| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
(This is an updated version of this post. The earlier version is here.)
Conservatives often feel puzzled as to the intentions of Liberals.
We wonder, what can they be thinking?
Many Liberals seem to debate by trying to keep the other person from talking, and by using personal insults. They have yet to support any policy that would defend this nation from future 911s, and they oppose most policies instituted to prevent such attacks. How can they pursue such suicidal behavior?
What causes Liberals in the U.S. to attack our own government and to turn a blind eye to the evils of the cultures that brutally oppress their own citizens?
We wonder, what causes nations in Europe to devote themselves to socialist policies that are destroying them?
What's driving them?
What are they thinking?
•
Today it's all but forgotten (due to what I have called The Memento Syndrome), that in its beginnings, Liberalism included an opposition to the theory of evolution. From the Wikipedia article, "Evolutionary theory and the political left:"
Some on the political left, especially Marxists and communists, have been critical of aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection (Darwinism). Some of this opposition appears for ideological reasons; the concepts of "survival of the fittest", and "nature red in tooth and claw" appear not to fit with economic or social ideals.
... Scientific theories of evolution developed at approximately the same time as left-wing political theories.
Today we can't remember what a revolutionary thing the discovery of evolution was. But survival of the fittest was interpreted by some as meaning that "might makes right". It was used by some to justify any sort of war as part of a sequence of natural selection; to justify any sort of conquest and destruction by one people of another, as part of the natural sequence of evolution.
There is no doubt that in the Darwinian competition for survival, the less capable are by definition at a disadvantage.
Evolution is seen by Liberals as unfair to the less successful. Liberalism seeks to champion the weak, who are at such a disadvantage.
Championing the weak is understandable, and gives good use to our emotions of love, compassion, understanding, sympathy, and empathy.
•
Liberalism almost immediately developed into the statecraft of attempting to unite the less successful into a political party. The tactics of Liberalism were an attempt, hopeless from the start, to help the less successful, by means of punishing the more successful. The result was a Liberalism that in effect seeks to halt evolution, as something that is unfair to the weak.
Liberals, of course, would say that they don't oppose evolution; they would say that they believe the less successful are made so primarily by the oppression of the more successful. But this Liberal view is in fact, whether Libs like it or not, in opposition to Darwinism.
Darwinism tells us that the less successful are made so because they are less well-adapted to their environment, and not necessarily (and in many cases, not at all) due to oppression by members of their own or other species. The Liberal view disregards all this in favor of a view that in humans, there is only oppression of the less successful by the more successful. It's a nice view, but it's got no scientific basis. It's a pseudo-science.
•
And the halting of evolution - at least that of society - is the practical result of Liberal policies.
In Communism, the less successful were called "workers," and the more successful were called, "exploiters of workers." And the Communists did succeed in halting evolution. Very little in Communist Russia improved. Everything stagnated. And everyone suffered.
They support higher taxes to punish the more successful and to transfer money to the less successful.
They promote a welfare state in which money is given to broken families, but not to whole ones - again rewarding the less successful, and punishing those who succeed. This harms the very people it is promoted as helping, leading one author to recently quote a student who told her, "marriage is for white people."
Today's Liberals turn a blind eye to the failings of less successful cultures, for example, to the failings of the Sharia culture, which oppresses women, performs honor killings of women, performs female mutilation, enforces second-class citizenship on non-Muslims prior to killing them or expelling them, and which produces terrorists who cut off heads on video. At the same time, Liberals devote all their energies to attacking the more successful culture in the United States.
In short, in every case, today's Liberals reward the lack of success, and punish the successful; this is all done in a mistaken attempt to help the weak, based on a pre-Darwinian view that the less successful are made so primarily by the oppression of the more successful. This view has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny, primarily because it has been outdated since the time of Darwin.
•
As seen in Communist Russia, and in Socialist Europe, the absence of rewards for the more successful, does not produce a fair world for all; it produces an unfair world for all. When success is punished, everything stagnates, and everyone suffers.
Rewarding success produces a better world for everyone, including the less capable. As seen in the U.S., in which the more successful are powerfully rewarded, the results are better technology, more wealth, better living conditions, and longer life for all, including the less successful, as documented in tremendous detail in Gregg Easterbrook's book "The Progress Paradox."
•
The difficulties many Liberals have in maintaining a polite, civil, logical argument, stem from the contradictions inherent in basing their policies on a view that has no scientific basis, is opposed to Darwinism, and is explicitly opposed to the interests of one-half of society, namely the more successful (i.e. "the oppressors." ).
•
Liberalism today is flawed because it is based on an outdated view of evolution, and through that view, on the mistaken assumption that harming the more successful in society will help the less successful. The premise itself is flawed, and leads to devastation for the whole of society, including the less successful.
Liberalism must itself evolve into a means of helping the less successful, while recognizing and welcoming the achievements of the more successful.
A Liberalism that was updated so as to be based on Darwinism, would be very powerful. A Liberalism that sought out those who are less successful, and who through hard work are headed in the right direction (for example, lower-income homes with children and with both the mother and father present) - and used the power of the state to reward them - would massively accelerate the evolution and improvement of the nation.
Update 6-10-06: Additional articles on, and examples of, Liberalism Explained, can be found here.
#1
#2Fantastic. That's great, David.
#3"and used the power of the state to reward them - would massively accelerate the evolution and improvement of the nation"
I believe it would better if the power of the state protected their "rewards" of pay for hard work (safer neighborhoods, school choice and low taxes) and got rid of the regulations that prevent the small inovators and producers from selling in the big market.
#4Written by richard s:
... got rid of the regulations that prevent the small inovators and producers from selling in the big market.
