tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post110262254940306692..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Battling RhetoriciansUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1103086356706979182004-12-14T20:52:00.000-08:002004-12-14T20:52:00.000-08:00Talk to me about the Healthy Forests Initiative of...Talk to me about the Healthy Forests Initiative of President Bush. Isn't calling it "Healthy Forests" obfuscating the fact that it entails keeping the forests healthy with widespread logging? -Frontline posing a question to Frank Luntz<br /><br />Isn't it ironic that even Frontline fell for that "healthy forest business" in posing the question. Sort of like, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Shouldn't decisions like how to best preserve our national forests best be left to people who are experts in the field of forestry and biology? I object strenuously to people that are going to profit financially from logging makeing decisions that will affect every citizen negatively (in my opinion). Luntz is a millionare who lives on the outskirst of DC who likes to play video games and other juvenile stuff. From his size, he must know more about Healthy Choice tv dinners than he knows about healthy forests. He has an advanced degree in political hucksterism. Now that I'm through bitching, go chop down a 1,000 yr. old oak tree and put some pretty lights and ornaments on it for Christmas; throw the birds' nests in the trash. You'll be saving the "whole" frigin' forest in the process! Ho, Ho, Ho!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1102691736123696492004-12-10T07:15:00.000-08:002004-12-10T07:15:00.000-08:00Your mileage on "personalization" may vary, Scott,...Your mileage on "personalization" may vary, Scott, and I agree that "privatisation" may scare people off. I didn't detail my objection to the former term; here it is: "personalization" says *nothing* of substance about the direction of reforms. Social Security is *already* personalized, in that each person gets benefits tailored to his or her personal factors. The needed reforms will, to at least some extent, vest ownership of those benefits in recipients. That is much, much more than "personalization," and to say it is threatens to dilute the whole process. If the privatisers hang their hopes on that term, it will give statists an opening to tinker a wee bit and proclaim, "We have, as our colleages demanded, personalized Social Security (now you get to think up a cute nickname for your account!)" I care about rhetoric because it matters, and I fear that "personalization" threatens real reform.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1102624219152466962004-12-09T12:30:00.000-08:002004-12-09T12:30:00.000-08:00I don't know. "Personalizing social security" doe...I don't know. "Personalizing social security" does have a ring to it. I can see his point. People are terrified of privatization, especially the ones about to receive the benefits, and soundbytes matter.<br /><br />-scott cunningham (athens, ga)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com