This is, unfortunately, at least the beginning portion of the blog, the type of sensationalistic narrative that runs amok in our news media. This blog is a perfect example of our society’s misguided focus on dramatic stories, a perfect example of our need for a desperate and out of control narrative (as scene in the unprofessional news media outlets like FOX).
Why are we not talking about the inequality in American culture that has lead to a poverty stricken New Orleans? Why are we not talking about how this same inequality has lead to the “haves” being able to easily evacuate the city, and the “have-nots,” (those without money or transportation) being stuck in the city to rot and die?
Why are we not talking about how our president, the same man who cut funding to repair the levees, was playing gulf the day after the storm hit?
Here is Maureen Dowd’s smart take on this unfortunate catastrophe in her NYT OP-ED:
Stuff happens. And when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens. America is once more plunged into a snake pit of anarchy, death, looting, raping, marauding thugs, suffering innocents, a shattered infrastructure, a gutted police force, insufficient troop levels and criminally negligent government planning. But this time it's happening in America.
W. drove his budget-cutting Chevy to the levee, and it wasn't dry. Bye, bye, American lives. "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," he told Diane Sawyer. Shirt-sleeves rolled up, W. finally landed in Hell yesterday and chuckled about his wild boozing days in "the great city" of N'Awlins. He was clearly moved. "You know, I'm going to fly out of here in a minute," he said on the runway at the New Orleans International Airport, "but I want you to know that I'm not going to forget what I've seen." Out of the cameras' range, and avoided by W., was a convoy of thousands of sick and dying people, some sprawled on the floor or dumped on baggage carousels at a makeshift M*A*S*H unit inside the terminal. Why does this self-styled "can do" president always lapse into such lame "who could have known?" excuses. Who on earth could have known that Osama bin Laden wanted to attack us by flying planes into buildings? Any official who bothered to read the trellis of pre-9/11 intelligence briefs. Who on earth could have known that an American invasion of Iraq would spawn a brutal insurgency, terrorist recruiting boom and possible civil war? Any official who bothered to read the C.I.A.'s prewar reports. Who on earth could have known that New Orleans's sinking levees were at risk from a strong hurricane? Anybody who bothered to read the endless warnings over the years about the Big Easy's uneasy fishbowl. In June 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, fretted to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us." Not only was the money depleted by the Bush folly in Iraq; 30 percent of the National Guard and about half its equipment are in Iraq. Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island. Just last year, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials practiced how they would respond to a fake hurricane that caused floods and stranded New Orleans residents. Imagine the feeble FEMA's response to Katrina if they had not prepared. Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA - a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association - admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center. Was he sacked instantly? No, our tone-deaf president hailed him in Mobile, Ala., yesterday: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." It would be one thing if President Bush and his inner circle - Dick Cheney was vacationing in Wyoming; Condi Rice was shoe shopping at Ferragamo's on Fifth Avenue and attended "Spamalot" before bloggers chased her back to Washington; and Andy Card was off in Maine - lacked empathy but could get the job done. But it is a chilling lack of empathy combined with a stunning lack of efficiency that could make this administration implode. When the president and vice president rashly shook off our allies and our respect for international law to pursue a war built on lies, when they sanctioned torture, they shook the faith of the world in American ideals. When they were deaf for so long to the horrific misery and cries for help of the victims in New Orleans - most of them poor and black, like those stuck at the back of the evacuation line yesterday while 700 guests and employees of the Hyatt Hotel were bused out first - they shook the faith of all Americans in American ideals. And made us ashamed. Who are we if we can't take care of our own?
"anonymous" decries sensationalisism and gives us a solid dose of his own. "Anonymous" I'm sure laments and wails against "big brother" in the patriot act, but suddenly finds room for unlimited government when his agenda is at stake. Quite being a hypocrite, quit spewing forth hatred, and quit being so envious and covetous.
"What good are we if we can't take care of our own?" Read, "Lets 'legally' loot and steal behind the guns of the government, although we'll like we care when it is for 'oil', so 'anonymous' can act like he has some sort of moral aptitude & highground." Quit wearing your self-righteousness for all to see, it doens't look good on you.
