Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."



  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?





  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« The Best Photos . . . | Main | The Nanny State? »

Comments

realpc

Never believe anything without first hearing the context. The only insensitive thing in that quote is not wanting government provided health care -- that's really easy to say when you're rich and don't have to worry about it. Other than that, he is being surprisingly fair and open-minded.

But some people just love keeping the left-right war going, even if it means distorting and taking things out of context.

realpc

Oh actually I just read more of it and he did make the statement "I hope he fails," and then elaborated. He seems to think Obama is a socialist, which is ridiculous. And he seems to not have noticed the Bush administration's huge socialist bank bailouts.

Well I never pay attention to Rush Limbaugh and his mindless ideological ravings.

amba

No, he said IF his program is socialism, I hope he fails.

Nick

You're right, Rush seems to have been taken out of context. Not to take things off track, but I'm curious...

If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it. Because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated or provided.

Is this really the argument against nationalized health care? I don't listen to him or any other conservative talkers, so I don't know if this is the standard line or not. If it is, it just strikes me as utterly ridiculous... the slippery slope? Nationalized health care leads to nationalized *everything*? Who believes that?

Ron

Well, Nick, since health care is such a huge piece of our economy anyway, I could see a "slippery slope" argument being made. I'm not sure if it's right, but I can understand why Rush would say that.

Outis

RealPC, Rush was no fan of the bank bailouts, or hasn't been in recent weeks. Don't assume that because Rush is conservative he's a Republican first and foremost. He first made a name for himself bashing President George H. W. Bush for not being a true conservative.

Nick wrote: Nationalized health care leads to nationalized *everything*? Who believes that?

Healthcare has been increasingly socialized since 1965. Eventually the tipping point will be reached and it will be de facto 100% socialized, if not de jure. Healthcare makes up something like 20% of the economy, and that percentage keeps on growing.

Additionally we're in the process of nationalizing the financial markets. We're well down the path towards outright socialism. Most people haven't noticed because healthcare has been socialized incrementally. Finance is complicated enough, especially at the highest levels, that actions being taken now are largely unnoticed in a day to day sense. Really, how many people can tell from their day to day lives that the government now essentially owns AIG, Fannie and Freddie?

The Federal government already takes up 20% of the GDP. (That was before all the bailouts started last Spring, so that understates the percentage.) State and local governments make up another 5-10% if memory serves. (I'd be happy to be corrected, but am too lazy to look up the numbers.) At some point in the not too distant future the government will take up more than 50% of the GDP. How much does the government need to control before we're socialized?

People will endure any conditions if those conditions are doen incrementally, or if they're completely out of site.

Most Floridians of 40 years ago would object to what has happened to our state - but all this wasn't done over night. I left Orlando for eight years starting in 1995. When I returned I hardly recognized the place. My friends who hadn't left knew changes had been made, but it didn't strike them as a big deal. Hell, even some of the streets had been moved, and they didn't notice!

The Clinton Administration was complicit is torture that's far worse than water-boarding. But they made sure it was done by foreign governments at their behest, and not done here. So no one noticed until the Bush Administration started using some lesser methods directly. Out of sight, out of mind.

People will accept and endure anything so long as they aren't forced to notice what's happening.

Outis

that's really easy to say when you're rich and don't have to worry about it.

Rush hasn't always been rich. I believe he's said he's been flat broke twice in his life. He seems to have a better grasp on that situation than people like Obama, Bush, etc.

Donna B.

I do not care what Rush says one way or another. I've been told sometimes that I obviously got some idea from Rush but that can't be true.

The last time I listened to him was when he made fun of 11 (12?) year old Chelsea Clinton.

Nick

Outis: I see the (temporary, if it goes as planned) nationalization of the financial sector taking place. But I don't see how there's any *causal* relationship between that and the health care sector. Rush seems to be saying that allowing national health care will somehow give us permission to nationalize whatever we want. It seems that we're taking steps with the banks irrespective of health care or anything else.

As for the incremental socialization of health care that's already taken place, it may not surprise you that I'm all in favor of that and more, not only because it's unconscionable that people go bankrupt over medical bills, but because I think universal coverage will actually bring *down* costs, perhaps stabilizing or reducing the 20% figure you cite.

realpc

"People will endure any conditions if those conditions are doen incrementally"

That's how you can boil a frog alive -- as long as the water temperature increases gradually he won't jump out of the pot. True, supposedly, and of us also.

