 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« A Letter to Colorado Gov. Bill Owens | Main | Outing Joe Wilson » October 31, 2005The Thought PoliceUPDATE: Bob Krumm has a follow-up post to this that it is vital you read. After you have read the post below, scroll back up here and click here. State Rep. Chris Clem emails: I posted a response to an article on your web page on August 24, 2005. See, http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/007098.htmlA "Joe McReynolds" is listed as a member of the future class of 2008 of Georgetown University. Excerpts of Clem's email response back to "Joe McReynolds" are included in the extended portion of this blog entry. From Clem's email to "Joe McReynolds" at Georgetown University: Your politics of destruction is scary. It never occurred to me to randomly search blogs and research the names of liberal bloggers. Then research where they work and try to get them fired from their jobs. Yes, technically others who are not as fortunate as myself to own my business should be careful about using their employers' email. But, to try and get someone you disagree with fired is beyond anything I have ever experienced.I'm betting "Joe McReynolds" doesn't bother to respond. Posted in Blogging
Comments
I'm going to tread dangerously close to invocation of Godwin's Law here, but I'll try not to get quite that far. This posting is an example of the deterioration of the left, and their willingness to apply "victory at any price" tactics. The central tenet of the modern left that allows such tactics is postmodernism. Postmodernism starts with the idea that there's no such thing as absolute truth, and that therefore all points of view on a subject should be considered equally valid. Notice that this results in conflict in the area of whether postmodernism itself is valid. That's the one point of view that you're not allowed to have, because it undermines all the rest of their position. So if you believe that there is absolute truth, then you are an "apostate" from postmodernism, and entitled to no consideration whatsoever. It's a short jump from that to treating ideological opponents in the fashion discussed in this post. No tactics are out of bounds when dealing with such opponents, because giving such opponents any consideration means completely shifting the ideological battleground. The end result of such ideological philosophy is suppression of opponent's viewpoints. If you can't stop them from being an apostate by straight out intimidation, then you use any means necessary to harrass, suppress, and damage them. The linkage to ultimate totalitarianism is obvious. If the left honestly believes that tactics such as those discussed in the posting are valid, there are no obvious boundaries between there and full totalitarian suppression of ideas. Posted by: Billy Hollis at October 31, 2005 3:20 PMDisgusting... I doubt that Mr. McReynolds would like it very much if someone were to track him down using public information and pay him a little visit. He must be fairly pitiful if his idea of political discourse includes stalking. Posted by: CM at October 31, 2005 4:19 PMOf course, McReynolds is completely out of line. This does, however, point out the wisdom of using yahoo or gmail accounts for personal mailings. Posted by: John Cunningham at October 31, 2005 4:39 PMI've run into similar things, perpetrated usually by political opponents. I call those folks cyberstalkers. Posted by: Donna Locke at October 31, 2005 6:24 PMBilly, The same and worse has happened to me. Scary what lengths people who disagree with you will go. If you have a legal means of controlling this gentleman, why don't you use it. You are probably not the only one he does it to, and probably has gotten some fired. He won't stop unless he has more to lose than gain, Posted by: Kate Shanahan at October 31, 2005 8:10 PMApparently Georgetown isn't keeping its students very busy. Posted by: Roger Abramson at October 31, 2005 8:48 PMGeorgetown University Policy & Procedures: Acceptable Use of Computers and Networks Users shall not use system resources to purposefully distribute, create, or copy messages or materials that are abusive, obscene, sexually oriented, threatening, harassing, damaging to another's reputation, or illegal. Here is the link. I do not think this is at all unique to "liberals". There are many "conservatives" that practice "politics of destruction". Ten weeks is not a very long time. State Rep. Chris Clem should be fully aware that anything said on the Internets is open. If you do not want it repeated, do not say it. If you are afraid of it getting quoted later, do not say it. I think he doth protest to much. As Roger says, this does not speak well of the character evaluation process going on at Georgetown, but he is a 1L, so maybe he can still be rehabilitated - though admittedly going to law school immersed in the Washington political culture makes that a tall task. In the meantime, we all have until 2008 to