Tuesday: What does Sam Kinison know, anyway? :o)

...the argument is borne out by the facts:

Poverty has more to do with lack of opportunity than with lack of initiative.

Czuch: Cute, but yes, there is an element of truth in that. Only thing, Hillary Clinton is a part of it. It transcends political party. :o)

...the jobs available actually paid a "living wage," i.e., one sufficient to support a household. It used to be the case. Does no one here question, why has this changed?

The World Bank and the IMF.

This is one major reason our economic system seems to 'work' in the West...the fact that we essentially cheat the system by exploiting Third World resources & labor.

I'm afraid the whole system itself may be starting to break down, which is why the wealth gap is widening so quickly even in the West now...yet reacting upon itself finally, sort of crumbling under its own weight.

Czuch: I think in reality it has to be a combination of both. But we can't overlook the role of the drug-pusher, whether of illegal drugs or legal ones. There is an insidious process of seduction going on, on TV and the street corner. Nor can we ignore the drug-pusher's sources & channels, not only illegal cartels but also the CIA.

(V): Right on.

Bernice: I like it too. Thanks for posting it. :o)

Lieutenant James Walsh: "The [north tower] didn't fall the way you would think tall buildings would fall. Pretty much it looked like it imploded on itself."

Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building [south tower] is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."

Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey: [in his WSJ office] "I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces."

Beth Fertig (of WNYC Radio): "It just descended like a timed explosion--like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to.'"

Naudet brothers film clip:
Fireman 1: "We made it outside, we made it about a block . . . ."
Fireman 2: "We made it at least two blocks and we started running." He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to emphasize his next point: "Floor by floor it started popping out . . . ."
Fireman 1: "It was as if they had detonated--as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . ."
Fireman 2: "All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of s**t chasing you down."

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.”

Firefighter Richard Banaciski: [South Tower] "[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."

Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."

Firefighter James Curran: "When I got underneath the north bridge I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed."

Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: [South Tower] "It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."

Firefighter Kenneth Rogers: "[T]here was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93."

Firefighter Christopher Fenyo: "At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down."

(The 9/11 Commission did not hint at the existence of these testimonies in its official report.)

Bernice: War is a great cause of poverty, especially to those who are ravaged by it. So this really is a continuing of the theme I have been speaking on....

It is also a cause for poverty at home, because it diverts valuable resources & money that could otherwise be used to alleviate the poor here.

Even many Iraq vets (not to mention Vietnam vets) live on our streets, with physical & other kinds of impairments, and our government brings them no relief.

One cure for poverty, certainly, would be the elimination of wars of imperial conquest.

Snoopy: Yes, that is a very powerful, and now famous, image. what you can't see from the picture is how the little girl's skin has been burned off her back. The picture is actually a snapshot of film footage.

I wish that each night, on the nightly news, the American people would sit down to such images and film. There is no shortage of them. New ones are created every day. It would move a lot of people to action against the atrocities of war. Unfortunately, our national media is not even allowed to photograph the closed coffins of our dead soldiers.

Over the Christmas holidays, I was watching some war footage with two of my teenage sons. There was a child in the film, looked to be about 5 years old, sitting beside its dead mother and crying. Then there was a man carrying his bloody and broken child, beyond repair. I started to cry. This was a shock to my kids. It just came.

The only other time I cried in front of them was several years ago, when I learned that a promising young man I knew, also when he was only a boy, had lost his life in Iraq. I picked up the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, saw the headline, and it took my breath away.

So here I was over the Christmas holidays, watching war footage, and though I tried, I couldn’t keep back the tears. This was embarrassing. Then my boys started to cry too.

Am I a softy? Perhaps. Am I a weakling? I don’t think so. I was an Airborne soldier in the Army, and before that a state wrestling champion. But you have to care, I told my boys. You have to care...

Czuch, AD, Bernice, Bwild, Vikings, Lisa G, Snoopy, and anyone else who has expressed disapproval of anything I have posted....I appreciate you guys. I admire your tenacity & toughness.

Artful Dodger: I agree with Tuesday. And sometimes our strongest critics can provide us with our best insights, if we will listen. It always goes both ways....

Tuesday: That sounds right to me. The point you make, that helping is a commandment, implies that help is needed. And you also point out that Jesus specifically indicated it would continue to be a necessity. The only question left is, what kind of help is most effective? Certainly private charity is a wonderful thing. I do not see how public charity is not also wonderful.

Artful Dodger: Great points, Dan.

Some of the historical reasons America has had relatively more abundance are:

1. Geographical isolation from European world powers, especially in America's youth when it mattered most.
2. More abundant, and more easily accessible, natural resources than any other country in history.
3. In more modern times, exploitation of the natural resources of Third World countries.

