And now he's going on about how actually funding family planning is the federal government regulating the amount of children we can all have.
No, Chris. If the government wanted to regulate the amount of children we could have, birth control would be mandated, not simply available. The government was actually doing something truly democratic, and allowing even more freedom to choose whether or not a woman (or a couple) wanted kids, or if they wanted more kids, or if they wanted kids some time in the future but not right now. The choice part of family planning is what is missing from China's one child policy, and is what would be missing if this were actually a government program aimed at regulating who could have kids and when.
11 comments:
Normally I don't mind Chris Matthews, but I couldn't believe he was actually taking this stance on the issue. Clearly, more funding for family planning will force people to use contraception against their wills. After all, that's how they're doing it in China, right? It just seems so ridiculous!
I don't even like Chris Matthews, but you're totally distorting what he said. He was responding to Rob Wexler's comment that family planning "saves money." I also took that to mean that the Obama administration is trying to, uh, save money by reducing the number of preganacies in the United States.
If the Obama administration wants to claim that its spending priorities aren't ideologically motivated -- and pretend that it's pushing family planning simply to save money in times of economic hardship -- then I think Matthew's criticism is absolutely fair.
Obama had the contraception funding PULLED from the bill because he knows that it has nothing to do with economic stimulous.
*stimulus : ) Pbbbbbt.
"I don't even like Chris Matthews, but you're totally distorting what he said. He was responding to Rob Wexler's comment that family planning "saves money.""
Did he or did he not mention China? There may be a valid criticism of having money reserved for family planning in the stimulus bill. But hyperbolic comparisons to a nation that actively regulates how many children a family can have, that does not allow for a freedom of choice that is inherently present in funding for family planning, is not a valid criticism. It is a "sexier" argument, it is a more dramatic argument, but it is not a valid one.
"I also took that to mean that the Obama administration is trying to, uh, save money by reducing the number of preganacies in the United States."
But even if they are adding that in there as an attempt to reduce the number of pregnancies in the US, the administration is not forcing women to not have children. Which is what Matthews' craziness suggests. As John says,
"Clearly, more funding for family planning will force people to use contraception against their wills."
You’re right – Matthews was using a bit of hyperbole to make his point. He clearly wasn’t aiming to make a literal comparison between China and the United States. So, sure, it was a clumsy analogy. That shouldn’t undermine want I think was his very legitimate criticism of the stimulus bill.
And extrapolating from this brief exchange that Matthews is a “jackass” who knows little about history or logic and shouldn’t be allowed on the air seems to me a much bigger bit of hyperbole.
"Matthews was using a bit of hyperbole to make his point. He clearly wasn’t aiming to make a literal comparison between China and the United States. So, sure, it was a clumsy analogy. That shouldn’t undermine want I think was his very legitimate criticism of the stimulus bill."
Yes, it should. Because it disrupts the actual point - that being that family planning does not directly stimulate the economy - and brings in a completely different argument, that being the government is looking to control your (or your wife's, or your daughter's, or your sister's, or your mother's) womb. Two completely different arguments, where one deserves to get made (even if I do disagree with it on one level) and the other deserves to be ridiculed. Especially with the Obama=socialist/communist talk that has come up in the past.
But really, it should be ridiculed because it makes a mockery of an actual critique and because it conflates democratic choice with a totalitarian regime.
"Matthews is a “jackass” who knows little about history or logic and shouldn’t be allowed on the air seems to me a much bigger bit of hyperbole."
1) This is a blog, wherein I express my opinions to the 5 or so people who read it regularly. I'm not being paid, and I express my opinion, which - due to not being paid and not being broadcast and watched by millions while on network television - means I'm held to a slightly lower standard. Kind of like why people need to use actual peer-reviewed sources when writing papers instead of wikipedia.
2) Matthews is a jackass. I could also throw in "sexist" as well, but I don't think sexism played as big a part in his China comment as jackassery did. This is just one example of his jackass nature. Not calling out Dick Armey and his crappy comment to Joan Walsh is another - though that one was also sexist.
3) I don't think calling Matthews a jackass and saying that he needs to learn the logic is anywhere near as hyperbolic as suggesting that the United States government is looking to regulate women's wombs and control the production of babies. Maybe I'm way off-base, but I think what Matthews was analogizing is much more problematic in terms of misrepresentation and misinformation than saying that the guy needs to get a bit more educating before he rakes in the big bucks.
"I don't even like Chris Matthews, but you're totally distorting what he said."
Here's the other thing, and something that just occurred to me as what may be hanging you up here. I'm not distorting what he said, because I'm not touching his actual valid argument over whether or not family planning spending could be or should be considered part of an economic stimulus package. I'm critiquing a parallel issue Matthews brought up in conjunction with that separate part. This isn't a post about anything other than his comparison between China's family planning and this proposed family planning provision. I'm not distorting what he said, because he did compare Obama's plan with China's, and that was the part that offended me and the part that was wholly ridiculous.
No, you're distorting what he said. Wexler (and Nancy Pelosi) DID argue that "family planning, if done correctly, saves the [federal government] an enormous amount of money." What does that mean? If done correctly?