I agree, KDNY. And I am still perplexed as to why people would leave coments like this anonymously. I think anonyous comments allow people to be a little less fair and civil than they may otherwise be tempted to be.
Okay, I will first admit that I did criticize the media for sensationalism and then offered up a very left-opinioned response. Although my post was written in haste and not the best response, I don’t think it falls under sensationalism, but I will come back to this. First, I’ll address Greg, who responded second. Greg, you are concerned with my response because I logged in anonymous, and said that it “allows people to be a little less fair and civil than they may otherwise be tempted to be.” This may or may not be true as a general principle, but because I do not know either you or KDNY it seems to matter very little. If I were to log in as Steve, the fact that you don’t know me wouldn’t and didn’t change my response. My response was, unfortunately, as I stated above, entered with untimely emotion that didn’t allow me to be as cool-headed as I should have been. But your theory also doesn’t hold up when it comes to KDNY, who, although not anonymous, is cloaked behind initials, did not respond in a “fair” or “civil” way; in fact he resorted to name calling and responded with a fairly obvious contempt in his heart, a contempt (for something larger in this world?? Worth reflecting on, KDNY, I think) that seems to me to be much deeper than a simple response to my post.
Greg, the first thing you say is that you agree with KDNY. What is it that you are agreeing with? his comment that I am a hypocrite? (I’ll come back to the unfair allegation and unreasoned comparison of privacy rights and other “big government programs.” Or, Greg, are you agreeing with the even more confusing comparison made in KDNY’s second paragraph about “oil” and “looting.” KDNY, this brings me to what I hope will be a civil conversation and respectful answer to your accusations that I am a “hypocrite who needs to quit spewing forth hatred, and quit being so envious and covetous.” I admit that the Dowd article is not respectful of many of the people she criticizes but I am not sure how this makes me envious or covetous?? First, however, I want to address your accusation of being a hypocrite. You charge that I am (probably) against the patriot act and probably for big government involvement in other areas. In many ways you are right; however, it is never fair to pigeon-hole someone into any camp. But my problem comes with your name calling, with your use, or misuse of the word hypocrite. Simply put, because someone is solidly for the right to privacy does not mean that they can’t also be for other government involvement in our lives. Let me explain my philosophy to you as best I can. I am sure that you are pulling this generalization from my comments about needing to take care of the poverty in this country etc. etc. Well, I think that if you look realistically at American culture you will have to admit that our society is one that perpetuates a very distinct class system: those who are born poor stay poor, those who are born middle class remain in the middle class, those who are born rich will more than likely remain rich. There are of course multiple stratifications within these groups and it maybe that someone who has blue-collar middle-class parents will be come educated “white-collar” middle-class etc. It is, however, certainly an anomaly for anyone who is born poor to move far up our class system. From looking at both of your websites before responding to this email I would guess – I realize here that I am speculating – that both of you are middle-class of some sort; and you probably had parents who were working middle-class or educated middle-class. So, you probably know all of what I just said. I only explained it so that I could give context to my philosophy, which will hopefully shed light on why what I believe is not hypocrisy. I am also middle-class with working-class parents that were able to help put me through school. I believe firmly that we, as a society, as a culture, need to work hard to fight against the poverty and inequality in this county. And I don’t just say this with words. By profession I am a social worker and I work with communities that are in need. I work with poor single mother’s in job placement. I have worked both on the direct-care side and the administrative side and I am the first to admit that our government run systems are seriously flawed. I am also not so unrealistic or idealistic that I think we will someday overcome poverty and create a perfect society: there will always be sin, always be sinners, and the poor will always be with us. I do feel, however, that most people who were lucky enough to be born in the middle-class or above don’t do enough to help the poor. And I do believe that our tax dollars, because of this, in some capacity, should go to programs that help the poor. Even the inefficient programs help in some way. And after looking at both of your websites I am going to make another unfounded a statement, something I don’t like to do, but my guess is that you are both for our current foreign policy. Because, as I am sure it wasn’t hard to deduce, I am not, it burns me even more when government programs that should help our own poor, should build up our own flailing educational systems, are cut because money is needed for a war that I think is unnecessary and was sold to the American people with misinformation that borders on lies. I realize I have gotten off on a slight tangent here, but my point is that I don’t think it is hypocritical to desire privacy, freedom of speech and other constitutional rights, yet also ask that our government and our people work together to make a better and more equal society.