As to middle-class wealth, this is due primarily to the bit of socialism Roosevelt introduced into our system with the New Deal & thereafter. Your fathers could work down at the plant, work a 40-hour week, own his home, provide for his family. But something happened. What? Answer: Roosevelt's paradigm, mixing socialism & capitalism, has been dismantled one piece at a time.

I dare say that, had the U.S.S.R. grown up on North American soil while the U.S.A. were stuck with Eastern Europe & Siberia, Russia would have won the Cold War.

Snoopy: Point taken. :o)

Bernice: Tighter control....that is fitting. Nite now. :o)

Snoopy: Most of my posts aren't this long. I'm sorry if I inconvenienced you.

Czuch: In continuation of my previous post on this topic:

3. The Conservative view is a Double Standard.

It is a double standard because conservatives claim to be opposed to Public Welfare, which they define as aid to the poor out of the public coffers, and apparently any other kind of domestic spending that can be construed, directly or indirectly, as thus benefiting the poor. Aid to the poor is a private matter, they insist, and as we have seen. If given freely in this way to those in need, it is a morally good action. But on the other hand, if a part of their tax-money is used to help those in need, they feel robbed. They are outraged. The money wasn’t freely given, it was taken from them. Furthermore, they were not allowed to choose the recipients of their charitable contributions. Thus they feel alienated from the good deed, in a sense, which perhaps even removes some of its goodness. Not only so, but they feel that perhaps the recipient who did receive the aid wasn’t worthy, in which case the money is wasted. They cannot KNOW this (that the money was wasted), though they are quick to listen to pundits who tell them this is generally the case. And it is certainly true that welfare programs in this country, in the past, have been spotty at best. The truth is, I can understand & even to some degree sympathize with the objections made above by Conservatives. Strictly speaking, what right does the government have to tell us how to spend our money? In fact, what gives the government the right to take this money from us in the first place? As we have already seen, the federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. But it is a part of the modern landscape, and has to be taken into account.

Yet, there seems to be a greater evil lurking behind Public Welfare, from the Conservative standpoint. This great evil they call “Socialism.” The chief evil of Socialism, say the conservatives, is that it steals from the Haves (the industrious) and gives to the Have-Nots (the lazy); i.e., it is a redistribution of hard-earned wealth. This redistribution is considered to be very inefficient, for two reasons: (1) the lazy man will waste this wealth without substantially improving his lot, therefore will remain a siphon off the industrious man’s wealth; and (2) the industrious man himself will lose his incentive for industry because he is not being allowed to enjoy the fruits thereof. Besides, if men are industrious, they will not be needy. And finally, Socialism is considered simply immoral because, again, it is redistribution without consent. This last argument, by itself, does have merit. In a different world (such as that inhabited by our founding fathers), it might be decisive. The first argument, that it is inefficient, is weak. Its efficiency depends on the quality of its input, as any system does. In any case, it is no less efficient than a Capitalist system which wastes incalculable resources through the destructive results of military expansionism, due to the sheer greed of its owners.

A third argument sometimes made is that Socialism is by its nature God-less. But that is not true. It is an alternative economic system, purely & simply. Contrary to the opinions of some, Capitalism is certainly not ordained by God, no matter how many so-called Christians feel a religious passion for it. The Communist governments of China & the former U.S.S.R. are/were Totalitarian regimes with Imperialistic aims. This has little to do with Socialism, per se. Likewise, the modern form of Corporate Capitalism does not reflect Adam Smith’s beneficent vision (Smith being the “father” of Capitalism, who published his “Wealth of Nations” in 1776). In the modern world, the best economic solution is probably a mixture of Capitalism & Socialism, with clear oversight of both, and provided that modern regimes (such as the U.S.A.) do not squander their wealth on bloody wars of conquest.

Be that as it may, the Double Standard among political conservatives lies in this: that they do not really oppose Public Welfare! That they do oppose it is a complete fabrication contradicted by the facts. That is, they do not oppose the redistribution of wealth which they claim is Socialism, and which they insist is immoral (for which argument, as I have said, I find some merit…but also some flaws). They do not oppose the forceful taking of a citizen’s money, without his consent, and spending it without his permission, in areas wherein that citizen would not have freely chosen to spend that money himself, and even possibly in areas wherein that citizen opposed its being spent. The robbery they rail against on the one hand, they allow & condone on the other. And this, assuredly, is a Double Standard.

What I am primarily referring to is our tax money & government debt-spending going to so-called “Defense Spending.” There are, to be sure, many pork-barrel projects in Washington, both Republican & Democrat, that use up our tax dollars. And not only tax money but, as we have seen, even more so the creation of new money by the Federal Reserve to be lent to the U.S. Treasury, thus devaluing the dollar in your wallet. Most people don’t complain about this because they simply don’t understand it. Yet by this method more wealth is taken from you than by the federal Income Tax itself. And most of the wealth siphoned off from you, either through taxes or inflation, is used for “defense spending,” i.e., it is turned over to the Military-Industrial-Complex.

