That modern self-styled progressives have declared themselves the successors of LBJ's "Great Society" ideals does not mean that those ideals were what brought George McGovern to the candidacy.
Hell, even Wallace was calling for increases in Medicare and Social Security payments, as well as pulling all the troops out of Vietnam within 90 days of his taking office.
Although you do make a good point about Johnson being an early example of the modern Democrat, in that he escalated American military involvement in an overseas hellhole to secure geopolitical benefits that were never fully defined.
Why should we be surprised that we need to "keep learning the same lessons again" when our government is, by design, changed significantly every decade or so?
Incidentally...is there a "right answer" to the situation, or is this one of those games where no matter which choice you make it's the "right" one (or "wrong", depending on what story the writers wanted to tell.)
George Wallace is actually an important part of American political history that nobody remembers. Everyone today thinks that the Democratic Party is the bastion of liberal progressiveness. What they don't know is that this only really started in 1972--and if George Wallace hadn't been shot it might not have started at all!
Of course we can have feelings for fictional characters. I can be quite upset about the fictional version of myself who got eaten by a tiger because he was wandering around outside the cave at night. I can be very happy for the fictional version of myself who looked in a different place than usual and found a new berry bush.
"We have an unfortuante tendency, especially in popular culture, to deify the Founders rather than to humanize them."
Which is, among other things, why I hate it when someone says "oh, well the FOUNDERS wouldn't have agreed to THAT" in counter to some piece of government fuckery. In the first place, it's an Argument From Authority; in the second...they wouldn't? Really? How would you know? "The Founders" did quite a lot of things that The Founders Wouldn't Have Agreed To.
"[I]s there any evidence that part-time primary care doctors help to reduce overall demand on the system by discouraging their patients from showing up for trivial reasons?"
I think that the converse is true--that visits for trivial reasons go instead to emergency departments and contribute to wait times.
As you point out, if a part-time doctor can get the job done, then maaaaaaybe we don't need providers of basic healthcare services to be Medical Doctors Who Totally Went To School For Like Twelve Years And Have Letters After Their Name And Get Called 'Doctor' And Don't You Fucking FORGET TO CALL ME THAT!!!
"I’d be willing to “take” a fair amount of money away to keep unnecessary, easily-preventable death from lack of medical attention due to financial constraints."
Keeping an overweight smoker from dying from a heart attack is cheap and easy. Keeping a child with, e.g., ichthyosis congenita alive and healthy is expensive and difficult.
"You’re arguing that having to pay for freeloaders is more ethically problematic than letting an innocent suffer/die."
What I'm arguing is that boiling this down to pithy statements like "why do you hate children and want them to die?" or "the only acceptable number of preventable deaths is zero" doesn't do anything to move the debate forward, because there's always an equally-pithy counter-statement, and from there on out it's just a rap battle.
"So people born with illness or who contracted cancer through no fault of their own deserve to go without health insurance because other people don’t take care of themselves?"
So people who didn't take care of themselves deserve to have all their health problems fixed for free just because other people developed cancer through no fault of their own?
"The difference is of course, this is big news in Britan. That happens everyday in the US."
Cite please, and yes you do have to provide a link, particularly when the person you're snarking at actually did.
Besides, if "dragged out dead by the heels" is a bad thing that shouldn't happen, then doesn't the fact that it still happens in a UHC country imply that UHC isn't the solution to all the problems?
Well, but most criticisms of NCLB are indeed saying that the gold and silver groups ought to get all the resources--but they're saying it's because there'll always be a brown group(*) and you can't do much to help them.
You're right that everyone in the education debate tends to assume that all students would be equally proficient if only it weren't for (bad teachers, overly-constrained teachers, poor cirriculuae, liberal attitudes, whatever).
(*) one of the ways you can tell this was the 1980s was that nobody felt it at all strange to call the less-intelligent cohort the "brown group".
It would be quite interesting to hear Matt Groening's thoughts on the modern education-reform debate.
"What makes you think teachers are such a bad domain for establishing education policy?"
How do you ensure that it won't lead to the attitude of "there are no bad teachers, only bad parents and bad administrators, and any evidence to the contrary must be either fake or misinterpreted because (A) there are no bad teachers..."
"[C]ritical citizenship would be prioritized over docile acceptance of the status quo."
And, of course, we'd have to make sure that they were the right kind of critical citizens who had the right ideas about things. Because, you know, there's "being critical of the status quo" and then there's being dangerously recalcitrant towards understanding important fundamental aspects of society, right?
