Conservatives’ Use of ‘Nanny State’

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Conservatives’ Use of ‘Nanny State’

02 May 2013

‘The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things, of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings …’, L Carroll

George Rebane

Conservatives continue their idiotic practice of characterizing the encroaching leviathan of big government as the ‘nanny state’. There is nothing nannyish about such a state, it is simply a government on its way to autocracy, in this case a collectivist autocracy. To characterize such a government as a warm, competent, caring, and loving nanny who always has the best interest of her kiddies in mind is a brutal lie that continues to misinform the already woefully misinformed in the land. Take a look at the picture of Mary Bloomberg Poppins on the cover of the formerly astute National Review.

A more accurate picture that needs to be conveyed for an increasingly authoritarian government is shown nearby, and even that is still off the mark. I consider that the use of proper labels is extremely important because labels always invoke a collateral image with all of its semantics in the mind of the reader. The Left must be smiling from ear-to-ear every time they see the Right lambast the leviathan as a caring nanny.

Illegal, or worse, undocumented immigrant is another equally important label that is misused in the place of the correct ‘illegal alien’. An undocumented immigrant invokes images of the hordes of poor from Europe lugging their suitcases and boxes tied with rope standing in line at Ellis Island – the perfect picture of ‘the wretched refuse of their teeming shores yearning to breathe free.’ The problem is that these people were on Ellis Island because they followed our immigration laws which made them party to a two-party contract on the way to citizenship. Illegal aliens violated those same laws, and now seek special dispensation to side step them altogether and remain here under the most favorable terms, terms which are constantly misrepresented by the Left at every turn in the immigration reform debate.

Such is the propaganda of our public discourse – by being the first to mis/name the baby you are halfway home.

Posted in Culture Comments, Our Country, We the iSheeple

35 responses to “Conservatives’ Use of ‘Nanny State’”

Ben Emery

03 May 2013

George,
I think you have some major blinders when it comes to conservative/ corporatist state. Just about every single piece of legislation that comes down the pike these days is written by and for big business. Both parties are guilty of it and both parties have no intention of doing anything about it.
My favorite punching bag Walmart is the worst offender.
Some links to the subside king.
When the Walmarts of the world get tax exemptions we end up having to pay for it. Fire, police, courts, roads, and sanitation usage are increased when a Walmart is put in a place. A cost comes along with all of these and we the average tax payer get stuck with the bill.
http://www.ilsr.org/walmart-captures-more-1-billion-subsidies/
Using back door subsides through low wages encouraging employees to apply for food stamps and medicaid
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs
I can go on but I will leave it here.
So George, does Walmart truly oppose food stamps and medicaid (collectivist examples)?

LikeLike
fish

03 May 2013

Conservatives continue their idiotic practice of characterizing the encroaching leviathan of big government as the ‘nanny state’.
I love the term…..simultaneously descriptive and sarcastic.
http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2013/05/BLOOMBERG-NANNY-570.jpg
Never has Photoshop been so impressively deployed!

LikeLike
George Rebane

03 May 2013

BenE 631am – Have no idea how your comment relates to my post, but then I’ve always been weak on following your logic.
But rest easy that your hot flash about special interest lobbyists (unions, industry groups) doing research and drafting legislation for members of Congress is neither news to these pages nor RR readers. (Perhaps you’re proclaiming your recent discovery of it.) Even the nominally read know the form and function of DC’s K Street. This has been going on for decades, and has really kicked into high gear under Obama who promised the opposite.
And your assertion that Walmart increases the usage of roads and other community infrastructure is unfounded at best, and special interest propaganda at worst. People don’t make trips to the store more frequently because a Walmart locates nearby. If anything, the number of road trips are reduced because a Walmart or other big box store features enormously more SKUs in one location than do any of the smaller stores spread across a community.
And your promoting that laws be passed removing the ability for local jurisdictions to attract bigger stores is an expected output from your central planning ideology. The “subsidies” you cite are inducements by local jurisdictions for such stores to locate in their communities rather than elsewhere. These are offered by the electeds because their constituencies want to shop at the big stores, and also have the benefit of higher tax revenues land within their boundaries, rather than driving miles to another jurisdiction to enjoy the benefits that come from a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, … while dropping their sales taxes, etc into another community.
Unless you don’t get around very much, you know the truth of all that by what goes on right here in Nevada County.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

03 May 2013

” Fire, police, courts, roads, and sanitation usage are increased when a Walmart is put in a place.”
Our good friend Ben E continues to bring us the world view from another universe.
I had no idea that Walmarts went up in flames so often. I am sure that there exists some union sponsored study showing a connection between infrastructure support costs and the construction of a Walmart. The fact that Walmarts are built in areas that are growing in population couldn’t possibly have anything to do with increased public safety costs in the same area. Minimum wages and welfare were in existence long before Walmarts were. Whatever the govt chooses to hand out to citizens is not Walmart’s doing. Walmart offers a certain wage and benefit package in exchange for a worker’s time. Folks are free to accept or decline the offer.
I would like for Ben to list the Republican sponsored bills that have been enacted recently in Sacramento and DC. The left is in full swing and the leftists are getting madder than ever. If hitting yourself in the head with a hammer over and over doesn’t bring the relief from pain you desire, perhaps you’re just not swinging it with enough force?

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

03 May 2013

Dang – I need to type faster and not dawdle over my corn flakes in the morning. George has beaten me to punch again!

LikeLike
Ben Emery

03 May 2013

George,
“There is nothing nannyish about such a state, it is simply a government on its way to autocracy, in this case a collectivist autocracy.”
My point was what you are calling collectivist autocracy are actually back door subsides to big business and they like it that way. That would be best labelled fascist or corporatist. When public sector takes on the cost of private sector externalaities such as health care for the working poor.
From the man who created the definition of fascism
Benito Mussolini:
What is Fascism, 1932
Excerpt
“Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society….”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

LikeLike
TheMikeyMcD

03 May 2013

“Facsist” and “collectivist” are terms one can use interchangeably.
Fascism and collectivism are means to the same end.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

03 May 2013

Ben – either the govt directs the economy or the free market does. You will always have some govt direction. Even a Constitutionally run govt requires a form of taxation and what ever form that (or those) taxes take will influence the economy to a certain extent. What we have now is blatant and over the top govt influence in how our economy is directed. If you like lots of millionaires and lots of poor, then vote for more of the same. It is a historically proven fact that more govt involvement in the economy raises the inequality of income. Look at Europe – look at the 30’s in the US. The free market allows far more equality because folks have more choice. How can the left harp on and on about ‘free choice’ and ‘democracy’ and yet work so hard to deny it when it comes to the economy? Just what in blazes do you want? Mussolini can spout whatever self-serving blather he wants. What you need to focus on was what Mussolini did. His govt was a socialist, left wing govt that controlled the economy of Italy. There was no free market capitalism in Italy then or now. It has been a socialist/communist country for decades and look at what it is known for. The finest toys and fashions for the wealthy. Ferrari does quite well while FIAT struggles with govt bailouts to keep it going. Meanwhile, the average Italian can only dream of being as wealthy as a ‘poor’ person in this country. Keep smacking yourself with that govt hammer. I know that you truly believe the hammer needs to land in just the right spot on your noggin to get rid of the pain.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

04 May 2013

George wrote about Ben’s comment: “But rest easy that your hot flash…”
Are you suggesting that Ben is entering menopause? Please clarify, thanks.
Michael A.

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

Manderson, are you suggesting hot flashes are not also experienced by men? Please clarify, thanks.

LikeLike
George Rebane

04 May 2013

MichaelA 244am – ‘hot flash’: vernacular for incoming news that is a surprise and/or not expected.

