Who wants cake? Anybody? Cake? No? Just me?
About Me
- Name: Pops
- Location: The 951, California, United States
I'm very interesting. I would describe myself as witty and insightful, but that wouldn't make either true. I have two degrees in history from the least prestigious University of California campuses. As a result, I stay home full time with my kids. If anyone can think of anything useful to do with a history MA, please don't hesitate to share.
Send me e-mail
The Movies I Have No Intention Of Seeing Series
The Pops' Bucket MSPaint Gallery d'Art
Lives More Interesting Than My Own
Liberalia: Places I Go To Reinforce Opinions I Already Have
Pops' Bucket Hall of Minimal Suckitude
War On Christmas: Letters Home
Archives
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Word Association
John Kerry is a "liberal". This is Bush's newest line of attack. Kerry had a good rejoinder in the debate about this when he mocked Bush's self-imposed "compassionate conservative" label, something I've been waiting for someone to say to GWB's face for a long time (the "0-for-2" line, if you remember).
Apparently Junior, when everything else is failing and every poll is showing a 15-point swing in Kerry's favor since the end of the Republican convention (remember when Bush was up by 10+ points? Yeah, me neither) has decided that since this campaign isn't working very well for him, he's decided to run his father's 1988 campaign instead. He's running against another Massachusetts Democrat just like Ole Dad did way back when. The old weapons worked last time, so why not bust 'em out, shapen 'em up and have another go with them?
If only they can figure out how to get John Kerry into a tank wearing an oversize helmet and attach him to some kind of crazy prisoner furlough program that leads to the rape-murder of at least one person, they'll be set.
They're also forgetting that this is not Reagan's America as it was in 1988. Non-conservatives are no longer cowed or afraid of name-calling. In fact, it has been the dunderheaded incompetence of this president that has given bleeding-hearts like me something to really grab on to and run with in the absence of raw Clintonian (political) sex appeal.
It's interesting to note, though, that both Kerry and Bush are using essentially the same central strategic message.
John Kerry: "I am not George Bush."
George Bush: "John Kerry is not me."
Which one has wider appeal?
We shall see.
Bush is betting on whipping up the conservative base that will cover the 500,00 vote-gap he found himself on the wrong end of in 2000. Essentially he's running to 50% of the country. He wants to be president of the Red States, where words like "liberal" might just scare people disillusioned by Bush away from voting for Kerry. Those of us in the Blue States would never vote for him anyway and can essentially go fuck ourselves.
Of course Kerry is running for County Board of Supervisors in every vulnerable county in every undecided state. But he has to do it with a larger message that keeps us cosmopolitan, whiny Democrats all on one side while also drawing the disaffected out of their homes to do what they would never otherwise do: vote for a Democrat.
I'm working on my brother-in-law. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who hates George Bush's ass (don't get me started on what he feels about Bush's other body parts... strong feelings all around), but will probably never vote for Kerry. I have 3 weeks to work my magic.
OK, non sequitur time:
And is it "publicly" or "publically"? My dictionary (American Heritage Second College Edition... I know, it's a sad little one) says the former, but I know if you do an internet search using the word "publically", the use of that form is pretty common. Of course I know having a word come up on the internet is hardly proof of proper use. There are whole groups of kids who think the proper way to spell "any" is "ne".
Someone with a more comprehensive dictionary help me out. Is "publically" an acceptable alternate spelling or just me being wrong? Thanks.
This post on the Narcissus Scale: 5.2
Pops
- posted by Pops @ 12:30 PM
Comments:
<< Home
|
Nope. It's grammatically incorrect, you just add 'ly' to the existing word, like publicly, grammatically, eventually.
So, according to the conservative (more specifically, the classical liberal) position, big government programs like welfare are bad for everyone in the long run, and therefore the opposite of compassionate. Wouldn't that mean that compassionate conservatism is just plain old conservatism with an addendum that conservatives do have the common good in mind too, despite what the New Left says to the contrary?
Pops: Bush's central message is actually "Kerry ain't . . . me", not "Kerry is not me." Bush is a man of the people, so he must speak the people's language.