not hire this schmuck. Regards, To Power####: First of all, if you're going to sound all Elizabethan and stuff, use the right form of 'too.' Second, whether right or left, this is abhorrent behavior, and should not be rationalized away. Engaging in political discourse on an Internet site should not lead to someone cyber hunting you down, and attempting your termination at work. Are you merely saying that Hobbs is complaining too much... OR DO YOU ACTUALLY CONDONE SUCH TACTICS? Posted by: Lee at November 1, 2005 12:36 PMJesus Christ on a stick. I've already responded plenty to Mr. Clem, as well as to everybody who's e-mailed me. Thanks, guys! A few thoughts: 1) I wouldn't consider myself a member of "the left". Nor would I consider myself a member of "the thought police". 2) My issue with Chris Clem's post was not ideology, nor was it policy. Policy-wise, I probably tend to agree with him; TennCare in its current incarnation appears to be an unsupportable boondoggle. 3) I never once appealed to have Chris Clem fired. I asked his employer to rein him in. His employer, as I'm sure you all have guessed, declined. 4) I did not stalk him in any way; I hovered my mouse over his username, discovered to my surprise that he posted such bile from his work e-mail address, punched sampleslaw.com into the web browser, and e-mailed the contact address on the webpage. Total time involved: 30 seconds maybe? Stalking? Of course not. Standard, normal usage of the internet. 5) What's my beef with Chris Clem? I sure as hell wouldn't be bothering to e-mail someone's boss over a policy dispute. My beef is that in his e-mail he expresses what is essentially pathological bigotry toward the poor -- stating in effect that those who are poor deserve it, that those who die because they are too poor to afford to save themselves deserve it. Morally and intellectually, to me that ranks the same as white supremacist babble. It's generally good netiquette that if you're going to post obscenity, you don't do it from your work address -- a clerk at a law firm was (rightly) fired for e-mailing a string of unprintable obscenities to Michelle Malkin a month or so back. I didn't even go that far; I never once asked that Mr. Clem be fired. Let's say he were, though? It'd be unfortunate, but it certainly wouldn't be for being conservative. It'd be for posting what was essentially bigotry against the poor from a work e-mail address. So, there you go. If you disagree with my thoughts and actions, that's all well and good -- but I think labelling this as the "leftist thought police", when if anything I probably agree with Mr. Clem on the policy involved, is downright silly. Posted by: Joe McReynolds at November 1, 2005 8:16 PMOh, and for what it's worth, to clear up any minor misconception: I'm not a law student, nor am I faculty at Georgetown, as some people have mistakenly inferred.
Claiming this act by one individual as indicative of Liberals or a policy of Liberals or a sign of Liberal weakness is just as much an act of "politics of destruction." Posted by: Barbieux at November 1, 2005 9:42 PMJoe, your rebuttal has been published (if you are referring to the rebuttal you posted in the comments here.) Joe is right, by the way, that Clem's law firm does have a website. It's a very rudimentary site, but a website it is. That still doesn't excuse the tenor of Joe's email to what he thought was Clem's boss, an email that clearly sought to get Clem into trouble with his boss (or law partners) for the thoughts that Clem expressed in a blog comment. And, despite what Joe says, there was no anti-poor bigotry in Clem's comment that set Joe off on a tirade. In fact, Clem noted that the 200,000 or so people cut from TennCare were, as a group, the least sick and least poor of those on the program, while the sicker and/or poorer folks are still on the rolls. If Clem was anti-poor, he'd have railed against those cuts and urged that the poorer folks be cut first. Ah, but that's why young folks like Joe go to college - to get some more "book learnin'" and to hone their critical-thinking skills Posted by: Bill Hobbs at November 1, 2005 10:18 PMWith all due respect to Rep. Clem, his consternation regarding this situation is overblown and rather inflammatory. Unfortunately, instead of dealing with the particular details of this incident, he decided to appeal to political rhetoric by declaring this a clear example of Conservatism versus Liberalism. Let's ignore this bait and confront the real issues behind this situation. First, let's deal with the actions of the undergraduate student at Georgetown University. And, let me please emphasize the fact that as a future member of the Class of 2008 he is clearly an undergraduate student and not a law student, thus making him anywhere between the ages of 17-21. Was his behavior inappropriate? I would argue that it was. However, were his actions (writing a letter to your "employer") inappropriate? I would declare that it was not. This may seem somewhat