I just came down hard publicly on an old aquaintence who is a strong footsoldier for St. Baldricks

[Ed Suspicious]

organization which is a charity that supports cancer research. She posts under a facebook psuedonym that combines her real name and the St. Baldricks name.



This image was posted and had a few likes under it. I have seen this type of libertarian moralism posted by her before and I don't think she fully considers it.

http://www.cancer.gov/canc.../factsheet/NCI/research-funding This one is also taken from you at gunpoint, or at least it is taken under the same threat of it as Penn's hyperbolic crap argument would suggest that funding for social supports for the indigent are taken, Is that O.K.?

Do the private sector and charity do enough to cover the costs of cancer research? Or is it really something along the lines of "if you get cancer, not my problem?"

I would bet you would say cancer is a real public health problem and without government funding cancer research would be nearly sunk.

4.8 billion per year for just this one national agency and doesn't count the money pumped into research by the CDC, DOD, state and local governments. Charity and philanthropy make up a minuscule portion of our yearly spend on cancer.

Look, you don't think poor people deserve a spot at the spigot of public spending, I get it, but if I said cancer research doesn't deserve a spot next to those afflicted by poverty, my guess is you wouldn't be so willing to accept my dismissal of a cause you put your blood, sweat, and tears into. A cause you passionately fight for (I see the good work you do so I know how much that means to you). I am anti-poverty.

I am anti-homeless. I feel our system set the conditions for a given amount of people to fail. I feel we ought to, at a pretty small cost in the grand scheme of things, be compassionate enough in our spending policy to give them a leg up. Cancer research needs a leg up. Homeless people need a leg up.

Compassion through public policy is a real thing. But, right, Penn is a libertarian, a realist, no doubt, who feels the only function of government should be enforcement of contract law and national defense, otherwise it's every man for himself. That's a dog eat dog world.

I reject that paradigm.

I reject that angrily.

Oh, yeah. I don't give a rats ass about "moral credit," I care about helping to fix the ills of our society.

Then went on to say.

"In 2011, the National Cancer Institute budget was $5.196 billion. Together, all childhood cancers received only
3.7% of that." This is from the St. Baldricks press kit. They recognize their role as that of "gap filler." St. Baldricks raised just under $35,000,000, fantastic, but it is about .007% of the current government spend. If you believe in the work your organization does . . . if you believe it is important, and I believe you do, you need to admit that your cause would be next to hopeless without the money coerced at "gunpoint" from the U.S. citizens by your government.

I love what you're working for, (name removed), and your passion energizes me every time I see a St. B's or cancer related post from you, I wouldn't waste my breath if I didn't. That's why t pains me to see you post this garbage under the St. Baldricks heading. It pains me to see you, perhaps unwittingly, making an argument against you're cause's interest.

Don't believe me, ask the leadership at St. B's. Ask them if you should be arguing against compassionate public spending policy. Ask them if you should be arguing against it in their name.

I know that I probably should have done this privately, but I thought the public lashing was deserved, and would help to get others to consider the idiocy of this kind of crap in the future, or at least to finally have to consider the little liberal attack dog that it might bring out if they did post such idiotic crap. Do you think I said anything out of line or that was mistaken or misleading? Was this over the top and attack-dog-like? Are there any holes in my argument or am I making any mistaken assumptions?

Thoughts?

[Ed Suspicious]

1. Maybe I should ask, by using the public call-out, do I simply look like a d-bag or is the effect one

that actually serves the interest of challenging mindless acquiescence to libertarian ideals?

[woodsprite]

3. I think your reply read very well. If her message was to the public

or a larger group of friends, you had every right to post your reply to the same viewing audience.

I did the same with my MIL. One of her 'friends' got pissy with me and sent me an email saying never to send him anything else. I told him I was only replying to the people my MIL chainmailed. If he didn't want to receive my replies, take it up with her. The chain mail that finally tipped me over the edge (rather than just delete and ignore) was about ACA and filled with Fox News lies, which I gladly used bullet points and links to mainstream articles, and in some cases CNN and Fox articles, to refute everything listed.

[Ed Suspicious]

4. Thank you. It enrages me. these are the same people who say they are so sick of the political, then

they post the vilest, most wrongheaded, political stuff. The only time they hate politics is when they're taken to task on it. I can't understand how people can think that anything of real social significance can be done without the aid of government. It would be impossible without the aid of government. They just don't think deeply enough about it, and people like Penn, who are financially secure and have not a monetary care in the world, they do think about it, and they ought to be ashamed at the self-serving conclusions at which they arrive.

[Wounded Bear]

2. I used to like his show "Bullshit" for a while...

Then I started to notice the RW libertarian slant on it and tuned it out.

Penn's a RW asshole.