Conservatives will here remind me that the U.S. Constitution mandates that we provide for the Common Defense. Agreed. But the Constitution nowhere mandates that the United States be an expansionist nation, an imperialist regime, a meddler in the affairs of other countries, or, by any means, a belligerent aggressor against other nations in war, which nations have not first attacked us! Yet this foreign aggressive behavior, as any informed individual knows, is the very essence of the “Bush doctrine.” (Palin didn’t know it, evidently.) It is preposterous on the face of it, if I may say so, to believe that our Founding Fathers envisioned the kind of arrogant assertiveness our nation has come to display upon the world stage (or to believe their arguments morally valid, if they did). But the truth is, they could not have, and did not, foresee the kind of power our Federal Government would be privileged with, once technology and central banking tipped the scales in its favor. Indeed, America is the most powerful country in the history of the world! Which means, by the way, that it also carries the most responsibility. But instead of being benevolent, we behave like the new Rome. The money we spend on the U.S. Military & related industries, making up the Military-Industrial-Complex first warned against by President Eisenhower (a Republican!), is yearly more than the rest of the world’s spending combined. To have the audacity to call this “defense spending,” simply boggles the mind. It is not “defensive,” but clearly “offensive.”

In fact, modern Conservatism can hardly be called “conservative.” The old conservatives (such as Eisenhower, and more recently William F. Buckley) fully rejected expansionist, essentially colonialist aims, for America. And that is why Buckley, for example, rejected the Bush administration. To be conservative means, for one thing, to keep things “within the budget.” Yet first Reagan, and then Bush Jr., piled up the biggest debts in the history of our Republic. Not to worry, your kids & grandkids will pay of the bill. I care not one whit for Bill Clinton, but at least he did balance the budget. For another thing, the old-time conservatives surely understood the importance of self-defense. But they reviled belligerent nations. That kind of despicable behavior was a characteristic only of evil empires like the U.S.S.R.! Yet America has now proven itself to be just as despicable. And these so-called modern conservatives embrace the evil empire America has become.

Now, to drive the point home, if so-called “Defense Spending” is not really defense spending, but something else, then it is spending for the benefit of some class or classes of people. My argument is that it is essentially spending for the rich. It is handouts to corporations who are part of the Military-Industrial-Complex, etc., at the expense of the poor & middle classes. It is a funnel of money from the poor man’s pocket to the rich man’s pocket. Again, Conservatives have no problem with this, even if they themselves become poorer as a result. Of course, they do not want to become poorer. But when they do, they falsely believe it is the fault of some poor black woman in Mississippi or some irresponsible single mother, and that is what they believe because rich men like Bill O’Reilly, hired by other rich men to misrepresent reality, tell them that. This is not to throw the total blame on Bill O’Reilly and his masters. If this misrepresentation strikes a chord in the average Conservative’s mind, it is because he prefers the Lie to the Truth.

As we see, then, there are TWO forms of Socialism at work in modern America: welfare for the poor, which is woefully inadequate & inefficient in its current form; and welfare for the rich, which runs like a well-oiled machine. Given the choice of these two forms of Socialism, I would choose the form which builds lives, feeds & houses & schools my fellow human beings. But conservatives instead choose the form which destroys lives, here & abroad; which rains Death & Destruction down upon innocents so that the wealthy backers & planners of these atrocities can take their oil…and who will even go to the extent of bombing their own citizens with false-flag operations such as 9/11, in order to provide a pretext for their crimes abroad.

What this proves, beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, is that Conservatives are not compassionate, as they claim to be, but rather callous to the suffering of others. At best, Conservatives are willfully ignorant. At worst, they actually take pleasure in human suffering. They do this because they are, deep down, bigots who do not identify themselves with humanity in general, but see themselves as fundamentally superior. Nor is the so-called “Christian conservative” truly Christian. By the modern definition of Christianity, he may be. He attends church. He prays. But notwithstanding this, his own Bible condemns him, as I demonstrated by the quotations I posted a couple of days ago.

