I sent a friend a link to my recent article on Judge Kessler’s decision equating the making of a decision not to buy ObamaInsurance with activity in commerce. A “liberal,” his response was, “I wish you would not use the term Obamacare and Obasmainsurance [sic]. It’s offensive and derogatory.” At least he did not suggest that the usage was racist; perhaps next time.
That made me wonder why the terms are considered offensive and derogatory. True, I sometimes use them to tweak my “liberal” friends’ noses. However, ObamaCare and its indispensable component, ObamaInsurance, were pretty high on the list of President Obama’s signature accomplishments and I don’t know why those who like him and the wonders he hath wrought should be offended by the usage or consider it derogatory. Why aren’t they pleased and why don’t they consider them complimentary? I could understand their upset had I used instead “OsamaCare” and “OsamaInsurance,” “ChávezCare” and “ChávezInsurance” or “CastroCare” and “CastroInsurance,” but I didn’t. Perhaps being easily offended is the easiest way to attempt to make points without having any. Or, maybe this is a better explanation: “it’s only because the law is now such a heavy albatross politically for the left that the mere act of reminding voters of its provenance feels like a low blow. Pathetic.”
Recently, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show chastised John O’Hara, author of the book “A New American Tea Party,” for using the term ObamaCare.
Stewart: “Isn’t ‘Obamacare,’ by nature of you using the phrase, derogatory? Instead of saying ‘Let’s just talk about the new health care reform.'”
O’Hara: “I don’t think that’s a slam. That’s a moniker that it’s been given because it’s his…”
Stewart: “John, Jooohn, Johhhhn? Why don’t I call it the tea bagging book? I don’t think that’s a slam. Let’s not call it a slam. It’s just something I said.”[audience applause] O’Hara: “One is an obscure sexual fetish, the other is a guy’s name.” (emphasis added)
Oh well. Maybe using “TeaBagger” is a subtle form of acceptance (President Obama may even have used it in a friendly sort of way) while “ObamaCare” somehow connotes something approaching a sexual fetish. I don’t think so and prefer my notion that taking offense at “ObamaCare” is what the easily offended, most of them “liberals,” find to be the easiest way to attempt to make points without having any to make; sort of like “racist” or even the kidnapping by the PC crew of the word liberal which, once upon a time, meant
an open but not empty mind, a tendency to encourage the expression of opposing views, to listen attentively to them, and to desire to become familiar with them regardless of whether they are agreeable. It suggests a rational rather than a dogmatic approach to reality.