The New York Times Propagandistically Distorts the Death Panel Legislation So Essential to Socialized Medicine and Euthanasia.

The New York Times, aka the Walter Duranty Papers^[1] is a propaganda machine that has a single focus: to form public opinion to support any far left-liberal legislation or policies that may arise from time to time and to redact and reconstruct history to show that such programs in the past have been successful and beneficial to our citizens.

This paper exhibits a very narrow and primitive view of government in its analysis and endorsements of all legislation and government policies.  This paper is 100% behind socialized medicine of the one-payer monolithic sort, 100% behind state sponsored abortion on demand, and 100% behind the reduction of population growth in the US. They are 100% behind legalization of dope, sloth, sodomy with children or animals and want to give amnesty to criminals who steal Social Security numbers to get jobs then fail to file tax forms. The costs of healthcare cannot be contained politically without rationing and old white people are going to be the first to find out that their healthcare services has been truncated.

In a current article in the Money & Policy section of the New York Times the first elements of a good propaganda piece are brazenly flourished with due pomp and circumstance:

“WASHINGTON — The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.”[2]-- False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots By Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes Published: August 13, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Following high-quality propaganda rules[3] we soon  learn from the title of this article that this newspaper is courageously debunking some myth or lie and that the source of such distortions are known and are routine.  The implication presented to the reader is that this debunking process is an ongoing process, both truthful and egalitarian, and neutralizes or corrects a stream of similar disinformation pieces from the same old mill. The manufacture of propaganda pieces,[4][5][6][7] a fine art espoused and daily demonstrated by the New York Times, similar to other avenues of disinformation  such as Pravda and The Nation, are usually designed to sway the reader with some raving histrionics and disinformation about the evils of capitalism, some attack from the right-wing  and how socialism or one of its variants can raise us up from the Brink of Disaster. Such pieces are swimming with personal attacks. Wonderful promises about truth and justice are proffered and the criminals on the right are exposed and condemned as the writers get their due applause and prepare to turn the puerile crank on another episode.[8] Sausages are made using a similar process.

As is proper to their station, the authors cite inflammatory names, themes and politicians of their enemies in standard tone:

Here we go with the humdrum attacks in scatter gun style:

“Advanced … by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, … reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

… rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week …

… months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).”-- False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor

This excavation in current affairs is cut away with a rusty machete and slings mud and debris over a very wide landscape during the writing frenzy. This type of ‘background’ is known as a screed[9] in the literary world. The opening tends to convince that reader that we must, again, put aside and correct the lies and deflect the torment directed at some noble cause at hand. Histrionics and names are displayed vividly and associated with horror or misdeeds of the past. Evil doers are identified by name and excoriated for their past sins. Very jejune, but that is standard for leftist rants.

The handling of the ‘facts’ is another matter in such rants however:

“There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.”-- False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor

Not true. A lie. A view from the center:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, insisted that they excise the part about end-of-life provisions “… because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.[10]” This is precisely the reason for vague legislation. Radical jurists like Sotomayor[11] could slant the courts by merely interpreting such vague language as a mandate for health care operatives to select those with serious diseases or just getting old and withhold medicines or procedures to save money.  A classic case of this false wording is cast in the phony, racist 1964 Civil Rights Act[12] that seemed to prevent discrimination by skin color complicated with issue of busing. This act allowed reverse discrimination and quotas that barred whites with better test scores than blacks from admission to medical schools.[13] Allan Bakke was discriminated against [twice] due only to his race. “Slots” were reserved for blacks. Justice Lewis Powell “…found that quotas insulated minority applicants from competition with the regular applicants and were thus unconstitutional because they discriminated against non-minority applicants. Powell however stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. He cited the Harvard College Admissions Program which had been filed as anamicus curiae as an example of a constitutionally valid affirmative action program which took into account all of an applicant's qualities including race in a "holistic review".[14] Powell disgraced himself with this blather and his ‘opinion’ now  looks like some  stooge babble for the radical  left.

Such examples of legal twaddle from Justice Lewis Powell offer a model for more judicial activism that unerringly corrupts the original intent of our legislation in the first place. We cite an example where a medical student known as Allen Bakke was blatantly discriminated against by having his admission denied at UCLA in the full glow of the fluffy language of the Civil Rights Act thus making a shaggy dog story out of our civil rights legislation. Radical racist revenge-based legislation like this needs some “holistic reviews.” The NYT is on the job.

The intent of the bill is now explained by the left:

“A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance beneficiaries’ consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted [or deliberately expanded by an activist court ed] and implemented incorrectly.””-- False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor

Euthanasia and abortion are the only two reasonable  resources the left have of sustaining a zero-growth level in population and for cutting costs at the expense of their political enemies—old white folk. They would be as voluntary as they were in Soylent Green, where many of us should just ‘go home[15].’ That would also lower our collective carbon footprint.

Unmentioned in this article, hence the article lies by an act of omission [see definition of propaganda below in foot notes], is the sad case of Barbara Wagner of Oregon. The cancer-stricken woman was denied a medicine that would prolong her life but offered a suicide agent with the following pathetic explanation from some Oregon official:

“[Dr. Som] Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state’s limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner’s.

“If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person’s days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone,” Saha said.” [16]

Such double talk is standard fare, however, from the far left.  This is an example of the zero sum rule espoused by the left and mumbling about costs allows money to be withheld from this poor woman but used for abortions or other trendy progressive procedures that align with the leftist socialist agenda.

We cannot trust our government or our courts with ‘legislation’ that slings phrases and nostrums around like fluids in the primate cage in the Washington D.C. Zoo unless we want to submit to confiscatory taxes, euthanasia, abortion, confiscation of our guns and attacks on our free speech rights. This bill is 1018 pages in length at the present.

We can always trust, however, the Walter Duranty Papers^[17] to provide us with topics and propaganda products that we should be concerned with. They hate us Real Americans and realize that they cannot survive in our capitalist society that is cognitively driven and that rewards hard work and honesty and runs smoothly according to moral principles and our deep religious beliefs,[18] so they must resort to confiscatory taxes[19] or, now, the euthanasia of old white folks to get to our wealth.  Think about how much they can gain in taxes from inheritance taxes if they just whack the old folks—particularly the old white ones with fat 401(k)s! They could afford more drug rehab facilities.

Such is the disgusting mission of the progressive left. We have seen their vision in California [20] and Oregon and it stinks. When we vote next time we need to think about this and take a "holistic review" of the leftist candidates and wimpy stooges who support legislation like this. Vote them out!

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com