Response by David:
What regulations have been obstructive to your business?
I know of many government resources for consultation, training, and funding through well designed systems such as those available at http://www.business.gov .
That is in addition to all of the tax incentives given to big business for the private sector assistance in the development of small and diverse suppliers.
Also for small and emerging businesses it seems that every state college has a business incubator system that is willing to assist and work to develop those businesses.
Nobody has said it is easy to do but the resources are there if requested.
There is a fantastic article worth reading here it speaks about the language used by liberals and what message they try to present, and how they fail so badly at it.
That being said I really enjoyed your article, I agree with your argument in that the liberals are championing the “less fortunate” at the expense of the “fortunate” – what I always find amusing is how the left the conveniently leave out hardwork and willingness to try as the backbone of these “fortunate” peoples success. Frankly if you don’t graduate highschool and your content working at $8 an hour factory job, you have no one to blame for your failures but yourself.
Liberalism believes that income redistribution and socialism helps people, it's a fairy tail you can't institute socialist policies in a community of more than a few hundred because of the free rider problem with grows exponentially to the size of the community and. How can you address a free rider problem in socialism, you can't and that’s why the system fails. The foundation once again returns to the few carrying the many, only those few are carrying a huge burden and are tied down by the weight of the many through law and government policies thus penalizing anyone that goes the extra mile.
Look at Soviet Russia they were on top of the world but what happened the people gave up, there was no incentive to work or succeed because the system rewarded failure. By rewarding failure you remove all responsibility for your actions and thus they create the entitlement culture (New Orleans ) where people expect the government to do for them for what they won’t do for themselves. Russia fell apart once the government instituted capitalism because the people were so inept at doing things and being responsible the whole system crashed. We in America are running the risk of handicapping our people because we do not allow them to stand on their own two feet. It’s impossible to learn from your mistakes when you have someone there to clean up all your messes for you.
#6Thanks very much for the comment and the great links, Ransdell.
#7I agree with that people should take personal responsibility for their success. If work hard and be successful my money shouldn't go to the less successful. However, think Paris Hilton. She's ahead in life (materially speaking) because her parents got ahead in life. I think that inheritence taxes should be increased, while maybe decreasing income taxes. Does this make sense? Great site by the way...I was biased against Ann Coulter but she does make some great points debunking evolution.
#8Great site by the way...I was biased against Ann Coulter but she does make some great points debunking evolution.
Thanks very much, Tim. How did you find the site?
#9I saw an interview on c-span with Shelby Steele and looked him up on the internet. And voila I ended up here.
#10That's really cool. I'm glad you like the site!
#11I consider myself an independent thinker, certainly not a conservative and probably considered a liberal by most. I find it abrasive to read statements that "all liberals think or say..." or "all conservatives think or say..." like there's some guidebook being read by everyone. The citizens of the USA are more culturally diverse than they're being given credit for. Having said that, I do support a more equitable distribution of wealth in this country, and in fact, throughout the world. There's enough for everyone: food, money, housing, etc. Why do some struggle daily to stay afloat while others are spoon fed? Why is it that the assumption is always that people don't work for what they have if you help them out? Bad things happen to good people.
I agree with marshamallow - no one should have to go without so some can live in excess - thats a fundamental truth, no one should be exploited.
I do have one reservation however, how do you have a fair and equal system when some people refuse to help said system and others go above and beyond their role. How do you address the free rider problem. Like I said before no one should have to go with out because of some law, policy, or theft. That being said if that person is going with out because of their own mistakes or their own inability to help themselves where do you draw the line between personal responsibilty and a collective good. For instance is college a collective good or a private good - an education benefits the whole of society in some facet(collective good) , however I'm in college so I can make more money (personal good).
Stratification of wealth and a functioning working class is a main component in a capitalist economy, along with competition and a fair and equal chance for success. Everyone in America has the chance to become a millionare if they use what they have been given to the best of their ability. Between luck and good fortune anyone can become rich so that is why I oppose income redistribution, it's not fair to penalize a person for just having money, it's class discrimination, your targeting them and making them do more just because of their class which is illegal. A capitalist economey is the most fair and equal way to run a economey because everyone has a chance, anyone can create something, the whole of society can benefit and share the in the luck of a few. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world because of luck and great business sense, but his luck and business have created thousands of jobs that help people, he is giving back and sharing his success.
#13"There is no doubt that in the Darwinian competition for survival, the less capable are by definition at a disadvantage.
Evolution is seen by Liberals as unfair to the less successful. Liberalism seeks to champion the weak, who are at such a disadvantage."
I think you are confusing social Darwinism with Evolution. AS the industrial revolution raged on, many argued that Darwin's theories proved that certain people were "meant" to be poor and live in bad conditions. But Darwin was of course speaking of natural variation, not society, which, one cannot argue, is inequitable, less so today than in the latter 19th century.
In short, the genetic component in societal success is far outweighed by the organization of society. Such institutions as slavery and discrimination have far more influience. If you provide inferior education to a group of people, then they will have less success, regardless of their potential.
So liberalism, far from wishing to
"punish the successful," is interested in leveling the playing field. Socialism (and of course Americans believe in socialism: social security, welfare, graduated tax levels, socialized medicine, and socialized protection via fire and police departments) is not a punishment, although the very wealthy may see it as such. Why should their taxes be used to operate fire departments in poor neighborhoods that could otherwise not afford such luxury?
#14I think you are confusing social Darwinism with Evolution.
My point is that the Libs are doing exactly that. As I say in the article:
Darwinism tells us that the less successful are made so because they are less well-adapted to their environment, and not necessarily (and in many cases, not at all) due to oppression by members of their own or other species. The Liberal view disregards all this in favor of a view that in humans, there is only oppression of the less successful by the more successful. It's a nice view, but it's got no scientific basis. It's a pseudo-science.