I still have not argued my final point, which is, that the Conservative view is Inadequate. Artful Dodger seems to indicate, with his recent copy-&-pastes from the Cato Institute, that poor folks in America live pretty high off the hog. I will attempt to refute that claim, and if I can do so, then draw conclusions from its refutation. But for the time being, this post is already long enough. :o)

Bernice: I pay by cash also. I guess that makes me more conservative than the Bush administration. :o)

Tuesday: Coming from you, that is a high compliment indeed. (I'm dizzy)

Czuch:

“You seem to tell us that conservatives are wrong somehow because we dont take into account changes like evil corporations and the federal reserve, in our society since our countries founding, but you dont seem to explain in what way we dont take them into account”

I did explain in what way. You don’t recognize how they are systems designed to funnel the wealth from the working man to the mega-rich, how insidious is the process, or how devastating its impact. I say you don’t recognize it because there is no evidence that you do. So alien is the concept to you, you couldn’t even make sense of my clear exposition on the point.

“[N]or do you explain in what way liberals have taken them into account in a better way”

I have not been discussing Liberals at all. My focus has been entirely on Conservatives. Liberals have their own issues, and in some ways their worldview is deeply flawed also, in my opinion. But I have not analyzed it here. Nor do I consider myself flawless. I am always learning. God forbid I fall into the mental rut of a typical conservative.

“[W]e dont say that if you dont work you shouldnt eat... we say its just not the responsibility of the federal government to feed you!”

I hope you WOULD say, “if you don’t work you shouldn’t eat,” because that is the case, unless a person is too young or incapacitated in some way. But that is right, you make the case that it isn’t the government’s responsibility to feed people. That is the argument that I am attempting to counter in my long-winded exposition (not fully developed, the second part completed hopefully tonight.)

This will thrill Lisa G…

My general point is that it is humanity’s duty to “feed humanity,” i.e., to be one’s brothers’ keeper, in all that entails, and to use any & all powers and avenues we have available to do so. And, that unless, and until, we do so, we are failing our neighbors. And the more particular charge that I am leveling against Conservatives is that the line they put between public & private charity is antiquated, is simplistic, is a double standard, and is inadequate. I further charge that this false line masks conservative hypocrisy, in that betrays a real & fundamental lack of empathy for those who suffer. I don’t mean all conservatives lack this empathy. But conservative leaders certainly do, and it is the general mindset of modern American Conservatism.

In the second half of my argument, I will further charge that conservatives are also hypocritical in considering themselves “compassionate,” in that the evidence indicates they would prefer blowing up civilians in other countries to feeding & clothing civilians here.

“You make it sound as if liberals are just a more modern thinking conservative, that you have taken conservatism to a new and higher and better level?”

Again, I have not been discussing Liberalism. But in most ways, I think you may be right on that. Liberals have their faults, but in general they are more advanced in their thinking than Conservatives, and more aware of the complexities of the modern world. They are also, in general, more empathetic towards those who suffer.

“Conservatives also do not deny any child education or health care, no matter their parents situation....”

They certainly do. I think I explained it pretty clearly in my long post. But here’s a case in point: Conservatives resist Universal Health Care, even though multiple millions of children have no insurance. And many of these children need care NOW, not perhaps tomorrow or the next day when some private philanthropist happens to be in a good mood.

Czuch:

I want to respond to your post, because it is thoughtful and articulate. It puts the best face on Conservatism and deserves a considered response. That you are not a Bible-thumper is a mark in your favor, in that you are more likely to be both compassionate (in my opinion) & open to other points of view. Nevertheless, I find the Conservatism you defend to be flawed, for the following reasons: 1. it is Antiquated; 2. it is Simplistic; 3. it is a Double Standard; and 4. it is Inadequate. I will try to prove each point, if briefly, in the remainder of this post. As to your opinion that “bible thumpers give far more to charitable concerns than you and your socialist friends ever thought about giving,” this is perhaps true and perhaps not. I can understand how you would believe it so, since Christians do stress private charity, and that is a mark in their favor. If it is true, then it is an indication to me that, on both sides of the aisle, there is room for self-assessment and growth. Now to the points.

1. The Conservative view is Antiquated.

I say it is antiquated because it does not take into account the changes in our country, and in our world, since the founding of our nation. In an agrarian society, where (1) opportunity really was more or less equal, (2) great forces were not arrayed against the common man, and (3) governments had less power to influence our lives economically, then private charities might indeed have been the best answer to alleviate the suffering of the poor. By “great forces,” which Conservatives fail to take into account, I mean primarily the rise of the modern Corporation & the establishment of a Central Bank (the Federal Reserve), coupled with astronomic advances in technology.

