God, I hate labels
I recently said a thing I say a lot in various places:
Public health is sort of the same: If you say "Oh, your health problems are NOT MY PROBLEM" it soon will be your problem. Either they will spread their disease or die a pauper and you need to dispose of the body or both.
We need more housing as a primary solution to the homeless problem.
And someone replied to that and included a bunch of criticisms of "leftist" politics and their assumptions that because I think we need more housing, I am all for letting homeless people sit on their butts and do nothing while a nanny state provides for their every need because presumably, homeless people are all total losers and big babies -- junkies and crazies and the like with no capacity to care for themselves.
Yeah, no.
So once again, I looked up the terms left wing politics and right wing politics on the internet. Yes, I can read, duh.
And someone replied to that and included a bunch of criticisms of "leftist" politics and their assumptions that because I think we need more housing, I am all for letting homeless people sit on their butts and do nothing while a nanny state provides for their every need because presumably, homeless people are all total losers and big babies -- junkies and crazies and the like with no capacity to care for themselves.
Yeah, no.
So once again, I looked up the terms left wing politics and right wing politics on the internet. Yes, I can read, duh.
I'm well aware these are terms that date to the French Revolution and began because people who sat on the left side generally shared certain views and people who sat on the right side shared certain views.
And beyond that it is gibberish to me, though I have looked it up repeatedly.
According to Wikipedia, the left is supposed to be for civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights and pro-environment.
And beyond that it is gibberish to me, though I have looked it up repeatedly.
According to Wikipedia, the left is supposed to be for civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights and pro-environment.
GUILTY AS CHARGED. And I'm NOT apologizing.
Right wing is supposed to be pro free enterprise and private ownership and traditional family values.
Right wing is supposed to be pro free enterprise and private ownership and traditional family values.
Also equally GUILTY of ALL that.
I'm a former military wife and full-time mom. I did the "traditional family" thing for two decades.
I am all for family taking care of family. But I am not for that being some policy for SHAFTING people who fail to be cis het White males.
I got divorced and my life has seriously sucked ever since. I would like my life to work in spite of me no longer being married and no longer having a man to pay my bills, thanks.
The reality is I think we could do better by ALL people, including cis het White men who also get shafted by the system in some important ways. There are downsides to the role they get assigned as well. It's not all peachy keen for them just because they tend to have more money and power than most other demographic categories in this country.
This right-wing and left-wing garbage sounds to me like the nature VERSUS nurture argument.
I'm a former military wife and full-time mom. I did the "traditional family" thing for two decades.
I am all for family taking care of family. But I am not for that being some policy for SHAFTING people who fail to be cis het White males.
I got divorced and my life has seriously sucked ever since. I would like my life to work in spite of me no longer being married and no longer having a man to pay my bills, thanks.
The reality is I think we could do better by ALL people, including cis het White men who also get shafted by the system in some important ways. There are downsides to the role they get assigned as well. It's not all peachy keen for them just because they tend to have more money and power than most other demographic categories in this country.
This right-wing and left-wing garbage sounds to me like the nature VERSUS nurture argument.
It's NOT nature OR nurture, stupid people.
It's BOTH. It's BOTH nature AND nurture that shape human beings into what they ultimately become.
It's useful to try to determine what things are more influenced by nature and what things are more influenced by nurture and just how much you can vary the outcome depending on what you do about the things you have some control over.
But it's a ridiculous argument to debate whether people are just born that way or raised that way.
It's useful to try to determine what things are more influenced by nature and what things are more influenced by nurture and just how much you can vary the outcome depending on what you do about the things you have some control over.
But it's a ridiculous argument to debate whether people are just born that way or raised that way.
The answer is: YES.
Yes to BOTH.
Trying to give me a political label is a case of you trying to simplify me to fit into some little box in your tiny mind so you don't have to work at understanding me.
If you don't want to work at understanding me, go away and stop bothering me. Stop wasting my time -- and yours.
There are some things that are best provided as a public good -- i.e. by the government. This includes things like police and fire and should include some baseline medical access. In the US, we kind of do basic medical and kind of don't.
The reason such things SHOULD be a public good is not some bleeding heart BULLSHIT where you think some people are losers who cannot provide for themselves. It's because shafting some portion of the population with your policies screws everyone.