#15Hi Vik:
I'm still stretching my reach into the vast blogging resources. (And trying to carve out my own niche in Liberating Propaganda.)
This is a great article, thank you -- and wonderful site. Your opening questions do certainly capture the confusion, "What are they thinking?" While of course, compassion and all caring to those who are truly in need is of course a fruit of evolution. We're in some odd inversion time period perhaps, where good is bad and right is wrong. I'm not big on black and white, but violence, hatred, intolerance, and revenge are not 'sustainable' motives. Not in my world!
Well, on the pessimistic upside ... I imagine it won't be that long again (historically speaking) until some signs of appreciation of excellence, rather than the extolling of the virtues of victimhood, will be evidenced.
Thus, good work!
Vicktorya
#16Your blog is flawed on sooo many levels. If I could just touch on a few
"Many Liberals seem to debate by trying to keep the other person from talking, and by using personal insults."
This is a blanket statement with no regard to attempts by the conservative media to silence any opposition to the war, to conservative policies, etc. Why would protesters not be allowed on the presidents route when he was on his way to the inauguration? Simple answer, to silence them. Why would Bill O'Riely tell those who disagree with him to shut up? To silence them. Why restrict the freedom of the press? Because if you want to silence people, you have to take that away. Historically and presently, the silencing of opposition groups has been used with much more frequency by the right than the left.
"The Liberal view [is that] there is only oppression of the less successful by the more successful. It's a nice view, but it's got no scientific basis. It's a pseudo-science."
How would it be possible for a minority group to oppress a majority group? How can you put this in a less successful vs. more successful framework when there is institutional oppression that has been built in historically. For example, take the baby boom generation. Returning soldiers received the GI bill to help them get back into society. This gave thousands the means to move their families forward. Black soldiers were denied this. The results stay with us for generations. The effects of Jim Crow laws are likewise here for generations. Yet, we now hear whites complaining that the system is biased against them? For the first time in our history we are trying to set the balance back and whites have the audacity to say the system works against them? Sorry, its just not as biased for whites as it once was. Nobody wants to see whites fail, they just want equal opportunities for everyone. What's the matter with that?
"What causes Liberals in the U.S. to attack our own government and to turn a blind eye to the evils of the cultures that brutally oppress their own citizens?"
I would like to respond with this with the same question. What causes conservatives to turn a blind eye to the evils that are done in their name? How can we allow, and even support, the overthrow of democratically elected presidents in Chile, in Guatemala, in El Salvador, and then help put dictators in power, without recognizing that we are going against our own interests.
"Some on the political left, especially Marxists and communists, have been critical of aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection (Darwinism). Some of this opposition appears for ideological reasons; the concepts of "survival of the fittest", and "nature red in tooth and claw" appear not to fit with economic or social ideals."
Is it not the conservative movement that has historically argued against teaching all aspects of evolution?
Are we not above animals? Can we not care for our own? Is it wrong to want to work together, rather than simply relying on the good that will come if everyone is out for their own self interest?
"Evolution is seen by Liberals as unfair to the less successful. Liberalism seeks to champion the weak, who are at such a disadvantage. "
If for years certain classes and races of people are taken advantage of and denied access to resources, how are they expected to "evolve" the same as other classes and races in society that were given those resources.
#17"Championing the weak is understandable, and gives good use to our emotions of love, compassion, understanding, sympathy, and empathy."
How can you call the victims of crimes weak? When we killed 1,000,000+ cambodians, was it because they were weak? Was it ok because they were weak? When we denied the right to vote to blacks, was it because they were weak? was that their fault? When we deny women the same rights as men, is it because they are weak? Is that acceptable?
"Liberalism almost immediately developed into the statecraft of attempting to unite the less successful into a political party. "
Conservatism has developed into a statecraft of attempting to unite the already rich and powerful into a political party with the goal of keeping them rich and in power. Lower level conservatives join with the aspirations of being part of the elite.
"The tactics of Liberalism were an attempt, hopeless from the start, to help the less successful, by means of punishing the more successful. The result was a Liberalism that in effect seeks to halt evolution, as something that is unfair to the weak."
conservatism has been successful because the interests with money and power will always fight to maintain their stature.
"They support higher taxes to punish the more successful and to transfer money to the less successful."
What is the military but a conservative welfare state. The government takes money that could be used on infrastructure, health, and education (all of which are a positive investment in the future of a country and its citizenry) and spends it on military... feeding the 6 major defense contractors and GI's who inevitably end up being conservative (which is ironic considering how they are treated when they get out of the military and suffer the effects of Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, etc.... all of which were use developed by businesses on the government dole) No, sir, the goal of taxes is to provide for the common good, not to take money out of the hands of the poor starving fortune 500 execs.
"They promote a welfare state in which money is given to broken families, but not to whole ones - again rewarding the less successful, and punishing those who succeed. "
Here, you look at the situation in a vacuum. IF you deny any history to the families present condition, you negate the oppression they have suffered. History has proven the a welfare state won't succeed, but we can't deny the reasons that those in a lower socioeconomic position find themselves there.
"Today's Liberals turn a blind eye to the failings of less successful cultures, for example, to the failings of the Sharia culture, which oppresses women, performs honor killings of women, performs female mutilation, enforces second-class citizenship on non-Muslims prior to killing them or expelling them, and which produces terrorists who cut off heads on video. At the same time, Liberals devote all their energies to attacking the more successful culture in the United States."
