Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, October 16. 2007

It's not about SCHIP, Part 2

Quoted in this piece at Protein Wisdom by his reader Tomas:

This SCHIP argument is not about who does or doesn’t care about children. Christ. It’s about the proper role of government. That’s why the retorts from the Olbermanns of the world are so clueless at best, downright dishonest at worst.

If the left would at least acknowledge when its proposed programs do not fit in the intended government framework — that they go above and beyond, but are necessary because of such-and-such — the ensuing debates would be a lot less infuriating. But the left reliably skips that part every time. They proceed from the get-go as if everyone is operating in the same terrain, and pretend it’s thus merely a debate about the actual merits of various proposals.

It’s a rhetorical approach that has gummed up the gears of our political discourse for more than four decades now. It has caused us all to waste a depressing amount of breath, time and energy, sitting here constantly arguing past each other, all because the left is sloppy/dishonest with the debate’s most basic premise.

If only from the perspective of efficiency, it’s maddening.

Read the whole piece. Link above.

Posted by Bird Dog in Politics at 09:09 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Another article gets me thinking about those in my life:

"You are dealing with those so impressed with their own presumed genius that they’ve given themselves license to use any means necessary to bring about their desired ends. Using a largely sympathetic press — and casting their political opponents as villains who hate for the simple pleasure of hating — they are attempting to control public policy by way of rhetorical totalitarianism and cynical manipulation of the un- or ill-informed, a group to whom they both pander and empower."

Wrong and wrong, sorta. My inlaws are from NorCal. They visited recently. All of them make more than me, none have kids. I qualify for the SCHIP thing the president vetoed. So when BroInLaw chimes in with his snarky John Stewart (or was that Olbermann?) lines about how Bush hates kids and the program costs 'half a day' in Iraq, I had to wonder. Do these people love the media more than themselves? The media propping up their self esteem with cynical lies makes them feel good. So I gave them some of their own medicine:

"Yeah, too bad. Then I could switch my kids over to government health care and save $400 a month, and rich guys like YOU can pay for their tummy aches and medicine."

They didn't get it. Yes that means people like me (well above poverty, but within the "net") would have the right to reach into their back pockets daily, but BushChimpler jokes sooth the nagging feeling they've been had.
#1 Phil on 2007-10-16 10:55 (Reply)
oops. should have reviewed first. Besides typos I meant to say "wrong" because my inlaws certainly feel like they are Very Well Informed, they have cable doncha know.
#1.1 phil on 2007-10-16 10:59 (Reply)
Oh Gah.

I have a couple posts up about this S CHIP thing too and OMG...the liberal feed fest coming my way! We have to understand that these people see no problem with government giving away health insurance for kids, so that middle class families can maintain their standard of living.

When my kids were younger and before I was divorced, my X and worked hard. We made personal sacrifices- we drove around in old cars and used coupons and worked separate shifts- ALL to save money. We actually bought our house this way; and managed to pay it off 10 yrs later- all on a combined annual income of roughly 60,000!! WE qualified for government programs but refused. Why?? Were we crazy? No. We just had some pride in our ability to hold our own, to manage the money well, we were (GASP!!) Self reliant! That is getting lost in America these days.
#2 Raven (Link) on 2007-10-16 11:05 (Reply)
Wonder what kinda shape "the children" will be in in 10 or 20 years if we weren't spending money enough in the mideast to keep the jihad from taking over the oil market? I already know --there's a certain amount of determinism in the interplay of human nature and history.

So, we should cede the global energy supply to a fascist death cult, so that we can treat the kiddie's sniffles a fraction cheaper--in the very short run?
#3 buddy larsen on 2007-10-16 11:11 (Reply)
When al Qaeda and the Iraq insurgency are reduced to an historical aberration the War costs will be gone. The Hillary-plan to hook the middle-class on the government dole will be here forever. I've said it before but state governments are now paying out 22% of their budgets on medicaid alone and 32% on healthcare overall. No wonder they have to tax everything that moves. What will be the new figure if Hillary gets her way?
#4 Scott Wiggins on 2007-10-16 11:22 (Reply)
''all because the left is sloppy/dishonest with the debate’s most basic premise.''