The modern Corporation, for example, has the legal powers of a private citizen, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the early part of the last century. But its advantages are manifold: it does not die of old age, it is allowed to trade overseas, it has far more wealth than a typical private citizen, and therefore it has better means to influence governmental policy. It also has the right to privacy of a citizen, which means its records, its meetings, its decisions, its policies, are concealed from the public, even though it is the public those decisions & policies most effect. It is the common man, the industrial worker, the small business man, who loses in the bargain. He cannot prevent his job from being moved overseas, or his small business from being undermined through the monopolistic forces & collusion of big business. He cannot prevent his wages being reduced, with only his company’s “word” that it is necessary. He has little or no recourse to the “justice system” if this Corporate “citizen” breaks the law. Finally, if the Corporation is a legal citizen, it is necessarily a psychopathic one. By this, I mean it is entirely (and admittedly), out for itself. It’s bottom line goal is to make a profit at any cost, i.e., the goal of self-preservation through continual growth. It has no higher values as a citizen, by its very nature. So it is competitive by nature, rather than cooperative, and only cooperative to the extent that it calculates such is strategically necessary to maintain its strength for future competition. Thus, if the modern Corporation is a citizen, it is a calculating little devil of a citizen who, for the betterment of society, ought to be severely restricted in its actions & powers. But the laws of the land, many written by the corporations themselves & merely signed off on by members of Congress, protect & support this devil, and increasingly enlarge its powers, to the detriment of the common man.

The Federal Reserve is a bigger enemy to the common man than the corporation. This Bank is federal only in name. It is a private bank whose shareholders remain undisclosed. Yet it has two awesome powers which render it deadly. The first is the power to tax. I am speaking of the Income Tax, which is strictly unconstitutional, since the primary definition of “income,” when the Constitution was written, was “profits from capital,” not “wages from labor;” and since the Constitution stipulates that other taxes must be equally proportioned among the people. As we know, the Income Tax is not equally proportioned, but different tax rates now apply to different individuals, depending on their wealth. However these tax rates are applied, they are simply robbing the common man of the fruit of his labor. I think you may even agree with that. And this is to the common man’s disadvantage in his struggle against poverty. An interesting point to make is that no federal law exists establishing the legality of the Income Tax. It is simply done, and enforced by the IRS, which is the policing arm of the Federal Reserve, a private bank whose shareholders are secret & unanswerable to the public.

The second awesome power of the Federal Reserve is the power to create currency out of thin air. And this is what it does, partly to regulate interest rates, but mostly to lend to the government for debt spending. In this way the government can borrow and spend as much as it pleases, by handing over the money to Corporations, again, primarily those within the network of the Military-Industrial-Complex, who supply oil & equipment to the armed forces and the secret service agencies. Now, the key to understanding how printing money out of thin air (no gold standard) robs the common man is that, for every dollar thus created, the dollar in your wallet is devalued by that much. This is because the increase is not based on capital, i.e., actual material goods. Most of you notice that inflation gives you less bang for your buck. You can’t buy what you previously could, with the same amount of money. What many of you don’t understand is that inflation is no blind “market force,” but a direct and calculated result of printing money out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, i.e., by private bankers to lend to the U.S. Government, which bankers therefore profit, FREELY, when the debts come due, because the printing of currency has cost them essentially nothing. In 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established, 4 cents on a dollar had the buying power of a whole dollar today. So that is how much the money in your wallet has been deflated through inflation. And though wages do increase incrementally over time, I think most people are fully aware that they lag far behind the costs of goods & services, in terms of real money. Furthermore, though the common man has less real wealth as a result, this does not mean that there is less real wealth in the world. It simply means the ownership of this real wealth is being transferred (clandestinely, if you will), from the common man to the mega-rich. And this is essentially why the rich man gets richer: it is not because he works harder or longer hours, or really even that he works smarter; rather, it is because he takes advantage of a system designed precisely to transfer your wealth, the fruits of your labor, into his bank account.

As to technology, I will pass this point by, except to say that it obviously increases the power of those already in power, militarily & otherwise. And That, along with the secretive (thus, anti-democratic) operations of clandestine governmental organizations such as the CIA, NSA, CPC, NSC, and DIA, all of which serve to further the interests of Corporate leaders & private bankers (under the guise of calling it the “National Interest”), provides devastating means of economic warfare against the common man that the writers of our Constitution could scarcely have dreamed of.

