Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Mike Huckabee ... yer outa there
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 30, 2007

Sorry, just when I was getting to like the guy a little bit he goes and says something like this.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
We cut out cable TV earlier this year in an effort to dull the Anna Nicole news down to a moderate roar. Consequently, I watch next to no cable news — or any TV news, really — and miss it not at all. But it does seem that I did miss out on this: Presidential Cancer Forum - Two Day Forum for Candidates to Explain Plan to Defeat Cancer. That’s the MSNBC screen caption at the very start of that linked video.

What in the world. Why do presidential candidates — none of whom should have declared yet, as far as I’m concerned — have to have plans to defeat cancer? Or rather, why does anyone tolerate a presidential candidate mouthing off about curing cancer, much less provide a forum for him (and her) to do so? This is so far past nuts it’s not even amusing anymore.

It really just isn’t any of Huckabee’s or Hillary’s or whoever the hell else’s business whether and where other people smoke, so long as it’s not in their home or business. Why isn’t that obvious anymore?
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Linda,

Conservative: Paternalistic state, protecting the moral values of society, as well as trying to prevent people from making choices that could hurt societal stability.

Leftist: Paternalistic state, working with government to conflict the exploitation by otherwise powerful actors by redistributing wealth and regulating markets.

Hillary’s health care plan is leftist, her cancer war is conservative. Huckabee’s idea is conservative.

Maybe we should listen to Thoreau:

“I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.”

Lest you confuse my position with that of Billy Beck, I interpret "and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have" as referring to some time in the future. Until then, the major American political movements — conservative and "liberal" — are pro-government. My disagreement with a lot of libertarians is that they are focused on identifying the problem but not on how you get to a situation where "men are prepared for it..." (and women too).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I don’t think this is quite as radical as it may sound. in fact the Arkansas law is WAY better than the Colorado law that bans smoking in ALL public places, including establishments where you must be 21 or older to enter. At least in Arkansas, bars can choose to allow smoking, or not.

I tend to agree with the assertion that this is nanny statism, but I do see where they arrive at these positions logically, and it is the very definition of the slippery slope logical fallacy becoming the slippery slope factual reality. Here’s my take on how this logic works...

The government takes responsibility for protecting the public from known harmful substances by making it illegal to expose people to such substances, consider for the sake of this example, asbestos. So the government outlaws using asbestos for most applications that could expose people to the dangers of this substance. Smoke is dangerous, smoke is equated to asbestos, smoke is outlawed. Voila.

It would be a logical fallacy to argue that you should not outlaw smoking because it will lead to outlawing farting, but next year, when they outlaw farting, we can point back at the logic of asbestos and smoking to see how we ended up being issued state required buttplugs.

I am not sure what the argument is for not outlawing asbestos, but perhaps it is a matter of degree and a matter of choice. A person would have no idea if they are subjected to asbestos, but what kind of moron would be unaware they are being exposed to cigarette smoke? I understand and agree with banning smoking in actual public places, meaning common indoor areas owned by the people (run by the government). But why not give other public the same option, let the people who run these indoor spaces make these decisions as to whether they will allow smoking, and let people choose whether they will enter these places.

The bottom line in the workplace, if I have a sales guy that needs to smoke and he brings in $10,000,000 a year in revenue, and an administrative assistant wants smoking banned because they get sinus headaches, I am going to fire sneezy and hire smokers to surround my rainmaker. And if the rainmaker is the allergic non-smoker, and the assistant is the chimney, smokey’s got two choices, don’t smoke in the office, or take a hike.

This is why democracy is the worst form of government ever devised... except for the all others.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
This time I am in 100% agreement with Captin Sarcastic. The only detail he missed was that it appears that part of the process was exaggerating the harmfulness of smoke. Watch for public service announcements featuring Beavis and Butthead starting soon.
 