KDNY, what are you doing to help the poor? I know that you know that the poor are God’s people. Mathew 19:21 - "If you desire to be perfect," replied Jesus, "go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have wealth in Heaven; and come, follow me." Now, I am not perfect in any way and do not use this quote to belittle you or question your righteousness, or question your faith. But I do know in my heart that I am working to help the poor in some ways. And I do know that I take great offense at being called envious and covetous and a hypocrite. I have been all of these things in my life and I work hard not to be and I think your statement clearly holds no weight inside the comparison you set forth.
KDNY, I feel that you probably don’t agree with many of the things said in the Dowd article. But I would challenge you to respond to each of her claims and defend against them. It’s easy to call me names and put me down. It’s less easy to argue against the logic of much of what she says. Hopefully I am not wearing my “self-righteousness for all to see.” I’ll leave your blog alone. I was searching for blogs about New Orleans because I was heated up over the whole thing. But I have obviously touched down in a blog-world in which I am not welcome. If it makes you feel better yours was not the only blog I posted to that wrote back with harsh and harmful words.
First, you more than welcome around here. Second, there is a lot to untie, and I don't think it can be adequately done in a blog response section, especially to such overwhelming assertions, but I'm rather Houdini-esque, willing to give it a shot. Third, Greg and I differ on a couple things, because I’m known to enjoy a good ad hom argument. I find them quite apropo at times. Fourth, I think you misread my blog if you think I am for our foreign policy. Fifth, I think your post, including Dowd's article, was seeking to elicit an emotional response, which, to my knowledge, is part and parcel with "sensationalism", hence the conclusion that your post was sensational and hypocritical, i.e. I don’t like “sensationalism” all while being sensational. And, no, I don’t oppose all forms of sensationalism. Finally, yes, I have contempt towards all sorts of stuff, including socialism, state abuses, envy, covetousness, and the political exploitation that is occurring in the wake of New Orleans, which are some of the “larger” things in the world you might be identifying.
So, where are we? Let me preface the comments with this--the hatred of the left is at an all time high. I think it far surpasses the vitriolic speech of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary alleged during her husband’s tenure. The Kanye Wests, Jessie Jacksons, Sharptons, Dowds, and the other would be leaders are simply out for themselves and actually delight in these events. The Jessie Jacksons and the rock-n-roll journalism going on needs this type of scenario to justify their existence, including the Anne Caulters (sp).
In a brief defense of my line “quite [sic] being a hyprocrite, quit spewing forth hate, and quite being so envious and covetous.” The hypocrisy centers around your alleged disgust of sensationalism, but your post seems to be possess an uncanny sensationalism, including comments like “blithering idiot”, the references to vacationing, and the like are of no real substance and a prime example of “narrative run amok”. The hatred of Bush by the Dowd’s has reached the point of irrationalism, yet they continue to spew forth speech, and you cut and past. Finally, dividing our country into “haves” and “have nots”, I believe, is fundamentally drawing upon the covetous desires of man and is birthed in envy (See Helmet Schuck’s “Envy” for a good sociological study). So, I think I am justified in that sentence.
I don’t believe you provided a philosophical justification for the arbitrary use of government authority. I basically hear you saying, “I want to tell to Big Brother to f-off whenever I want, but I still want a free meal and safety in the morning.” Sorry, but I don’t find that consistent. I’m for telling him to f-off and leave me alone, including my property and my income and my meals. What issue is there more basic to privacy than your income and your property?