2. The Conservative view is Simplistic.

I have already indicated how it is simplistic, in terms of not taking into account the rise of the modern Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and technological advances. In short, there is a disconnect in the Conservative viewpoint caused by its misunderstanding of the complexity of the modern world, and its somewhat starry-eyed (yet understandable) nostalgia for the old world. Yet, it is also simplistic in two other, less pardonable ways. In the first place, conservatives argue (and rightly so) that private charity, much less public welfare, ought not to be extended to those who don’t deserve it. This is a main point of their thesis, that those who won’t work shouldn’t eat. It is emphasized & oft-repeated by talk show pundits such as O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boorz, etc. As far as this argument goes, I agree. Yet it stops at first base, so to speak. Nor does it exist in a vacuum. For the sake of argument, let us take 10 poor families, of 5 members each. Let us say that 50% of those households (that is 5 out of 10, an unrealistically high number in my estimation) have parents “too lazy to work.” Where does that leave us? It means that, to argue against public welfare based on the fact that even as high a number as half the adults in question would abuse it, is to deny aid to the other half of the adults, who need it & won’t abuse it. Further, it is to deny aid to the children of both sets of adults. And the children of even the irresponsible adults are citizens, and do not carry the guilt of their parents. So, in effect, this position would, and does, deny needed food, shelter, health care, schooling, to children who are guiltless. And these children need the food, shelter, health care & schooling so that they can grow to be healthy, well-informed citizens upon which our nation depends. In effect, because of the laziness of 10 citizens, 40 other non-lazy citizens are required to suffer the consequences. Now, one might argue here that it’s “too bad” for those children, especially those of the irresponsible parents; that “it’s a tough world, get used to it.” But in doing so, one surrenders one’s right to be considered a “compassionate conservative.”

In the second place, the Conservative viewpoint has a simplistic, or rather one-sided, recognition of the Sources of Evil in our society. It rightly recognizes that the lazy poor man is evil. But it fails to acknowledge the existence, or negative socio-economic impact, of the evil rich man. Yet the evil rich man has a far greater influence on the general economy, as already alluded to, than the evil poor man. And while the evil poor man’s irresponsible behavior effects mostly himself and his immediate family, the evil rich man’s selfishness has a negative economic impact on many poor families, even the ones headed by responsible adults. Nevertheless, conservatives rarely if ever admonish the evil rich man, or better yet, seek to alter the social system so as to decrease the evil rich’s man influence & impact on the poor & middle-class. To the contrary, they invariably side with the rich man, never considering him to be “evil” in any case, but rather to be an “American success,” almost by definition. Whereas they always stand against the evil poor man, notwithstanding that in doing so they group, if not intentionally, certainly in Effect, the evil poor man & the honest, hardworking poor man into a single composite entity. And in doing this, they turn a blind eye to the real needs of their fellow countrymen, many of whom are children who can in no wise fend for themselves.

So the net result of this overly simplistic view is that Conservatives, again not necessarily intentionally, but nevertheless truly, support the oppressors of the poor, rather than the poor themselves. And this in fact harms the poor, resulting in the malnutrition & deaths of children, along with other comparatively lesser evils. When examined closely, it is hard to argue with a straight face (it would seem to me) that Conservatives can deservedly bear the label, “compassionate.” This is not to say that they are physiologically or psychologically incapable of experiencing the whole gamut of human feelings & sentiments. And, even by natural instinct, a feeling of pity towards some unfortunate might arise in a conservative heart under certain circumstances. This is true of us all, or of at least most of us. Yet the Conservative mind is not, by & large, sufficiently driven by a profound pity for real human suffering, enough to cause it to expand the scope of its worldview, and take into account very relevant factors which contribute to, and in many cases even cause, this suffering. The Conservative man does not consider the alleviation of human suffering to be one of his top priorities, or even to be, strictly speaking, his responsibility. His highest moral mandate is individuality, i.e., personal choice. He therefore may, or may not, choose to extend private charity, at his own discretion. In no case can it be demanded of him. And he does not acknowledge, or perhaps even recognize, the higher moral imperative, that of altruism: that we truly are, and must be, our brother’s keeper. Such a moral law the so-called “compassionate conservative” will not be constrained by.

He will of course reiterate his argument that, surely he IS constrained by this moral law, and accepts its mandate, but only privately. It does not belong in the public sphere. I will continue my argument against this position in my next post on this subject, because I do not have time or space here to get to my last two main points, as mentioned in the opening paragraph. I will only say here that such a stance insinuates, in my estimation, a false dichotomy of thinking, a false choice or preference, if you will, which results in the de facto neglect of the poor. And this very fact, that the poor are neglected indeed, reveals that behind this false preference lies an element of hypocrisy – perhaps unconscious hypocrisy in some, yet it is conscious in others. In other words, it is a stance which masks, whether intentionally or accidentally, a fundamental lack of empathy for others who suffer. But this is an argument I will develop more fully in the second half of this essay.

Thank you for reading this far. :o)

Mousetrap: Also thank you for your post. It is the only one in the last 7+ hours not from the opposition. lol

Mousetrap: I agree! There is a man who exemplified Christ. :o)

I brought religion into this discussion because, when considering the case of the poor, the Bible has a lot to say about it. Also, most Republicans are Bible-thumping Christians, are they not? So it applies. And one would think the Bible's teachings & sentiments on this subject would influence their attitudes, political as well as private. It would appear, however, that other Biblical themes (particularly the Mosaic ones) get most of their attention.