I'll say. I heard Rep Denny Hoyer (Pelosi's whip) this wkend defend the congressional condemnation of Turkey by telling Brit Hume, in effect, that to be against this condemnation is to "for" genocide.

Never mind that Turkey is a critical ally in the hot war,
that we have large critical bases such as Incerlik there,
that Turkey borders on Syria, Iraq, and Iran,
that their pride and attention are hyper-focused on this matter,
that their officials are warning and begging us not to proceed with this percieved grave national insult,
that Turkey is the southern-Caspian-oil region southern bastion of NATO and is being actively courted by an aggressive, hostile, and resurgent Russia that is now the world's top oil producer,
that Turkey is Islam's only secular democracy (besides Iraq),
that it is barely holding its own against Islamism as is,
that armies are amove on the Turko-Iraq borders right NOW,
that the price of oil is shooting up into the high 80s over it,
that trillions of market cap are coming out of world stocks over the last two days because of all this, no, no, never mind ANY of that, because that 1915 Turko/Armenian conflict, which we've ignored for 92 years now, has to be condemned by the US Congress RIGHT NOW!

Why? To snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the war? What else could it be? Winning in Iraq is a bad deal for the left-wing so let's knock Turkey out of the fight!

And, across the sea, what are the Democrats doing to help Uribe in Colombia, in his bare-knuckle brawl against narcoterrorists and Hugo Chavez? Well, they're trying to kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement!

Why? Because Democrats don't like free trade --sure it keeps prices low for 300 million Americans but it does chip away at a few hundred union boss's job security. So, it's easy to see the proper route for the Dems. Their fig leaf as usual is to assert out of thin air and bogus 'polls' that Uribe is a big meanie whom we must punish.

Fine, let's have a continent from Tierra Del Fuego to Texas run by Cocaine Communists --yeah, baby, World War V --THAT'll pay back the union bosses for their Democrat campaign contributions!

Oh, and Brit Hume is in favor of genocide, you know.
#5 buddy larsen on 2007-10-16 11:47 (Reply)
I thought the SCHIP dustup was all about what a waste of time partisan rhetoric is in resolving anything. The ridiculous right fabricating the Frosts lack of qualifications and the loony left fabricating Bush’s intentions, didn’t help at all in figuring out any temporary government solutions for a growing problem until those more efficient, competitive, and proven permanent private solutions are in place.

But then you have those power insiders who’re just posing as “centrist” problem solvers. It's a real shame that most guys who're born problem solvers are also usually pretty crappy at kissing babies.
#6 commander clopfelter on 2007-10-16 15:57 (Reply)
there's a "moral hazard" built into politics, where it is only the supply of problems that creates the demand for problem-solvers. The perverse incentive--unless the tension is maintained in fact between two parties, one in and one out of power--is often to not solve the issue but to keep it alive. If both parties are into the same thing, we the people is well & truly FUGGED.
#6.1 buddy larsen on 2007-10-16 16:12 (Reply)
Politics really is show business for ugly people. If all the problems were solved the president would probably have to look like Habu’s American Flag Girl (moment of silence). And you know the DC elite cannot ever allow this to happen!
#6.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-10-16 16:57 (Reply)
Concur with your mainpoint, we need less rhetoric and more problem-solving in good faith on both sides. I submit that the stakes are high however. Big government has already destroyed the poor working family. I could go on about welfare mothers having babies indiscriminately without a husband to help provide for them. Or, the fact that these welfare children raised by barely literate single parents struggle in school and often turn to a life of crime or become child mothers themselves and so continue the cycle. All of which is paid for by the taxpayers. But, I'm sure you know all of that. I think the prinicipal danger of expanding government healthcare is that we may breed more of the same, i.e. destruction of the family unit. There is not enough money in this country to take the place of responsible parents if government destroys the middle-class family. It sounds dramatic I know but the reality of what happened to poor families hooked on welfare is clear to me. I see it everyday here in Charleston, South Carolina. Regards...
#6.2 Scott Wiggins on 2007-10-16 18:00 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.