that our boys and girls
in Afghanistan were doing a lousy job, you probably wouldn't get
many votes."
I think he has a point, Government does an excellent job when it
comes to killing people.
As for the USPS, rage over my delayed copy of Halo Wars is clouding
my judgment.
|9.10.09 @ 3:51PM|#
I have an evil plan for bringing down the post office. If I had
a mustache, I'd be twirling it right now.
Stay tuned.
Brick|9.10.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Dennis Miller said it best last night.
"That Obama's 8:00 pm Healthcare speech started more than 15
minutes later than scheduled tells me everything I need to know
about government run healthcare."
|9.10.09 @ 3:52PM|#
The Pentagon is such a good organization it cannot account for
inordinately large amounts of its spending.
The USPS is such a good organization it needs a monopoly in its
main area of business to stay in business.
|9.10.09 @ 3:55PM|#
"As for the Post Office, if you think everyone hates it and
nobody values its services, then why is there a public hue and cry
whenever it is proposed to close one office or do away with
Saturday delivery?"
That's easy, because it's another case of the incompetence of the
Post Office. How can people make such statements without
recognizing the absurdity?
|9.10.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Only a moron who has no experience with the military can think that it is an efficient organization. It is a grossly ineffeciant organization that wastes huge amounts of resources. Yes, it does accomplish the mission better than anyone else. But that is in spite of itself many times. And even when it is not, it's mission, that of killing people and breaking things is so unique that it doesn't offer many lessons to the outside world.
@|9.10.09 @ 3:57PM|#
speech started more than 15 minutes later than
scheduled
Are you saying that black people are never on time, Brick? That's a
horrifying and insensitive stereotype. And yes, Michael Jackson was
90 minutes late for his own funeral, but that doesn't count,
because he was The King.
PimpleDick|9.10.09 @ 3:57PM|#
The president last night did not repeat his comparison of the
so-called public option--a government-run insurance company--to the
post office. He did, however, introduce a new analogy:
"By avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private
companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and
executive salaries, [government insurance] could provide a good
deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private
insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their
customers better, the same way public colleges and universities
provide additional choice and competition to students without in
any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and
universities.
This is a more emotionally resonant comparison than the post
office, inasmuch as it appeals to everyone's pride: state U grads'
in having gone there, Ivy Leaguers' in not having gone there.
But higher-education costs, like health costs, have been
skyrocketing for years, and for a similar reason: artificially
inflated demand as a result of regulation, subsidies and
third-party payments. But can Obama really be ignorant enough to
believe that higher ed is an example of competition leading to cost
control?
JB|9.10.09 @ 4:01PM|#
What a stupid fuck. Pearlstein loves all government, all the time, in every orifice and thinks everyone feels the same way. Fuck that fetus.
Xeones|9.10.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Say, anyone else think that Pearlstein may actually be Edward/Lefiti/et al? Or is Edweird just one of Pearlstein's catamites?
Shannon Love|9.10.09 @ 4:08PM|#
One tactic that proponents of increased government authority use
to try and assuage fears is to claim that such and such provision
prevents the feared consequence. This usually fails on two
counts:
(1) There is no guarantee that when a couple of years down the road
our political overlords won't change their minds. For example, does
the provision against spending U.S. tax dollars on illegal aliens
provide a mechanism for preventing legislators from changing that
provision once they have the major bill passed?
(2) Will the courts allow such a provision to stand even if the
legislators want it to?
(3) How then are we going to pay for medical services for illegal
aliens? If its against the law to use federal dollars to do so does
that mean we're just going to let 8 million people go without
care?
(4) What about all the political groups that have shot down all
attempts to restrict any public spending on (in this case)
illegals? Are they suddenly going to change their minds?
The problem with people like Pearlstein is that they have no
understand how the real world political process operates in the
long run. People like him believe that if you intend a certain
outcome, then that is what will happen.