I don't even claim to be a Christian. I ought not to know more about the Bible than most of these fundamentalist-types. And I didn't write the Bible, so I can't take the blame for what it says. If Jesus and his disciples were bleeding hearts, or too lazy and irresponsible to work, as O'Reilly would have it, or not worthy of compassion, as Limbaugh suggests, or perhaps ought to be kicked around a bit, as Beck thinks....or if the poor, rather than being blessed or held in esteem, are the scum of the Earth which deserved to be washed away by Katrina because they didn't have enough sense to leave the city...well, I can't help it if the Bible you purport to believe in & abide by rather condemns your point of view.

But when did the "man of sorrows" ever catch a break?

Artful Dodger: That is like asking me how many women I slept with in 2008 or, more to the point, to do my alms before men. And it is, naturally, designed as a personal attack in lieu of a defensible argument. In any case, it is private and I'll keep it to myself. I have no trophies big enough for your display case. Let God be the judge. And I'll stick to my position.

Artful Dodger: It's nevertheless the truth, at least according to Jesus' way of reckoning. And if I, personally, never gave a penny to anyone, it certainly wouldn't nullify the arguments I am making.

Nite Dan. As always, been fun....

Artful Dodger: If I gave away "two mites," it would be more than the average Republican. :o)

Artful Dodger: Do the early Christians sound like Capitalists to you? I said it sounds like Socialism, at least more like Socialism than Capitalism. And it does. It was more collectivist than individualist. I also did not argue that I condone Socialism, per se. Republicans accuse Democrats of being Socialists every other minute or so. Yet the Republicans surely support Corporate Welfare & the Military-Industrial-Complex, which amounts to Socialism for the rich. It also amounts to the slaughter & impoverishment of untold numbers of innocents abroad. So again, I fall back to my earlier claim, that Republicans, as a unit, and our Government, as an entity, despise the poor and serve the rich. For which you will have to answer to due time. :o)

Czuch: If we would provide as much for the infrastructure (which would mean jobs and a higher standard of living across the board) as we do for the common defense, I would have no argument. That we spend more than the rest of the world combined each year on the military budget, while the interior of our country rots, speaks volumes about our priorities. We would rather blow someone up in Iraq than help a drowning man in New Orleans.

And frankly, this term, "common defense", is a misnomer. We are certainly an aggressor nation. We are a greedy empire which wants more. "Defense" is the least of the Pentagon's, or the Federal government's, priorities. I see few if any Republicans, here or elsewhere, bemoaning this fact or taking issue with the Bush administration over it (or now, over the aggressive posture of Obama in Afghanistan).

It seems pretty clear to me that contempt outweighs compassion across the board, at home and abroad. I believe those verses apply directly to the attitudes of most Republicans, some Democrats, and some of the posters on this board.

Artful Dodger: I certainly agree with that. It does not nullify my point.

Artful Dodger: Those are great quotes, Art. But how about when most of man's hard labor benefits the one he is working for, while only a fraction is left for himself? And how about when that fraction becomes smaller & smaller, due to the political & economic maneuverings & advantageous position of the owner?

WHAT SOLOMON SAID:

Proverbs 14:21 He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.

Proverbs 17:5 Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.

*[Doesn’t O’Reilly mock the poor by generalizing that they are lazy & irresponsible, and by equating them primarily with those who “drink gin all day,” “smoke reefers 24/7,” “dropped out of school,” and are “too lazy to hold a job”? Does not Glenn Beck mock the poor by misquoting Benjamin Franklin to say, “We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of poverty”?]

Proverbs 19:1 Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.

Proverbs 19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Proverbs 21:13 Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.

*[This is gonna be a tough experience for Rush Limbaugh and like-minded individuals, i.e., the hard right Republicans, the Hannitys, the O’Reillys, etc.; but the filthy democrats who serve the same masters are in the same boat.]

Proverbs 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

*[There’s our credit system. Do you think Solomon is applauding this state of affairs, and not rather pronouncing judgment upon it? It seems that he is finding fault with the good ‘ole American way.]

Proverbs 22:9 He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.

Proverbs 22:22 Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate.

*[I take it Solomon believes that some people are robbed simply because they are poor and can’t defend themselves. Not much has changed.]

Proverbs 28:3 A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food.

*[This is like being a poor Republican…there’s a real anomaly here.]

Proverbs 28:6 Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.

Proverbs 28:8 He that by usury [i.e., interest on loans] and unjust gain [through unjust laws] increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.

*[You who love the American economic system, seem to me to despise the One Who inspired Solomon to write these words.]

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

*[We ain’t as dumb as we look. :o)]

Proverbs 28:15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.

*[This is a comment on Rulers, i.e., it has to do with laws and the political system; it is not just “private charity” or the lack thereof that is considered here.]

Proverbs 28:27 He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.

Proverbs 29:7 The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.