contradictory, so let me explain. Now, I would not have used this tactic, but our society does allow individuals to voice their opinions to companies about corporate policies and the actions of their employees. Remember it was Rep. Clem that decided to post a public comment using his work email address. Although, I think the student's message to his boss was poorly worded, he does have the right to question whether or not Rep. Clem's company supported his actions or views. The more interesting question raised by Rep. Clem's use of his work email address is the fact that more and more employees are blurring the lines between one's private and public life by using their work email for private transactions (including posting on blogs). How does this affect employers? What risks do employees face? It was interesting that one poster attempted to link an acceptable use policy for the student, but ignored looking for one at Rep. Clem's place of employment. This is situation is a main reason as to why many employers have been forced to create policies that limit employee use of company email. These policies are in reaction to the fear that liability could be assumed in the use of a corporate e-mail addresses by their employees or that their usage of the addreses implies some sort of substantiation of the message by the company. And, Mr. Hoggin, is correct that schools and universities have adopted similar polcies as well. Unfortunately, Rep. Clem ignores the opportunity to engage this tension. Secondly, Rep. Clem declares that he never listed that he was a state representative, never mentioned that he was an attorney or the name and address of his law firm. This is only partially true. While he did not specifically mention his occupation (or employer), Rep. Clem did post comments to a publicly accessible blog with his name and work email, both of which would provide that information in a simple Google search. While his name (and quite possibly his occupation) would be recognized by the followers of Tennessee politics, for those that are not as well versed, that information can be derived from the information he provided in his post, as indicated here: A. Searching for "Chris Clem" in Google brings up search results that lists his State Representative website as the number one result, which he shares personal information about his family in his biography. B. Searching for his email address in Google brings up search results that link to an opinion piece Rep. Clem wrote for the Chattanoogan.com. This is another example of conflating the different aspect of his life by signing the piece "Rep. Chris Clem," but including his work email address. Clearly no hunting was necessary when Rep. Clem provided the information himself. With regards to his status as an attorney and the name and address of his law firm, I must reiterate that he posted his work email address. Simply typing the domain name from his email address (sampleslaw.com) into one's web browser brings up a web page that provided that information. Unfortunately, Rep. Clem avoids the opportunity to have a substantive conversation. He could have explored two different tensions at this point as well: the notion of anonymity on the Web or one's right to privacy in a technological world. As the Internet -- and other technologies -- become more and more entrenched into our daily lives we need to examine these tensions. And, its important to have individuals in roles like Rep. Clem to play a part in these conversations. I hope this reply doesn't come across as an attack, it is not intended as such. I just found Rep. Clem's reaction extremely disheartening. Instead of showing maturity and leadership by engaging in a real discussion of the issues surrounding how the Web is changing our lives, he decided to incite "conservatives" to action. I think there are some important areas for discussion and would encourage Rep. Clem to learn more about the Internet and the ways in which this medium is changing our society. *** One last thought for Mr. Abramson and Mr. Moore, would it be a fair characterization if I declared that the Tennessee House of Representatives wasn't keeping Rep. Clem busy enough or that his actions did not speak well of the character evaluation process going on in District 27? Probably not. So, please do not disparage Georgetown University simply because you don't agree with the actions of one individual. Posted by: Jane at November 2, 2005 10:05 AMI posted this over at NIT, but it works here too: Look, I'm no fan of Chris Clem. In fact, I have criticized him in the Scene for pretty much the same thing this guy has done. But I still find it weird that this guy, who apparently has connection to Tennessee or anything else surrounding this general topic for that matter, would do this. I'm not saying he can't do it. I'm just saying it seems like a odd use of his time. As I wrote on Hobbs' blog, it looks to me like Georgetown isn't keeping its students very busy. But, it's his