In comparison, people who oppose Pearlstiens nationalizing efforts
realize that politics, law and government in general have a life of
their own and often produce outcomes much different than the ones
intended. No educated adult should believe that we won't be on the
hook for, as an example, the care of illegal aliens very soon after
we nationalize health care.
|9.10.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Public Colleges are broke, cutting services, require subsidies,
and have contributed to the cost of college education outpacing
even health care spending's increase.*
Nah, nothing can go wrong with more government involement with
health care.
* I stole that argument because I find it persuasive.
|9.10.09 @ 4:13PM|#
Maybe you ought to rethink this knee-jerk, ideological view
that government is always bad.
I'll join the meme....
Fuck off, slaver!
Colin|9.10.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Actually I think our boys and girls are doing a fine job in Afghanistan, but I think that the government's mission is headed for disaster. Or does Pearlstein think we are headed to victory?
|9.10.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Steven Pearlstein: Okay, I tried to answer this once
already. let me try again.
He forgot to add: "And I'll use small words so you'll be sure to
understand, you warthog-faced buffoon."
|9.10.09 @ 4:24PM|#
One of the baffling aspects of the Dem case for their version of reform is the use of invective and insults against the people they're trying to convince. Do they really think telling the undecided "you're stupid and misguided and probably racist too" is a winning strategy?
@|9.10.09 @ 4:25PM|#
sage | September 10, 2009, 4:19pm | #
Steven Pearlstein: Okay, I tried to answer this once already. let
me try again.
(sigh)
We have so much to learn from our overlords.
Enlighten us, Massa Pearlstein!
Rimfax|9.10.09 @ 4:29PM|#
The only mention I ever hear of military health benefits is that they are only good for the most trivial of problems. Many former military folks that I know switch to more expensive private care for anything short of a trivial antibiotic prescription. Some of them are pursuing private care to correct problems created by the military health system.
$|9.10.09 @ 4:32PM|#
In the picture, he's doing that invisible-dowser thing they
teach you to do in debate club so you don't look like a fascist
lunatic pointing at ghost enemies while you're ranting. I'm
fooled.
Do they really think telling the undecided "you're stupid and
misguided and probably racist too" is a winning
strategy?
They're not trying to convince anybody. The "undecided" aren't the
audience for that. They're the ghost enemy.
BeesInTheBrain|9.10.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Awesome just awesome.
In a perfect world Obama would hire him to be his press secretary.
Then this crap would never get off the ground.
PimpleDick|9.10.09 @ 4:38PM|#
"Actually I think our boys and girls are doing a fine job in
Afghanistan"
We have no boys and girls in Afghanistan you shit-for-a-tongue
liar.
Gilbert Martin|9.10.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"As for the Post Office, if you think everyone hates it and
nobody values its services, then why is there a public hue and cry
whenever it is proposed to close one office or do away with
Saturday delivery?"
Hmmm - maybe it's got somehting to do with the fact that the Post
Office had been granted a government mandated monopoly on certain
parts of it's business so therefore there is no alternative
provider to turn to.
Phantom Limb|9.10.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Maybe you ought to rethink this knee-jerk, ideological view that...
Pot, meet kettle.
Gilbert Martin|9.10.09 @ 4:43PM|#
"And yes, Michael Jackson was 90 minutes late for his own
funeral, but that doesn't count, because he was The King."
Actually they just stuffed him in the crypt the other day so he's
really about 2 months late.
|9.10.09 @ 4:47PM|#
Ya know, he could have saved a lot of time simply by using the
"dripping condescension" emoticon.
(¬_¬) or (-_-)
To which, anyone could use the standard response:
_|_ (^.^) _|_
Gilbert Martin|9.10.09 @ 4:47PM|#
"One of the baffling aspects of the Dem case for their version
of reform is the use of invective and insults against the people
they're trying to convince. Do they really think telling the
undecided "you're stupid and misguided and probably racist too" is
a winning strategy?"