Liberals, like myself, spend time trying to make all cultures move ahead by figuring out ways to be more fair and just with our own culture.... not ignoring the crimes of other cultures. When you make broad generalizations about 1.5 billion muslims, you are bound to demonstrate that you really know nothing about their culture. I'm not defending the politics that support head chopping (nor am I in favor of the death penalty here in the states, are you? If you are, there is no difference), nor am I of the philosophy that the oppression of women is acceptable, but we are not as far ahead as we like to think we are, nor are we moral guides for the world.
"The difficulties many Liberals have in maintaining a polite, civil, logical argument, stem from the contradictions inherent in basing their policies on a view that has no scientific basis, is opposed to Darwinism, and is explicitly opposed to the interests of one-half of society, namely the more successful (i.e. "the oppressors." )."
I've been silenced more than once by conservatives when I've simply tried to discuss my opinions and beliefs. My opinion and experience here leads me to believe exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Liberals do not hate America. They do not hate progress. They do not oppose successful business. They oppose ethnocentrism, they oppose the systematic oppression of other cultures, they oppose unchecked business that is allowed to operate in its own interest without any thought or concern of the negative results of its work. They are pro education, pro health, anti racism, anti war....... This said, my problem with the Democrats that I've voted for and the supposed liberals on the ballots, is that they are not liberal enough.
#18Seems that you came across the wrong blog Chris.
IMO liberalism is a social disease created by an inferiority complex which generally entails being raised as an unequal victim of society. That is irregardless of whether one is factually a victim or not.
Now just to explain myself a bit I will share with you that I am a conservative Independent voter that was raised in a home of very politically active circa 1950's Democrats. Times change and the Democrats lost my vote along with their morality and spine to stand up for what is right and just in this world.
I have also experienced many things that are not fair in life but it has only taught me to become a bigger, badder dog than I was before so that I can better fend for myself in the long run.
Here's a final news flash for you Mr. Chris. Nobody else has any responsibility to you in this world so you'd better get out there and get it yourself while you can. It's not fair but that's just the way it is.
#19Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
Thought you all might find this interesting:
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.
The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
Just another Liberal helping bring knowledge to your Dark Kingdom.
#20Alright mr david, maybe i did come across the wrong blog, but when i stumbled across this i felt that it would be incorrect to let it go unchallenged (which is how coservatives often are able to get away with their senseless ideas)
Let's address your points:
"IMO liberalism is a social disease created by an inferiority complex which generally entails being raised as an unequal victim of society.That is irregardless of whether one is factually a victim or not."
I'm a white american, certainly not a victim in any cirlces.. and it's painfully obvious that I'm a liberal. In reference to others "playing the victim." Do you deny the centuries of oppression in the US? While White GI's were benifiting from house loans and education grants, black GIs were denied the same. Whic means my grandparents, who got their first home and education for their children in this way, were automatically put ahead of their black neighbors, and myself ahead of their grandchildren. There is no denying that whites are disproportionally represented in politics, business, etc. this is systemic, the result of years, decades, centuries of the systemic oppression of blacks. We're shifting focus now, with the immigration debate, it's much more fun for conservatives to oppress hispanics.
" Times change and the Democrats lost my vote along with their morality and spine to stand up for what is right and just in this world."
come on now, dave, neither the republicans nor the democrats have any hold on morality! Are conservatives standing up for "what is right?"
"I have also experienced many things that are not fair in life but it has only taught me to become a bigger, badder dog than I was before so that I can better fend for myself in the long run."
This is the common white answer to race issues. By ignoring race, you allow yourself to think that everyone is starting out at a level playing field, which would mean they are responsible for their own success... it's like "I get what I put out there in the world." Thats fun in theory, and a good way to live your life, but it ignores any of the real issues that people go through.
"Here’s a final news flash for you Mr. Chris. Nobody else has any responsibility to you in this world so you’d better get out there and get it yourself while you can."
I'm sorry, but GREED does not motivate me. I envision a world that has evolved past that. Rather than reading The Art of War or The Prince for your political views, why don't you try the Upanishads. Serously, are you happy living in a world where you say, screw my neighbor, I'm getting mine first? Even conservatives don't try to openly selll that message because they know how bad it makesthem sound.
" It’s not fair but that’s just the way it is."
So it's always got to be that way? I sure hope you're not religious, because at judgement, I'm sure that a perspective like that is bound to get you turned away.
#21Dear Chris,
I’m a white american, certainly not a victim in any cirlces.. and it’s painfully obvious that I’m a liberal. In reference to others “playing the victim.” Do you deny the centuries of oppression in the US? While White GI’s were benifiting from house loans and education grants, black GIs were denied the same. Whic means my grandparents, who got their first home and education for their children in this way, were automatically put ahead of their black neighbors, and myself ahead of their grandchildren.
The GI Bill of Rights was an extension of the New Deal and administered by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman: both Liberal Democrats. The New Deal Democrats had control of Congress most of the time except 1946-48.
If it was inequitable, then put the blame where it belongs.
#22'A Liberalism that was updated so as to be based on Darwinism, would be very powerful. A Liberalism that sought out those who are less successful, and who through hard work are headed in the right direction (for example, lower-income homes with children and with both the mother and father present) - and used the power of the state to reward them - would massively accelerate the evolution and improvement of the nation.'
What? How about just rewarding hard-working low-income families? Why only ones with mothers and fathers? Is it the mother and childs fault that the father left them? Probably not if the mother is a hard-working woman trying to make a good life for her children. you basically are saying to cut funding from the children of a family because a father left them. That sounds great (heavy sarcasm).
#23Is it the mother and childs fault that the father left them?
