Matters of Opinion 02/10/10

By Travis on February 11, 2010

Content: First Lady Michelle Obama and her campaign against obesity, yet ANOTHER tax on cigarettes being suggested, Charlie Wilson’s death, and much much more

Guests: John Norris and Kurt Waywood

Posted in Shows

6 responses to “Matters of Opinion 02/10/10”

nate
March 6, 2010 at 10:33 am | Permalink

stop using “gay” as a derogatory term & saying “faggot,” it makes you sound like a bigotted moron.
also, your friend is really sensible. if a tax can help someone, he isn’t upset about it. why are you so upset? for the sake of argument, say that an extra tax will do good for the people, would you support that tax?

lastly, how do you abuse food stamps? & if such an abuse is a case of special exception, why is it worth mentioning?
Travis
March 6, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

Hey there Nate, long time not talk (I still need to get you on the show, I had almost forgotten about it). First, if I offended you by my use of the words “faggot” and “gay”…well, I’d like to say I’m sorry, but I’m not. While I’m sure you’ve noticed I don’t typically use those two particular expressions, I’m sure you also noticed they weren’t used in a deragatory sense: I didn’t say “I hate faggots.” nor did I say “Gays are disgusting”. What I did was use the terms in a joking manner. Is it perhaps of the best taste? Of course not. However I’m not a bigotted moron (you know Don, feel free to ask him if I hate gays, his answer will be the same as mine. Also, for a conservatie Republican, I have a very moderate view regarding gay marriage and have mentioned in many posts my thoughts on both gay marriage and don’t ask don’t tell), and guess what? People in the real world use terms that are sometimes considered offensive. “Gay” and “faggot” have become slang terms that are used daily. I don’t typically use the terms in, say, a professional setting, but three guys shooting the shit talking about politics and drinking beer? Yeah, sometimes the terms are used in conversation. Quite being so damn PC, I’ve used the term in front of gay men before with out getting a lecture like that. From now on, when you are listening to the recording, I’ll say “ear muffs” before I use a word or term that you may find offensive. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that I am ANTI tax. SOME form of taxation is of course needed. The argument from my end is, how much will that extra tax do? The money works through a beauracacy paying everybody that handles the money on the way down. Extra programs that are well intentiond too often are simply rewarding poor decisions and don’t force those people to make a change in their living standards, life style, etc. So yes, I do have a problem with adding new taxes with out really thinking about it, and also with adding new programs with out taking the time to find out if that program is really necessary or not. One abuses food stamps (and I’m pretty sure I mentioned this on the show) by selling stamps to another individual for cash. Since there are restrictions to what you can buy on food stamps (i.e. no beer, cigarettes, or drugs) people would rather have the cash. I’m not sure where you got the “special exception” line from, since I know several people at work that do this, but if I misspoke please, let me know.
nate
March 6, 2010 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

if you support gay rights and find the hatred and discrimination that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered people face in the world & in america reprehensible, you simply should not use words that are reflective of such a contemptible stage in american history, & a climate that is still disinterested and insensitive to the problems the lgbt community face (everyday in america). words have strong historical connotation: we, as a society, tend to refrain from causally using the term “nigger” because it represents a collective shame and pain we all feel towards a stain in our history. the use of the term “faggot” is not far removed, it is just that our society has not fully recognized the oppression that the lgbt community face in america. personally, i support gay rights and feel for the struggle of the lgbt community, thus i fully recognize the shame & pain associated with using “gay” to mean “bad” (reflective of a society so uncaring and or hateful towards homosexuality) and calling people “faggots” when “shooting the shit.” it doesn’t make any sense. & however you feel or whatever you believe is kind irrelavent to how communication works: you are podcasting publicilly on the internet. fundementally, you sound like a moron that doesn’t care about the lgbt struggle or, at worst, a homophobic jerk. we do not all know the content of your mind, & all we can fully extrapolate is that you are careless in the way that you speak.

