[craig@mtpolitics]$ cat /dev/random
December 15th, 2007 | by Craig |Here are just some bullet points — one-liners, if you will — that have been bouncing around in my cruller as of late:
- Has anyone had success with pithy blog entries? Anyone?
- Lots of folks drag out Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote about liberty and safety, especially as regards things like the Patriot Act or FISA wiretaps. Yet these are, by and large, the same folks who agitate for social safety nets.
- I, for one, am relieved that the nation’s business is going so smoothly that our elected representatives have time to bitch about NFL broadcasts. Besides, we in Montana are absolutely farking saturated by coverage of the farking Donkos. We had to watch them play KC — two teams below .500 — instead of the Steelers/Patriots game. Jeebus. (Not that the Stillers made that great of a showing, but still…)
- I loved how George Mitchell painted the whole steroids fiasco as a “collective failure,” when it was just a few individuals who were involved. Strike another blow for personal responsibility.
- Can we please stop calling staged press events “debates?” Is that too much to ask?
- PETA. Sometimes, they just make it too easy.
- “Fixer-upper for sale. Expensive upgrades. Infinite potential for improvement. Call 1-4-Oh, Ring 2 and ask for Wayne.”
21 Responses to “[craig@mtpolitics]$ cat /dev/random”
By Cammy on Dec 15, 2007 | Reply
Give me pithy blog entries any day of the week.
They make a much more interesting read, as far as I’m concerned.
JMHO.
By Jay Stevens on Dec 17, 2007 | Reply
‘Gree completely about that d*mn NFL network thing and not seeing the Donkos, a term I’ll be using from here on out. Of course, I’m a Patsie fan, so *damn* i wanted to see that pittsburg-NE game.
As for the Mitchell report, I disagree that it was “just a few individuals.” The bulk of the report was based on the testimony of just two informants, and those named came largely from three organizations only: the Giants, Yankees, and the Mets. Expand that out to all of MLB…and this is list is probably just a fraction of all the users.
Everyone had to know, from the players to the ownership, top to bottom. Hell, even the batboys were in on it!
Not to say folks shouldn’t be punished. I’d say the number one guy at fault is the commish, Bud Selig. It happened on his watch, and he obviously didn’t mind the $$ that came in with the homers. The owners should can him, and hire the next Kennesaw Mountain Landis to f*ck some sh*t up.
By Mark T on Dec 17, 2007 | Reply
The thing about social safety nets is, like, kind of, well, let me think now, don’t want to talk down, don’t want to spoil a one-liner with an inconvenient truth - it’s kind of like a non sequitur. I’ll have to check with Swede on that. But I don’t think that social welfare is connected at all to being scared shitless of Arabs.
And do you ever wonder how much say the candidates have in the debate questions? Can you think of another reason why they are so tame? I do know that Bush set the stage during the presidential debates - he wanted it a certain way only, and did not want to have to think on his feet. And they gave him what he wanted. Otherwise, he threatened to walk. For the so-called “Town Hall” debate, audience members had to submit their questions in advance for approval, and if any of them did not read the question exactly as it had been approved, their mikes would be cut. Couldn’t ahve anyone gettin confrontational. “Mr. President, what do you think of world peace?”
You’re right - our debates are a joke. All of them.
By Craig on Dec 17, 2007 | Reply
Nor do I, so you’d have to take that argument up with someone who is scared shitless of Arabs.
The argument, I think, lies in what we think of as “essential liberty” and “temporary safety.”
As to the rest, well, the so-called debates are, in my mind, just bread and circuses designed to pander to the base and pull in advertising.
By Jay Stevens on Dec 18, 2007 | Reply
Has freedom from taxation ever been considered an “essential liberty”? Hell, taxation is written into the constitution. You’re talking about budget priorities, not the loss of an essential freedom.
By Craig on Dec 18, 2007 | Reply
Why do all you lefties insist on putting words in my mouth?
Is freedom to associate an essential liberty? Is freedom to provide for my own retirement and my own families needs an essential liberty? Is freedom to fail an essential liberty?
Budgetary concerns? Nice try. Where does that money come from in the first place, and who says I can’t utilize it better?
By Jay Stevens on Dec 18, 2007 | Reply
Budgetary concerns? Nice try. Where does that money come from in the first place, and who says I can’t utilize it better?
That’s my point, exactly. You’re claiming that social programs are akin to, say, the loss of our 4th amendment rights because they both curtial some essential freedom in the name of security.
Social programs are a matter of budget priorities. They don’t end any essential liberty that you currently enjoy. Taxation already is. What we do with the money is what’s moot, whether you allocate it for social programs or military occupations. You can claim that the money’s wasted on poor people, or that it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, but you can’t claim it’s curtailing any right you currently have, because that’s not true.
That’s unlike warrantless wiretapping, where you’ve actually lost liberties you once enjoyed prior to 9/11 (tho’ the program apparently was in place pre-9/11) in the name of curtailing terror.
By Mark T on Dec 18, 2007 | Reply
We have to put words in your mouth. You leave many gaps.
By Craig on Dec 19, 2007 | Reply
Mark, I think it’s actually the fact that you guys seem to want to argue with someone who defends Bush’s policies — especially FISA and Patriot. If I point out that someone on the left is agin’ something, doesn’t mean that I’m for it.
Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not that guy. You won’t find ringing endorsements of any of those items here.
I am, however, still interested in the more abstract point of essential liberty. Seems to me that whenever you cede any responsibility to the government, you’re giving up an essential liberty.
And, Jay, anytime someone takes something from me, backed with the threat of compelling force, it is taking away an essential liberty.
Who would you fear more knocking at your door, the FBI or the IRS?