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

04 May 2013

“Such is the propaganda of our public discourse – by being the first to mis/name the baby you are halfway home.”– Quite true. In the realm of argumentation, whose terminology and definitions become standard often seals the debate. First impressions are lasting impressions and difficult to overcome and it is often the media that “assigns” the terms. The term “global warming” is a good example because, as many on these pages have demonstrated, not everywhere is getting warmer, thus enabling the speaker to empirically rebut the premise. The term “climate change” is more difficult to rebut. “Obamacare” is another one. Given that the bill was created and passed as a compromise (Democratic cave-in) from the original single payer concept desired by over two thirds of Americans (prior to the PR onslaught that somehow convinced people that they didn’t want it), it should have been labeled “republican care” to put the onus of its poor design on those most responsible for it final incarnation. By using the term “obamacare”, the right cleverly put the blame for a crap bill onto the Democrats.

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

George, I doubt that definition is shared by anyone. “Hot flash” is a physiological term; I think you’ve conflated it with “news flash” in a way that isn’t in the vernacular.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

04 May 2013

History revision can start at any time! Joe the K is already trying to re-write the story on Obama care. Obozo pushed this health care bill through as his crowning achievement. It’s his, Joe. It is Obama care. The entire deal is just a stepping stone to ruining the health care system so badly that folks will cave and settle for the single payer system that Obama clearly said he wants all along. We will will end up with socialized medicine and it will be a disaster and it will still be Bush’s fault.

LikeLike
George Rebane

04 May 2013

Gregory 832am – from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hot+flash and American Heritage (unabridged) Dictionary
hot flash n.
1. A sudden brief sensation of heat, often over the entire body, caused by a transient dilation of the blood vessels of the skin and experienced by some women during menopause.
2. Slang A brief important piece of news or other information.
Also see ‘The Necessity of Analogy’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324766604578458822224284146.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

04 May 2013

You are absolutely correct Scott, I am re-writing Fox News’ version of what took place. Republicans refused to allow single payer advocates to testify during the hearings on the bill. In fact, single payer advocates were ejected from the hearing room for protesting their ban from the proceedings. BTW: Fox news, according to several recent polls, is the least trusted news source in America, so if you want history that is real, you might want to look elsewhere.

LikeLike
George Rebane

04 May 2013

JoeK 1127am – googling ‘fox news rankings’ tells a markedly different story.

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

“Republicans refused to allow single payer advocates to testify during the hearings on the bill. In fact, single payer advocates were ejected from the hearing room for protesting their ban from the proceedings.”
Koyote, with majorities in both houses, Democrats completely controlled the process. If they didn’t allow single payer advocates to testify it was because they knew it had no chance of passing either the House or the Senate and it was Pelosi & Reid calling that shot.
I’d say Koyote is watching MSNBC too much. Looking into JK’s claims, there is a poll that shows Fox is the least trusted network, but that same poll also showed it was the most trusted news. Asked which is most trusted, Fox wins. Asked which is least trusted, Fox wins. Why? Most all Republicans selected Fox as being their most trusted source, and most all Democrats selected Fox as their least trusted.
The poll sample was also skewed in the Dems favor, 42 to 33 percent.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-trusted-news-source-419105

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

George, you may have found the only dictionary that carries that slang definition. While it only takes one to be a large enough fig leaf to hide behind, “hot flash” isn’t a great choice of words unless one is trying to invoke a hormonal link of sorts.

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

More from Koyote:
“Given that the bill was created and passed as a compromise (Democratic cave-in) from the original single payer concept desired by over two thirds of Americans (prior to the PR onslaught that somehow convinced people that they didn’t want it), it should have been labeled “republican care” to put the onus of its poor design on those most responsible for it final incarnation.”
Reality check, Joe: the so-called “Affordable Care Act” passed the House and the Senate without a single Republican vote.
“The bill then passed [the Senate] by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against except one Republican senator (Jim Bunning, R-Ky.) not voting.”
“The House passed the bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.”
Really, Koyote, where did you hear it was Republicans who killed single payer? MSNBC? Pacifica? KVMR?

LikeLike
George Rebane

04 May 2013

Gregory 138pm – thanks for being our penultimate authority on matters.