tuition $ I guess. Jane -- In answer to your "last thought," your analogy is way off the mark. Speaking and writing on policy issues (however clumsily) is well within the scope of Rep. Clem's duties as a state representative. In fact, I suspect he does more of that than most state representatives, to their discredit. This does not apply to Mr. McReynolds. As far as I know, Georgetown doesn't have a Writing Emails to Politicians' Employers 101 class. I'm not saying that he can't do what he did, I'm simply saying that apparently being a student at Georgetown allows one to have a lot of free time. And let's not buy that "30 seconds" stuff. It's not like he hopped in the Internet and -- poof! -- he landed on Rep. Clem's comments. He had obviously been surfing around and came across those at some point in time. Also, I guess he is an undergraduate, but I don't understand why you think that the "Class of 2008" thing would necessarily bar him from being a law student. First year law students right now would be Class of 2008 law graduates. Posted by: Roger Abramson at November 2, 2005 11:52 AMBill, I would respond to several points. 1. I actually opposed Governor Bredesen's attempts to take 200,000 people off TennCare. I actually voted against this in May, 2005. I voted for the other plan that cut less than 100,000. However, after the governor succesfuly made his cuts despite my opposition, I was dismayed and disappointed at the responses. I never received one humble request. Every comment was a demand that others pay for their bills. I had hoped that that some would recognize that legitimate needs do NOT mean you are entitled to have government force others to pay for your needs. 2. My original blog entry from August, 2005, simply made the point that all legitimate needs do not necessarily create an entitlement. If this twit had ever emailed me then he would have had a nice and polite debate. He could have seen the full picture. I even offered to let him see my tax return to view my charitable contributions. 3. Instead, this twit decided to write my senior law partner. He never tried to contact me. 4. What most of you don't know is that this twit specifically stated that despite my opposition to Bredesen's cuts the mere fact that I expressed such views on a blog meant that I "was, morally and intellectually, on the same level as the filth put out on white supremacist websites." 5. He then emailed my firm and said firing me "would be akin to someone getting fired for posting on a white supremacist website from their job." 6. I did respond to him. I sent him a picture of my family. I wanted him to understand that he never even tried to debate me or contact me. He went after my job. He went after my sole means of support for my wife, 2 year old and 4 year old. Yes, I do tend to get a bit testy when I realize someone went after me and my family on a personal level. 7. I even suggested that we compare tax returns for the last few years to see who gives more to charities and to charities that help the poor. I suggested we compare my tax returns to his parents. It seems odd to me that just because I don't want to take tax money to take care of the poor that I am somehow more cold-hearted than someone who would never give a dime to the poor but does support taxing others to pay for the poor. I am not a hypocrit. I believe and practice that if you don't want government taking care of the poor then you should give large contributions of your private money to the poor. This carried no weight with young Eric Rudolph. He still deemed me no better than a white supremecist. 8. I firmly believe this guy did not know I was a state legislator. He only knew that he disagreed with a short blog comment that I had written 10 weeks ago and decided that it was open season on me, my job and by association my family's standard of living. 9. This guy has an Eric Rudolph concept. He is judge and jury over what he deems appropriate. If he deems your opinion to be equivalent to hate speech then he will go after your job. He wont even bother contacting you to clarify any fine points. 10. My original point in contacting Bill Hobbs was simply to warn blog posters that they could be the next target for this internet terrorist who has no intentions of debating people. He wants to destroy them. Posted by: Chris Clem at November 2, 2005 1:13 PM""This does not apply to Mr. McReynolds. As far as I know, Georgetown doesn't have a Writing Emails to Politicians' Employers 101 class. I'm not saying that he can't do what he did, I'm simply saying that apparently being a student at Georgetown allows one to have a lot of free time."" I'm taking a pretty extensive courseload, but we still have time to read blogs. ""And let's not buy that "30 seconds" stuff. It's not like he hopped in the Internet and -- poof! -- he landed on Rep. Clem's comments. He had obviously been surfing around and came across those at some point in time."" This is a misconception I really should have cleared up