It is not the child's fault, but it may be the fault of the mother. I can tell that you are a woman because you ascribe the idea of a broken home due the "father" leaving. Nevertheless, is it my fault that the family is broken? Hell no! So then why should I have have to support that family? It is called personal responsibility and accountability on the part of the family. They, the mother and father, made the decision to create a family that unfortunately failed. Maybe they should have considered the ramifications of having a child and they dividing the home.
Probably not if the mother is a hard-working woman trying to make a good life for her children.
Who is to blame if, after a failed relationship, the parent cannot support their own offspring? Call me crazy, but maybe a solid education would have been a good idea for the simple fact that relationships do fail from time to time
and one is left to fend for themselves. But again, poor planning (responsibility) resulted in an unfortunate situation.
A Liberalism that sought out those who are less successful, and who through hard work are headed in the right direction (for example, lower-income homes with children and with both the mother and father present) - and used the power of the state to reward them - would massively accelerate the evolution and improvement of the nation.’
My people came from Poland in the late 1800's. They arrived at Ellis Island amongst a flock of European Immigrants. When they arrived, nobody handed them anything. They worked hard, had small families (so they could afford it), and perservered. Eventually, after 3 generations of diligence, my mom became a teacher, my sister is a MD, and I am working on a Master's Degree. My point is, hard work will empower anybody. It may take some time, but in a country as great as this one, there is absolutely no excuse for failure.
you basically are saying to cut funding from the children of a family because a father left them.
That is exactly what he is saying. I talk to my professors, most of which are foreign and from third world countries, and they tell me the same story. "I came from the dumps and did not have a pot to piss in. I worked hard, often times two or three jobs, and now, I have a Ph.D." It took 15 years in some cases, but it was achieved.
The world is a cruel place--step outside the United States for a moment and you will realize this. All people were not created equal, nor will they ever be equal. However, everybody in this country has ample opportunities to succeed. The victocrat syndrome must be divested from those who want to make something of themeselves, if not, they will surely maintain worthlessness and continue to be a drag on society.
Lupin, Chris, and the rest of the PC Corps, why don't you all hold hands and sings songs to ameliorate societal problems. Since you LIBs support support terrorists, criminals, druggies, the homeless, bums, third world ideas, illegal immigrants,etc., may I suggest that you assemble in a poverty-stricken neighborhood (a place where your supportees live) at dusk and see what happens to you. Let them show you their appreciation!
#24I don't think you understood the point of my post. The author was advocating that we give funding to families in which both a mother and a father are present, but not to any families where the mother is by herself. That's ridiculous. Why not respond to the actual point of the post?
My parents, my four brothers and I (I'm a male by the way) were all on welfare for a period of time when we were all young for food. We were dirt poor. Now my mother works at a natural gas company and is working on her B.A. in Marketing, and my father is working at a grain elevator. We have been off welfare for a long time and we are all contributing members to society. Who knows what would've happened without a little help and support. Now America has seven members of the community that contribute to society because America provided support in a time of need. I bet there are lots of stories like that. This country is so great partly because it will help people when they are down.
I hate the way you split up my response. I said "Is it the mother and childs fault that the father left them? Probably not if the mother is a hard-working woman trying to make a good life for her children." That goes together. No it is not your fault that they split up. They are in hard times though. The family is in need. I still stand by the idea that America is so great in part because when people are in need, America gives those people a hand to move on with their lives.
#25My parents, my four brothers and I (I’m a male by the way) were all on welfare for a period of time when we were all young for food. We were dirt poor.
That is interesting. You say that your family was dirt poor. Were they dirt poor before having "four" children, or did they have the four children and gradually descend financially?
Either way, one of my points was responsibility. Four children when the funds do not permit it makes zero sense to me. I am not attacking you personally, rather, it is the principle that I am chasing. Contrary to what the LIBs believe, having children is not a right, it is a privilage, if, and only if, one has the resources to manage it. Welfare and government programs do not or should not suffice as an avenue for nourishment.
This situation sounds like the typical scenario that the U.S. is facing with the illegal immigrants from Mexico. Come to the U.S. and have 6 children, when realistically, they probably cannot afford one. Additionally, expect the tax payers to pick up the tab.
Do you think your situation would have been different had your parents decided to have only 1 child? It boils down to simple common sense. I am for helping people out, but only when they attempt to make the correct judgements and act responsibly. Living beyond on one's means is not responsible, it is foolish. When those individuals do not think long-term and they run into trouble, they are rewarded for their reckless thinking.
#26A few notes and observations:
Having children is not a right, it is a privilage (sic), if, and only if, one has the resources to manage it.
Really?!!!
I thought having children was natural, and in many cases, unplanned, even within the context of marriage. And some religions forbid the use of contraceptives, so it makes 'family planning' difficult. Are we to counter these beliefs and nature to develop policies limiting children to only those who are educated and can afford them?
I don't choose to live in the People's Republic of China.
There are many low-income families that have multiple children and the parents (and sometimes the older children) work hard and don't ask for anything from the government. Somehow their children grow up to be as productive/non productive as children brought as only children.
And should we as a society permit children to starve because a father abandoned the family?
I'm from a mother who had two children. While she was going through a divorce during the mid 1950's, she worked two jobs a day and one on weekends to keep a roof over our heads and food in our stomachs. Because she had to work so hard and could not be home (she was a homemaker who was not a high school graduate and had no skills), she arranged for us to go into a foster home. It would have been helpful to all of us if there had been some sort of assistance to get her through this difficult period. Additionally, she was also a WWII veteran but even then, there was no assistance except her personal medical expenses - which she took advantage of as a result of fatigue and stress-related problems.
This situation was not her fault.
Incredibly, enough even I, an educated professional woman, needed help after September 11th when I lost my company and my entire life savings were reduced to nothing as a result of my once high-yielding portfolio that was tied to such stocks as Enron and Worldcom.