"[W]hat about kids in truly failing schools, in impoverished neighborhoods where there are no good options?"
I think there are plenty of people who believe that there is no such thing as a failing school. Only failing parents who fail to make their kids care about education.
Actually, though...every area is one in which outsiders with little knowledge will arrogantly claim perceptiveness. That's because there are a great many people whose reasoning goes "I'm smart, and I thought about this, and smart people who think about things always find the right answer, therefore my idea is the right one and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or lying".
I love how there are more people bickering over "innocent undocumented immigrants" than discussing the Libertarian attitude towards a government using military activity to enforce the majority's moral views on a minority.
Although the language was not chance-chosen. I was specifically trying to create an emotional response in the reader, and it looks like it worked.
The last paragraph of my post was an attempt to show how terminology drift over time might describe the situation.
Let's say that tomorrow the Federal Government declares that it's sending the National Guard into Arizona to dissolve a clearly-out-of-control state government that was using the machinery of the law against innocent undocumented immigrants. The Arizona state guard (and numerous private citizens) begin a military resistance.
What is the appropriate Libertarian position?
Be aware that a hundred years hence, we'll be hearing about how the horribly-racist Arizona Rebels were desperate to keep exploiting the Chicano population, and that it was a moral imperative to use military force against them, just like in the First Civil War when we fought against slavery.
On “When did the American political system jump the shark?”
That modern self-styled progressives have declared themselves the successors of LBJ's "Great Society" ideals does not mean that those ideals were what brought George McGovern to the candidacy.
Hell, even Wallace was calling for increases in Medicare and Social Security payments, as well as pulling all the troops out of Vietnam within 90 days of his taking office.
Although you do make a good point about Johnson being an early example of the modern Democrat, in that he escalated American military involvement in an overseas hellhole to secure geopolitical benefits that were never fully defined.
"
Why should we be surprised that we need to "keep learning the same lessons again" when our government is, by design, changed significantly every decade or so?
On “Selling Prosecutorial Overreach to the Masses (with pre-order bonuses)”
Incidentally...is there a "right answer" to the situation, or is this one of those games where no matter which choice you make it's the "right" one (or "wrong", depending on what story the writers wanted to tell.)
On “When did the American political system jump the shark?”
George Wallace is actually an important part of American political history that nobody remembers. Everyone today thinks that the Democratic Party is the bastion of liberal progressiveness. What they don't know is that this only really started in 1972--and if George Wallace hadn't been shot it might not have started at all!
"
"David Brooks likes to say that more people in America own pet ferrets than watch Fox News; I don’t know if it’s true..."
But it's too good to check, right? And even if it's fake it's probably accurate, right?
On “Feeling for the Fictional”
Of course we can have feelings for fictional characters. I can be quite upset about the fictional version of myself who got eaten by a tiger because he was wandering around outside the cave at night. I can be very happy for the fictional version of myself who looked in a different place than usual and found a new berry bush.
On “The Perils of Writing about Greatness”
"laid bear"
Give me a damn break.
"
"We have an unfortuante tendency, especially in popular culture, to deify the Founders rather than to humanize them."
Which is, among other things, why I hate it when someone says "oh, well the FOUNDERS wouldn't have agreed to THAT" in counter to some piece of government fuckery. In the first place, it's an Argument From Authority; in the second...they wouldn't? Really? How would you know? "The Founders" did quite a lot of things that The Founders Wouldn't Have Agreed To.
On “Insufficient evidence”
"[I]s there any evidence that part-time primary care doctors help to reduce overall demand on the system by discouraging their patients from showing up for trivial reasons?"
I think that the converse is true--that visits for trivial reasons go instead to emergency departments and contribute to wait times.
"
As you point out, if a part-time doctor can get the job done, then maaaaaaybe we don't need providers of basic healthcare services to be Medical Doctors Who Totally Went To School For Like Twelve Years And Have Letters After Their Name And Get Called 'Doctor' And Don't You Fucking FORGET TO CALL ME THAT!!!
On “Why the debate over healthcare reform may be just beginning”
"If I had said either of the things you quoted, I would be deserving of a real finger-waggin’."
You've said all of the things I quoted.
(not every use of quotation marks is intended to indicate a direct quote from a primary source.)
On “The use of knowledge in our educational system”
"Nobody can achieve anything without the mandate for achievement. Teachers have none at present."