earlier. I was searching on Technorati for Phil Bredesen. I invest on TradeSports, and I was looking at the possibility of picking up some Phil Bredesen as Democratic Nominee in 2008 futures, as they seem undervalued right now at 0.5%. The technorati search led me directly to the post. Final thoughts: Perhaps my tone in the e-mail to Clem's employer was uncouth. If so, I do apologize for that. I dashed it off in about 45 seconds or so, with a brief cut-and-paste. But the essence of the message, which is that I found what he wrote to be on the level of bigotry (not simply political or ideological) and I wished his employer would rein him in (not fire him) on what he posts from his work e-mail address, I think is quite defensible. Mr. Hobbs: My issue was not with the part of his message regarding TennCare specifically. Posted by: Joe at November 2, 2005 1:40 PMIndeed I did, Bob. I was sloppy. Got it right the second time, though. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at November 2, 2005 1:43 PMHere's a picture of Joe McReynolds from the Georgetown Ballroom Dance Team facebook Posted by: cheryl at November 2, 2005 4:07 PMBill; if you won't post my rebuttal in the same space you print Clem's original accusations, can you at least knock off the "I'm betting Joe McReynolds won't bother to respond" part? As far as Chris Clem's statements about Tenncare, it looks that, if anything, I'm to the right of him on what might be necessary to fix the program; but that's beside the point. My issue with what he wrote had NOTHING to do with TennCare. ""4. What most of you don't know is that this twit specifically stated that despite my opposition to Bredesen's cuts the mere fact that I expressed such views on a blog meant that I "was, morally and intellectually, on the same level as the filth put out on white supremacist websites." 5. He then emailed my firm and said firing me "would be akin to someone getting fired for posting on a white supremacist website from their job." Uh, since when was that addressed to your firm? That was what I wrote to someone who e-mailed *me* out of nowhere, presumably goaded on by you. None of that was in my original e-mail to your firm, nor any of the subsequent correspondence with the partner of your head. And, yes, it's what I think. What you wrote was bigotted against the poor, no different than those who are bigotted against blacks or other minorities. Oh, and thanks for calling me an 'internet terrorist'. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps? I didn't "go after your job" in that I never once asked for you to be fired, implicitly or explicitly. I asked your employer to rein you in on your written bigotry; you wrote it SIGNED WITH YOUR WORK E-MAIL ADDRESS, so I believe this is more than fair. Once again, I think it's worth pointing out what Chris Clem wrote in his original message on this site that spurred me to write to his employer: ""TennCare is based upon the principle that if I need someone else's hard earned money more than they need it, then I am entitled to take their hard earned money to pay for my medical bills, food stamps, section 8 housing or other socialized entitlement. In other words, need is given a higher moral authority to take assets than the people who earned it. Mercy and grace have no part in such a socialized society. There is nothing voluntary about the government taking your money to build a socialized medical program. Few of the recipients are grateful. All the ones I hear from demand their rights and their entitlements to have others pay for their problems. Karl Marx's maxim of "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" has found life in TennCare. Those that believe in pursing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" must now submit their freedom, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to those that need your assets and income more than you. God help us."" Clem is saying, in effect, that to be poor and needy is inherently immoral. Even if I largely agree with him (Or perhaps stand to the right of him?) on TennCare reform, that's not the issue - his twisted version of morality is. The real world is one of scarce resources, and policy decisions are not made in a perfect world; I wouldn't begrudge anyone their policy positions, of course, even if I found them extremely illogical. That's a general maxim of free and open debate. What I took issue with was not Clem's policy ideas, but the twisted, vile moral code expressed in the above, one step away from Ayn Rand (He didn't explicitly condemn charity, which Rand does). I didn't ask his employer, in any way, that he be fired for writing what he did. Morally reprehensible people still need jobs and livelihoods. I simply asked (perhaps not as articulately or diplomatically as I could have) that his employer rein him in on posting such things in public view from his work account. On the whole, I'd call that reasonable. Posted by: Joe at November 2, 2005 4:57 PMJoe, Your rebuttal