Fire coverage is a good example to use.
If you don't want to work at understanding me, go away and stop bothering me. Stop wasting my time -- and yours.
There are some things that are best provided as a public good -- i.e. by the government. This includes things like police and fire and should include some baseline medical access. In the US, we kind of do basic medical and kind of don't.
The reason such things SHOULD be a public good is not some bleeding heart BULLSHIT where you think some people are losers who cannot provide for themselves. It's because shafting some portion of the population with your policies screws everyone.
Fire coverage is a good example to use.
There are places in the US where you have to pay a fee to get fire service and if you don't pay the fee and your house catches on fire, they STILL send a fire truck and firemen to your property if there's a fire.
And they stand there and watch it burn to the ground because they aren't there to help you poo poo head who didn't PAY them. No, they are there just in case they need to fight the fire because it has spread beyond your property.
So if you don't pay, they still send a truck. They still pay their staff for their time. They still pay for the gas in the truck and maintenance needs incurred by driving it there.
So if you don't pay, they still send a truck. They still pay their staff for their time. They still pay for the gas in the truck and maintenance needs incurred by driving it there.
At best, they save on the cost of the water they didn't use.
MAYBE. If they don't need to use even MORE water to protect other properties because they LET the fire grow and spread instead of trying to stamp it out immediately and they did so to scream in your face "FUCK YOU IN PARTICULAR!!!"
It's a stupid model. It's better to find some means to fund it such that you just provide fire coverage to the community as a whole. Because not helping YOU in specific probably on average costs more and does more harm to the people around you than it would to just help YOU in particular, you poor schmuck who couldn't afford the fee for some reason.
It's a stupid model. It's better to find some means to fund it such that you just provide fire coverage to the community as a whole. Because not helping YOU in specific probably on average costs more and does more harm to the people around you than it would to just help YOU in particular, you poor schmuck who couldn't afford the fee for some reason.
Public health is sort of the same: If you say "Oh, your health problems are NOT MY PROBLEM" it soon will be your problem. Either they will spread their disease or die a pauper and you need to dispose of the body or both.
Housing: Not so much, in my opinion.
The reality is that the federal government played a significant role in creating what currently exists. The federal government not only provided housing benefits to returning soldiers in World War II they also created Fannie Mae in 1938.
This is part of what gave birth to modern suburbs of large swaths of single family detached homes. What you can readily and easily find a means to fund is what tends to get built in spades. DUH.
I would personally prefer to see the lack of affordable housing of a certain kind be provided by private for-profit companies rather than as "public" housing owned by the government. I would rather see the federal government foster that by injecting funds into certain kinds of development via loan programs, mortgage guarantees, grants, technical assistance and similar such traditional federal processes.
We have overbuilt suburban single family detached homes in part because that is what the federal government was willing to help make it easy for us to fund. If they would make it similarly easy to fund other forms of development, then we wouldn't have a de facto stanglehold on SROs, duplexes, etc.
There's a global housing shortage. Studies connect rising rents to rising homelessness. That's not my opinion.
The reality is that the federal government played a significant role in creating what currently exists. The federal government not only provided housing benefits to returning soldiers in World War II they also created Fannie Mae in 1938.
This is part of what gave birth to modern suburbs of large swaths of single family detached homes. What you can readily and easily find a means to fund is what tends to get built in spades. DUH.
I would personally prefer to see the lack of affordable housing of a certain kind be provided by private for-profit companies rather than as "public" housing owned by the government. I would rather see the federal government foster that by injecting funds into certain kinds of development via loan programs, mortgage guarantees, grants, technical assistance and similar such traditional federal processes.
We have overbuilt suburban single family detached homes in part because that is what the federal government was willing to help make it easy for us to fund. If they would make it similarly easy to fund other forms of development, then we wouldn't have a de facto stanglehold on SROs, duplexes, etc.
There's a global housing shortage. Studies connect rising rents to rising homelessness. That's not my opinion.
Suggesting we build more housing doesn't SOMEHOW magically mean "I'm asking the federal government to build it as part of a nanny state."
It aggravates me that I have to say that. "Learn English, fool."