Zimbabwe Issues $50 Billion Bill  |   Home  |   I Thought it Was Three Million Jobs…

Missing the Mark

Mark Peterson, a UWWC professor and fellow columnist for the West Bend Daily News has a particularly impressive bit of idiocy in the paper today.  I’m not going to fisk the whole thing, but I’ll give you the highlights. 

Christmas is only one example of a mock battle fought for distraction. Abortion is another one.

“Distraction?”  Many of us think very seriously about issues like our faith and abortion.  It is not a distraction.  It is a sincere disagreement.  I oppose killing babies in the uterus.  Peterson doesn’t.  It’s a disagreement.  But by framing it the way he does, he seeks to dismiss opposition to his world view.  That’s the mark of someone who is either a complete arrogant ass, or someone who is so insecure in his beliefs that he has to dismiss his detractors. 

Abortion is still protected under Roe v. Wade. Even if the Supreme Court reverses itself, a significant majority of Americans believe abortions should remain safe, legal and rare – and will vote that way. We can keep fighting this battle, but it would be better if we get to work preventing the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion in the first place.

Ummm…. both sides of this debate want to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  We merely differ on the method.  Again, Peterson tries to marginalize opponents to his view. 

The culture warrior’s favorite target, of course, is taxation. Taxation, in their playbill, is always cast as the wicked carpetbagger. The children all shout “boo!” but the adults in the crowd know that Ben Franklin was right. Taxes are inevitable. The question is not whether there should be taxes, but whether our taxes are being wasted. Nobody in their right mind wants the government that wastes money.

Here Peterson decides to pull out the ol’ straw man.  Nobody - not even me - thinks that there shouldn’t be taxes.  Peterson characterizes those of us who actually care about the level of taxation as wanting no taxes.  That isn’t the case.  Furthermore, his assertion that “Nobody in their right mind wants the government that wastes money” is patently false.  How many people want to spend more money on some K-12 districts even though they are demonstrably wasteful?  How many people advocate for more taxes for a “stimulus package” when the previous stimulus packages didn’t work?  How many people want to continue to fund both two-year colleges and tech schools when they could be combined?  How many people want to build bike paths in Sheboygan or commuter trains that will cost billions and serve few?  Clearly, many people in this nation are perfectly comfortable with government waste.

In a post-partisan Wisconsin we must work together rather than fire off our muzzle loaders over anything that makes us different. Every one of us wants tax reforms, educational reforms, and smarter ways to make the state attractive to the next generation of businesses – regardless of which side of the fence we say we’re on during an election.

This, to me, goes to the heart of liberal arrogance.  Yes, we all want reforms, but we want different reforms.  I want to cut taxes.  Peterson wants to raise them.  In education, I want merit pay, the abolition of tenure, a more focused curriculum, etc. As for attracting business, I have an entirely different perspective on how to do that than Peterson does. 

Herein lies one of the base differences in our world views.  I think that Americans’ different views on matters should be embraced, weighed, and debated.  We may never completely agree, but the mere act of seriously debating the issues is healthy for our civic life.  Peterson, on the other hand, wants uniformity of opinion.  He says,“As Americans, we will never agree about everything, but divided by labels and side issues we won’t get much done. Setting aside differences to find common ground is just common sense.”

No, it isn’t.  Setting aside our differences is abandonment of our beliefs.  We can find common ground where there is common ground, but where there isn’t, there must be a winner and a loser.  That is the only way to “get something done.” 

I don’t mind debating liberals.  In fact, I enjoy it.  There have been commenters on this blog that have challenged my views and made me reconsider them.  But Peterson has no idea what folks like me actually think about these things.  In his mind there is a caricature of conservative views that bears little resemblance to reality. 

Just remember folks… he’s teaching the next generation of Wisconsinites.  

Posted by Owen at 1657 hrs
Culture + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Sometimes the wackos do a better job of securing your beliefs. Of course, I wasn’t an open-minded 18-year-old when I served my time @ Cow Pie High.

   Posted by Fuzz on January 10, 2009 at 1842 hrs
   
   
   

2. But Peterson has no idea what folks like me actually think about these things.  In his mind there is a caricature of conservative views that bears little resemblance to reality.

   I suspect he does have an idea, but chooses to make a caricature so that folks will agree with him.

   That seems to be the MO of some left-of-center folks.

   Posted by Dean on January 10, 2009 at 1853 hrs
   
   
   

3. You know, the irony here is that you complain that Peterson fails to acknowledge the validity of a different perspective and sets up straw men, but then one paragraph later you do the exact same thing you accuse him of.

   It’s your opinion that additional K-12 spending is “demonstrably wasteful.”  It’s your opinion that a stimulus package would be ineffective.  It’s your opinion that bike paths are not an effective use of taxpayer money.  And then you basically suggest since you think these are all examples of government waste, that they therefore ARE government waste, and that means that people who support them are therefore explicitly supportive of wasteful government.

   Hello, logical fallacy.  Substitution of subjective viewpoint as a factual assumption.  Good to meet you.

   There are things you can point to that would lead a rational person to believe, for instance, that additional K-12 spending does have a positive impact.  I’m totally with you on this one, for the record.  But it’s all a matter of return on investment.  You don’t think the additional money is worth the incremental return (if any return exists at all).  But other people do.  That doesn’t make them irrational and it doesn’t mean they’re supportive of waste.  They just define waste differently.

   What then commences is an obvious and transparent oversimplification of the issues.  He wants to raise taxes, I want to lower them.  Okay, which taxes?  On whom?  Is it raising taxes to restructure a tax burden so that the aggregate amount is the same but the amount certain individuals pay is different?  I mean, that raises taxes on some, lowers taxes on others, and results in no change to the tax burden.

   You and Peterson are both guilty on far too many occasions of trying to take gray matters and treat them as if they’re black or white.  I know that’s about all some of your respective target audiences can handle.  Just know that the rest of us see right through it.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 10, 2009 at 1907 hrs
   
   
   

4. It’s your opinion that additional K-12 spending is “demonstrably wasteful.”

   It is.  Take a gander at the MPS spending database, for example.  There’s plenty of waste in there that needs to be eliminated before we should think about spending more. 
   BTW, I said “some,” not “all.”

   It’s your opinion that a stimulus package would be ineffective.

   When it mirrors previous packages that failed, yes. 

   It’s your opinion that bike paths are not an effective use of taxpayer money.

   No, bike paths in “Sheboygan” when it is winter half the year are a waste of taxpayer money.  If it makes you feel better, that was a swipe at a Republican. 

   Nice editing of my points to attempt to make yours. 

   When you decide to actually read what I wrote and provide a serious response, please feel free to check back in.

   Posted by Owen on January 10, 2009 at 1921 hrs
   
   
   

5. Some people would argue that those bike paths improve the quality of life for residents and are a worthwhile investment.  And that’s an entirely valid viewpoint, just as yours is - that given the weather in Sheboygan, perhaps there would be better ways to spend the money (or simply not spend it at all).

   My point is that you and Peterson are both trying to casually pass off your own perspectives as facts.  You see half-full where he sees half-empty, or vice versa.  It doesn’t necessarily mean either of you are wrong - or right.

   I share some of your opinions and disagree with others.  But I also know that it’s all based on perspective.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 10, 2009 at 1957 hrs
   
   
   

6. Owen, when you say,

   It is.  Take a gander at the MPS spending database, for example.  There’s plenty of waste in there that needs to be eliminated before we should think about spending more. 
   

   You have no basis to make a factual argument that any of the spending is wasteful. You don’t know why the purchases are made or in many cases what they are used for.

   You have an opinion, like you had in the Milwaukee County thread, that it’s useful, but that’s all it is - an opinion.

   Before you get all pissy, it’s an opinion I share. But speaking of arrogance, I’m not arrogant enough to look at a database of spending by an organization which, like you, I have no familiarity with other than what’s in the newspapers. I’m not arrogant enough to look at a database, pick out an item and, not knowing why it was purchased or for whom, declare with any factual certainty that it’s “wasteful” - especially because whether something is “wasteful” or not is largely based on opinion.

   The same goes for a bike path in Sheboygan. There is no objective basis on which you can 100% factually declare it “wasteful” or not.

   As RS says you’re a little hypocritical here for claiming arrogance, though your arrogance is difference. Whereas the good professor is arrogant enough to dismiss opposing viepoints, you as an ideologue, as ideologues typically do, confuse your opinion for fact.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2009 at 2235 hrs
   
   
   

7. Seriously?  If you can’t look at the MPS spending and NOT see waste, you are a fucking idiot.  Sorry.  The truth hurts.

   Posted by Owen on January 10, 2009 at 2341 hrs
   
   
   

8. Wait… I said that wrong.  If you CAN look at MPS spending and NOT see waste, you are a fucking idiot.

   There we go.  That’s better.

   Posted by Owen on January 10, 2009 at 2346 hrs
   
   
   

9. Peterson:  Christmas is only one example of a mock battle fought for distraction. Abortion is another one.

   I find this statement offensive myself.  Abortion, for one, is a very real debate.  The “distraction” is people, like Peterson, who try to pass it off as something we all need to “agree to disagree on”, hold hands, sing Kumbayah, and be at peace with.  If Peterson believes the issues regarding abortion have a “mock” sense to them, then his world view has corrupted his reality base.

   This column gagged me.  It is not worthy of more comment.

   Posted by GAMazy on January 11, 2009 at 0249 hrs
   
   
   

10. Thank you for makng my point with your arrogance.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 0713 hrs
    
    
    

11. Althought I agree with some of what you said, I think you’re totally missing his major point.  On the abortion issue, one totally valid argument is “we should not kill unborn babies.”  Another is “They are not people and we should protect a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body.”  A third totallt valid position to take is this:  “I can’t believe we’re talking about fucking abortion when there are real issues to deal with.”  YOU are the one dismissing opposition to your world view that Abortion is an important issue.  To a lot of us it IS a distraction.  Think about it!  Of all of the issues and all of the cases the US Supreme Cocurt handles, how a supreme court candidate feels about one really bad decision about abortion is the most importnat thing to most americans. 

    Abortion is a distraction.  That’s my opinion.  It’s just as valid as your opinion that it is an important issue.  For you to dismiss my opinion and say that people have to look at the issue in your terms is arrogant.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 1106 hrs
    
    
    

12. The dismissive nature generally of liberals is, in itself, the straw man.  Don’t agree that we need to raise property taxes to spend more on schools?  Regardless of the reason you don’t want to raise property taxes is because you would rather see a better accounting of the money currently there to try to eliminate waste and increase the accountability of the administration - you are instantly accused of not caring about the kids and wanting to decimate public schools.  Liberals don’t even want the conversation - they generally don’t really care about your thoughts if you disagree with the methods of achieving the goal.  Its so much easier to paint conservatives as ignorant, anti-intellectual hicks that just love big business and hate children. 

    Me?  I think taxes are a required part of our system.  But I think that 1) there is a TON of waste that can be eliminated (like the entire Department of Agriculture or either the Department of the Interior or the EPA)  2) we should be prioritizing based on needs v wants (see bike path) and 3) we should be taxing consumption v production (income/property) because I believe that if you want an economy to grow, you don’t tax all of the things that actually make it grow and then create thousands of pages of special breaks and loopholes for people to try and get around it and out of them.  Make it consumption-based and get rid of all the loopholes and the economy will grow and tax revenue will be increased.  This would also virtually eliminate the IRS and State DoRs as well as all of the lobbying that goes on by groups to put in new tax loopholes or specialized cuts just for them.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 1115 hrs
    
    
    

13. Re: abortion.  Yes, it is an important issue, and I don’t think it is a “distraction.”  On the other hand, anti-abortion foes are often guilty of promoting worthless, even harmful “abstinence only” programs and trying to limit access to birth control.  That is a distraction.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 1219 hrs
    
    
    

14. One of the unspoken debate strategies seems to be to fight on ones home turf.  By that I mean you lay out the problem and then the paramaters of the debate.  By misstating one’s position the debate is moved from the real issue to non issues.

    This seems to the case with the article as written.

    Posted by yoSAMite on January 11, 2009 at 1303 hrs
    
    
    

15. The dismissive nature generally of conservatives is, in itself, the straw man. Regardless of the fact that the reason you don’t want to go to war is that you’re afraid it will only create more terrorist and may very well cost the lives of thousands of Americans soldiers—you are instantly accused of blaming America first and not caring about the defense of the nation, if not outright treason. Conservatives don’t even want the conversation, they generally don’t really care about your thoughts if you disagree with the methods of achieving the goal. It’s so much easier to paint liberals as elitist, French-loving traitors that just hate America and love foreigners.

    There, all even.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 1343 hrs
    
    
    

16. Note to RecessSupervisor:  Whew, I have to apologize if I ever gave the impression I thought my opinions were facts.  They serve only the function of grist for the public mill, not nutrition.

    But I think y’all are confusing these little 720-word op-ed candy bars with real food.  Owen, are you operating under the impression that either of us are writing the next generation of Federalist Papers?  If you are you really need to have another look at Madison. 

    What I know for sure is that short of provocation, almost nothing can be said in 720 words. 

    (—although I understand Owen gets about $20 more for his than I do.  He’s a better at writing them though.  Much smoother than my scribbling.  I’ve been conditioned by too many years in the class room to say anything briefly.)

    On the other hand, abortion has clearly been a distracting way to swindle the votes from people who actually believe in social justice, but whose moral compass draws the line at abortion and, so, end up voting against their own economic interests.  Personally, I think making abortions as difficult as possible is a perfectly valid position to hold (although I opt for the onset of fetal brain activity as a practical, ethical, red-line), but I also agree with Senator Goldwater that it ain’t none of the guv’mints effing business to legislate my morality.  In the meantime, those perfectly decent folks in the pro-life movement haven’t saved a single fetus from being aborted and haven’t been able to alter the Supreme Court sufficiently to do the job either.  While they’ve been captivated by the hucksters on their soapboxes, even well meaning hucksters who believe their own sales pitch, the government used those votes to increase the wealth of their cronies at levels we haven’t seen since that last great depression, all the while laughing behind your backs.  Didn’t read the accounts from Bush’s office of Faith Based initiatives?  Your tax dollars at work.

    Doesn’t bother you?  Fine.  Bothers the heck out of me.

    Oh, and I wish you’d quit confusing me with liberalism.  I’m pretty much a full blown old school Milwaukee socialist.  There’s a difference—I don’t believe approve of liberal paternalism and I don’t think I know better than anyone else.  I just believe that political power in the US should come from the ballot box and not from the bank account.

    How about if we all had coffee sometime and figured it out?  I could organize it, but Owen is the media big wheel.  Why don’t you organize it? 

    I double dare ya.

    Best,
    Mark

    Posted by Mpeterson on January 11, 2009 at 2343 hrs
    
    
    

17. The problem with these wedge issues is that they’re almost always non-political.  We can bicker back and forth about abortion, but it exists, it’s going to be with us, in some form or another, forever.  Same with gay marriage.  It’s an issue that’s been maturing for hundreds of years, and now that it’s out in the open, we can spend hours arguing about whether or not it should be legal, but civilization has advanced, and gay people will enjoy some kind of legal marriage relationship eventually. 

    These are just two examples of our current distractions, but we can look back on the culture wars of yesterday to see how it all ends.  As hard as people fought in the 1950s and 60s, birth control will never be illegal again.  As many religious, moral and “common-sense” appeals were made, inter-racial marriage will never be prohibited again.  Wwomen will always be able to vote.  Slavery is not coming back.  These were all wedge issues in their day, and they all share the privilege of being major developments in human civilization, not just simple political questions.  In fact, all the laws and regulations that stood in the way of these milestones are long gone, and they seem silly in hindsight, and all the laws and regulations that protect these rights seem unnecessary today.  The codification of human development is redundant, and fighting over it is a waste of time.

    So bickering over developments in civilization is most certainly a distraction, whether we’re talking about abortion or slavery.  Human society and laws will go back and forth on these kinds of subjects for years if they’re politicized, but human civilization will move forward and eventually find equilibrium, independent of the political process.  Then the courts and legislatures will move in to formalize that equilibrium with laws and opinions that will stand the test of time.  Always after equilibrium is reached, never before, which is why two separate periods of Republican rule have resulted in zero substantive changes to abortion policy.  Equilibrium has been reached with Roe v Wade, and that’s not going to change unless the whole of human civilization changes, and that won’t come from a bill or a simple vote.

    The reason these issues have become increasingly popular in the last several decades, to the point of dominating “political” discourse, is because there have been increasingly nefarious things going on in government in the last several decades that need to be covered up.  What a coup, to have the electors arguing over issues that no amount of arguing in the world can influence, while the politicians run government like a for-profit industry.  Not a coincidence that the culture war really heated up in the mid-70s when Buckley Valeo decided that money equals speech, and opened the door to mass legal bribery.  Keep people arguing over big, dramatic, emotional issues like abortion, and very few will invest the time and energy into examining what really goes on in Washington and the statehouses.  The media is complicit because the issues that distract, also enthrall, and keep people tuning in for the latest developments in a never-ending debate.  And the public eats it up.  They’ve even created little color-coded clubs to show their allegiances, feel a sense of community, and have an enemy to measure themselves against and fight with.  The culture war is a bizarre social phenomenon, and a distraction from the serious problems facing our country, and nothing more.  It has zero to do with politics.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2009 at 1248 hrs
    
    
    

18. Hmm…Generally, when an adult feels the need to swear is his obviously pre-meditated postings on blog entries, it not only shows a lack of control, it also demonstrates a desire for the public to realize that lack of control. Moreover, the decision to openly curse AND call people who voice their own opinions childish names…

    “Seriously?  If you can’t look at the MPS spending and NOT see waste, you are a fucking idiot.  Sorry.  The truth hurts.”

    and again…

    “Wait… I said that wrong.  If you CAN look at MPS spending and NOT see waste, you are a fucking idiot.

    There we go.  That’s better. “

    ...openly admits that the name-caller is not in a mature and sound enough state of mind to discuss these topics with much credibility.

    Only one of you takes the childish route.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 13, 2009 at 0009 hrs
    
    
    

19. I think your comment is idiotic Dorian.  People that are afraid of swear words, in my experience, are usually idiotic simpletons.  Swear words are just words.  There’s no reason we shouldn’t use them if they are the appropriate word to convey our meaning.  Adding “fucking” before “idiot” isn’t much different than adding an exclamation point.  It clearly tells us that the commenter thinks people who don’t see waste in MPS spending are more than just ordinary idiots.  If you can’t understand that, I think you need to get out in the real world a bit.  People who are offended by words are pussies.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 13, 2009 at 1227 hrs
    
    
    

20. Sorry “Jesusisallrightwithme” (great name by the way). Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with being offended and everything to do with finding better ways, (in other words, being more creative), to defeat you opponent. In fact, it’s the calling of names that really gets me. You say, “People who are offended by words are pussies”. Is that not meant to be offensive? Don’t worry it isn’t. I don’t find very much offensive, but I do find your name combined with your comments, along with Owen’s, to be hypocritical.

    I take from your name that you love Jesus, just as Owen claims he loves Jesus. What I interpret from both of your aggressive personalities and the ways you choose to express them, however, is not a love of what Jesus represents. Both of you love Jesus as one loves a celebrity: a physical (historical) being that you blindly claim to follow but barely understand. I’m wondering right now: What would Jesus do? Would he call those who disagree with him fucking idiots and pussies? I don’t recall that in the bible anywhere but please, feel free to correct me on that.

    I’m just looking for a little consistency with words and actions.
    Don’t get mad, now. Be a good Christian. Turn the other cheek.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 13, 2009 at 1747 hrs
    
    
    

21. I’m not sure why you would gather that I love Jesus from my name.  It clearly implies that I think he’s just alright with me(and doesn’t say either way whether I even think he was a real guy) and/or that I’m a Doobie Brothers fan.  I’ll add that I am most definately NOT a Christian.  Christians are unreasonable (by definition).

    Sometimes the word “fuck” or the word “pussy” is the most efficient way to convey the meaning you’re trying to get accross.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2009 at 0924 hrs
    
    
    

22. You disappoint me, JIJARWM.  I had popcorn and everything waiting for your response to being accused of being a Christian, and you were far too reasonable. 

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2009 at 1020 hrs
    
    
    

23. Sometimes the word “fuck” or the word “pussy” is the most efficient way to convey the meaning you’re trying to get accross.

    I was thinking that this would make a good column topic…

    Posted by Owen on January 14, 2009 at 1022 hrs
    
    
    

24. Wendy,
    When have I ever been unreasonable?  I’m all about reason.

    Owen,
    Feel free to quote me in your collumn.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2009 at 1126 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.