Sad Freaks of the Nation (2X)

The big problem with conservatives nowadays is that they just can't stop acting like assholes. Maybe this is because they are assholes. Mark Hemingway:

I did, however, point out that the Wilkersons said they had talked about having children since before they were married. I also pointed out that shortly before Bethany's mother, Dara, started her current job as a waitress (which she has been holding down for six years), she voluntarily left a job with good insurance because it was "unmanageable." This despite the fact she and her husband had been discussing having kids since before she left her job with insurance. According to Think Progress:

So according to this "pro-life" right-wing logic, the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an "unmanageable" job.

Wow, that couldn't be more wrong, could it? It's the other way around — I suggested that the Wilkersons might have sacrificed by working less-desirable jobs, if that choice (or those choices) meant they could more adequately provide for their daughter. I said that a married couple that has been talking about having kids for years, but has failed to sacrifice financially or make basic economic preparations to pay for their first kid, is acting irresponsibly. That's hardly "anti-life." It's common sense. How many people are in less than optimal jobs because of good benefits for their dependents?

(Groping blindly for arsenic)

How the fuck is any of this your business?

And who the fuck are you to be passing judgment?

Asshole.

Comments

[NTodd]

I've been meaning to talk to you about this. I...well, I noticed you have a lot of kids. A plethora. A surplus, one might say.

So why don't you just sell a few off? I mean, you could sacrifice a little so as to make life better for the rest of your offspring.

Oh, and stop having sex. Geesh.

[jerry]

Who are they to pass judgment? They are conservatives! It's what they do best!

I wonder what was unmanageable about her job. That sounds like a euphemism to me. I suspect it may have been:

a) distance
b) enjoyment
c) sexual harrassment
d) other unsavory elements

God forbid people find jobs they can enjoy or are meaningful to them.

(Us on the left have plenty of judgmental pricks too.)

[Molly Ivors]

Oh, and stop having sex. Geesh.

No.

[Southern Beale]

the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an "unmanageable" job.

Wait ... wait ... you mean, it's a CHOICE? But the bumper stickers all say “It’s a child, not a choice!”

My head is spinning ... spinning ... out of control ...

[SteveB]

From the beginning, I assumed the strategy behind attacking the Frosts was to intimidate other victims of our health care "system" into silence. Glad to see it's not working.

[evagrius]

Guess they'll have to rewrite the Gospel of Luke;

Mary, after hearing the angel Gabriel, " No can do, Gabe. Joe still hasn't gotten that contract and I haven't finished high school."

[Ricky]

I always thought the measurement of a generation's success or failure was by comparing it to that of the preceding generation. I think Mark has made it clear just how much of a failure our country has become in the last 30 years.

The 'but we have iPods' defense of our current economic system just doesn't cut it when too many people are expected to lead miserable lives just to stay in a job that provides them with health care. The sick calculus of balancing a stressful and miserable job with the joys of parenthood is the ultimate condemnation of what we as a country have allowed ourselves to become. And we wonder why our children seem more violent and act out with increasing frequency.

[rea]

Well, that's conservative policy in a nutshell, isn't it? Keep people tied to bad jobs through economics--accuse people of child abuse if they leave to try to better their conditions?

[nihil obstet]

Well, they CLAIM to be conservative, but they have no grasp of neoclassical economic theory. Babies should fetch a good price at the local Farmers Market, and organically raised babies should command a premium.

[SteveB]

Oh, and how is the fact that the Wilkerson's "had talked about having children since before they were married" relevant? Is Hemingway putting together an indictment for conspiracy to have children? Who knows what other heinous acts the Wilkersons committed as part of their nefarious children-having plan? Why, they might have even had sex! Obviously, we need to have Federal Agents install cameras in their bedroom to determine if they're engaging in any behavior that might result in even more children.

[SteinL]

Please! How on earth will the repub's be able to loot government, if all the money's been handed out to deadbeats?