# posted by 
: 10/11/2004 5:31 PM
: 10/11/2004 5:31 PM
Oh ho ho, it's just sooo simple, isn't it my young lovelies? Except the website Sunny pointed out does have an entry for both "publicly" and "publically".
And my dictionary gives both "franticly" and "frantically" as acceptable counter-spellings and flatly says "frenetically" instead of "freneticly". So it ain't all that simple, is it?
But that said, from now on I will endeavor to use "publicly" just so SJ and HappyFunBall won't think I'm retarded.
And my dictionary gives both "franticly" and "frantically" as acceptable counter-spellings and flatly says "frenetically" instead of "freneticly". So it ain't all that simple, is it?
But that said, from now on I will endeavor to use "publicly" just so SJ and HappyFunBall won't think I'm retarded.
Rita: that's all well and good and makes perfect sense but only if you remove it entirely from the proper political and historical context from which the Bushies' "Compassionate Conservatism" was born.
I will personally send you $10 (real US money!) if GWBush ever exhibits any knowledge in any way, even obliquely, of what "classical liberalism" is.
But in this particular case, his "Compassionate Conservative" crap was an attempt to make political headway into issues that were not traditionally Republican strong areas in order to make up for ground that had been lost to Clinton and the DLC-branch of the Democratic party. Clinton absorbed welfare reform and law-and-order, Reaganite Republican bread-and-butter, which pushed the Republicans (freshly deprived of the Cold War bogeyman) even more right in order to stand and fight, which led to Newt Gingrich and the "revolution" of 1994. The harshness and partisanship of the Republican tone (at its apex leading up to the Clinton impeachment) led to Karl Rove and his garage-built candidate to invent "Compassionate Conservatism" in order to stake a claim into what had traditionally been Democrat issues, the central tent-pole of which was education and No Child Left Behind, supported by the utterly false "Houston Miracle" used as evidence to show Bush's leadership and "new thinking" on a subject near and dear to the hearts (supposedly, and I can't quite figure out why this is the political assumption) of suburban white women.
Of course then you get into office, you stand next to Ted Kennedy, pass a bill, and then refuse to fund it. And then you roll back any environmental law not deemed "business friendly" enough, pander to giant pharmaceutical and energy conglomerates at the direct expense of tax payers, etc.
Not saying Democrats wouldn't/don't do the same thing, but we're talking about this specific label at this particular time.
So no, in this particular context, I'm not on board with "Compassionate Conservatism". I think the label itself, invented by conservatives, shows there's a problem with Republican positions (at the top-level) on a whole raft of social issues, at least--at the very least--from a public perception/relations standpoint. Otherwise, why do they have to say the word "compassionate"?
I will personally send you $10 (real US money!) if GWBush ever exhibits any knowledge in any way, even obliquely, of what "classical liberalism" is.
But in this particular case, his "Compassionate Conservative" crap was an attempt to make political headway into issues that were not traditionally Republican strong areas in order to make up for ground that had been lost to Clinton and the DLC-branch of the Democratic party. Clinton absorbed welfare reform and law-and-order, Reaganite Republican bread-and-butter, which pushed the Republicans (freshly deprived of the Cold War bogeyman) even more right in order to stand and fight, which led to Newt Gingrich and the "revolution" of 1994. The harshness and partisanship of the Republican tone (at its apex leading up to the Clinton impeachment) led to Karl Rove and his garage-built candidate to invent "Compassionate Conservatism" in order to stake a claim into what had traditionally been Democrat issues, the central tent-pole of which was education and No Child Left Behind, supported by the utterly false "Houston Miracle" used as evidence to show Bush's leadership and "new thinking" on a subject near and dear to the hearts (supposedly, and I can't quite figure out why this is the political assumption) of suburban white women.
Of course then you get into office, you stand next to Ted Kennedy, pass a bill, and then refuse to fund it. And then you roll back any environmental law not deemed "business friendly" enough, pander to giant pharmaceutical and energy conglomerates at the direct expense of tax payers, etc.
