While I do not recall a great deal of grumbling from conservatives about George Bush’s long vacations, I have to agree with the criticism of the First Family taking two separate planes to their vacation on Martha’s Vineyard — apparently to give the First Lady a few hours head start on the vacation. At a time of tremendous economic sacrifice, it seems pretty insensitive to take separate planes and motorcades at a cost of an estimated $100,000.
Michelle Obama and her daughters arrived around 2 pm Thursday on a U.S. government jet while President Obama is scheduled to leave a few hours later with the family dog Bo.
Last December, she was criticized for spending more than $100,000 to get an early start on a vacation to Hawaii. I know folks who have been trying to get work for years and struggling to support their families. I can only imagine what they are thinking when the First Family cannot spare a few hours to save tens of thousands of dollars. Even if the First Family does not get the terrible image left by such excess, one would hope that a staffer might raise a gentle objection to such a self-indulgent approach to the use of government aircraft.
I realize that the family could get to the beach today or use those few hours, but everyone is being asked to make a few sacrifices. This would seem a rather easy choice to take one plane.
Perhaps there is something not being reported here, but if so, it would be good for the White House to explain why it was necessary to send two different planes with the attending security and other staff.
Source: Daily Mail
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/president-michelle-obama-date-night_n_932298.html Much needed family time
Libs,
Skinheads held over Obama death plot 10/28/2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/28/us-usa-politics-plot-idUSTRE49Q7KJ20081027
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_assassination_threats
There’s something about painting a helicopter or bus polka dotted that just makes the whole stealth thing less believable. Nice poem though.
Gyges,
Excellent arguments and writing, thank you.
I can never figure out why libertarians stick around in society to complain about about their loss of individual liberties. Cake and eat it too problem I guess.
Kathleen Parker said: ” . . . thanks to Obama’s own rhetoric, we’re at least a purple nation. Lavender polka dots would have been better than a black mass . . . ”
Why is Obama’s bus so black?
Why won’t some other color do?
Why is Obama’s bus so black?
Why ain’t it purple, pink, or blue?
Why is Obama’s bus so black?
Why ain’t it some other hue?
Why won’t spots or dots or technicolor,
Why won’t some other color do?
Ekerya,
Ya know, if you’re going to ignore what I did say, and just make up your own version, I don’t see any reason why we should keep talking. You can make up my opinions on your own without any input from me.
For instance, did I say that the mafia would become a legitimate government? No. Did I say they wouldn’t have to change their tactics? No. In fact, I’d be very surprised if ANY criminal organization could become a government without changing. I’d also be very surprised if a religious institution could become a government without changing, for that matter I’d be surprised if anything that didn’t start as a government could become a government without changing. For that matter I didn’t even say they’d become a government, I said they’d become society.
As an example, of how society and government can be different things, and how people in a society don’t have to join a part of society to change it… let’s look at colonial India. I think we can both agree the government under British rule wasn’t legitimate, nor did it relate to the vast majority of Indian society. Gandhi didn’t go about trying to change the set up by joining the British government.
Also, if I eat some pizza, yes. If not, then no. It’s not a hard concept, if you enjoy some of the benefit (in this case a slice of the pizza) you should help pay for it, if you don’t then you shouldn’t.
Look, I’m probably not going to convince you of anything. So, let me tell you what will make me consider your basic assumptions as something other than unadulterated fantasy. Show me proof that there has evidence ONE society that existed without some form of government and laws.
That’s it. If you can do that I’ll apologize for telling you that your philosophy no basis in reality.
Otherwise, I’m done for now. It was an enjoyable conversation. Thank you.
Gyges,
“As to the Mafia analogy: Criminal organizations by their nature have to be a PART of the society, otherwise their actions wouldn’t be criminal. Members of the larger society have exercised their option to prohibit their behavior, thus exercising their right to try and change society. If the organization gains enough influence and power to BECOME society, well then the members of that society who don’t like the situation have to shift their tactics to try and change society”
So if enough people join the mafia they become a legitimate governing body even though they have not changed their actions at all? Not only that but the only recourse left to those who don’t like it is to also join the mafia and attempt to convince them to stop commiting crimes? Actions which have obviously garnered them enough popularity to attract a massive amount of new members. Seems doomed to failure. You are admitting that the government isnt right, its just popular and willing to use violence to get what it wants. Neither trait is compatable with freedom, mutual respect, and peaceful cooperation, which are the foundations of a functioning society.
You also forget a very important part of any functioning society, the productive class. The mafia or the government doesn’t produce anything, so there must be a group of people making something for them to be able to steal. What happens when this group decides their efforts aren’t worth it? When noone is producing anything who do you steal from?
“I mean, that would eliminate my ability to do most things. I couldn’t build a wall because that would limit where someone else could stand.”
Hmmm a dispute over the allocation of a scarce resource. Has noone taken time to figure out how to resolve these disputes besides violence? Oh wait, property rights. If there is a space which could allow for a wall to be built or for someone to stand, but not both, then whoever owns that property has the authority to decide how to make use of that resource. Thats how you resolve those conflicts. Your solution completely negates those rights because if the government is making the decision of what use to put it to, then it is the de facto owner.