I ended up on homeless intervention, foodstamps, and was offered a program through my city to teach me computer skills. These were shortterm programs to help get me back on my feet, and this Conservative Republican is very grateful that these programs exist.
Was September 11th and its economic effects, my fault? Was there anything I could have done to really prepare for that?
I would have been literally, and I mean literally, out in the street if it weren't for the compassion and generosity of my city and federal programs.
Sink or swim and survival of the fittest is not always the proper attitude. Our country is great because we do help give people second chances and a jumpstart when needed.
It's what I dislike about Ayn Rand; she believes that we are in perfect control of our destinies. We're not. Life is uncertain and that's what we need to adapt to.
It is only those who expect and abuse these programs, obtain them illegally, or are on them longterm, that distress me.
#27I thought having children was natural, and in many cases, unplanned, even within the context of marriage. And some religions forbid the use of contraceptives, so it makes ‘family planning’ difficult. Are we to counter these beliefs and nature to develop policies limiting children to only those who are educated and can afford them?
You are correct when you say that unforseen circumstances arise within the context of marriage. However, is there something wrong with "pulling out" before climax occurs. Or should, every time two people have sex, complete the act fully? It is ludacris to suggest that accidents happen with sex. I have been "knocking the boots" for some time now, and I have never had an "accident." Why? Because I made a concious effort to ensure that I did not get the woman pregnant. It is not rocket science.
There are many low-income families that have multiple children and the parents (and sometimes the older children) work hard and don’t ask for anything from the government. Somehow their children grow up to be as productive/non productive as children brought as only children.
This is coming out of left field. My arguement was not to discredit families, poor or rich, but rather, to express my dissatisfaction for those that do not think rationally about "family planning" and then asking for assistance from the government.
I don’t choose to live in the People’s Republic of China.
China's "One-Child Policy" is a measure for survival. What would happen if 50% of China's 1,313,973,713 wanted to have 4 children per couple. That number would swell and as it is, China cannot afford to maintain suffecient victuals. Nevertheless, it is a false analogy to try and compare US-China in this realm.
And should we as a society permit children to starve because a father abandoned the family?
Starve? Lets define starvation. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
American poverty is much different then African poverty, wouldn't you say? Starving to describe anybody in America in an incorrect application of the word in terms of actual holocaust or Darfur starvation.
I’m from a mother who had two children. While she was going through a divorce during the mid 1950’s, she worked two jobs a day and one on weekends to keep a roof over our heads and food in our stomachs. Because she had to work so hard and could not be home (she was a homemaker who was not a high school graduate and had no skills), she arranged for us to go into a foster home. It would have been helpful to all of us if there had been some sort of assistance to get her through this difficult period. Additionally, she was also a WWII veteran but even then, there was no assistance except her personal medical expenses - which she took advantage of as a result of fatigue and stress-related problems.
This situation was not her fault.
Again, my attack is not on an isolated case of mishap. Instead, I am honing in those that have acted irresponsible and continue to think they are entitled to assistance because of their poor decision making. As for your case, I am simply to uninformed to conclude.
Was September 11th and its economic effects, my fault? Was there anything I could have done to really prepare for that?
Again, you are digressing to a freak episode. This is clearly different from the original arguement, which was my reproach for poor planning-govt. assistance/taxpayer's $.
It’s what I dislike about Ayn Rand; she believes that we are in perfect control of our destinies. We’re not. Life is uncertain and that’s what we need to adapt to.
Empirically, most people do control their destiny. You can cite isolated or freak examples if you would like, but by and large, the decisions that are made on a daily basis are critical to one's future. Of course life's road will unexpectedly meander, but most of the time, a man is the captain of his own ship and must navigate accordingly.
It is only those who expect and abuse these programs, obtain them illegally, or are on them longterm, that distress me.
I think we are in the same boat on this one.
#28"It is only those who expect and abuse these programs, obtain them illegally, or are on them longterm, that distress me.
I think we are in the same boat on this one."
You say you are on the same page with this one and then you discredit my family? My parents were staying within their limits until they hit a rough patch. You've obviously never been in a situation like this. You have kids and a happy home, then some things don't go your way. Two cars break down and someone loses a job, and you need a hand to keep mouths fed. The government offers that hand and you look at my parents as irresponsible for taking that hand, and you also look at the government as wrong for offering that hand. This is not a freak episode, people need help to get back on their feet from time to time.
By the way you never responded to the actual point of my original post.
#29Dear B Easy,
Are you just incredibly lucky or sterile? You're absolutely sure that not one of those swimmers couldn't be released when the mission is not fully completed? Amazing! The Roman Catholics used to call your brand of birth control, Vatican Roulette; it doesn't always work. Listen, 'accidents' do happen. whether it is through faulty condoms and diaphrams, the presence of IUD's, and even when the woman was taking The Pill properly. The only sure way to insure that there won't be any 'accidents' is through total abstention, which is certainly difficult within the context of marriage. And that's a fact, Jack!
I am fully aware of the reasons for China's policy. The leap to China was actually addressing our 'economic' survival by limiting the number of children that our social services would support in order to lessen the burden on the taxpayer. In some sectors of society, perhaps if there were a known limitation, that might be a deterrent. At this point, some make the decision to have children because they know they will get supported by money and services! And there's no exit strategy. With the bureacracy that has been set up, it is easier to get on the rolls, then get off.
(By-the-way, you might be surprised that the one child policy is certainly not working with the masses in the rural areas of China. It seems to affect the urban middle class more than anyone. Highly educated Chinese can have 2 children and I don't think they have the one child policy in Hong Kong.)
The remark about starvation was meant merely as an expression.
I don't consider my mother's plight a freak situation; it happens all too frequently to women.
Ok. Now what would your solution be? What could be developed to educate these people in family planning, taking personal responsibility for their actions, and getting themselves off the welfare rolls and into a controlled destiny?
Let's start getting proactive here!
#30Ok. Now what would your solution be? What could be developed to educate these people in family planning, taking personal responsibility for their actions, and getting themselves off the welfare rolls and into a controlled destiny?
I am a firm believer that if individuals disregard common sense with respect to family planning, they are reap what they sew. If I were the director of the welfare program, I would investigate cases individually to determine the need. Now, it would be an arduous task initially, but in the long-run, it would be beneficial. But anyway, those able-bodied individuals that are not working, I would take their welfare away. Think about it, even a person with a minimal IQ who has physical handicaps can work at a Wal-Mart as a greeter. They don't make much money, but at least they work. Considering this, they may not earn enough to support a family, but that's the breaks of life.
If a deserving family does receive assistance and is caught purchasing a 60" Plasma TV, they get their aid revoked. If the family is on welfare and they have more children... revoke.
Conversely, if a welfare family member betters his or her situation by receiving an Associate Degree or a competancy certificate of some sort, they will receive more aid.
If one screws up, one will be punished accordingly. It is nothing more than operant conditioning. Why do certain individuals need to "be educated?" Is that the current state of the polity? We need someone to tell us that having multiple children, not working, not furthering one's education, etc... may lead to poverty? Incredible!
I don’t consider my mother’s plight a freak situation; it happens all too frequently to women.
Maybe not a freak, but I believe her situation is not the majority. I live in California where the taxpayers contributed 1 billion dollars to social aid programs for illegals, so you can see my reservations concerning the program in its entirety. The majority of those on welfare, at least in the state where I am from, are illegals from Mexico. My point is that most people on welfare are those that are receiving aid are those that have committed the many errors previously mentioned.
Just to reiterate, I am not attacking the "honest-legal" families or individuals. Rather, I am speaking in generalities and alluding to those that don't use their brains, which, I believe, is the majority of those on welfare. If I was unclear, my apology.
#31Why do certain individuals need to “be educated?” Is that the current state of the polity? We need someone to tell us that having multiple children, not working, not furthering one’s education, etc… may lead to poverty? Incredible!
Yes, it is incredible, but people like that do exist because of the respective cultures in which they have been brought up in and that includes the poverty pockets of urban and rural America.
For instance, I lonce ived on a mountain in Virginia about 50 miles west of Washington, DC. Some areas of this mountain were home to a very large, extended hillbilly-like family, who all had children out of wedlock (they breed like rabbits) and couldn't wait to get old enough to receive their own welfare. They had no respect for education and most dropped out of school when the law allowed. (You can imagine what their academic and legal records were like.) They were only fit for the most low-level jobs. Indeed, they were the laziest, meanest, people I've ever run into to - the patriarch of the family once held a double-barrelled shotgun no more than six inches from my face because I had 'trespassed on his property while taking a hike up the mountain! The kids didn't have a real opportunity to escape this because it was their culture and tradition; it is precisely this that we have to break.
Virginia's welfare policy has changed drastically from the time I lived on the mountain; you might appreciate the following:
Diversion Assistance: one-time cash payment to working families who face a sudden, temporary loss of income in exchange for foregoing welfare benefits for 160 days.
Paternity Establishment: requirement that mothers name the father of their children as a condition of benefits.
Family Cap: no increase in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits due to the birth of a child while a family is receiving AFDC.
Compulsory School Attendance: compliance with Virginia's compulsory school attendance requirements, including minor parents.
Minor Parent Residency: minor parents must live with a parent or guardian in order to receive AFDC benefits.
Two-year time limit for cash assistance and one year for transitional benefits.
Personal Responsibility Agreement: mandatory work; sanctions and enforcement for non-compliance.
Full Employment Program: exchange AFDC and Food Stamp benefits for subsidized work.
Work Experience: Community work experience for all recipients unable to find unsubsidized or subsidized employment.
Expanded Income Disregards: up to 100% federal poverty level for up to two years.
Transitional Medicaid and Day Care Benefits: VIP extends transitional services to individuals who lose AFDC for reasons other than increased earnings from employment.
Welfare had gone down over 25% because of these new rules.
I wonder how my hillbillies are faring!
#32I very much appreciate the valuable information that has been added to this page via the recent comments, and would like to thank all the commenters.
I haven't advocated elimination of the kind of welfare that was so helpful to Lupin. The kind of welfare reform discussed by A.M. Whittaker seems appropriate.
Mickey Kaus has a relevant article today:
Looking in a crowd for friends: Supporters of welfare reform have seen caseloads drop dramatically and a employment rise, but we're still looking for unmistakable signs of a dramatic improvement in the culture of ghetto poverty, especially for black men. Jill Leovy's Salon piece on the murder rates for black men seems to offer a potentially significant bit of evidence:
"The reality is that blacks in 1976 were almost twice as likely to die from homicide as blacks in 2004, and the disparity between black and white rates was 20 percent higher than today."
What's more, Leovy notes, "[s]ignificant progress has happened very recently. Over the last dozen years or so, the nation has seen a startling crime drops ... and black rates have dropped especially steeply." Hmm. What happened a "dozen years or so" ago? I can't remember. ... Leovy doesn't discuss the possible welfare-reform explanation,** though maybe she should. ...
Following Kaus' link brings us to this:
Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law
Ron Haskins
Work over Welfare tells the inside story of the legislation that ended "welfare as we know it." As a key staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, author Ron Haskins was one of the architects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. In this landmark book, he vividly portrays the political battles that produced the most dramatic overhaul of the welfare system since its creation as part of the New Deal.