[david]

Of course, if the Wilkerson's were to eat their daughter, they would realize dramatic health care savings and satisfy Mr Hemingway high standards for responsibility, all while saving the price of a meal. A win-win-win, if you will.

[Michael Bérubé]

I said that a married couple that has been talking about having kids for years, but has failed to sacrifice financially or make basic economic preparations to pay for their first kid, is acting irresponsibly.

Hey, I hate not to bring the snark for once, but could someone, anyone, point out to these malicious and vile and deeply, profoundly stupid assholes that ordinary people can't fucking plan for catastrophic illnesses and disabling accidents and kids who are born with serious heart problems that private insurers won't fucking cover in the fucking first place?

Thank you. I feel better now.

[pseudonymous in nc]

How many people are in less than optimal jobs because of good benefits for their dependents?

i.e. "Yay wage slavery!"

There's a reason why the Tony Benn interview in Sicko made waves: when he said 'keep people afraid and demoralised, and they're easier to govern', people knew just what he meant.

[Miro]

That's hardly "anti-life." It's common sense. How many people are in less than optimal jobs because of good benefits for their dependents?

Yes, in less than optimal jobs which cause stress to the point of disease. What a wonderful argument for universal, single payer healthcare... don't you think?! Take healthcare out of the issue and we all would be more likely to move to the jobs we like and would be good at.

[The Stork]

I tend to agree with Hemingway, but for different reasons. I don't think it's really a great idea to bring more children into the world in this country until all the conservatives are gone.

[Tom - Daai Tou Laam]

"wage slavery" - You're sounding like a Wobbly there, pseud.

But I think you've hit on the reason American employers oppose government-run health care, even though it would make them globally more competitive.

[madamab]

I have yet to hear why single-payer health insurance would be bad for business from ANY of these sociopaths.

Businesses go bankrupt from trying to provide health care to their employees. Moreover, they are not in a position to bargain for cheaper rates...unlike the government who buys in bulk.

Anyone who attacks people in need of health care is a tool of insurance companies. No wonder they have the biggest lobby in Washington...

[Paul Dirks]

keep your children out of political debates

Because, of course there's never a possibility that a political debate might actually be ABOUT children!

What a tool

[aimai]

Common sense? And how many people work as wage slaves in pursuit of good benefits for their dependents and then improvidently die, or get laid off, or whose employers stop providing benefits after that providential provider has foolishly *gone ahead and had dependents in despite of the obvious risks!"

aimai

[Bruce in Norte California]

Well, er, we were using -gasp- birth control but the condom we bought at Walmart burst at the most inappropriate time. We believe in the right to life and thus our first child was conceived.

I guess dirt-poor conservatives without health coverage that do not believe in birth control nor abortion should just abstain from sex. It is the responsible thing to do

[A NON]

Well in fairness, I have stayed in my job for years to maintain good benefits for my dependents.

Of course, that's because my wife has cancer and I won't be able to get affordable insurance as an independent consultant.

Still assholes.

[Johnson's Dog]

The intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called conservative movement is nowhere more evident than that the best they can come up with to argue their policies is off-pissing offal like Malkin, Coulter, and now Hemingway.

[MasterD]

You won't. Their objection to UHC is purely based on ideology, like everything else in their world...

---

[MasterD]

That is, you won't hear a reason why single-payer health insurance would be bad for business...

---

I don't understand why the kid just doesn't get a job. I mean, come on.

[Dana Blankenhorn]

Haties are hippies, and they're as addicted to hate the hippies were to dope.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2007/10/the-second-mcca.html

[Devil's Advocate]

"How the fuck is any of this your business?

And who the fuck are you to be passing judgment?"

He's one of the people being asked to pay for the program.

The program is being advocated for on the basis of moral arguments. That makes the moral basis of those arguments subject to discussion.

I didn't have children until I could afford them. Having put off having children until I could afford to do so, I'd like others to do the same. This makes me an "asshole", apparently.

Of course, I'm pro-choice and he's not, so I have somewhat more consistent grounds on which to make this argument.