You say, “Well, I think that if you look realistically at American culture you will have to admit that our society is one that perpetuates a very distinct class system.” First, I find nothing wrong with distinct classes. There is nothing immoral about a man being rich and another man being poor. So, I don’t really find that problematic. Second, what is “American culture” and “our society” that perpetuates this? The “American culture” and “society” is made up of individuals making decisions. If “American culture”, “society”, or, even a given neighborhood, is “bad’, then it is because of individuals acting badly. Yes, the culture may influence, but it is not irresistible. I recommend reading “The Unheavenly City” for a sociological study on poverty and the mentality of the poor, and I recommend Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” on what our “war on poverty” has actually created. Since you seem to oppose the current war, I would ask you to look at the increase of terrorism since we decided to wage war? Why is there always an increased supply of whatever the State declares war on? Whether it is drugs, terrorism, or poverty, they do an excellent job of increasing these “goods”. The basic problem in poverty communities is a slave mentality, they are afraid to leave the plantation. If you look at immigrant communities, especially in the Asian community, you will see that they are willing to forego short-term pleasure for the long-term benefit of getting out of poverty and increasing the lot of their children. This is desperately missing from America’s poor, especially in the black community. Instead, they are satisfied with the subsidization of their poverty, especially when the paupers are subsidized to have more children, which, according to your vision, simply gives birth to more poverty. So, why subsidize this culture? Now, since you are so “hands on”, I recommend that you foster a change in mindset (repentance), which includes losing the slave mentality and encouraging them to leave the plantation, willing to take a low wage, develop some skills, and have a perspective for a couple generations.
I don’t believe legalized looting, “tax dollars”, should go towards the subsidization of poverty, because they don’t help, but exasperate the issue. The way to alleviate poverty is the creation of capital. This is done in the hands of private citizens seeking a profit through risk, investment, and private property. Even prior to the Fall, but in light of the fall, we live in a world of scarce resources and the State has not a clue on how to distribute these goods. We are also hit with the moral fact that “if a man does not work, he shall not eat”.
Next, I don’t buy into your notion of “luck”. This, I believe, is part of the politics of guilt, pity and envy. You talk to the poor, point a finger and say, “Oh, they are lucky. You are just as deserving. Lets vote to take their ‘luck’.” My grandparents were immigrants that busted their asses, providing a better lot for their children, and in turn my father has set us up to be productive. This came through discipline in spending on my father’s part, the imparting of a work ethic, and disciplining me when necessary. You can chalk it up to random chance, but I find the universe a little more predictable, unlike the behavior of the “poor” in New Orleans. As you work with poor families, I highly recommend imparting these sort of things into them.
As an aside: I’m for doing away with Government indoctrination via State schools, although I agree that this war is predicated on false notions. I’m not convinced Powell and the rest of the boys lied, but went with their best guess, which is clearly wrong. Thank you, but I’ll educate my own children.
So, what am I doing to help the poor? The first thing I am doing is informing them that they are not God’s people unless they are found in Jesus Christ, contra your assertion. Your use of the “rich young ruler” isn’t “belittling” in the least, b/c I don’t think your application is sound, but that’s another issue. As a Protestant I hold to justification by faith alone. The rich and poor are both brought to nothing before the thrice holy God of Scripture. The only hope for both groups is not found in their wealth or lot in life (for any poor to think God owes him something b/c he is poor just magnifies the sinfulness of humanity), but in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, I am promoting covenantal obedience. This includes tithing to the church, work ethic (“If a man does not work, he does not eat”), saving, eliminating debt, covenant succession with our children (long-term thinking), and a host of other sound economic principles, like private property (Thou shall not steal) and contentment (contra covetousness & envy). Third, I also support politicians that I believe will alleviate the tax burden from all members of society, so capital investment can be increased, which will help eliminate poverty, the eradication of the minimum wage, and a host of other unsound economic policies. I don’t oppose the subsidizing poverty (welfare) b/c it is inefficient, but b/c it is fundamentally immoral and funds the very problem it “helps”. Finally, I invest in capital.
Finally, yes, I disagree with many things in the Dowd article, but not for why you think. I see two groups making the same error, but claiming their vision for the State is better. Personally, I could careless if Bush was golfing. I’m under the impression that “he who governs least, governs best”. I enjoy a good “government shutdown”. I wish Washington would go on a permanent vacation and quit passing laws. Government is a failure, and to hear two groups arguing that they can govern better is pointless to me. The government shouldn’t be in the business of levies, poverty, and all the junk that Dowd mentions.
Anyway, much, much more could be said, but our visions are fundamentally different. I say, “Let the State whither”, and you want it to do more. I believe you vision compounds the problem.
8 comments:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/
For the most recent updates...it's interesting.