Haskins starts his story in the early 1990s, as a small group of Republicans lays the groundwork for welfare reform by developing innovative policies to encourage work and fight illegitimacy. These ideas, which included such controversial provisions as mandatory work requirements and time limits for welfare recipients, later became part of the Republicans' Contract with America and were ultimately passed into law. But their success was hardly foreordained. Haskins brings to life the often bitter House and Senate debates the Republican proposals provoked, as well as the backroom negotiations that kept welfare reform alive through two presidential vetoes. In the process, he illuminates both the personalities and the processes that were crucial to the ultimate passage of the 1996 bill. He also analyzes the changes it has achieved in the social and political landscape over the past decade.
In Work over Welfare, Haskins has provided the most authoritative account of welfare reform to date. Anyone with an interest in social welfare or Congressional politics will learn a great deal from this insightful and revealing book.
#33Let me say that this is an interesting blog and an interesting debate. I hope to respond to the some of the political and social views expressed here when time permits. This time I just want to dispel some misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution. First, it got nothing to do with morality and I think it is a mistake to justify any social policies because of it. Any species that exist today is perfectly adapted to its environment. There is no specific goal for evolution, let alone a moral one. So, in this regard we are no better or worse than a cockroach or a rat.
#34########
#35dear sir ur site is extremely very nice.in ur site i did made my assignment very easily .really i would encourage u and appiciate u about this mind bolow site.i have shotage of words to explain how much i m excited and happy to find this great web site.
#36It's very good to hear that, Jhone. Welcome to the site!
#37Liberalism is isolationism taken to the extreme.
#38b easy for presidet
#39"The rest of the world cannot understand how after bitter election campaigns, American politicians can return to reality. For Instance Sarah Palin has invited to her great state ofAlaska the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.She has provided a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and has hired two other prominent men to assist them.Dick Cheney will instruct them in safe gun handling and Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins in the evening."What a gal, that Sarah is such a sport and thinks of everything.
The above reminds me of a movie that I saw several years back, called “Pay It Forward.”
Sort of a Chick Flick, but very nice intentions and moral content, where folks do all sorts of nice things to strangers, simply in the spirit of making things better for their fellow man.
What is related below is even more special, as these are not just strangers, these are folks that just less than one month ago were bitter contestants for the nation’s very highest office.
This is truly indicative of a level of benevolence and altruism that I do not know if I could ever aspire to, much less reach.
It just came up on http://www.wral.com that Governor Palin has arranged for Representative Maxine Waters of California to handle all financial aspects of the visit.
In case you are not familiar with the excellent stewardship of taxpayer money that Representative Waters has assiduously provided all of us with, the following is a tribute to Representative Waters and other Democrats as they have found creative solutions to a vast network of especially daunting and heretofore - resistant - to - solution financial subjects of concern, without regard to how persistent and knotty these issues have long been.
The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs , and was made and funded by the Annenburg Foundation for the purpose of being part of the instructional curriculum to meet increased accreditation standards of Secondary Level schools that offer an Advanced Social Studies and Ethics course.
Representative Waters is to be commended for taking this on, as she is the logical choice in view of calendar and geographical considerations which have obviated the possibility of Representative Gregory Meeks of New York performing this function.
Representative Meeks was the first choice for this role in Governor Palin’s Paying It Forward Installment, as he has just received the 2008 State of New York Elliot Spencer Award, for his contributions in fighting corruption and hypocrisy.
Governor Palin has arranged for a “King Krab Kwaffing” banquet on the final evening, for which Governor Rod Blagojevich will the dinner speaker on his trademark topic, ethics.
If only the ######## & Sunni Muslims could follow this poignant and inspirational example that Governor Palin has provided us in reaching out to ones that could have been called enemies, just what a wonderful world this would be.
#40There is a dated posting above about how welfare reform has resulted in a dramatic crime drop by black males, this from post #32 of VicR:
"The reality is that blacks in 1976 were almost twice as likely to die from homicide as blacks in 2004, and the disparity between black and white rates was 20 percent higher than today."
What's more, Leovy notes, "[s]ignificant progress has happened very recently. Over the last dozen years or so, the nation has seen a startling crime drops ... and black rates have dropped especially steeply." Hmm. What happened a "dozen years or so" ago? I can't remember. ... Leovy doesn't discuss the possible welfare-reform explanation,** though maybe she should. ...
Following Kaus' link brings us to this:
Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law.... it then gives more detail on this.
The problem facing American Black males is one of our very most pressing problems, and it behooves all of us to seek solutions. Right now it is the Single Black Mother that is the Backbone of Black America, and much credit is due to these strong women. Somehow welfare, at least this is one explanation, takes away the self esteem of the black man, and gently removing this crutch and getting these folks employed and along with this finding their self - esteem could be the reason for the drop in crime among this population. Win - Win.
Now fast - forward to 2009, Barack Obama has undone all this in just a couple of months. Now 40% of us who pay no taxes at all will eagerly look forwards to April 15th for a check from ones who do pay tax. And his agenda has more and more government, health care, taking from the private sector and giving to government, courtesy of your taxes.
Let's see where those crime statistics go, as this is just full circle on welfare reform. Yes, I am afraid that after the Democrats are finished this will be the United Socialist Republic of America. Prove me wrong Obama.
.
#41
#42This is great for my thesis I'm working on. Thanks!
I enjoyed reading through this greatly and can only respond with a hearty "AMEN!".
I am going to share this write-up and a link to this site with a good friend of mine that will likely have much additional input to share.