They aren't trying to convince those people of anything.
They're trying convince themselves that all those people are really
a miniscule group of kook fringe outliers and the the majority of
folks are marching in glorious lockstep behind their brilliant
leadership on the issue.
|9.10.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Immigration law also makes it clear that legal residency is
required to work in this country, and yet...
Is anyone so naive as to expect the situation to be any different
under Obamacare?
|9.10.09 @ 5:02PM|#
"They're trying convince themselves that all those people are
really a miniscule group of kook fringe outliers and the the
majority of folks are marching in glorious lockstep behind their
brilliant leadership on the issue."
They are trying to convince themselves that passing an unpopular
policy relating to a highly emotional issue over the objection of a
large majority of the country, will make them wildly popular.
ChrisO|9.10.09 @ 5:20PM|#
We would be very lucky indeed if Obamacare ended up being as efficient as the Post Office.
Invisible Finger|9.10.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Politics: the arena where one side's lies have more traction than the other side's lies.
|9.10.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Maybe you ought to rethink this knee-jerk, ideological view
that government is always bad.
No, the knee-jerkers are the government apologists. The people who
complain about the government tend to be those of us who are
speaking from experience.
-jcr
|9.10.09 @ 6:10PM|#
Maybe you ought to rethink this knee-jerk, ideological view
that government is always bad.
Isn't something "knee-jerk" when you respond quickly without really
thinking about it? Is my view "knee-jerk" when I've come to that
conclusion after watching the corruption, waste, incompetence,
fraud, and lies for years and years?
|9.11.09 @ 12:09AM|#
So, about the government being good at killing people, a couple
of points.
The material that they are working with 'American Men', already a
very killing people.
The budget that they are working with, 'gigantic'.
Also,
The last war that we got into without really having a standing army
was WW2.
That was also the last war that we unequivocally won.
WW2 and every war prior to that we did unequivocally win. So really
how well is the government doing with that?
|9.11.09 @ 12:51AM|#
As for the Post Office, if you think everyone hates it and
nobody values its services, then why is there a public hue and cry
whenever it is proposed to close one office or do away with
Saturday delivery?
Because they have a legal monopoly on certain classes of mail and
so people can't go somewhere else when poor service is given?
D-oh!
|9.11.09 @ 12:57AM|#
"As for the Post Office, if you think everyone hates it and
nobody values its services, then why is there a public hue and cry
whenever it is proposed to close one office or do away with
Saturday delivery?"
I fucking hate the DMV, but if they restricted their hours to 9am
to 11am , I'd be pretty upset about that.
Or if they closed the main DMV building in my city, I would also be
pissed.
Kolohe|9.11.09 @ 7:39AM|#
WW2 and every war prior to that we did unequivocally
win.
It must have been because the time it was posted, because I would
have expected the Canadian readers here to already be all '1812
m*****f*****' on you. :)
|9.12.09 @ 6:55PM|#
"Only a moron who has no experience with the military can think
that it is an efficient organization. It is a grossly ineffeciant
organization that wastes huge amounts of resources. Yes, it does
accomplish the mission better than anyone else. But that is in
spite of itself many times. And even when it is not, it's mission,
that of killing people and breaking things is so unique that it
doesn't offer many lessons to the outside world."
No pesky unions as well. You do not do you job you could go to
jail.
|9.12.09 @ 7:01PM|#
"(1) There is no guarantee that when a couple of years down the
road our political overlords won't change their minds. For example,
does the provision against spending U.S. tax dollars on illegal
aliens provide a mechanism for preventing legislators from changing
that provision once they have the major bill passed?"
No law should be able to make itself unchangeable. That would truly
be legislation without representation for future generations. Only
changing the Constitution should be able to do that. Does any
Constitutional lawyers out there know of a law that does that? Also
as history shows even changes to the Constitution can be altered or
removed.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245