Written By: triticale
URL: http://triticale.mu.nu
when they outlaw farting, we can point back at the logic of asbestos and smoking to see how we ended up being issued state required buttplugs.
Thanks Cap - need to clean coffee from my screen and keyboard now.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Huckabee’s idea is conservative
No, it isn’t. That you think it is suggests you aren’t entirely with us.

But We knew that already.

And does Huckabee understand that if me no get smokey-smokey, me get stabby-stabby?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs, do you know what conservative ideology is? Conservatism is based on a belief that societal values and traditions are the core that holds society together. Defending those values is primary. Conservatism also believes in a ’natural elite’ on merit, and sees equality as meaning that people should all contribute to society, but due to their abilities and capacities, their contribution and position in society will be different. They tend to value religion and have a paternal view of the state.

Liberal ideology was based on Locke, and argued that individual rights are paramount, and government should be limited. The extreme form of liberalism is libertarianism, based on essentially opposite ideals of conservatism. Moreover, Amereican ideology is fundamentally liberal in embracing individual rights and market capitalism. In American political jargon the popular meaning of liberal shifted (though not if you study political philosophy or ideology). Basically, "liberals" according to American political jargon are those who believe in markets and individual rights, but believe an activist state must try to assure that these rights are enjoyed by everyone, and not denied through discrimination and oppression. (That also distinguishes ’liberal’ in today’s jargon from ’socialist’ or ’leftist,’ which has a more fundamental critique of capitalism).

The GOP is trying to mesh classical conservative views with the kind of liberal views shown in capitalism and individual liberty. That’s always an uneasy marraige. Huckabee is more in line with those classical conservative perspectives (where the state protects citizens, even from themselves), including his religious orientation alongside his claim to respect American traditions about the role of religion.

And I don’t know what you mean when you write "you’re not entirely with us." Well, that’s pretty obvious in the threads about Iraq, American foreign policy and the like. I’m clearly a non-interventionist who would drastically slash our military spending and our commitments abroad if I could. That’s obviously diametrically opposed to most of you. I do see more agreements on domestic issues, especially involving individual freedom (I also oppose Huckabee’s idea).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"They tend to value religion and have a paternal view of the state."

A ’paternal’ view of the state? Which conservatives might those be? And define ’paternal’.


"Thanks Cap - need to clean coffee from my screen and keyboard now."

Coffee is bad for you, and evidently your computer too. We must ban it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Erb puked: "Leftist: Paternalistic state, working with government to conflict the exploitation by otherwise powerful actors by redistributing wealth and regulating markets."

Geez...right our of Marx, Hitler and every other flaming despot in the past 100 years.

Nope...no confusing you with Billy Beck at all. Now, confusing you with Lenin is much more likely.

Thug!
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
timactual: "A ’paternal’ view of the state? Which conservatives might those be? And define ’paternal’."

How about "all of them"? If ’paternal’ infers a parental oversight, that would be both D’s and R’s. The R’s mainly dislike government paternalism until they want to dictate "public" morals.

And I remember Limbaugh explicitly declaring that the primary reason for capitalism is that it provides wealth for the tax coffers and for charity, not because it provides for anyone unrestricted "pursuit of life, liberty, and property (or the more encompassing "happiness", in whatever form one chooses).

Instead of "paternal", a couple better words would be "collectivist" and "statist", but they are quite redundant.

 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Ol’ Huck has a very different view on the proper functions of government than the Founding Fathers did!
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Erb puked: "Leftist: Paternalistic state, working with government to conflict the exploitation by otherwise powerful actors by redistributing wealth and regulating markets."

Geez...right our of Marx, Hitler and every other flaming despot in the past 100 years.
Yes, that’s why I oppose both conservative and leftist approaches. You seem to think I hold the position I described there as leftist. I do not.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"And I remember Limbaugh explicitly declaring that the primary reason for capitalism is that it provides wealth for the tax coffers a...."

Sorry, I will only believe that when I see it, in context.

Conservative and Republican are not synonyms, any more than socialist and Democrat.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider