David Brooks had an interesting column about a longitudinal study of 268 young men, including John F. Kennedy, who entered Harvard College in the late 1930s. What’s fascinating is how unpredictable their lives and behaviors were. “It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear,” Brooks wrote. “They take center stage in consciousness and decision-making in ways we can’t even fathom. The man who is careful and meticulous in one stage of life is unrecognizable in another context.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- preordained1 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
104 Comments
We are the sum total of the choices we make.
Brownlee, get off this asinine liberal concept that we are completely controlled by fate, things outside our personal influence, and lack of personal responsibility thing.
“Boxlock20″ –
Get over your narcissism.
Your life is perfect, one must assume; exactly how you’d like it to be.
Look:
Timing and chance interfere with life all the time.
If you’re a pretty girl but a bit chubby, you’d be a Gibson Girl in 1900; and a frumpy housewife in 1ht 1990s.
The same woman who would be a classic flapper in the 20s was SOL in the 1950s when Jane Russel and Marilyn Monroe were in fashion.
Bob Dole was on the fast track to become a surgeon until the Nazis interfered with his plans.
Bach was the most brilliant baroque composer in history, but his kind of music had fallen out of style. Mrs. Bach used to wrap the garbage in some of his scores.
External forces influence every life.
“If you’re a pretty girl but a bit chubby, you’d be a Gibson Girl in 1900; and a frumpy housewife in 1ht 1990s.
The same woman who would be a classic flapper in the 20s was SOL in the 1950s when Jane Russel and Marilyn Monroe were in fashion.”
Then choose to lose or gain weight according to your fashion desires, don’t simply have more dessert to comfort yourself.
The war got in the way of my father’s plans as well, but when it ended he and mom put him through undergraduate and then dental school at great hardship to get where they wanted to be.
Some folks get rich by invention or developing a great talent, others by menial hard work and diligent saving and investing. My aunt was a clerk in a county office making a small salary most of her life but enjoyed an estate of over 800K in her later years, which provided for her excellent care until her death.
On the other hand BlowJ will always be a loser and dependent on someone else or the government because HE CHOOSES to live like that, not because someone else or fate causing it.
Those are CHOICES, not simply fate.
People that CHOOSE to smoke develop lung and cardiovascular disease, folks that CHOOSE to drink and drive have accidents and possible kill others or get arrested. People that CHOOSE to take great amounts of their time to learn to play music develop a great gift, Olympic athletes while being genetically predisposed must CHOOSE to train at the expense of other life activities to achieve excellence.
Choices make a difference, get over your damn liberal victim mentality.
How much do we control who we are, who we become?
================================================
That’s easy!
We are all people and we will all become dirt.
(too early in the morning for that?)
Man is not a machine. God is sovereign. God has given us His laws and His design for how we should live our lives. Man is responsible to love and serve God within these parameters. Because of this there is great freedom to become an artist, a surgeon, an engineer, a loving husband or wife, a president, a general, a janitor, a nuclear engineer, a medical researcher, a musician……
While some choose to live outside God’s design, He blesses us all with sunshine and rain, springtime and harvest. Blessed be the name of the Lord!
This is an excellent topic for Saturday morning coffee, and Brooks is a thought-provoking writer. The freedom vs. fate theme is one of my all-time favorites. I have thought about it a lot.
A while back, I watched that movie, “Rounders,” which is the story of the Matt Damon character coming to terms with his talent for card-playing. He’s a law student, but feels a strong inner drive to play high-stakes poker. At one point, when he’s sitting in a bar with his law professor, the prof tells him, “We can’t run from who we are. Destiny chooses us.” (I wrote the line in my diary.)
That quote comes close to summing it up for me. To a considerable extent, people are influenced by fate. They have gifts in some areas and shortcomings in others. They are born into certain families and cultures. Still, though, no matter what the circumstances, the individual must be true to himself. Destiny chooses him, but he’s still responsible. He has the freedom to search for the truth.
The other thing about the “Rounders” quote is that it suggests that living for some external purpose is a mistake. The purpose must come from within. Perhaps the subjects in the Harvard study that Brooks mentions struggled with this somehow. It’s easy enough to get sidetracked. So maybe they went through different phases of getting lost and then having to reorient themselves again. I am as blind as anyone, but I’d argue that staying true to the inner purpose, no matter what the circumstances, works about as well as anything. A life lived for some external purpose can seem hollow and meaningless.
Fate is for those too weak to determine their own destiny.
Good morning and thanks Deb, so true.
And as usual Reg., you are right on.