it’s illegal to sell stamps for cash. so, it’s surely an abuse, but it is not systemic. fewer & fewer programs will suffer these problems as fewer and fewer utilize actual stamps (e.g. the use of electronic cards, etc.). &, even still, your evidence is purely anecdotal. & as the eligibility for services is so restrictive, it’s even more difficult to imagine how it is abused. that is to say, only those living in poverty are eligible to receive benefits (& as those families cannot afford food, it’s important that they use their benefits appropriately). lastly, as i had mentioned, what is the point of pointing out these abuses? do you believe that these disqualify the purpose of the program or do you believe the program should be reformed in order to insure a more perfect system?

concerning social welfare: a vast majority of programs include significant restrictions on the amount of subsidy and the duration of enrollement if the recipient is not working. so, without work, many of the benefits are just too temporary, & often, too litte. still, do you have any statistics, any evidence, to suggest that welfare incentives nonemployment? do you have any evisdence to demonstrate that welfare “rewards poor decisions” or that it does not “force people to make a change.” you seem to suggest that poverty is more a result of choice & not classism, racism, poor circumstances, poor economy, etc. please provide evidence of such. please explain how sick, uneducated, crime inflicted, and poverty stricken families should be expected to change their “living standards.”
Travis
March 6, 2010 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

actually, nate, in my opinion, using those terms discussed isn’t nearly as bad as using the “n” word. You’re right, I do a radio show, and those that would jump on and only listen to this one episode and not the other episodes or the other articles would not understand that I’m not a homophobe. Or, even better, if they were to jump to that conclusion: they would just stop listening. Because I don’t jump to those conclusions. If I heard that exact same recording, I wouldn’t jump to conclusions at all, but would find out for sure.

The second and third points are completely related, also. The fact that it happens at all is completely unacceptable, and yes, I use many of my own life experiences combined with common sense. I’ve been on unemployment (not that long ago), and the way that it is set up just doesn not work. There is no way to prove that a person is looking for work, and (yes, at least a dozen people I know) many people stay on unempoyment for over a year and don’t look for jobs but rather sell drugs and cheat the system. It is WAY to easy to do it, but since it is a government program, it is also very difficult to shore up those problems. THAT is why I balk at new measures: because government isn’t good at handling welfare programs (welfare used loosely here, i.e., Medicaid, Medicare, S.S., actual welfare, and unemployment). They are understaffed, and it would be very difficult to actually take care of all of these problems (but we still should try). Common sense tells you this: people will take advantage of a good deal, and government programs are great deals. Yes, I think it makes people fall into a behaviour pattern that should be stopped through a number of different means (which, when I get you on the show I’ll go over in more detail). Yes, some people actually NEED the help, and then don’t abuse the help. Those people I have no problem with.
Don S
March 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

Hey Travis, I think you’re making a fine point regarding social welfare, but you failed to answer Nate’s question. If you think the current system is broken, what is the alternative? Should welfare be abolished or reformed? If reformed, then what type of reforms? How can you make certain no one will abuse the system? Isn’t it impossible to reach an absolute? All the while, you’re arguing under the assumption that welfare causes laziness and you still haven’t introduced any statistics to back that up. And how does everything you’re saying fall under “common sense”? You should replace it with “in my very biased opinion.”
Again, your ideas aren’t bad, I just think your argument needs more support.
Travis
March 7, 2010 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

I’ve went over several reform ideas on past shows, and you know that I wouldn’t abolish welfare completely. I’ve done quite a bit of research and at one point could rattle off stats off the top of my head, but I’ll have to try and find my notes. This may be the perfect opportunity to do a “rant” show again. Nate, Don, keep your eyes and ears open, I’ll record one this week. My very biased opinion? Come now, Mr. Sjoerdsma! I never claim to not have a bias, but I do claim that I am not NEARLY as biased as many that have similar shows, and on different topics can be very reasonable. In fact, my ideas for this one I find very reasonable compared to “elimate them all”, like some others on teh right may say.