Everyone should love ‘Obamacare’

Yes, Republicans oppose “Obamacare” and rely on this term to stoke up opposition to the Democrats’ proposal to nationalize health care delivery. So, editor Jim Slusher has now offered an apology for using the term as a breach of journalistic “objectivity,” even though it efficiently conveys the substance of its meaning and works well in headlines.

However, I do not see the problem. “Obamacare” should appeal to Democrats as much as it repulses conservatives, because Democrats think that President Obama is a wonderful, magical man. Anything named after Obama should make their little hearts go pitter-pat.

Furthermore, if the editors had referred to health legislation by its official name, “Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act,” they would also have violated the rule of objectivity because, obviously, the authors of the legislation gave it an extremely prejudicial and self-serving label. It seems to me, that honest journalists would rarely refer to the legislation by its official name.

And then, what about other egregious examples of using ideologically and emotionally loaded terms to advance a political agenda? The Daily Herald writers routinely use the word ‘gay’ when referring to homosexuality. Why? I see nothing ‘gay’ about the practice of homosexuality. Would not a clinical and descriptive term work better for objectivity, perhaps, “sodomy,” “Same Sex Attraction Disorder” or even “homosexuality?”

Also, the word ‘gender’ has gained universal currency among mainstream newspapers, when the real word is supposed to be “sex.” In the good old days, “sex” referred to the reproductive identity of animals while “gender” referred to the status of words. For example, in Latin, the word “canis” (dog) has a masculine gender.

Both “gay” and “gender” smuggle the ideology of sexual liberation into popular culture and thereby surreptitiously influence thinking into a Democrat direction. And, Mr. Slusher has no problem with that.

George Kocan

Warrenville