*[Those who argue that opportunity abounds, that only the lazy don’t succeed, seem to me to “regard…not to know” the cause of the poor.]

Proverbs 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.

*[The king here represents the leaders in any political system; in a democracy, we are all kings; charity is therefore Public by definition.]

Proverbs 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

*[This is political, especially in a democracy or republic where the people rule publicly based on the political & moral judgments they make privately.]

Proverbs 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

*[This is what the Virtuous Woman does.]

WHAT THE APOSTLES SAID:

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

*[Peter served a different God, it seems, than the fundamentalist preachers you see on TV.]

Acts 2:44 -45 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

*[The early Christians don’t look like Capitalists to me. More like Socialists, if I may say so. They worked hard, then spread the wealth.]

Acts 4:34 -35 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

*[Can you imagine what the Repubs would say about these people today? Centralization & distribution of wealth so that all may benefit as needed…that is Socialism!]

James 2:5-6 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

*[James the Apostle seems to agree with Solomon, that most rich men oppress poor people. He seems to be on the side of the poor, and argues that the poor are wrongfully despised.]

James 5:1-6 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.

*[Sounds like today, doesn’t it? Wages fall, i.e., “the hire of the labourers…which is…kept back by fraud.” But the Repubs will argue we need to pour that “treasure” into the Pentagon to protect ourselves against all those dangerous women & children & old men we are blithely killing with our bombs the world over in the name of Freedom & Safety. And if you don't get paid more for the job you do making money for the rich, work harder!]

WHAT JESUS SAID:

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

*[Rush Limbaugh might say: “I worked for my money! Let them work!” So would O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity & most Republicans who post here. There’s that word “distribute” again!]

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God .

*[Jesus seems to respect the poor more than most rightwing pundits…to understate the case.]

Luke 14:21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

*[The “poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind”…in short, all the kinds of people that most Repubs hold in more or less contempt. A few are honest enough to boldly admit it. Another few are good-hearted, but fail to discern the Republican agenda.]

Luke 21:1-3 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all.

*[Thank goodness there is a just universal balance-scale that will ensure that, in time, we all reap what we sow.]

Czuch: But you bring up a good point. Should the poor be a local, state, federal, or private concern?

I would imagine, for those who truly pity the poor, it would be all of the above.

Czuch: Actually this is not the point I have been debating. I have been arguing that rightwing Republicans unduly criticize the poor. And I have been arguing that U.S. laws & policies unduly favor the rich. I have also been probing for attitudes in general about the poor, among posters on this board. And I believe that, because most posters here do not recognize the imbalance in our politico-economic system, in favor of the rich and to the detriment of the poor, nor do they find fault with the statements of Beck, O'Reilly & Limbaugh, those posters have no real pity for the poor.

Should we pity the poor?

Artful Dodger: Ok, thanks.

Bernice: I meant to say, "it doesn't necessarily follow that those laws are NOT written by the rich." As a pawn, apparently I can't modify my posts.

Bernice: Thank you for your opinion. However, even if "laws are written to cover all races and creeds regardless of standing in the community," it doesn't necessarily follow that those laws are written by the rich. But I understand your point...that in Australia the laws do not favor the wealthy.

Artful Dodger: I agree that the author of any given law does not necessarily favor its author. But my argument is that, in the case of most laws in the United States, they do. My point is a general one, that tax laws, bankruptcy laws, the Federal Reserve, laws on interest, corporate laws, tend by their nature to increase the wealth of the the wealthy and decrease the wealth of the poor. I am simply asking if you disagree with this generalized statement.

Artful Dodger: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this?

Vikings: It would seem to me that our policies & laws neither "establish justice" nor "promote the general welfare."

I would contend that the tax laws, the Federal Reserve, corporate law, the laws of interest on loans, bankruptcy laws, etc., all promote the interests of the rich & tend to make them richer, while making the poor poorer. I do agree that these laws are very intrusive.

I would also assert that our foreign policy serves to make the rich richer, which is its design, while making most of the rest of the world's citizens poorer, also by design.

And I would argue that the statements below made by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly portray an unmasked contempt of the poor.

Artful Dodger: So....most people are poor because they refuse to work?

Artful Dodger: To "establish justice" and "to promote the general welfare" means "No" in regard to the poor?

Vikings: Thank you. So what does it mean to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," in terms of the poor?

Vikings: What does this country stand for?

Vikings: Do you agree with the sentence as it stands?

Artful Dodger: Thank you for stating your opinion clearly.

My real intent with these quotes & questions, is to ask:

Are not rightwing attitudes towards poverty in general and the poor in particular, overly critical? Do they not heap blame upon the poor for being poor? Do they view the poor with more or less contempt?

I believe they do, but I am open to being corrected.