Ummmm… “fate” may well be an interesting topic… whether you believe “fate” is some ethereal thing that floats around and grabs you, or if you believe “fate” is the predetermined life plan “God” has given you…
But… amazing as it is, the word FATE never occurs in the thread lead, OR in the article linked in the thread lead…
It’s Saturday… get more coffee, and read this thread lead and article again… It isnt about FATE…
Malcom Gladwell discusses this topic in his most recent book Outliers. He concludes that being in the right place at the right time, has more to do with success than choices.
Most really people will tell you the same thing.
really successful people
Chas,
The title of the thread is;
“How much do we control who we are, who we become?”
Now, it certainly seems from the title and body that it is talking about how much “control” we as individuals, living our lives, have in “who we are” and “who we become”.
Fate:
“Fate is the product of all the experiences and decisions we have made in our lives. Fate is inevitable but its not predetermined.”
and it is also defined as;
“The element of chance in the affairs of life; the unforeseen and underestimated conditions considered as a force shaping events; fortune; etc.”
I think fate is a very appropriate term in this context.
IF the term is so damned appropriate, then WHY isnt it used??
Hmmmm??? Maybe you got your hands on the wrong definition?? Maybe the article linked to isnt talking about FATE?? Maybe Brownlee isnt talking about FATE…
See, Brownlee doesnt impress me as the “determinist” type…
Here, Box — Try Merriam Webster >>
1fate
Pronunciation: \?f?t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin fatum, literally, what has been spoken, from neuter of fatus, past participle of fari to speak — more at ban
Date: 14th century
1: the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : destiny
2 a: an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end b: disaster ; especially : death
3 a: final outcome b: the expected result of normal development c: the circumstances that befall someone or something
4plural capitalized : the three goddesses who determine the course of human life in classical mythology
synonyms fate, destiny, lot, portion, doom mean a predetermined state or end. fate implies an inevitable and usually an adverse outcome . destiny implies something foreordained and often suggests a great or noble course or end . lot and portion imply a distribution by fate or destiny, lot suggesting blind chance , portion implying the apportioning of good and evil . doom distinctly implies a grim or calamitous fate .
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/fate
At heart, this study is the old nature vs. nurture argument- given the time-frame, I’m not a bit surprised. Unfortunately, the study doesn’t appreciate the deeply compounded complexities a life is subject to, something we’re only beginning to grasp. In other words, this study, like its subjects was a victim of its times, a fact which provides its own answer to its initial question.
Chas,
You provided definition fits exactly with the title of the thread.
How much control do we have, vs whatever you want to call it….I call it fate.
Box — you dunce — If WE have control over it, that isnt FATE, no matter what YOU call it!! Didnt you sleep well laet night, or what?? You are missing the entire point of the thread, and the Times article!!
“Better an ounce of luck than a pound of gold.”
–Ancient proverb
Sure, it’s true that we’re all the sum total of our own individual choices, but so what? Duh. I mean, ya think?
Luck is an ancient word, an ancient idea, one that’s been around as long as humans have had the ability to realize that we have an existence outside our environment. The oldest civilization on earth, China, has revered luck for centuries, never once losing sight of the obvious fact that we’re responsible for our own choices in life.
No human has ever existed outside the context of random chance and its ability to shower us with good — or bad — outcomes, otherwise known as luck.
Anybody who denies luck and circumstance is a fool. Anybody who doesn’t plan around random chance (luck) is a fool. Probably the same fool as the guy who insists that the only thing determining our fate is the cumulative sum of choices we make in life.
“fundamental attribution error” – the tendency to see people’s problems as resulting from some internal problem rather than their external circumstances.
“self-serving bias” – other peoples’ problems are the result of their choices, mine are are the result of my external circumstances
“legitimizing myth” – justifications for the inequalities that exist in our culture.
Does Regular not work because he does not want to, or that he had the bad luck to suffer a work related injury? Perspective is an interesting thing isn’t it?
Anybody who denies luck and circumstance is a fool. Anybody who doesn’t plan around random chance (luck) is a fool. Probably the same fool as the guy who insists that the only thing determining our fate is the cumulative sum of choices we make in life.
==========================================
Actually, most things attributed to luck can be explained.
Whether fate is thought of as ‘chance’ or ‘predetermination’, or both, “How much do we control who we are, who we become?” has more to do with our choices and the decisions we make throughout our lives. And those determine our situation in life……and ultimately forever.
And that doesn’t mean we earn our way to heaven, but we are given the chose to decide to accept the gift.
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
Actually, most things attributed to luck can be explained.
—
Unless you’re willing to prove that EVERYTHING attributed to luck can be “explained” (I assume you mean accounted for in a cause and effect model) you haven’t said anything worth a spit.
Not unusual for you, but true nonetheless.
#
Pedant
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
Actually, most things attributed to luck can be explained.
—
Unless you’re willing to prove that EVERYTHING attributed to luck can be “explained” (I assume you mean accounted for in a cause and effect model) you haven’t said anything worth a spit.
Not unusual for you, but true nonetheless.
=========================================
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
I suppose it is easier to explain some serendipity metaphysical aspect of an event than it is to think about the reason for cause.
No Chas, you are being he dunce.
You fail to read and understand what I said.
I simply said that those things outside our control are something I and others call ‘fate’.
And it has less to do with our situation in life than our choices and decisions made along the way.
“If WE have control over it, that isnt FATE”…that is exactly what I said. And what we have control over has much more to do with our lives than what we don’t, like fate.
Not that things we have no control over don’t effect us of course, but it’s what we do about it that determines where we are, for the most part.
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
—
Prove it.
“I suppose it is easier to explain some serendipity metaphysical aspect of an event than it is to think about the reason for cause.”
Or to take responsibility for it!!!
A revolutionary discovery of 20th century physics was the random character of all physical processes that occur at sub-atomic scales and are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The wave function itself evolves deterministically as long as no observation is made, but, according to the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, the randomness caused by the wave function collapsing when an observation is made, is fundamental. This means that probability theory is required to describe nature. Others never came to terms with the loss of determinism. Albert Einstein famously remarked in a letter to Max Born: Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der Alte nicht würfelt. (I am convinced that God does not play dice). Although alternative viewpoints exist, such as that of quantum decoherence being the cause of an apparent random collapse, at present there is a firm consensus among the physicists that probability theory is necessary to describe quantum phenomena.
–wiki
Ummm I dont think I see anybody arguing for a metaphysical aspect of anything at this point… BUT… inasmuch as SOME people do use that means(metaphysical)… I tend to agree with your statement Regular…
Actually, I see way too many people using that metaphysical hocus pocus to explain life than should be at this point in time…
#
Pedant
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
—
Prove it.
————————————-
Give me an example of something to prove or disprove.
Randomness is not an element of fate, kismet or voodoo.
Randomness describes a set of events categorized by a certainty or uncertainty in terms of likelihood which demonstrates a predetermined set of events, properties or energies to exist before it occurs.
Centuries of writings from folks far more intelligent than any of us here, have been arguing the Determinist vs. Free Will argument… I dont know if we will ever solve the debate… But I will hang with the Free Will writers every time…
See, I dont think that even the Determinists want to believe that we are nothing more than pawns in some giant cosmic chess match…
Yet, I see a lot of present-day theology that paints just that sort of a picture…
It’s both, uncontrollable things of chance happen, and we have our free will to make decisions based on plans, or based on chance. Opportunities and Disaster aren’t very different, just Chance, what decisions you make after opportunities or disaster present them self, is free will. It’s both, working together, for the good or bad all depends on Independent situations, and the Character of an Individual. I imagine, referring to the study about people including JFK, some chance circumstances change a persons, beliefs, views, and their life as whole. Such as someone mentioning that Bob Dole was on his way to being a Surgeon, before he was injured in War.
Such as this article, I think the internet has made a big world, very small, for the worse or better, depending on how people deal with it.
“How much do we control who we are, who we become?”
Platitudes about an “American dream” to the contrary, we actually have very little control over who we are and who we become. That is unless we are prepared to surrender ourselves over to others and their whims. In America, you play the rich man’s game or you struggle by on your own rules.
Boxlock20
Posted May 16, 2009 at 8:01 am | Permalink
“If you’re a pretty girl but a bit chubby… ”
gawd it’s funny how those repukes always get around to talkin about them sexxy girls.
it’s funny cause every repuke who gets busted messin around on their tired lookin wife is doing it with a MAN.
LOL
while the democrats screwing around are doing it with a WOMAN.
how does that work ??
Chas,
Fate implies a particular outcome, ie. determinism, which abrogates free will. We’re simply the pawns in some metaphysical game.
So what’s left, random chance? while I tend to believe that randomness isn’t given the full credit it’s due, we don’t live in a universe of pure order or pure chaos- life can’t exist in either- but on some demilitarized zone between the two. Chance plays a large part in our lives, as do our responses to chance happenings. If you don’t believe that, ask a dinosaur. Order gives randomness the possibility of stability, hence the ability to crystalize into progress (of course the direction of progress is still largely random). Free will is the random wiggle room we may get between ourselves and our events.
Jed,
Did you write all of that while sitting under your crystal pyramid? :)
Chance – fate – luck – call it what you will, it happens to all of us. Some of us get the best of it, some the bad.
The real difference among us, of course, is not so much what life gives us, but what we do with it.
“Boxlock20
Posted May 16, 2009 at 8:01 am | Permalink
“If you’re a pretty girl but a bit chubby… ”–pizzaface
Hey illiterate, that was my copy and paste where I quoted of Monkeyhawk.
Read before you mouth off dummy.
“we actually have very little control over who we are and who we become.”—BlowJ
No truer words were ever spoken…BlowJ has little to no control over himself and chooses to blame everyone else.
reggie,
“Jed,Did you write all of that while sitting under your crystal pyramid? :)”
Nah, crystal pyramids are too confining and hard to air condition.
I’m doing what I wanna do bawks.
When you were a kid, did you WANT to grow up to be a cranky old man hawking medical supplies in a world where just about everything you hold dear is crashing down around you?
#
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
#
Pedant
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
—
Prove it.
————————————-
Give me an example of something to prove or disprove.
=====================================
I suppose Pedant is still searching the Internet for a properly phrased question. :)
#
StevenEDavis
Posted May 16, 2009 at 11:04 am | Permalink
Malcom Gladwell discusses this topic in his most recent book Outliers. He concludes that being in the right place at the right time, has more to do with success than choices.
Most really (successful) people will tell you the same thing.
———-
Circumstances are important, no doubt. How does the saying go? Something like: “Success happens when opportunity and preparation meet”.
But how many folks never recognize opportunity because they aren’t looking? Or others who saw opportunity but didn’t pursue it out of fear? Or just didn’t have the energy or desire to succeed?
It is a battle that each individual must fight for themselves. But to think that your place in life is determined by fate is, well, it’s sad. And unnecessary.
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
#
Pedant
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
—
Prove it.
————————————-
Give me an example of something to prove or disprove.
=====================================
I suppose Pedant is still searching the Internet for a properly phrased question. :)
—
Oh contraire, diptard. Just took a minor detour to the YMCA is all, but I”m back now. :)
Just make it simple, and prove this:
egular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
—
Prove it, retract it, or restate it as your opinion. (If you can prove it, you’re guaranteed a Nobel. In fact, probably more than one.)
“But to think that your place in life is determined by fate is, well, it’s sad. And unnecessary.”
Stepphen Hawkings’ update of Einstein’s famous saying:
“God not only plays with dice, sometimes he throws them so that we can’t see the results.”
I don’t think, nor does the research indicate, that all that happens to us is due to “fate”. It is just that luck, circumstances, etc. account for the greater share of variance when we are talking about success.
Deluding yourself so as to believe you have control over things you don’t is a conservative cognitive distortion. It serves several purposes.
Go to Google Scholar, look up “social dominance theory” and “right wing authoritarianism” – you will be able to tell even from just abstracts that conservative congnitive errors have been examined and documented, quite well, actually.
Would also recommend Gladwell’s book. See above.
Dream on BlowJ*b, keep lying to yourself as long as you can.
After all….that’s all you’ve got and that’s apparent to all.
Gladwell’s book is on my reading list for this summer. A guy I work with, an extremely conservative (and brilliant) Mormon, just raves about it.
Anybody who’s ever sweated an analysis of variance in grad school (ANOVA) can tell you all about random variation (luck). In fact, it’s impossible to prove any theory without accounting for every eta squared of variance observed in your experimental results. What’s more, you don’t actually understand anything in science or anywhere else until you’ve accounted for all BUT random variation in all your formal observations.
What is clear, is that Boxlock constantly posts about matters which he/she knows nothing about… e.g., the lives of individuals he/she has not, nor will ever meet…
We have no control as individuals.
It takes a village.
Whatever will be, will be.
We do whatever the State (thru Publik Edukation) tells us to do.
We need Government to tell us what to do.
“Deluding yourself so as to believe you have control over things you don’t is a conservative cognitive distortion. It serves several purposes.”
————–
Sounds like Victimology 101 Steven. But it is useful, I suppose in making folks feel better about themselves.
Sure, people can feel better knowing nothing is their fault.
People can blame SOMEBODY ELSE for their own failures.
And we will all live in Paradise, pointing fingers at SOMEBODY ELSE all the time.
Look at all the kids from Midland Texas whose daddies were oil men.
Obviously George WMD Bush became POTUS because of “God’s will.”
C’mon, CONs.
Have you lost all touch with reality?
outlander: “Sounds like Victimology 101 Steven. But it is useful, I suppose in making folks feel better about themselves.”
Translation: As usual, I have no substantive reply to what you are saying.
The reality is, a person’s success is largely due to the intersection of both their own efforts and chance (as well as the person’s own interpretation as to their personal success). Yes, there are people who are more likely to recognize and take advantage of their opportunities, but there is still considerable variation as to when those opportunities occur, and to what extent they can be exploited when they do.
Curious how so many self described Christians (who are also political and especially self described “fiscal” conservatives) are willing to blame the “less successful” (i.e., poor) for their lack of success. The cognitive dissonance sometimes becomes overpowering irony (such as when RFL talking right wing talking points about wealth redistribution on one hand, while trying to hang social Darwinism on those who believe in evolution on the other).
Jimbo,
You sound as though you think people will be blaming you for their failures. What awful things did you do that would make them think that?
Jimbo,
“We need Government to tell us what to do.”
Why are you telling us that? Do you think we need you to tell us what to do instead?
Agnatha,
“The reality is, a person’s success is largely due to the intersection of both their own efforts and chance…”
Chance? Care to elaborate on that some?
I would hardly say change is a “large” part of someones success at all. I would agree that chance can often help a person be more successful than what they can do on their own by either opening a door they never expected or making their progress to a goal quicker, but it is not what is a “large” part of the average persons success.
Translation: As usual, I have no substantive reply to what you are saying.
The reality is, a person’s success is largely due to the intersection of both their own efforts and chance (as well as the person’s own interpretation as to their personal success).
———-
Aggie: I understand that you are a person of many words. But really, do you have so many that you have to put them in my mouth?
It is simple really. Everyone agrees that circumstances play some role in success and as I mentioned above. In fact, you basically quoted my post in your second paragraph above. We just part company on how much.
Success stories abound about people who overcame their circumstances or who kept after it and refused to quit after failing. They are the winners. Others, who quit after one bad experience or who never tried at all, are the losers. It wasn’t that there wasn’t an opportunity, it was what was done with the opportunity.
There is so much opportunity in this country that it is impossible to miss it if you are looking. It all depends on what a person is willing to pay for it in terms of time, effort and persistence.
And those who drag others into the excuseology gutter just so that they feel better about themselves, are doing those folks a disservice.
I think this guy’s article is also saying, effective communication with the people around you is imperative to keep your head on straight.
People, you can’t live with them, and you can’t live without them.
Outie,
“Success stories abound about people who overcame their circumstances or who kept after it and refused to quit after failing.”
And usually embellished to no end by the people who may or may not have overcome them. Heard a lot of those. The frightening thing is that most of these jokers believe their own myths and propagate them while making sure that opportunity isn’t coming your way. I’ve known some of them. They really wanted my work, but tried every sleazy trick in the book to avoid paying for it. I quit doing business with them long ago, and have been better off for it.
“…usually embellished to no end…”
“…most of these jokers believe their own myths and propagate them…”
Hmmm…. wait a minute. Sounds just like you with all of your anecdotal stories you tell.
Nathan,
Gee, I must be terribly successful then.
Actually I am. I certainly wasn’t self-made, but I was lucky enough to have friends who taught me how to have that life. I haven’t made a pile of money, but if that had been my goal I sure wouldn’t have become an artist! And since I couldn’t afford a cellar, I had to get out in the world to live. If you’d done that, you’d probably have some decent stories to tell too.
#
Pedant
Posted May 16, 2009 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Oh contraire, diptard. Just took a minor detour to the YMCA is all, but I”m back now. :)
Just make it simple, and prove this:
egular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Everything in our physical existence has cause and effect.
—
Prove it, retract it, or restate it as your opinion. (If you can prove it, you’re guaranteed a Nobel. In fact, probably more than one.)
——————————–
It’s rather difficult to prove everything all at once.
I’m gather you are intellectually unable to give me an example of something that cannot be proven to have a cause and an effect and is physical.
That’s okay, I understand your limited station in life.
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 6:38 pm | Permalink
I’m gather you are intellectually unable to give me an example of something that cannot be proven to have a cause and an effect and is physical.
—
Is there an English version available?
Regular
Posted May 16, 2009 at 6:38 pm | Permalink
It’s rather difficult to prove everything all at once.
—
I think what you meant to write is “no, I have no clue how to prove what I said. What’s more, I lack the personal integrity to admit that my @ss overloaded my mouth and move on.”
Like the shaky English that was attached above, it just didn’t come out right. :D
Well. I guess it has to be said, and since nobody’s stepping up to the plate here…
Regular, I believe your status as Science Officer Maximus Dufus, Sister’s Basement Regiment, is now in question due to your extraordinarily clumsy fumble of this simple exercise in logic.
Pull yourself together, man. Maybe the dog needs a Science Officer?
Evidently Pedant, you disagree with Newton and Einstein who said there is no such thing as chance.
If you can’t handle the discussion, perhaps you should gracefully bow out. You are obviously in over your head.
I am shocked *SHOCKED* that the science edumafication of a former HAZMAT inspector (ie, two non-calculus-based physics courses and a speech class) has let Regular down here.
I’m sure all full growed men who find themselves living in a sister’s basement, replete with a hotplate and a Linux box, have just felt the universe move a little. Just a little wobble.
It’s a sad day for all former HAZMAT inspectors, that’s all I can say. The world is headed to h*ll in a handbasket if’n a growed man can’t work as a HAZMAT inspector 30 years ago and yet maintain a reputation today as Science Officer Maximus Dufus of sis’s basement.
Next thing you know sis’ll be takin’ yer bullets. ;)
All Pedant has is insults and therefore proves he is above his head.
Too bad, I figured you would be more intellectually capable than you have expressed yourself on this subject.
he is above his head = in in over his head.
“It is simple really. Everyone agrees that circumstances play some role in success and as I mentioned above. In fact, you basically quoted my post in your second paragraph above. We just part company on how much.”
Fair enough.
“Success stories abound about people who overcame their circumstances or who kept after it and refused to quit after failing. They are the winners. Others, who quit after one bad experience or who never tried at all, are the losers.”
There is the old saying, history is told by the winners. Of course stories abound about how people succeeded and overcame obstacles, and I know and indeed work with people who have and do overcome obstacles. And yes, there are some people who do overcome obstacles that other people did not because of their determination. I am not talking about taking credit away from such folks at all. It is the italicized portion of your comments that I take strong issue with. There are plenty of people who work hard, and never give up, but do not accomplish what they wanted to accomplish. Then, there are those people who worked hard and may have set the stage for others, but do not benefit themselves. These are the people who generally don’t get to tell their stories. No one is banging down their door to get their stories, and they can’t afford their vanity publisher to tell the story of how they worked and worked and worked but never got to where they wanted to be. One of the biggest jack*ss comments I have ever read on this blog, was when ksgolfnut essentially said that being poor should not be easy, with the clear implication being that if a person is poor, it is his/her fault. It is hard to imagine a more self serving claim by those who are wealthy to claim that other people not being wealthy, much less poor, are indications of their work ethic (are there lazy poor people, of course, but there are also the idle rich). This is where the overwrought nonsense about redistribution of wealth comes from. The rightwingers try to infer that somehow the people who make large amounts of money earned it by working harder than those who don’t. This is nonsense. Some labor is valued more than others, and this is inevitable in any society. However, this valuation does not provide an objective measurement of a person’s will or drive to succeed. Furthermore, those who make the most money tend to make it from public as well as private sources, so the idea that the wealthy don’t get the return for their public dollar that the poor do is just nonsense (and yes, the poor pay taxes as well).
“It wasn’t that there wasn’t an opportunity, it was what was done with the opportunity.”
An opportunity is only an opportunity if it occures at the right time, the right place, and often with the right people. Yes, there are people who set goals and have the resources to achieve them. There are other people who are just as determined, but do not have the resources, and who therefore need to take advantage of the right opportunity at the right time, which may or may not come. That’s reality. If it wasn’t, everyone who worked hard would be where they want to be in life, and that just isn’t the case. And in fact, an economy is actually dependent upon that never being the case.
Agnatha,
“…That’s reality. If it wasn’t, everyone who worked hard would be where they want to be in life, and that just isn’t the case.”
Working hard doesn’t necessarily equate to getting where you want. One can work hard there entire life and never get where they want.
One must work hard at getting to where they want to be, not just work hard.
Example:
A man could want to be the CEO of the company or even just the manager of his area, but he doesn’t actually do anything to attain that goal other than going to work each day mindlessly working hard.
“And in fact, an economy is actually dependent upon that never being the case.”
How so? The economy is basically based on market value. What someone is willing to do or pay in exchange for something.
The economy will adjust accordingly to those things. It doesn’t depend on people missing opportunity.
Agnatha,
“…was when ksgolfnut essentially said that being poor should not be easy, with the clear implication being that if a person is poor, it is his/her fault.”
I would like to see ksgolfnut respond to this, because I take it a completely different way.
It is EASY for someone to be poor in the fact that they can get food stamps, low income housing, and other government funded programs offered to them.
To live they need to do nothing more than cash the checks given to them.
I believe this is what was meant by saying it shouldn’t be easy to be poor.
Look at BlueJay for example. I bet he works, maybe even hard. But hard enough to pay for health insurance for his kid? Nope.
He can sit at home and talk about how he doesn’t want to work for the “man” because the government is taking care of his son for him.
He might be motivated to work a bit harder or to work for the “man” so he could provide for his son.
Agnatha,
“The rightwingers try to infer that somehow the people who make large amounts of money earned it by working harder than those who don’t. This is nonsense.”
Really?
Two different people, very real examples:
Person 1. Doesn’t get excellent grades in Highschool because they didn’t study as much as others. They don’t really get any scholarships. Goes to a University and studies Criminal Justice. It is easy. They spend most of their time living life, having a good time, and occasionally studying for their CJ degree. Of course they get about 20,000 in student loans maybe even 40,000 along the way. They might even work an odd job here or there for spending cash. After 4 years they proudly get their diploma and go out to the real world to get a job. They find out that they will most likely work at a correctional facility making about 13 dollars an hour. If they are lucky they might make it on the WPD and make 22 dollars an hour or the Sheriff and make less.
They go to work everyday at the prison and they work hard. But they get 14 dollars an hour for that hard work.
Person 2. They study in highschool and get good grades. They even get scholarship money too. Not a full ride, but enough to help. They choose to study Biology and Chemistry for a focus on Pre-med. They want to be a doctor some day. They study their rear ends off to get straight A’s for med school. Not much of a social life and they spend all their money just to survive and pay for school. They even work a couple of jobs because they don’t want to burden themselves with even more student loans than they know it might take for medical school. After 4-5 years they get their degree. They get accepted to medical school where they spend another 4 years of their lives doing nothing but studying and working for school. Eventually they become a doctor. Now after a few years of working at a hospital and saving their money they branch out on their own and decide to open a family practice or some other specialized place of medicine.
Person 1 is making about 40k a year at the prison now after their 10 years there. Maybe even 50k. They still go to work every day and do a good job there working hard.
Person 2 is making about 300k a year at their family practice. They also go to work everyday and work hard.
And now here comes the left trying to say that they both work hard, but that person 2 is “rich” and should be paying more in taxes to help support others who work hard to, but maybe just didn’t get the lucky chane opportunity that person 2 did. The left says it is “nonsense” that Person 2 works harder than person 1.
What is “nonsense” is this liberal notion that those who are “rich” don’t work harder than others for what they have.
The only way you might have a point is some kid who was given a great amount of wealth from his parents.
So, while their bank account is still full you want to punish those still earning their money with an increased income tax and call it social justice…
I would be curious to know if you support the Fair Tax which would actually hit those real wealthy people you are talking about when they purchase things with their money as opposed to those still earning it with an income tax?
“What is clear, is that Boxlock constantly posts about matters which he/she knows nothing about… e.g.,”—Chas
“What is clear, is that
BoxlockChas constantly posts about matters which he/she knows nothing about… e.g.”, matters of faith and religion, as he is nothing but a matchbook certificate faux preacher and doesn’t know spiritual true if it was looking him in the face….which it is.Nathan,
“What is “nonsense” is this liberal notion that those who are “rich” don’t work harder than others for what they have.”
Funny, I never came in at 9:30, left at noon for a 3 martini lunch, played golf (badly) ’til 5 and then had drinks and steak dinner at the country club and went home and told my wife about the hard day I’d had. I’ve seen many of Wichita’s finest execs do just that. I never had the time.
As for poor people, it never seemed as easy as some of you claim. In fact, I’d bet most of you couldn’t last a month of being poor. You wouldn’t have the survival skills or the ability to scrounge it takes to be poor.
Jed,
And you probably think those exec’s just woke up one day right out of high-school with their jobs and never had to do a thing to get there?
They make million and billion dollar decisions for the companies they lead or help lead.
They didn’t get there by being lazy. They got there by working 60 hours a week average. Always giving to the company and working for the company.
You see the end product where they enjoy themselves and ignore the road leading there.
And why is it always the CEO’s that the liberals go after?
Why don’t you go after the baseball player getting million dollar contracts to play a game for the rest of their lives?
I sure would like to know where all this “help” is you keep talking about Nathan. I aint managed to find it.
Oh yeah, I haven’t looked.
Work is rarely rewarded in this country. What IS rewarded is enlarging the egos and catering to the whims of people who’ve never done a lick of work in their life.
For SOME of us, the ability to play the game just aint written into who we are.
That USED to be called rugged individualism.
Me for instance? Some little mid manager comes to me and says “Jay, I’m not happy. Ask me why I’m not happy Jay.”
I tell him his happiness is not my reason for getting up in the morning. IF I’m feeling polite.
Nathan,
No, they either got the job right out of college (where they majored in booze) from dear old dad or dad-in-law (the single largest factor in getting rich is selecting rich parents. The next largest is selecting rich in-laws)
And all the work that led up to those hard decisions was delegated to someone who didn’t have rich parents {and who will be fired if the decision lost money).
And the only thing most of ‘em do for 60hrs a week is sexually harass their female employees and drink.
I’d bet most of you couldn’t last a month of being poor. You wouldn’t have the survival skills or the ability to scrounge it takes to be poor
Every once awhile one reads a statement that defies imagination and common sense. That was it. :D
“to the whims of people who’ve never done a lick of work in their life.”
Now how would Bluejay know that? The hardest work he does is beat his meat.
Bluejay, the boy in mans clothing with a hand-me-down computer is no authority on the word work.
Makes me laugh when he pretends to seriously post on the subject.
