March 18, 2010


And had a good time skiing. My legs wore out on the second day when we spent the entire afternoon on the double-black mogul runs, but I did ok for not skiing the last two years.

During the drive home, I was reminded again of the perils of small government and tax cuts for everyone. The interstate in Oklahoma was far more pitted than the other states, and in places, was almost like off-road driving. But we should cut taxes for economic health. Right.

Speaking of Oklahoma, I see via Blue Oklahoma that Oklahoma health insurance premiums have risen 40 Percent. This, by the way, as our GOP run state plans to opt out of Obama's healthcare if it passes. A healthcare plan, btw that the CBO believes will cut the deficit. In other words, it is fiscally responsible. But don't let those facts stop the right wingers from bashing it.

I am rather stunned (though I should not be) that so many Americans care nothing for the uninsured or those who lose their healthcare. One of my friends noted today that her health condition makes her uninsurable, and her place of work is unable to provide it anyway. Good times. Hard working and certainly deserving--but in a Republican mindset, healthcare is a privilege. I am seeing more and more of the "I've got mine, so fuck off" philosophy from people who often talk about compassion and their Christian faith. It is jarring. I think it is predicated in a false belief about their own autonomy, to be honest. This emphasis on personal responsibility--reasonable in its own right--has led a lot of conservatives to believe that they deserve their good fortune, but those without are undeserving.

That isn't Christian, mind you, but it is popular.

Speaking of the religious conservatives, Ethics Daily has a great post on the historical revisionism of Texas conservatives. After years of being accused of revisionism myself, I find it funny that people with absolutely no historical training or education are now revising away. That isn't what revisionist history means, btw, at least inside the profession. It doesn't mean to rewrite history to fit your political view. In fact, we should simply label this "non" or "bad" history. It is factually not history when they ignore facts. Revisionist history, in its best sense, is a new interpretation based on the evidence at hand. It isn't simply rewriting the past to fit your own ignorance as conservatives seem to want to do.

Anyway. Back, and as annoyed as ever!


steves said...

Glad your back, sorry you are annoyed. I have been quite annoyed as of late. The health care thing has been irritating. I think that reasonable minds can differ as to what should be done, but much of the debate has been just stupid. The latest thing that critics are complaining about is the "Slaughter" rule being used as a way to pass the bill. They say that it is unConstitutional and act as if the revolution should start now. Never mind the fact that the GOP has used it more than 20 other times, but the Court has determined that it is Constitutional.

This should come as no surprise. Obama and most of the other Dems campaigned on health care, so they deserve a chance to implement their ideas.

Streak said...

As I keep saying, there was a time when I respected Republicans to stay within the lines of reason. didn't mean there weren't statements of hyperbole or unreason, but most of the party was in the realm of reality. I no longer believe that.

leighton said...

It's scary to think about being vulnerable, so it makes sense to me that more people than (say) five or ten years ago are publicly claiming that responsible, deserving people won't have any problems with health care, at precisely the time when many more responsible, deserving people are being ruined by the healthcare system than in recent memory. It's the "couldn't possibly happen to me" psychological defense.

I do think it's a Christian response, in the sense that a great many Christians adopt it (not wisely, of course). I've been hanging around a lot of Pagans lately, and I'm more sensitive to using "Christian" as a synonym for "good" in the same way that some Southerners use "white" as a synonym for good ("That's mighty white of you"). This is just semantics, though, and I don't think it distracts from the thrust of your post.

I'm not sure why there are so many people who are more attached to middle school era coping mechanisms than they are to the principles they claim to champion. Maybe there are historical or sociological influences, or maybe groups of humans are always necessarily like this. I don't know.

Streak said...

Leighton, I think your point about "Christian=good" is a very good one. I certainly didn't intend to use it that way. I am merely trying to hold up what conservative Christians say they believe in v. the reality of the politics they endorse and support.

I'm not sure why there are so many people who are more attached to middle school era coping mechanisms than they are to the principles they claim to champion. Maybe there are historical or sociological influences, or maybe groups of humans are always necessarily like this. I don't know.

I don't know either, but it is a good question.

steves said...

My feeling in talking to people is that it has less to do with Christian as to what kind of insurance you have. Many of the "leave it alone crowd" have ok insurance or good insurance and just can't fathom what it would be like to have little or no health care alternatives. Obviously, there are plenty of people that have good insurance that support reform, but I still think it is a factor.

I have given up trying to make a Biblical argument to Christians for health care. Like many things, the Bible isn't all that much of a help in the area of what a government should look like and act like. The best argument is one that Streak has mentioned on more than one occasion. For good or bad, the gov't is still the best way to provide health care to people that can't get it. Private charities are not going to be able to do it.