is published in the same space as the rest of the post - a blog post is inclusive of all its comments. I'd love to see how you interpret what Clem wrote into him saying that "to be poor and needy is inherently immoral." He neither said nor implied that. He merely wrote what many of us believe - that forced charity - welfare - administered by the government is not charity at all. Instead, it supplants and replaces mercy and grace. Welfare devalues work, and thus devalues the person receiving it. It also disconnects the recipient from the giver and allows politicians who didn't earn the money to take credit for passing it out to the needy. That's a big reason I have always disagreed with liberal Christians who think that the Bible's command to be charitable and generous and help "the poor, the afflicted and the widows in distress" means Christians are required by God to support Big Government welfare programs and the party that creates and expands them. Charity done by government gives government politicians the glory, while charity done by private citizens individually or collectively in the name of God gives God the glory. By the way, Joe, you seem to think that Clem shouldn't post comments from his employer's address (never mind that he is his own employer!) because that links his views with his employer and (in your opinion) those views he expresses reflects badly on them. I notice that you have been posting your comments from your Georgetown University email address. Are we to take it that that means Georgetown supports your views? Should we email your adviser or Dean and urge them to "reign you in" lest you embarrass the university? I'm just asking... Posted by: Bill Hobbs at November 2, 2005 9:32 PMMr. Hobbs, unlike Rep. Clem's employer, Georgetown seems to have addressed this issue in a published disclaimer on their website. Please note: *Email address disclaimer* Georgetown University issues an email address to faculty and staff at the time of employment and to students who confirm intent to matriculate. Georgetown University also provides an email forwarding service for alumni. Opinions expressed through georgetown.edu email addresses do not necessarily represent the official views of Georgetown University. *** Mr. Abramson, I think you may have misunderstood my final point, I was *** At some point, I would hope that a lawyer with a degree from the University of Tennessee and one that is an elected state representative would comport himself in a more mature and stately manner. I would have to imagine that Rep. Clem's name calling and inflammatory language wouldn't be permissible on the floor of the Tennessee Legislature, so why are people comfortable with his actions on a publicly accessible blog? Just asking ... maybe this is just southern politics. *** As I stated in my previous comments, reducing this situation to base ramblings about conservatives versus liberals; employing words such as hunt, track and stalk, and now Rep. Clem's most recent comments comparing Mr. Reynolds to Eric Rudolph and branding him an Internet terrorist is extremely disturbing and troublesome. Not to mention naive in not understanding its ramifications. We're in a new world and the Internet is changing our lives. Both Rep. Clem and Mr. Reynolds need to understand the impact of their current actions. At least if this argument was left to emails between Rep. Clem and Mr. Reynolds it would've stayed a private matter. Unfortunately, Rep. Clem's emotional decision to remove this exchange from their private inboxes and post it publicly on a blog will leave a stain on both of them. From now on, when anyone searches for "Joe Reynolds" in the future there is a high probabilty that they will come across these POSTS. Yes, I'm emphasizing the use of the plural here since Rep. Clem's accounting of this situation has been reproduced across multiple blogs (Sorry, Mr. Hobb no matter how much you work to ensure balance, other bloggers won't be as conscientious). As a result, each of these blogs will have different contexts based on the comments posted on those sites. How will this impact Mr. Reynolds chances of employment in the future if a prospective employer comes across Rep. Clem's claim he is an "internet terrorist?" Yes, Mr. Reynolds has to be willing to accept the responsibilty for actions, but isn't a simple confrontation by Rep. Clem enough? Is it necessary for a public flogging using such desctructive language? Would Rep. Clem be responsible if one of his constituents harmed Mr. Reynolds after reading his comments? These are serious questions and shouldn't be ignored. No matter what you think of Rep. Clem or Mr. Reynold's behavior I would hope that civility would prevail at some point. Its time to step away from the edge and behave like adults. Perhaps debating the issues on the merits is no longer possible within American politics without using inflammatory language or baiting one's opponent into a frenzy. If this is true, its a sad day indeed. Posted