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

George, mining this for all its worth, you claimed your definition for “hot flash” as being in the vernacular, but in my quick survey of online dictionaries, it seems that only about 10% have picked up your chosen definition and clearly identify it as slang. Vernacular connotes common usage among a population, and yours is an uncommon slang.
http://www.tulane.edu/~umar365/proof/difslang.htm

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

04 May 2013

Joe – I’m not sure how Fox news crawled in here. Maybe you are trying to deflect the fact that you are completely off base on Obama care? It seems that you are implying that the Rs forced the Dem majority to write the bill and then, without any time to read or debate it, forced the same Dems to all vote for it. The crafty Rs didn’t vote for it and then some how managed to force Obama to brag about how wonderful it will be for the country even though he too, is completely against it. Must be that darn Karl Rove strikes again!

LikeLike
Gregory

04 May 2013

“… then, without any time to read or debate it, forced the same Dems to all vote for it.”
It’s even worse than that, Scott. They barely had enough Democrats voting for it in the House to pass. As it stood, the only bipartisanship over Obamacare was the opposition in the House. If only four more Dems joined the 34 Dem Nays and 178 GOP Nays, it would have failed as it was.
Pelosi was twisting arms nearly to the breaking point in order to get the bill to the point where they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

05 May 2013

“Pelosi was twisting arms nearly to the breaking point.” Come on Gregory, Nancy is just a little 70 year old woman who is so pumped full of Botox and preservatives that if she ever stood still for an hour someone would hang a road sign on her. Maybe you were speaking figuratively.
It still pisses me off that Nancy went out and got a $20,000.00/month office at taxpayers expensive. The average congressional office rent is under 5k/month. There are a couple costing us 10k/month, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. Come on Nancy, 20k a month??? Who does she think she is?
Speaking of Nanny State, Nancy’s stated reason for the new office digs was “better security” and it is a nice green building. So let me get this straight. Nancy pushes for more gun control while having armed security protect her in the Halls of Congress and at her Frisco office. Bloomberg has his armed New York Police officers go with him every weekend to the Bahamas. Boy, that Bloomberg does not even go to the bathroom without armed security. Guess that is why those who are protected by guns can tell us we should not have guns. Sorry Bloomberg and Nancy and Di-Fi, but 911 response time is a wee bit too slow in my neck on the woods where I have a millisecond to make a decision. Can’t wait for Mary Poppins to pop out of a picture and save the day.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

05 May 2013

The real Nanny State, be very afraid and the government will protect you. Just give away your civil liberties and we will keep you safe.
Excerpt
“The Methuen, Mass., high school student was arrested last week after posting online videos that show him rapping an original song that police say contained “disturbing verbiage” and reportedly mentioned the White House and the Boston Marathon bombing. He is charged with communicating terrorist threats, a state felony, and faces a potential 20 years in prison. Bail is set at $1 million.Where does it stop?
http://news.yahoo.com/teenagers-social-media-terrorism-threat-level-hard-assess-131320139.html

LikeLike
Biull Tozer

05 May 2013

Mr. Ben E, I have no idea where it will stop. It appears unstoppable. Just last week Clark Howard was lamenting about all these bags of peanuts that were pulled off the shelf because the bags of peanuts did not have on the warning label “Contains nuts and peanuts”. I kid you not. Fact is getting stranger than fiction. Please save us from ourselves. I think all these Nanny State control freaks should have their own label on them which reads Contains Mixed Nuts.

LikeLike
George Rebane

05 May 2013

BenE 819pm – Do you have any information about how such a law that allows a rap song to become a “state felony” was put in place? What kind of political forces were at play – who supported and who opposed it?