Why the fuck are you talking as though that's not exactly what I said?
On “Why the debate over healthcare reform may be just beginning”
"I’d be willing to “take” a fair amount of money away to keep unnecessary, easily-preventable death from lack of medical attention due to financial constraints."
Keeping an overweight smoker from dying from a heart attack is cheap and easy. Keeping a child with, e.g., ichthyosis congenita alive and healthy is expensive and difficult.
"You’re arguing that having to pay for freeloaders is more ethically problematic than letting an innocent suffer/die."
What I'm arguing is that boiling this down to pithy statements like "why do you hate children and want them to die?" or "the only acceptable number of preventable deaths is zero" doesn't do anything to move the debate forward, because there's always an equally-pithy counter-statement, and from there on out it's just a rap battle.
"
"So people born with illness or who contracted cancer through no fault of their own deserve to go without health insurance because other people don’t take care of themselves?"
So people who didn't take care of themselves deserve to have all their health problems fixed for free just because other people developed cancer through no fault of their own?
"
"What’s your solution for people with preexisting conditions, Scott? "
What's your solution for people whose health issues are due to smoking and overeating, Elias?
"
"The difference is of course, this is big news in Britan. That happens everyday in the US."
Cite please, and yes you do have to provide a link, particularly when the person you're snarking at actually did.
Besides, if "dragged out dead by the heels" is a bad thing that shouldn't happen, then doesn't the fact that it still happens in a UHC country imply that UHC isn't the solution to all the problems?
On “The use of knowledge in our educational system”
Well, but most criticisms of NCLB are indeed saying that the gold and silver groups ought to get all the resources--but they're saying it's because there'll always be a brown group(*) and you can't do much to help them.
You're right that everyone in the education debate tends to assume that all students would be equally proficient if only it weren't for (bad teachers, overly-constrained teachers, poor cirriculuae, liberal attitudes, whatever).
(*) one of the ways you can tell this was the 1980s was that nobody felt it at all strange to call the less-intelligent cohort the "brown group".
It would be quite interesting to hear Matt Groening's thoughts on the modern education-reform debate.
"
"What makes you think teachers are such a bad domain for establishing education policy?"
How do you ensure that it won't lead to the attitude of "there are no bad teachers, only bad parents and bad administrators, and any evidence to the contrary must be either fake or misinterpreted because (A) there are no bad teachers..."
On “Getting at first principles in the education debate”
"[C]ritical citizenship would be prioritized over docile acceptance of the status quo."
And, of course, we'd have to make sure that they were the right kind of critical citizens who had the right ideas about things. Because, you know, there's "being critical of the status quo" and then there's being dangerously recalcitrant towards understanding important fundamental aspects of society, right?
"
"[W]hat about kids in truly failing schools, in impoverished neighborhoods where there are no good options?"
I think there are plenty of people who believe that there is no such thing as a failing school. Only failing parents who fail to make their kids care about education.
"
Aerospace technology is another such area.
Actually, though...every area is one in which outsiders with little knowledge will arrogantly claim perceptiveness. That's because there are a great many people whose reasoning goes "I'm smart, and I thought about this, and smart people who think about things always find the right answer, therefore my idea is the right one and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or lying".
On “Of the Devil’s Side (and Knowing It)”
I love how there are more people bickering over "innocent undocumented immigrants" than discussing the Libertarian attitude towards a government using military activity to enforce the majority's moral views on a minority.
Although the language was not chance-chosen. I was specifically trying to create an emotional response in the reader, and it looks like it worked.
The last paragraph of my post was an attempt to show how terminology drift over time might describe the situation.
"
Let's say that tomorrow the Federal Government declares that it's sending the National Guard into Arizona to dissolve a clearly-out-of-control state government that was using the machinery of the law against innocent undocumented immigrants. The Arizona state guard (and numerous private citizens) begin a military resistance.
What is the appropriate Libertarian position?
Be aware that a hundred years hence, we'll be hearing about how the horribly-racist Arizona Rebels were desperate to keep exploiting the Chicano population, and that it was a moral imperative to use military force against them, just like in the First Civil War when we fought against slavery.
On “A New Political Dialectic”
So if Harris were a true Scot he'd be okay?
On “Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and the Circus”
If these people are going to vote in legislation that defines moral behavior, then their own behavior needs to be extensively explored.
In particular, if they think that ubiquitous surveillance is a good idea, then they ought to be willing to live in that world.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.