This is, unfortunately, at least the beginning portion of the blog, the type of sensationalistic narrative that runs amok in our news media. This blog is a perfect example of our society’s misguided focus on dramatic stories, a perfect example of our need for a desperate and out of control narrative (as scene in the unprofessional news media outlets like FOX).
Why are we not talking about the inequality in American culture that has lead to a poverty stricken New Orleans? Why are we not talking about how this same inequality has lead to the “haves” being able to easily evacuate the city, and the “have-nots,” (those without money or transportation) being stuck in the city to rot and die?
Why are we not talking about how our president, the same man who cut funding to repair the levees, was playing gulf the day after the storm hit?
Here is Maureen Dowd’s smart take on this unfortunate catastrophe in her NYT OP-ED:
Stuff happens.
And when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens.
America is once more plunged into a snake pit of anarchy, death, looting, raping, marauding thugs, suffering innocents, a shattered infrastructure, a gutted police force, insufficient troop levels and criminally negligent government planning. But this time it's happening in America.
W. drove his budget-cutting Chevy to the levee, and it wasn't dry. Bye, bye, American lives. "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," he told Diane Sawyer.
Shirt-sleeves rolled up, W. finally landed in Hell yesterday and chuckled about his wild boozing days in "the great city" of N'Awlins. He was clearly moved. "You know, I'm going to fly out of here in a minute," he said on the runway at the New Orleans International Airport, "but I want you to know that I'm not going to forget what I've seen." Out of the cameras' range, and avoided by W., was a convoy of thousands of sick and dying people, some sprawled on the floor or dumped on baggage carousels at a makeshift M*A*S*H unit inside the terminal.
Why does this self-styled "can do" president always lapse into such lame "who could have known?" excuses.
Who on earth could have known that Osama bin Laden wanted to attack us by flying planes into buildings? Any official who bothered to read the trellis of pre-9/11 intelligence briefs.
Who on earth could have known that an American invasion of Iraq would spawn a brutal insurgency, terrorist recruiting boom and possible civil war? Any official who bothered to read the C.I.A.'s prewar reports.
Who on earth could have known that New Orleans's sinking levees were at risk from a strong hurricane? Anybody who bothered to read the endless warnings over the years about the Big Easy's uneasy fishbowl.
In June 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, fretted to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Not only was the money depleted by the Bush folly in Iraq; 30 percent of the National Guard and about half its equipment are in Iraq.
Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.
Just last year, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials practiced how they would respond to a fake hurricane that caused floods and stranded New Orleans residents. Imagine the feeble FEMA's response to Katrina if they had not prepared.
Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA - a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association - admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center.
Was he sacked instantly? No, our tone-deaf president hailed him in Mobile, Ala., yesterday: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
It would be one thing if President Bush and his inner circle - Dick Cheney was vacationing in Wyoming; Condi Rice was shoe shopping at Ferragamo's on Fifth Avenue and attended "Spamalot" before bloggers chased her back to Washington; and Andy Card was off in Maine - lacked empathy but could get the job done. But it is a chilling lack of empathy combined with a stunning lack of efficiency that could make this administration implode.
When the president and vice president rashly shook off our allies and our respect for international law to pursue a war built on lies, when they sanctioned torture, they shook the faith of the world in American ideals.
When they were deaf for so long to the horrific misery and cries for help of the victims in New Orleans - most of them poor and black, like those stuck at the back of the evacuation line yesterday while 700 guests and employees of the Hyatt Hotel were bused out first - they shook the faith of all Americans in American ideals. And made us ashamed.
Who are we if we can't take care of our own?
"anonymous" decries sensationalisism and gives us a solid dose of his own. "Anonymous" I'm sure laments and wails against "big brother" in the patriot act, but suddenly finds room for unlimited government when his agenda is at stake. Quite being a hypocrite, quit spewing forth hatred, and quit being so envious and covetous.
"What good are we if we can't take care of our own?" Read, "Lets 'legally' loot and steal behind the guns of the government, although we'll like we care when it is for 'oil', so 'anonymous' can act like he has some sort of moral aptitude & highground." Quit wearing your self-righteousness for all to see, it doens't look good on you.