by: Jane at November 2, 2005 11:13 PM""He merely wrote what many of us believe - that forced charity - welfare - administered by the government is not charity at all. Instead, it supplants and replaces mercy and grace. Welfare devalues work, and thus devalues the person receiving it. It also disconnects the recipient from the giver and allows politicians who didn't earn the money to take credit for passing it out to the needy. That's a big reason I have always disagreed with liberal Christians who think that the Bible's command to be charitable and generous and help "the poor, the afflicted and the widows in distress" means Christians are required by God to support Big Government welfare programs and the party that creates and expands them."" While in policy terms I'd probably opt for some form of safety net nonetheless, I'd heartily agree with you that all of those are very real and significant downsides to welfare programs; in economics terms, they often create an incentive structure that shifts people away from productive, adaptive, and self-reliant behavior. Some have argued rather persuasively (For instance, the now-infamous Moynihan Report) that this incentive structure of welfare was a big part of the destruction of the black community over the past fifty years or so. Of course, that's not to say you can't introduce market mechanisms into government assistance programs that minimize those negative incentives while generating real, positive results for the affected; the Earned Income Tax Credit, for instance, is generally considered to be a stunning success for precisely this reason. But just as many liberals inaccurately paint welfare as a cure-all, so too do many conservatives with private charities. They aren't perfect, they often can't or won't do enough, and their more personal nature means more personal biases or pressures can distort the process. I've worked for a couple, seen it with my own eyes. A blended approach seems to work best; both public and private responses to poverty and need have their faults and shortcomings. Oh, and a further point just occurred to me; the whole logic of rational economic actors and incentives breaks down when you're talking about someone who's chronically disabled and/or can't work; these people aren't becoming "complacent" under a safety net, rather their health has limited their options to the point where they'll take whatever they can get and try to survive however they can. In a lot of cases, welfare doesn't necessarily create those negative incentives for potentially productive workers. One can still argue for cutting Tenncare as a matter of pragmatic necessity, but it's a fair argument when we delve into the more general theoretical questions about the nature of charity versus government assistance. But I'm just offering that policy argument up for whatever it's worth, since you raised the issue; as I've said before, policy isn't what I was taking issue with Chris Clem on, it was the claims I felt he was making about the morality of the poor. Looking back on his post, I do see that there's some room for interpretation - his writing meanders a bit, and he goes back and forth between talking about policy and talking about morality. As for your second point: ""By the way, Joe, you seem to think that Clem shouldn't post comments from his employer's address (never mind that he is his own employer!) because that links his views with his employer and (in your opinion) those views he expresses reflects badly on them. I notice that you have been posting your comments from your Georgetown University email address. Are we to take it that that means Georgetown supports your views? Should we email your adviser or Dean and urge them to "reign you in" lest you embarrass the university? I'm just asking..."" I think there is a difference in kind, as opposed to merely in degree, between being a student at a university or other institution and being merely employed in some form. If I were employed by Georgetown University and signed my messages with that address? Then, yeah, I'd agree you'd have a point on hypocrisy or a double standard. But I'm not.
I think a fair point can be made, as Jane did, that my judgment in that regard might have been poor -- For instance, I didn't at all expect that Mr. Clem, or his employer, would take my message as an attempt to have him fired. However, that's different in kind than saying what I did was inherently and unconscionably wrong, or that I was trying to demonize politics or attempted to 'stalk' Mr. Clem, or anything along those lines. It's the difference between, "Hey, Joe didn't have the best judgment on that one!" and "Wow, Joe's a terrible person for doing that!". For whatever that's worth. Just my two cents. Oh, and Cheryl, thanks for posting the pic; it actually served as a good reminder that I've put off shaving and perhaps a haircut for too long. :-P Posted by: Joe at November 3, 2005 1:45 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