By Mark T on Dec 19, 2007 | Reply
Damn! Looks like you got the last word, except to say that there are an awful lot of gaps to fill with you, and you’re always free to come back and say we’re putting words in your mouth.
By Jay Stevens on Dec 19, 2007 | Reply
Er, did I ever say you supported warrantless wiretapping? Now who’s putting words into mouths!
And, Jay, anytime someone takes something from me, backed with the threat of compelling force, it is taking away an essential liberty.
I don’t disagree. My point is that you, nor any American, has ever enjoyed the liberty of freedom from taxation. So you haven’t “lost” it, per se. You never had it. And, under the framework of this form of government, you were never intended to have it. Nor has that fact ever been hidden from you or anyone else: taxation is written into the Constitution as a right of government, and an obligation of the citizenry.
On the other hand, the right to habeas corpus and court-ordered searches are named in the Constitution. They’re clearly defined essential freedoms guaranteed to us that we’ve lost.
By Craig on Dec 20, 2007 | Reply
I’ve said it over and over and over and over again, but evidently it needs to be repeated. I’m not against taxes per se. Taxes are fine for things like national defense, building roads, and so forth.
What I am against are things that are done “for my own good,” e.g. universal healthcare, social security, that take the fruits of my labor out of my hands and impose limitations or mandates on how I choose to conduct my life.
Suddenly you’re a strict constructionist?
By Erica on Dec 21, 2007 | Reply
“…bouncing around in my cruller…”
Dude. Get a hold of yourself! I think you’re having some kind of a very bad Identity Crisis.
That PETA story was hysterical. I couldn’t freakin’ stop laughing/gagging [gaughing?].
In other bloggy news, Randy and I both tagged you with two different memes and, quite frankly, I think we both feel that you need to do a meme.
It does a body good.
[OMG, did I just say that? BWAHAHAHA, I freakin’ kill me!]
By Mark T on Dec 22, 2007 | Reply
Craig - we would do these things for “all” of us, even as we know that you would have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. You may thingk that paternalistic, but it’s not - there are always malcontents to deal with - the important thing is that we have to do something with a failing system that leaves 47 million on the outside looking in, and nothing - nothing - you propose has any good effect.
By Craig on Dec 23, 2007 | Reply
Yes, so forcing people into a one-size-fits-all program isn’t paternalistic.
Yes, yes. I see that.
Wait, no I don’t. Everything about it is paternalistic.
I’m sure you’ll get what you want sooner or later. After all, we’ve gone from “Ask not what your country can do for you…” to “What the **** have you done for me lately, melon farmers.”
By Mark T on Dec 24, 2007 | Reply
You’re kind of not getting it - we have a huge problem, and your solution is more of the same thing that created the problem to begin with. That’s insanity.
Government is but a tool - we use it to accomplish things we (well, most of us) want for ourselves.
It appears as though government is the best tool to use for health care. After all, no country that went to a government system has ever one back save one - Iraq, who did so at the point of Bremer’s gun. Our seniors certainly don’t want back into the private system.
Seems you’re missing something here, Craig … some …….. thing …………
By Doug on Dec 24, 2007 | Reply
I agree with Mark here, he isn’t getting it. You’re missing what’s in the mirror, Craig; those imprints on your forehead are from beating your head against the immovable wall of “compassion”, “need”, and “want”.
By Gman on Dec 25, 2007 | Reply
There Mark T goes again - blaming the health care “crisis” on the private sector, when the blame is squarely on the public sector. One has to have a tiny understanding of economics to get it, but that would be expecting too much.
Has anyone ever stopped to think that it’s unethical, even immoral, to take the fruits of my labor in order to give them to someone else. Let’s face it, many more Americans could afford health care if not for a couple things:
1. Consumerism (lack of priorities with personal spending, but, then again, everyone has a right to a car, TV, Wii, etc.)
2. Over-utilization (consumers shielded from the actual cost of health care goods and services by the gov’t and insurance)
These aren’t the only factors, but they are major.
Also consider, we will never “solve” the health care “crisis” because no one wants to actually PAY for their health care goods and services. We all want it FREE, naturally.
What we need to achieve is for individuals to take direct responsibility for their health care. Isn’t that, afterall, a position that comports with the oft-stated, “keep your laws off my body!” Ironic…
By Mark T on Dec 26, 2007 | Reply
Over-utilization is the right wing’s fall back - it’s hardly a factor in health care. So, your solution then would be for people to have less care than they are already getting. I’m intrigued - please tell me more!
In 2004, 22% of our health care costs were consumed by 1% of the population. The problem is not me going to the doctor with a tummy ache - it’s grandpa getting cancer. Technology in treating him has advanced, but it comes with a hefty price tag.
It’s a situation where a few people have expenses that exceed their ability to pay. The private sector is not equipped to handle it - insurance companies are crawling over each other looking for profitable clients, and dumping anyone who even looks a little sick. hence, 47 million and counting …
I chuckle a little bit - you’ve said this before, Geeguy - that I don’t grasp economics. I have a fine grip on right wing economics - it’s you who can’t see when the market can’t do its job. I know the bonehead stuff - I just think that bonehead economics is best suited for … boneheads.
I think the greatest fear on the right is that the government will step in and do a good job. That’s why Bush vetoed SCHIP. He said as much. Government solutions in health care work. The private sector sucks - cannot handle health care. Every other industrialized country knows this. We’re just slow learners.
By the way, selfishness, no matter right wing philosophy, is not a virtue.
By Steve T. on Dec 27, 2007 | Reply
And, once again, does anyone want to explain to me how Gman’s philosophy doesn’t qualify as Social Darwinism? It’s disgusting.