Nov 4, 2009
AUTHOR: MATT BORS
EDITORIAL CARTOONIST FOR UNITED MEDIA, GRAPHIC NOVELIST, ILLUSTRATOR, witticist. BLOGS AND SCRIBBLES FROM PORTLAND, OR.
Previous Posts
- The hijackers survived?
- Blood In The Boardroom
- ? Part II
- ?
- Illustration Friday
- Stewart genuflects
- The Trickle Down Plot
- Toon Poon
- Dirty Diaper Theory
- You might be a cult member if...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
5 Comments:
Wow. This is a new low, even for you Bors. Comparing health care reform to the abolishing of slavery.
Again. Wow.
Comparing the process of compromising on a moral issue, yes.
Just to make sure you know: the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the succeeding states (pro-slave Union states were allowed to keep theirs for a while) and Lincoln didn't dare issue the proclamation until the Union Army pulled it's head out of its collective ass and win a significant victory at Antietam.
How is it a "low"? Are not emancipation and universal health care good things? Let's see... I'm not a slave. That's pretty cool. And I could have access to health care if I needed it. That sounds pretty cool, too!
Except, ya know, Joe Lieberman has a hair up his ass, so let's just opt out.
As Susan M pointed out, there WAS a lot of compromise on the moral issue of abolishing slavery, since the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves in states that had seceded. Thus, few slaves were affected by the Proclamation, since the states that it covered did not recognize Lincoln's authority. To put it mildly, there is a great deal of historical debate about what purpose was served by the Proclamation.
But in another way, your point is accurate because it would take something like a civil war to dislodge the insurance industry's grip on the country's health care system. Too bad we don't have a political leadership with the inclination to carry out such a thing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home