Not saying Democrats wouldn't/don't do the same thing, but we're talking about this specific label at this particular time.
So no, in this particular context, I'm not on board with "Compassionate Conservatism". I think the label itself, invented by conservatives, shows there's a problem with Republican positions (at the top-level) on a whole raft of social issues, at least--at the very least--from a public perception/relations standpoint. Otherwise, why do they have to say the word "compassionate"?
Conservative mumbo-jumbo, delegate whozit-whatzits, political manifesto jargon whatever. Y'all said I was 'young'. Siiiiiigh.
Allow me an analogy. You have children. They are too young to be fully conscious of their own existences. Very soon, however, they will become conscious, and they will subsequently spend the next 10-15 years of their lives hating you and your wife for a variety of offenses, among these: not letting them stuff their faces with junk food, not letting them stay up all night every night, not buying them every new Pokemon (or its future equivalent) trading card on the market, etc. Basically, they will hate you for not spoiling them, and you will be frustrated that they don't understand that you're actually doing what's best for them. Does the fact that you need to defend yourself to seven-year-old boys mean that there is something inherently wrong with your logic that jumping off the roof is a bad idea?
Because the New Left has offered Americans policy alternatives that are roughly the equivalent of allowing them to eat five jars of marshmallow cream sauce in one sitting, conservative policies look pretty harsh in contrast. The long-term is a hard ticket to sell, just like it's hard to convince a five-year-old that he will eventually upchuck all that marshmallow sauce while he's still on his third spoonful.
The rest of your point about the history of the term "compassionate conservatism" might be right, I wouldn't know. I was too busy hating my parents for being such asshole as to withhold pokemon cards from me at the time that those things happened to pay them much attention.
Because the New Left has offered Americans policy alternatives that are roughly the equivalent of allowing them to eat five jars of marshmallow cream sauce in one sitting, conservative policies look pretty harsh in contrast. The long-term is a hard ticket to sell, just like it's hard to convince a five-year-old that he will eventually upchuck all that marshmallow sauce while he's still on his third spoonful.
The rest of your point about the history of the term "compassionate conservatism" might be right, I wouldn't know. I was too busy hating my parents for being such asshole as to withhold pokemon cards from me at the time that those things happened to pay them much attention.
If you're still talking about welfare, I reject your analogy completely.
You talk about it like it's this great fantastic luxury, like people who rely on food stamps to eat sit in their lawn chairs sipping shandies waiting for their big fat book of free gub'ment money to roll in.
As someone who has experienced government assistance, who has seen food-stamps and relied on them to keep me from being malnourished (mmmm, powedered milk!) I can tell you a program like welfare has nothing to do with being "spoiled" or a gimme-gimme-gimme attitude to facilitate the avoidance of work or delaying hard choices about one's future. It takes an exceptionally dismal human being to volunteer for the humiliation of food stamp shopping.
Now, that said, do I think welfare is/has been perfect, efficient, decently run, properly adminstrated, etc.? No. Of course not. But what's the alternative? It sure as hell isn't the Reaganite/19th-century social darwinist position of "if you cut off their funding, the lazy buggers will run out and immediately get jobs". There are never enough jobs in all the right places to keep everyone gainfully employed at the same time. That's why there are such things as unemployment numbers.
My dad lives in Detroit. He put in over 20 years with the same company and with the UAW. They lost so many jobs they had to close his local. Now he works for $12/hour part time with no benefits because that's all he can find. And his wife now has breast cancer. Public assistance here they come. Are they spoiled children or actual people in actual, immediate need?
Is government always the answer? No. But until someone can give show me a better answer for cases of need, it's the only one we've got.
And if you weren't talking about welfare, then never mind.
(sorry if that was too "This Is My Life", but if you wanted to know why I'm down with liberals/progressives, there's your starting point)
You talk about it like it's this great fantastic luxury, like people who rely on food stamps to eat sit in their lawn chairs sipping shandies waiting for their big fat book of free gub'ment money to roll in.