I agree, KDNY. And I am still perplexed as to why people would leave coments like this anonymously. I think anonyous comments allow people to be a little less fair and civil than they may otherwise be tempted to be.
However, you gotta give props on the Don Maclean paraphrase. Classic!
Okay, I will first admit that I did criticize the media for sensationalism and then offered up a very left-opinioned response. Although my post was written in haste and not the best response, I don’t think it falls under sensationalism, but I will come back to this. First, I’ll address Greg, who responded second. Greg, you are concerned with my response because I logged in anonymous, and said that it “allows people to be a little less fair and civil than they may otherwise be tempted to be.” This may or may not be true as a general principle, but because I do not know either you or KDNY it seems to matter very little. If I were to log in as Steve, the fact that you don’t know me wouldn’t and didn’t change my response. My response was, unfortunately, as I stated above, entered with untimely emotion that didn’t allow me to be as cool-headed as I should have been. But your theory also doesn’t hold up when it comes to KDNY, who, although not anonymous, is cloaked behind initials, did not respond in a “fair” or “civil” way; in fact he resorted to name calling and responded with a fairly obvious contempt in his heart, a contempt (for something larger in this world?? Worth reflecting on, KDNY, I think) that seems to me to be much deeper than a simple response to my post.
Greg, the first thing you say is that you agree with KDNY. What is it that you are agreeing with? his comment that I am a hypocrite? (I’ll come back to the unfair allegation and unreasoned comparison of privacy rights and other “big government programs.” Or, Greg, are you agreeing with the even more confusing comparison made in KDNY’s second paragraph about “oil” and “looting.”
KDNY, this brings me to what I hope will be a civil conversation and respectful answer to your accusations that I am a “hypocrite who needs to quit spewing forth hatred, and quit being so envious and covetous.” I admit that the Dowd article is not respectful of many of the people she criticizes but I am not sure how this makes me envious or covetous?? First, however, I want to address your accusation of being a hypocrite. You charge that I am (probably) against the patriot act and probably for big government involvement in other areas. In many ways you are right; however, it is never fair to pigeon-hole someone into any camp. But my problem comes with your name calling, with your use, or misuse of the word hypocrite. Simply put, because someone is solidly for the right to privacy does not mean that they can’t also be for other government involvement in our lives. Let me explain my philosophy to you as best I can. I am sure that you are pulling this generalization from my comments about needing to take care of the poverty in this country etc. etc. Well, I think that if you look realistically at American culture you will have to admit that our society is one that perpetuates a very distinct class system: those who are born poor stay poor, those who are born middle class remain in the middle class, those who are born rich will more than likely remain rich. There are of course multiple stratifications within these groups and it maybe that someone who has blue-collar middle-class parents will be come educated “white-collar” middle-class etc. It is, however, certainly an anomaly for anyone who is born poor to move far up our class system. From looking at both of your websites before responding to this email I would guess – I realize here that I am speculating – that both of you are middle-class of some sort; and you probably had parents who were working middle-class or educated middle-class. So, you probably know all of what I just said. I only explained it so that I could give context to my philosophy, which will hopefully shed light on why what I believe is not hypocrisy.
I am also middle-class with working-class parents that were able to help put me through school. I believe firmly that we, as a society, as a culture, need to work hard to fight against the poverty and inequality in this county. And I don’t just say this with words. By profession I am a social worker and I work with communities that are in need. I work with poor single mother’s in job placement. I have worked both on the direct-care side and the administrative side and I am the first to admit that our government run systems are seriously flawed. I am also not so unrealistic or idealistic that I think we will someday overcome poverty and create a perfect society: there will always be sin, always be sinners, and the poor will always be with us. I do feel, however, that most people who were lucky enough to be born in the middle-class or above don’t do enough to help the poor. And I do believe that our tax dollars, because of this, in some capacity, should go to programs that help the poor. Even the inefficient programs help in some way. And after looking at both of your websites I am going to make another unfounded a statement, something I don’t like to do, but my guess is that you are both for our current foreign policy. Because, as I am sure it wasn’t hard to deduce, I am not, it burns me even more when government programs that should help our own poor, should build up our own flailing educational systems, are cut because money is needed for a war that I think is unnecessary and was sold to the American people with misinformation that borders on lies. I realize I have gotten off on a slight tangent here, but my point is that I don’t think it is hypocritical to desire privacy, freedom of speech and other constitutional rights, yet also ask that our government and our people work together to make a better and more equal society.