Why is voluntary cooperation and mutual respect not a viable path to a functioning society? Because not everyone possesses those traits? That is entirely true but it in no way invalidates those principles because they can still function without every single person adhering to them.
“Even though I didn’t get to choose it, I still enjoy it’s benefits, and am obligated to abide by it’s rules.”
So if a pizza guy showed up at your house by mistake, is he still allowed to force you to pay him? I mean he has delicious pizza and thats a benefit you didnt ask for, why shouldnt he be allowed to collect his payment by force?
Ekerya,
I stuck to the questions I thought related to “why should I, or anyone else not particularly concerned about obama’s personal safety, have to foot the bill for his security?” I really only count one issue in your last post I didn’t address. So let me take care of that now
“You say this as if its some objective, universal truth. Yet if it is true, why is it that we don’t have a choice over whatever decisions you want to blanket with “every little aspect of our lives”, yet the people who came before us did? You seem to assume that their decisions are what bind us, and take away our decision making freedom, so in what fashion did they obtain freedom from previous decisions out of their influence?”
The population was small enough and skills generalized enough it would be possible for a human to live a life of utter isolation, removing themselves from any obligations to their tribe. I guess some small percentage of humanity could do that now, but the option isn’t available to everyone, like it was then. Also, the social structures were small enough for everybody to have a say.
As to the Mafia analogy: Criminal organizations by their nature have to be a PART of the society, otherwise their actions wouldn’t be criminal. Members of the larger society have exercised their option to prohibit their behavior, thus exercising their right to try and change society. If the organization gains enough influence and power to BECOME society, well then the members of that society who don’t like the situation have to shift their tactics to try and change society.
Once again, if you don’t like our current set up, I encourage you to work to change it.
I know the current set up isn’t perfect, but it’s at least workable. If the majority acts in a way that’s amoral, the minority has a chance to change it. Let’s say we take your idea and apply it(and correct me if I’m wrong): Everyone gets to decide what to do for themselves. Great.
Except that certain actions are impossible. I can’t decide I want to occupy the same space as a wall, I can’t decide I want to fly, etc. O.k., so we’re obviously limited to “everyone gets to decide what to do for themselves, within the laws of physics.”
Except that certain actions of mine will remove choices from others. If I kill somebody without their permission, I’ve taken away their choice. So, since it’s impossible for everyone to do everything they want, let’s work out a solution to maximize and normalize the number of choices available to each person. So we amend that to “everyone gets to decide what to do for themselves, within the laws of physics, except those choices which limits the choices of others.”
Except that’s no good either. I mean, that would eliminate my ability to do most things. I couldn’t build a wall because that would limit where someone else could stand. So, we need to set some sort of lower threshold of “limiting” that an action would have to meet before being forbidden. Let’s just loosely call that lower threshold “harm.” At this point we get into the need for a body that sets, interprets, and enforces those limits.
Hey look, we’ve got a government.
Of course that’s not what happened. What happened is we’re social animals, descended from other social animals. And all Social animals have a hierarchy. So as we as a species changed, so did our hierarchy, until we got rudimentary governments, and eventually those governments got less and less chimp like, and more and more human like.
So, until you come up with a solution that’s better at maximizing freedom, while minimizing harm, and (this is VERY important) working within the confines of human behavior and the physical universe, I’m going to keep supporting a societal setup that I don’t have complete control over, but that I do have SOME. Even though I didn’t get to choose it, I still enjoy it’s benefits, and am obligated to abide by it’s rules.
It’s the difference between increasing efficiency in the way we harness energy and trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Another factor that no one has brought up: Michelle and the kids are definitely on vacation. The president, even when on vacation, is always on duty. If something horrible happened, and the president had to be whisked away to a secure location under a mountain in Colorado, should his wife and kids be locked away with him?
As for no middle-class families taking separate planes for the sake of security, my husband’s family did exactly that. When they took vacations with the extended family, the parents flew in one plane, while the daughter flew in another plane with her grandparents and uncle. That way, no accident or act of terrorism could get them all.
Gyges,
You ignored most of my questions but ill address the one you did answer. Suppose I dislike the actions of the mafia. Do I have any course of action available to me other than joining their ranks and convincing them not to commit crimes?
Id suggest answering the question instead of trying to convince me the government’s actions are somehow different. Its still an armed gang demanding payment for “protection” and carrying out violence against those who resist. You can protest all you want that the government has “consent of the governed” and all that other social contract nonsense, but the fact remains that not only do any election results rest on the decisions of a fraction of the population, but that a show of hands cannot make an immoral action moral, no matter how many people agree.
I tend to think security is at least part of it. The easiest way to cut govt waste would be to eliminate most of the measures that have been imposed by the various security services. I spent enough time in federal service to see these and to see how security consultants’ advice gets in the way of doing work. I used to take periodic training for foreign travel and the advice was to basically never go anywhere on your own. Given that I was doing public health work, and the best way to collect information is to go out without your local minders, this was simply ridiculous. The security in federal facilities is mostly cosmetic–thefts, violent spouses, etc. remain problems. I had a govt laptop nicked a short time after moving into a new “secure” building. We’d had fewer problems in the previous space we had shared with commercial tenants.