[Jamey]

"How many people are in less than optimal jobs because of good benefits for their dependents?"

Thanks, Mark Hemingway, for giving the best argument possible for comprehensive national healthcare insurance.

[julia]

Um, but.

We're not supposed to use birth control so we can have full quivers, and I'm sure I remember Caitlin Flannagan telling me that it was my obligation as a wife to have sex with my husband any time he feels like it (of course, her husband is bringing those lovely Mattel poisoned-toy bonusses into the house, so it's not as much of an issue for her). By this logic the only way to keep from irresponsibly having children who use government programs is to not get married, in which case I'll be, well, not married and taking a job away from a man who needs it to support his family.

Of course, then I won't be helping to breed northern europeans into the majority, but I guess you can't have everything.

[A NON]

Well, to reply to the Devil's Advocate, I'm going to be paying for this douchebag's social security, and I'm against government programs for douchebags. A stupid opinion? Yes, but just as valid as this douchebag's argument. Oh, does douchebag eat potato chips? Because I'm against cholesterol drugs for people who eat potato chips. I'm subsidizing those drug prescripitions, you know, so I have a right to pass judgement on his diet. If all you've got is restricting Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to higher tax brackets, you haven't got much of an argument. There isn't much more fundamental than the right to have children. Countries that restrict the right to have children have a very nasty reputation - but if you want to side yourself with China and Nazi Germany, that's your choice. Only total assholes think that the right of others to have children is subject to their personal approval. And only assholes think children don't deserve health care.

Fertility delayed is fertility denied.

[Silver Owl]

LOL! Today's conservatives are the dumbest motherfuckers when it comes to life and living. Everything is a twisted fairytale to them.

[Lee Burl]

Conservatives are crying foul because we dare show America who S-CHIP helps. They can't fight or debate the evidence, but they sure can attack the little ones that are being helped.

[Ron]

"This makes me an "asshole", apparently."

You're catching on, asshole!

[sophronia]

Question for the Devil's Advocate: What does being able to afford your children mean? Does that mean you have millions of dollars in the bank to cover any catastrophic illnesses or emergencies that might happen to your kids, should you be fired or lose the health benefits that come with your job?

The criteria Hemingway is using would make children unaffordable for practically everyone in this country. Paris Hilton could probably afford to have herself a whole quiverful, however.

[Heywood Jablome]

We need to start killing old people. If they are so smart, they wouldn't need Medicare. And don't get me started on Medicaid!

[Northern Observer]

Scrooge summed up republican social policy best; "Are there no Prisons? Are there no Workhouses?"

[Potato Head]

Tuicker Carlson whined the other night on Bill Maher about the practice of using kids in policy debates; he called it "moral blackmail," which "shuts down debate" by preventing the other side from responding without looking like assholes.

You can really see here how conservatives are prevented from debating in the civilized manner that they would much prefer.

[Devil's Advocate]

Hey, if you don't want to pay for social security for douchebags, and if you don't want to pay for drug benefits for anyone, I can get on board with that.

Sophronia -

There is a difference between a person who attempts to account for most likely risks and then gets hit in the head by an asteroid from space, and a person who blithely jumps off a cliff because they can't be bothered to look where they're going.

And nobody is saying anything about your right to have children. Have as many as you desire. We're talking about your "right" to get me to pay for their health care. That's a different "right" entirely.

[dr. luba]

Northern Observer: You should complete the Scrooge quote. When informed that some people would rather die that go to the workhouses or prisons, he replied ``If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

The difference between modern conservatives and Scrooge? Scrooge saw the error of his ways and became a benevolent philanthropist.

[Chris]

"I didn't have children until I could afford them. Having put off having children until I could afford to do so, I'd like others to do the same.

Did you choose to have a child with a severe heart condition? Did you choose to get into a near-fatal car accident that rendered your child unable to attend a normal school and you unable to work for almost a year? Can you really afford it if something like that happens? The answer to all 3 of those questions in most cases, including probably yours, is 'No.'