LikeLike
earlcrabb

06 May 2013

I remember back in the nineties a student at Lyman Gilmore wrote a letter to then-Gov. Pete Wilson that supposedly contained some threatening language. (The comments were never made public.) The Federal B.I. swooped down on the kid immediately. Now if that letter had been sent to a private citizen, the cops would have said there was nothing they could do, since the writer hadn’t actually followed through on his threats. Politicians were considered a special class, I suppose.
At any rate, we should be happy to see this kind of abuse by the politically correct folks. Eventually, they’ll trip over their own draconian rules and get kicked out of office.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

06 May 2013

George,
What I can find on “communicating with terrorist threat” law is over 30 states after 9/11 amended their laws expanding the powers of the state/ government. From what I read these laws were opposed by progressives and supported by many establishment democrats and virtually all republicans. We opened Pandora’s box with the “war on terror”. Patriot and FISA Acts along with all the anti-terrorism laws put in place since 9/11 have stripped us of our civil liberties. I think we all can agree here on RR, once power is taken it is almost impossible to take it back without a major movement and knock down drag out fight.

LikeLike
George Rebane

06 May 2013

BenE 327pm – Agree with your last statement. The Patriot Act is one tacit acknowledgement that there is no “war on terror” (a politically correct ruse), but there is a war between civilizations going on as I described back in http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/02/of-ragheads-and-racism.html
Patriot, FISA, and other such legislation have been pretty much bipartisan. They all get passed with the sentiment ‘This will help us through the current crisis during which we have to give up some freedoms which we’ll restore when the crisis is over.’ I haven’t studied how well the anti-sedition and espionage acts of WW2 were withdrawn, if at all, at the conclusion of hostilities.

LikeLike
George Rebane

07 May 2013

The level of apprehension about growing government tyranny in the land has now exceeded the threshold that impelled President Obama himself to tell University of Ohio graduates not to pay any attention to such warnings, or to the people behind the government curtain. This is the message that the Left’s local lackeys have been drumming into our ears for decades. PJ Media observes the progress of such concern in its interpretation of the President’s words.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=8374&mpid=105

LikeLike
Ben Emery

07 May 2013

George,
I will say this with absolute certainty. During the Bush years most Republican voters I knew believed the opposition towards his administrations was retaliation for the way the Republicans changed politics in DC during the Clinton years. I can say now the Democratic voters feel the same way about the opposition towards Obama now.
Here is where I stand, neither party represents the true interests of the people any longer but rather tell us what our interests are so they can then pretend to represent them while all along lining the pockets of transnational corporations and the extremely wealthy at detriment of long term security of the nation.
I will give this link once again to an interview about a book written by Mickey Edwards on how the two party system is destroying any form of democracy we have.
Mickey Edwards On Democracy’s ‘Cancer’
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=160541977&m=160548110

LikeLike
Ben Emery

07 May 2013

If you listen to only a couple minutes of the interview please start at 5:30 mark. It talks about what I alluded to in my 10:34 comment
“… the way the Republicans changed politics in DC during the Clinton years”

LikeLike
George Rebane

07 May 2013

BenE 1034am – Thank you for the link; an extremely interesting interview. Lots of thoughts came to mind listening to it.
– Yes, politicians reflect the factions that show up to participate in their parties’ decision processes, and not the broad public. Most know that the electorate as a whole is overwhelmingly ignorant and/or disinterested in issues and what’s going on. They don’t have any kind of a cohesive position on anything, most certainly there is no cohesion across issues.
– The Tea Party movement has been the most recent grassroots effort to repudiate the marching in lockstep with either party. It is the so-called TP legislators that have given their parties heartburn.
– Good point made on how party-driven gerrymandering produces anti-constitutional legislatures.
– Edwards did not seem to recognize that core ideologies of the the Left and Right have drifted far apart in the last, say, thirty years. How that came about is a matter of dispute (as in these pages). But a lot of the problems that he described as being new in Congress also appears to reflect his thin knowledge of America’s political history.
– Most telling part of his pitch was at the end where he proudly offered that he supported Obama in 2008, not because he liked or even knew about Obama’s policies and ideology, but just because he want to “repudiate” Bush2’s policies. Given Obama’s aping of Bush2’s policies (because he also couldn’t figure out anything better) kind of soured that decision, because we got more continuance of Bush2 and then added on the horrors of collectivism unchecked.

LikeLike