I also take that to mean that the federal government is trying to save money by reducing the number of pregnancies in the United States. If Democrats are trying to sell this as an economic argument - rather than an ideological one - then Matthews has a point. That DOES "sound a little like China."
Of course there's a difference between choice and compulsion. That's why Matthew's analogy is clumsy. But saying "I don't know, that sounds a little like China" isn't the same as making an out-and-out comparison.
Matthews’s real point, which you're ignoring, is: "Why should the government have a policy of reducing the number of births? . . . Why are we talking about family planning as an economic stimulus?" That seems like a really good question to me.
Again, you taking from this that Matthews is a "jackass" who knows little about history or logic is totally unfair. To go on to suggest that he's "sexist" is beyond the pale.
News anchors use hyperbole all the time. Don't you think it's a bit hyperbolic for Keith Olbermann to consistently call Bill O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World"? I
If you held every news anchor to the ridiculous standard that you've set up for Matthews - that every anchor who makes a faulty offhand comparison should be kicked off the air - there would be no more news.
"No, you're distorting what he said."
No, I'm not. I'm critiquing one thing he said, which is the one thing I found highly offensive and ridiculous. I didn't say anything about his actual valid point, because that - although I disagree with it - didn't make me roll my eyes so hard they almost fell out of my head.
"Again, you taking from this that Matthews is a "jackass" who knows little about history or logic is totally unfair. To go on to suggest that he's "sexist" is beyond the pale."
Again, this particular incident that Matthews is a jackass; I knew that already, which is why the title of this post is "still a jackass" - as in, he has not changed. There are a long list of complaints against Matthews that places him in the jackass category; this is just one that reinforces that placement.
And again, I didn't say he was sexist in this incident, but that - just like his jackassery - he has made sexist comments in the past - which also contributes to his placement as a jackass independent of this incident.
"Matthews’s real point, which you're ignoring, is: "Why should the government have a policy of reducing the number of births? . . . Why are we talking about family planning as an economic stimulus?" That seems like a really good question to me."
And my point, which you're ignoring, is that this post isn't about that issue. This post is about a comparison Matthews made between the US and China in regards to our family planning policies. You may disagree with my highlighting that comparison, as you would rather focus on something else or because you don't feel as though this is an important part of Matthews' overall persona or point. But just because you don't think his "clumsy" analogy isn't something to focus on doesn't mean that I agree.
"Wexler (and Nancy Pelosi) DID argue that "family planning, if done correctly, saves the [federal government] an enormous amount of money." What does that mean? If done correctly?"
I would think it is the difference an unplanned pregnancy makes to the financial stability of a woman (or couple) who are not prepared as of yet for the costs and commitments of a child - or whose costs and commitments prevents them from gaining a higher education or a better paying job at whatever point in their life. If those people had access to more family planning, if they were able to utilize birth control and did not have that baby before they were financially prepared for it, then the cost to the overall system as well that as particular family would be lessened. If 100 girls manage to finish college and get better jobs than they would have if they'd had babies at 19 and then got stuck working minimum wage for most of their lives, living on food stamps and having their child in the state healthcare system, then it would be better for the system and better for that family as well. That is what I took Wexler (and Pelosi) to mean. Long term economic planning in terms of family planning.
And then there's the separate issue where while adequate family planning may decrease birthrates in the short term (something Matthews is worried about), there are studies that suggest that families who were able to plan for children when they were more economically viable actually have more children. I'll have to dig up the article later, as I'm covertly responding at work, but there's that part of it as well.
I'm arguing two things:
1) It's silly to harp on a clumsy, offhand reference, while ignoring Matthews's overall point, and
2) His comparison wasn't nearly as outrageous or categorical as you claim, especially since it was highly qualified (he said "a little bit like China") and he didn't extend the comparison beyond that one remark. He then when on to make his actual point, which was very legitimate. He clearly was not arguing that the United States is equivalent to China in terms of family planning.
I honestly don't understand how you could find such a peripheral comment "highly offensive." Do you really think Matthews is trying to convince people that the U.S. is on par with China? Can't we just give Matthews the benefit of the doubt and assume that he sometimes makes his points poorly? Does this comments really call for moral outrage?
"1) It's silly to harp on a clumsy, offhand reference, while ignoring Matthews's overall point"
I was annoyed by it, so I blogged about it - and I felt it detracted from his overall point, which made it easy to harp on. Also, I don't know if you've noticed but I tend to harp on things. Just two posts ago I harped on Keith Olbermann's crappy metaphor usage.
And I was able to blog about it wholly separate from his overall point because it was a separate issue. His point may be valid - this comparison wasn't.
"2) His comparison wasn't nearly as outrageous or categorical as you claim, especially since it was highly qualified (he said "a little bit like China") and he didn't extend the comparison beyond that one remark."
That doesn't stop me from finding the remark or the comparison ridiculous and a moment of 'gah'ness. I found it outrageous. I blogged about it.
And maybe we could have given Chris Matthews the benefit of the doubt (which I did, by not blogging about the China thing immediately), if he had not followed up the China comment a couple of days later with: Maybe people don't like Washington, which has done such a bang-up job regulating the sharpies on Wall Street, to decide it's now time to regulate the number of kids people might be in the mood for.
That right there? Misinformation, and misinformation that harkens back to his comparison between the US and China.
Post a Comment