We are on our merry gradual way to totalitarianism.

amba

real --

I have often used that as a metaphor for my own situation, and then one day somebody told me it's not true. In fact, the frog jumps out.

So take heart.

Outis

As for the incremental socialization of health care that's already taken place, it may not surprise you that I'm all in favor of that and more, not only because it's unconscionable that people go bankrupt over medical bills, but because I think universal coverage will actually bring *down* costs, perhaps stabilizing or reducing the 20% figure you cite.

And once you give the government absolute authority in this matter, you will be entirely reliant upon them for your health care.

As for the reductions in cost - Hpow is that going to happen? What has the government ever done cheaply? How are you going to increase healthcare to 45 million people without causing (even more) shortages in the healthcare system?

45/(300 - 45) = 0.1765

So where are you going to magically get the 17.65% more hospitals, nurses, doctors, and the rest? Can your savings offset that, even if you find these additional resources?

Outis

I have often used that as a metaphor for my own situation, and then one day somebody told me it's not true. In fact, the frog jumps out.

So take heart.

Frogs are smarter than people, so I think pessimism is still warranted. People can rationalize anything, including sitting in hot water. A frog just notices the heat and jumps out. A human will convince himselve it's just a hot tub, and cook.

Simon

So much of what is wrong in the world would be eliminated if people insisted on seeing the source material rather than relying on third party descriptions of it. :)

Melinda

I hope the frog has insurance.

amba

Simon, I do that as a fact checker as a matter of course; why would I not do it as a blogger? Think I'll take a vow.

Melinda: this frog does. :)

Simon

Oh, I didn't mean that as a criticism of you, Amba! You did go to the source. :)

Tom Strong

True, supposedly, and of us also.

Actually, not true

Tom Strong

As for Rush, I don't really care what he says one way or another. That said, the claim he's been taken out of context is silly. In addition to the quoted interview, this is what he said on his own radio show.

Rush is a media personality; he makes money by making headlines, which means saying outrageous things. He did that here, as he's done many times before. He created exactly the effect he wanted to create.

amba

He's still just saying, "I presume he's a liberal and I want all liberals to fail." Nothing new there.

That said, Rush and his imitators may go down in infamy for having made political opposition into a blood sport and a circus -- rather than a civic responsibility -- and for having profited handsomely by cultivating the kudzu-like crop of people's resentments. True, they are the reincarnation of earlier precedents, but the mass media give them more rapid reach and power than the printers of broadsides and handbills.

Tom Strong

Sure, and that's precisely why I don't want to give him any of my attention if I can avoid it (I regret doing so even as I write it).

No one is more at fault for taking simple, plain statements out of context, and profiting off of that, than Rush Limbaugh and his league of imitators.

Tom Strong

ack, write this

amba

Cultivating the crop of people's resentments and brewing moonshine from it, which they sell back to the same people to intoxicate them. They've cultivated resentment the way some have cultivated powerful new hydroponic strains of marijiuana.

Maybe they've performed a service if, and only if, there's a substantive and cosntructive form of conservatism for the people they stir up to turn to.

Nick

Outis: What has the government ever done cheaply?

Health care, for one. Private Medicare Advantage plans are more expensive than traditional Medicare with no added benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/24medicare.html

How are you going to increase healthcare to 45 million people without causing (even more) shortages in the healthcare system?

You seem to be suggesting that those 45 million people aren't already imposing a cost on the system. They are, mostly in the most inefficient form possible: emergency room visits. If those people could see regular doctors, they could be treated sooner and more cheaply.

I really apologize for the side-trip we've taken on this thread... but this is still a more substantive debate than would have come from Rush!

Charlie (Colorado)

Annie, I've got to say, thinking about, oh, being a Republican in 1974, or thinking of the "daisy ad" in 1964, and the Daley machine in Chicago or the Pendergast machine in Kansas City, or having read about campaigns in Nacadoces and how "Landslide Lyndon" won in Texas, and Huey Long in Louisiana, and on back to Adams in 1796 and Jefferson in 1800, the notion that Rush made politics a blood sport seems unconvincing.

amba

He didn't. I think I acknowledged that. He has mass electronic media, though; does that amp it up?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004