This is one of the problems with arguments from personal responsibility when we are talking about public policy. What sounds really responsible from a perspective of individual morality would be catastrophic for the population as a whole. If everyone actually waited until they have enough personal wealth and insurance to reasonably cover all possible angles before having kids, the population is going to take a pretty serious hit.

[Davis]

I saw the Maher show too, and Krugman said that they hate S-CHIP because it's a government program that works. He also pointed out in his blog that covering uninsured children is a good idea, and whether the parents are "responsible" or not is beside the point.

I have no children, but I have no problem with my tax money going to schools, S-CHIP, and tot lots. It improves our society, so I do benefit.

That's why they are assholes.

[Reba]

If we had waited until we could "afford" to have kids, we'd be childless. Our kids were planned, and we did have insurance -- up until my husband got laid off when I was pregnant for the second time. We couldn't have planned for the owner of his company going toes up at an early age, leaving the business a shambles that eventually went bankrupt, any more than we could have planned for my son's neurological disorder or my husband's back surgery.

If the message is "wait until you can afford any and all difficulties that may crop up", then we can all stop breeding now - even those of you who feel you have it all covered. All it takes is one cancer diagnosis and your insurance company deciding that's too much for them to deal with. Trust me, having recently borne witness to the lingering illness of a stubborn, rich old man, I can attest that the money can flow away so fast it will make your head spin.

[dr. luba]

Devil's Advocate: In both of the cases presented in support of SCHIP, the families were doing well until they had a catastrophic event. In one case, an auto accident and severe brain damage, in the other, a child born with a heart defect.

Neither situation is something that one considers when deciding whether to have children.

Neither situation was under the control of the parents.

Should only millionaires be allowed to have children? Because, even with the best planning, life situations change, jobs get outsourced, depressions occur. And because, even with the best planning, insurance benefits eventually run out.

Or should we just let these children die to teach their parents--and other working class folks--a lesson?

[Mangifirek]

What's this about Mrs. Wilkerson having 'a less than optimal job'? What kind of 'family values' is it that she should have any job at all, at all? If Mrs. Wilkerson is not going to 'stay at home' then she is 'acting irresponsibly' to have any children at all, at all. And if the Wilkersons have not made 'basic economic preparations' for that arrangement what are they doing having children at all, at all?

But look at the other side. Take the point that the Wilkersons have acted in every way irresponsibly as outlined by Mr. Hemingway's warped view of responsibility as a given and now they have the sick kid. But they are not supposed to have the S-CHIP program because that would make them and us socialists. So, in the pursuit of ideological consistency it is better that the child die. That is the bottom line.

[dr. luba]

Devil's Advocate: In both of the cases presented in support of SCHIP, the families were doing well until they had a catastrophic event. In one case, an auto accident and severe brain damage, in the other, a child born with a heart defect.

Neither situation is something that one considers when deciding whether to have children.

Neither situation was under the control of the parents.

Should only millionaires be allowed to have children? Because, even with the best planning, life situations change, jobs get outsourced, depressions occur. And because, even with the best planning, insurance benefits eventually run out.

Or should we just let these children die to teach their parents--and other working class folks--a lesson?

[Yorkshire Dad]

No. No, children. I know you're trying to help, but, believe me, me mind's made up. I've given this long and careful thought, and it has to be medical experiments for the lot of you.

[Mr Blifil]

Dana Blankenhorn says:
Having put off having children until I could afford to do so, I'd like others to do the same.

Then I presume you are OK if people avail themselves of abortion rights, in case they become accidentally impregnated before they have "made their nut." I also trust you will have no objection to abortion procedures being covered under the health plan you are paying for.

I'm paying for the highways you sometimes drive on, do I get to pass judgement on the process by which the asphalt is laid down? Because I find it rather annoying? Will you please stop everything you are doing until this complaint of mine has been rectified?

[Mr Blifil]

Oy I'm not Yorkshire Dad, that was supposed to be my comment. But I'll spare you the double post. Must be a DNS attack in play.