As someone who has experienced government assistance, who has seen food-stamps and relied on them to keep me from being malnourished (mmmm, powedered milk!) I can tell you a program like welfare has nothing to do with being "spoiled" or a gimme-gimme-gimme attitude to facilitate the avoidance of work or delaying hard choices about one's future. It takes an exceptionally dismal human being to volunteer for the humiliation of food stamp shopping.
Now, that said, do I think welfare is/has been perfect, efficient, decently run, properly adminstrated, etc.? No. Of course not. But what's the alternative? It sure as hell isn't the Reaganite/19th-century social darwinist position of "if you cut off their funding, the lazy buggers will run out and immediately get jobs". There are never enough jobs in all the right places to keep everyone gainfully employed at the same time. That's why there are such things as unemployment numbers.
My dad lives in Detroit. He put in over 20 years with the same company and with the UAW. They lost so many jobs they had to close his local. Now he works for $12/hour part time with no benefits because that's all he can find. And his wife now has breast cancer. Public assistance here they come. Are they spoiled children or actual people in actual, immediate need?
Is government always the answer? No. But until someone can give show me a better answer for cases of need, it's the only one we've got.
And if you weren't talking about welfare, then never mind.
(sorry if that was too "This Is My Life", but if you wanted to know why I'm down with liberals/progressives, there's your starting point)
It is a well proven fact that the majority of people on public assistance are white and not black or Hispanic as the sweeping generalizations tossed around regarding welfare, etc. would have you believe.
(majority are/majority is--my clause interrupted the tense incorrectly but it sounds better the way I did it even though I know it is wrong.) (And at least I didn't say publically)
(majority are/majority is--my clause interrupted the tense incorrectly but it sounds better the way I did it even though I know it is wrong.) (And at least I didn't say publically)
What, people are... that's OK... oh I see, the "majority" thing... oh man. YOu people have gotten me completely freaked out about my once-solid language skills. I'm afraid to talk anymore.
Pops: No, my analogy was aimed more broadly at the conservative vs. liberal ideas of compassion, at least as far as your claim that something cannot be good for people if its benefit is not immediately obvious. But, about welfare: Everyone can give an example of individual cases where honest, hard-working folks just need a little help, but everyone can also give an example of an individual case of abuse of that help (I can give several, and they all involve stupid Russian people or South Side trains). So where does that get us? Back to square one? Moreover, do some honest cases justify the implementation of a massive federal welfare program? Where is the evidence that all the honest cases cannot be covered under the umbrella of private charity, which is a form of welfare that still respects individual rights to property?
SJ: Does that statistic count farm subsidies as welfare?
SJ: Does that statistic count farm subsidies as welfare?
So what you're saying is that if any exploitable loophole exists, then the entire system is untenable. It probably wouldn't surprise you that I disagree.
There is no private charity that is going to be as responsive or logistically comprehensive as a government-run program. Plus private charities, I would guess, are at their most effective when times are good and people have money to donate to them and then, conversely, would suffer when the economy slides downward and the most help is needed.
Again, I'm not saying welfare as it was or as it is is the be-all end-all system of public assistance, simply that there SHOULD BE a system of public assistance. You want to partially privatize it, streamline it, rearrange it so it's more responsive and less bloated, cool, I pay taxes too, I'm all for that. But simply having a program in place is not a sign of our failure as a society.
As for modern conservatism vs. modern liberalism, er... scrolling back through my original posts and comments I don't see where I made the claim "something cannot be good for people if its benefit is not immediately obvious." My point of criticism wasn't toward conservatism in general (though there's plenty to criticize there) but toward the brand of "compassionate conservatism" that Bush and his coterie are marketing as empty words (scads and scads of unfunded programs and mandates) in the false guise of "compassion". I'm not saying there's no such thing as compassion among conservatives, just simply that if you're going to say it, you'd better do it. It's got to be more than a quadrennial slogan.
Although I consider myself partisan, I would in some instances consider voting for a conservative. For instance, I am far more comfortable with John McCain who is in many ways more conservative than Bush. But McCain went into the primary debates in Iowa in 2000 and said he was against government ethanol subsidies for corn farmers when everyone else would pander and/or lie. Politics aside, there's something to be said for not being ludicrous and incomprehensible as a human being as Bush is, "compassionate conservative" or otherwise.
There is no private charity that is going to be as responsive or logistically comprehensive as a government-run program. Plus private charities, I would guess, are at their most effective when times are good and people have money to donate to them and then, conversely, would suffer when the economy slides downward and the most help is needed.
Again, I'm not saying welfare as it was or as it is is the be-all end-all system of public assistance, simply that there SHOULD BE a system of public assistance. You want to partially privatize it, streamline it, rearrange it so it's more responsive and less bloated, cool, I pay taxes too, I'm all for that. But simply having a program in place is not a sign of our failure as a society.
As for modern conservatism vs. modern liberalism, er... scrolling back through my original posts and comments I don't see where I made the claim "something cannot be good for people if its benefit is not immediately obvious." My point of criticism wasn't toward conservatism in general (though there's plenty to criticize there) but toward the brand of "compassionate conservatism" that Bush and his coterie are marketing as empty words (scads and scads of unfunded programs and mandates) in the false guise of "compassion". I'm not saying there's no such thing as compassion among conservatives, just simply that if you're going to say it, you'd better do it. It's got to be more than a quadrennial slogan.
Although I consider myself partisan, I would in some instances consider voting for a conservative. For instance, I am far more comfortable with John McCain who is in many ways more conservative than Bush. But McCain went into the primary debates in Iowa in 2000 and said he was against government ethanol subsidies for corn farmers when everyone else would pander and/or lie. Politics aside, there's something to be said for not being ludicrous and incomprehensible as a human being as Bush is, "compassionate conservative" or otherwise.
I think the label itself...shows there's a problem with Republican positions...on a whole raft of social issues...from a public perception/relations standpoint. Otherwise, why do they have to say the word "compassionate"?Interpretation: If people can't see the benefits of conservative policies immediately, those policies must not be compassionate.
I think that warrants a rebuttal.
I don't know if it's a tiny loophole that's the problem with the welfare system. Do we know what percentage of welfare recipients really need it insofar as they are neither scamming to get it, nor at all capable of surviving without it? If we don't, then how can we know whether or not private charity can cover the legitimate needs?
I think that warrants a rebuttal.
I don't know if it's a tiny loophole that's the problem with the welfare system. Do we know what percentage of welfare recipients really need it insofar as they are neither scamming to get it, nor at all capable of surviving without it? If we don't, then how can we know whether or not private charity can cover the legitimate needs?
# posted by : 10/13/2004 4:53 PM
: 10/13/2004 4:53 PM
What you're asking can only be answered by commissioning some kind of study to ask people questions, relying on them not to lie about things that are illegal, which is problematic.
But look, that's still not the point. You're fixating on the presence--any presence--of exploitation to try and undermine if not completely invalidate any government role in direct support of its citizens.
I agree, loopholes should be closed and criminality punished. Are you asking me do I know where they are or who is breaking the law? No. That's completely impossible to answer. But if the existence of corruption calls for the negation of any government-run program/department/facility, then there will be no government run programs/departments/facilities left when the Great Grand Audit/Inquisition is finished, starting with every agency in the Pentagon.
It's not the responsibility of private charities to be receptive to the needs of all citizens. That's what governments are for.
Post a Comment
But look, that's still not the point. You're fixating on the presence--any presence--of exploitation to try and undermine if not completely invalidate any government role in direct support of its citizens.
I agree, loopholes should be closed and criminality punished. Are you asking me do I know where they are or who is breaking the law? No. That's completely impossible to answer. But if the existence of corruption calls for the negation of any government-run program/department/facility, then there will be no government run programs/departments/facilities left when the Great Grand Audit/Inquisition is finished, starting with every agency in the Pentagon.
It's not the responsibility of private charities to be receptive to the needs of all citizens. That's what governments are for.
<< Home