KDNY, what are you doing to help the poor? I know that you know that the poor are God’s people. Mathew 19:21 - "If you desire to be perfect," replied Jesus, "go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have wealth in Heaven; and come, follow me." Now, I am not perfect in any way and do not use this quote to belittle you or question your righteousness, or question your faith. But I do know in my heart that I am working to help the poor in some ways. And I do know that I take great offense at being called envious and covetous and a hypocrite. I have been all of these things in my life and I work hard not to be and I think your statement clearly holds no weight inside the comparison you set forth.
KDNY, I feel that you probably don’t agree with many of the things said in the Dowd article. But I would challenge you to respond to each of her claims and defend against them. It’s easy to call me names and put me down. It’s less easy to argue against the logic of much of what she says.
Hopefully I am not wearing my “self-righteousness for all to see.” I’ll leave your blog alone. I was searching for blogs about New Orleans because I was heated up over the whole thing. But I have obviously touched down in a blog-world in which I am not welcome. If it makes you feel better yours was not the only blog I posted to that wrote back with harsh and harmful words.
Peace to both of you-
"Anonymous",
First, you more than welcome around here. Second, there is a lot to untie, and I don't think it can be adequately done in a blog response section, especially to such overwhelming assertions, but I'm rather Houdini-esque, willing to give it a shot. Third, Greg and I differ on a couple things, because I’m known to enjoy a good ad hom argument. I find them quite apropo at times. Fourth, I think you misread my blog if you think I am for our foreign policy. Fifth, I think your post, including Dowd's article, was seeking to elicit an emotional response, which, to my knowledge, is part and parcel with "sensationalism", hence the conclusion that your post was sensational and hypocritical, i.e. I don’t like “sensationalism” all while being sensational. And, no, I don’t oppose all forms of sensationalism. Finally, yes, I have contempt towards all sorts of stuff, including socialism, state abuses, envy, covetousness, and the political exploitation that is occurring in the wake of New Orleans, which are some of the “larger” things in the world you might be identifying.
So, where are we? Let me preface the comments with this--the hatred of the left is at an all time high. I think it far surpasses the vitriolic speech of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary alleged during her husband’s tenure. The Kanye Wests, Jessie Jacksons, Sharptons, Dowds, and the other would be leaders are simply out for themselves and actually delight in these events. The Jessie Jacksons and the rock-n-roll journalism going on needs this type of scenario to justify their existence, including the Anne Caulters (sp).
In a brief defense of my line “quite [sic] being a hyprocrite, quit spewing forth hate, and quite being so envious and covetous.” The hypocrisy centers around your alleged disgust of sensationalism, but your post seems to be possess an uncanny sensationalism, including comments like “blithering idiot”, the references to vacationing, and the like are of no real substance and a prime example of “narrative run amok”. The hatred of Bush by the Dowd’s has reached the point of irrationalism, yet they continue to spew forth speech, and you cut and past. Finally, dividing our country into “haves” and “have nots”, I believe, is fundamentally drawing upon the covetous desires of man and is birthed in envy (See Helmet Schuck’s “Envy” for a good sociological study). So, I think I am justified in that sentence.
I don’t believe you provided a philosophical justification for the arbitrary use of government authority. I basically hear you saying, “I want to tell to Big Brother to f-off whenever I want, but I still want a free meal and safety in the morning.” Sorry, but I don’t find that consistent. I’m for telling him to f-off and leave me alone, including my property and my income and my meals. What issue is there more basic to privacy than your income and your property?