Ekerya,
No, it wasn’t “Love it or leave it” it was “love it, feel apathetic about it, hate it and don’t do anything about it, work to change it, or leave it.” See, I’m just trying to get you to realistically look at your options. I don’t like that my tax dollars go towards paying for wars. So I actively try to get those wars to end. Same with several other areas of spending. (By the way, as it stands now government money can’t go towards abortions, so that’s not really a problem). Until those policies change, or I stop enjoying the benefits of living in this particular society, I’m obligated to pay all my taxes, not just the taxes that fund policies I support.
The past and the present AREN’T the two options. There’s one option, the present. That’s my point. Your whole philosophy is based on “wouldn’t it be nice if…” followed by a bunch of things that couldn’t happen. Which is why I gave you Candide’s advice.
Everyone else,
This whole discussion seemed familiar…
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/bos-private-plane/
Remember this?
Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation
It’s not about the number of days on vacation. (We all know that work can be performed while on vacation.) It’s about where the vacation is, and the costs associated with taking that vacation. It becomes even more of a problem when the country is involved in such economic hardship.
Nal, Any source for using two planes as SOP? You wouldn’t just make that up, would you?
Safety? If safety is a major concern; stay home! Air Force One is probably the most protected flight ever to hit the skies. Not only does it have escorts, it has onboard countermeasures.
The problem here is that most Americans can see that the Obama’s are putting their luxurious vacations on the American’s credit cards.
Instead of looking at the number of days on vacation, somebody should be looking at the cost of the vacations. I have no doubt that the Obama vacations have cost the taxpayers much more than the Bush vacations. That’s probably why they want people to look at the number of days instead of the costs involved.
90% of Bush’s ‘vacations’ were to Camp David or to Crawford, TX…. and I don’t ever recall Laura Bush taking a separate plane – and ummmm they had children, no? I do not begrudge the Obama’s some time off – it’s their ‘do as I say and not as I do’ attitude that just sucks. Noblesse Oblige..
“The worst possible arrangement of all would be where not alone isolated individuals, but a whole class of citizens should take pride in remaining motionless in the midst of the general movement, and should consume the best part of the product without bearing any part in its production. Such a class is surely estranged to the nation by its indolence.
The noble order is not less estranged from the generality of us by its civil and political prerogatives.
(…)
Is it not evident that the noble order has privileges and expenditures which it dares to call its rights, but which are apart from the rights of the great body of citizens? It departs there from the common law. So its civil rights make of it an isolated people in the midst of the great nation. This is truly imperium in imperia.”
~Abbé Sieyès, What is the Third Estate? (1789)
I must confess that I’m always a little surprised when the good professor uses the Daily Mail as if they where a reliable source.
They have a political agenda and they are much closer to the tabloid.end of the spectrum than on the serious newspaper end.
The Daily Mail is basically a mixture of FOX News and those papers running stories about Elvis sightings and Alien abductions.
Gyges,
“If you disagree strongly with the set up, you have two choices. You can leave (don’t know where you’d go that has a different set up, but that’s not really my problem), or you could try and convince enough people that elected officials don’t need\deserve protection to create change. That’s it.”
So its just not even a possibility to imagine a society where everyone is responsible for their own safety? Without ripping off the mad max movie, the one before the one with tina turner in it.
Seriously though, the entire “love it or leave it” argument rests on the premise that the government owns the territory it claims and its authority is inescapable without leaving the property. This argument however rests on property rights because without them the government’s argument is “We own it because we say we do”. Or if you want to drop the whole charade completely and act like adults we can say the government’s case is “Me and the thousands of men ive armed and trained to kill say I own it”. Yet even its property rights case is extremely suspect. Its assertion that by merely existing it keeps dangers away that you would have otherwise faced, will never be substantiated because it never allows anyone the option not to purchase their services. If it did we could observe what happens to those who do not patronize their services and from that observation come to a much closer appraisal of their real value. Why not let people opt out? Their swift and assuredly poetic deaths would stand as a stark warning of government inaction and would silence all critics.
“Because you live in a country, and you benefit from it’s social structures. That means you have to help pay for them, even those you don’t use\agree with. ”
Even wars? What about abortion? If I think abortion is wrong, what can you really say to me to get me to see the benefit of having to fund it against my wishes? On the other hand, lets say we outlaw it nationwide. Are you going to feel good knowing your tax dollars are being spent to make sure they aren’t happening?
“We were both born several thousand years to late to get to decide every little aspect of our lives.”
You say this as if its some objective, universal truth. Yet if it is true, why is it that we don’t have a choice over whatever decisions you want to blanket with “every little aspect of our lives”, yet the people who came before us did? You seem to assume that their decisions are what bind us, and take away our decision making freedom, so in what fashion did they obtain freedom from previous decisions out of their influence?
“That may or may not be fair, but personally, given the choice, I’d rather live now and have to deal with all the crap that goes with it then live back then and have to deal with all that crap”
Given only the past and present those are bleak options. Why isnt the future an alternative? Were going to end up there anyway?