You say, “Well, I think that if you look realistically at American culture you will have to admit that our society is one that perpetuates a very distinct class system.” First, I find nothing wrong with distinct classes. There is nothing immoral about a man being rich and another man being poor. So, I don’t really find that problematic. Second, what is “American culture” and “our society” that perpetuates this? The “American culture” and “society” is made up of individuals making decisions. If “American culture”, “society”, or, even a given neighborhood, is “bad’, then it is because of individuals acting badly. Yes, the culture may influence, but it is not irresistible. I recommend reading “The Unheavenly City” for a sociological study on poverty and the mentality of the poor, and I recommend Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” on what our “war on poverty” has actually created. Since you seem to oppose the current war, I would ask you to look at the increase of terrorism since we decided to wage war? Why is there always an increased supply of whatever the State declares war on? Whether it is drugs, terrorism, or poverty, they do an excellent job of increasing these “goods”. The basic problem in poverty communities is a slave mentality, they are afraid to leave the plantation. If you look at immigrant communities, especially in the Asian community, you will see that they are willing to forego short-term pleasure for the long-term benefit of getting out of poverty and increasing the lot of their children. This is desperately missing from America’s poor, especially in the black community. Instead, they are satisfied with the subsidization of their poverty, especially when the paupers are subsidized to have more children, which, according to your vision, simply gives birth to more poverty. So, why subsidize this culture? Now, since you are so “hands on”, I recommend that you foster a change in mindset (repentance), which includes losing the slave mentality and encouraging them to leave the plantation, willing to take a low wage, develop some skills, and have a perspective for a couple generations.
I don’t believe legalized looting, “tax dollars”, should go towards the subsidization of poverty, because they don’t help, but exasperate the issue. The way to alleviate poverty is the creation of capital. This is done in the hands of private citizens seeking a profit through risk, investment, and private property. Even prior to the Fall, but in light of the fall, we live in a world of scarce resources and the State has not a clue on how to distribute these goods. We are also hit with the moral fact that “if a man does not work, he shall not eat”.
Next, I don’t buy into your notion of “luck”. This, I believe, is part of the politics of guilt, pity and envy. You talk to the poor, point a finger and say, “Oh, they are lucky. You are just as deserving. Lets vote to take their ‘luck’.” My grandparents were immigrants that busted their asses, providing a better lot for their children, and in turn my father has set us up to be productive. This came through discipline in spending on my father’s part, the imparting of a work ethic, and disciplining me when necessary. You can chalk it up to random chance, but I find the universe a little more predictable, unlike the behavior of the “poor” in New Orleans. As you work with poor families, I highly recommend imparting these sort of things into them.
As an aside: I’m for doing away with Government indoctrination via State schools, although I agree that this war is predicated on false notions. I’m not convinced Powell and the rest of the boys lied, but went with their best guess, which is clearly wrong. Thank you, but I’ll educate my own children.
So, what am I doing to help the poor? The first thing I am doing is informing them that they are not God’s people unless they are found in Jesus Christ, contra your assertion. Your use of the “rich young ruler” isn’t “belittling” in the least, b/c I don’t think your application is sound, but that’s another issue. As a Protestant I hold to justification by faith alone. The rich and poor are both brought to nothing before the thrice holy God of Scripture. The only hope for both groups is not found in their wealth or lot in life (for any poor to think God owes him something b/c he is poor just magnifies the sinfulness of humanity), but in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, I am promoting covenantal obedience. This includes tithing to the church, work ethic (“If a man does not work, he does not eat”), saving, eliminating debt, covenant succession with our children (long-term thinking), and a host of other sound economic principles, like private property (Thou shall not steal) and contentment (contra covetousness & envy). Third, I also support politicians that I believe will alleviate the tax burden from all members of society, so capital investment can be increased, which will help eliminate poverty, the eradication of the minimum wage, and a host of other unsound economic policies. I don’t oppose the subsidizing poverty (welfare) b/c it is inefficient, but b/c it is fundamentally immoral and funds the very problem it “helps”. Finally, I invest in capital.
Finally, yes, I disagree with many things in the Dowd article, but not for why you think. I see two groups making the same error, but claiming their vision for the State is better. Personally, I could careless if Bush was golfing. I’m under the impression that “he who governs least, governs best”. I enjoy a good “government shutdown”. I wish Washington would go on a permanent vacation and quit passing laws. Government is a failure, and to hear two groups arguing that they can govern better is pointless to me. The government shouldn’t be in the business of levies, poverty, and all the junk that Dowd mentions.
Anyway, much, much more could be said, but our visions are fundamentally different. I say, “Let the State whither”, and you want it to do more. I believe you vision compounds the problem.
Post a Comment