“What is clear, is that Boxlock Chas constantly posts about matters which he/she knows nothing about… e.g.”, matters of faith and religion, as he is nothing but a matchbook certificate faux preacher and doesn’t know spiritual true if it was looking him in the face….which it is.” [Boxlock]
In just a couple of lines of LIES, Boxlock fully proves just what I posted in an earlier post LOL
How Amazing!! What Box doesnt KNOW for facts, he/she just simply makes up as he/she goes…
I’m gonna bet “Roach” is one of those pencil neck mid manager types. You can always tell ‘em. Mean spirited and not very bright.
reggie,
“Every once awhile one reads a statement that defies imagination and common sense.”
And possessing neither in any appreciable measure, you would know that how?
Bluejay do you gat a big callus on your hand from all the workout you give it?
“Really?
“Two different people, very real examples:”
Oh please. Pleease. Anyone can do an apocraphyl story like you posted. However, that is hardly anything close to the only valid example. You presented a story that assumes the very prejudices that your story is meant to reinforce. Person 1 may end up working as hard as Person 2 for less money, but the difference was that Person 1 was lazier at the outset. Your story is simply a circular example reinforcing your conclusion.
The follwing example is just as valid, and just as based on the real world. Notice how variables beyond the persons’ control change the outcomes. And yes, this happens all the damn time in real life.
Person 1 works very hard in school. She is the youngest of two children, both doctors (although her mother practices out of her home). She gets straight A’s not because they come easy to her, but because she works hard. She gets into a good college and decides that she wants to become a Doctor. Her parents, both doctors themselves, pay for her tuition. Because her father is also a respected surgeon, after she finishes residency she gets into the practice of her father’s old Medical school buddy. She is making $300,000 a year by the time she is 29, and is engaged to another doctor in the practice.
Person 2 also works hard in school. However, her mother abandoned her and her siblings when she was 12. When she gets to her grandmother’s house, she has to take care of her six younger brothers and sisters, cook their supper, and try to make sure that they are doing their chores and school work. Afterwards, her grandmother comes home and eats the supper that 2 prepared for her, while 2 goes to work at the Long John Silver’s down the street. Technically, since she is in school she is not supposed to work until closing, but her family needs the money. She then goes home and does her homework, smelling of fried fish and hush puppies. She gets A’s in most classes, B’s in others, and she has to choose which classes she works the most in, but the reality is, she has little time. She goes to sleep around 1:00 most nights, and gets up by 5:00 to help her siblings get up. She graduates from High School with good grades in the Regents curriculum, which qualifies her to go to college but does not get her scholarships. She wants to be a doctor, but she has to work to take classes at the local community college. But, she works hard, does not party like some of her friends, or give up like some of her other friends and siblings. It takes some years, however, before she finally bites the bullet and moves out, leaving her grandmother to care for her siblings who remain at home. She earns her Associate’s Degree in 4 years, and then is finally able to get some student loans to go to a four year college. She is a year from getting her Bachelor’s Degree in biology at age 29. She has just gotten married, and her husband is supportive, ut he is also working his way through school. She wonders how she is going to keep working, pay off her student debts, and go through Medical School. She thinks she will get admitted to the Medical School up in Lawrence, but she is still not really sure, and she is certainly not sure that she will be able to afford it if she is.
Person 1 and Person 2 are both determined, and if the positions were reverse Person 1 would probably work just as hard as Person 2 had to to get half as far. But, the difference between them comes down to things that they could not control.
Now let’s introduce Person 3, whose circumstances are very similar to Person 2’s. Person 3 also works hard, and also wants to be a doctor, but happens to be in a high school where Person 1’s mother was a graduate. The school has fallen on hard times, but Person 1’s mother provides this particular school with a scholarship designed for a hard working young woman like Person 3. She takes advantage of it, and she ends up graduating from Medical School with Person 1.
In Person 3’s case, she worked just as hard as Person 2 to get through high school (assuming that her life was very similar to Person 2), but she had an opportunity that Person 2 did not have, and she was able to take advantage of it. Would Person 2 have taken advantage of the same opportunity if it had presented itself to her? Sure. But she didn’t because it didn’t happen. And if that opportunity did not present itself to Person 3, her story would have been more similar to Person 2’s.
This example, Nathan, is every bit as valid as yours. Could and does your example happen? Sure it does, but so does mine. The fact that you chose to tell the story you did reveals more about the mindset you bring to this issue, than it does about the issue itself.
“What is ‘nonsense’ is this liberal notion that those who are ‘rich’ don’t work harder than others for what they have.”
And to reinforce this assertion, you told an apocraphyl story that assumed your premise.
Your statement qualifies perfectly for the label of bullsh*t as defined by moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Sometimes it is true but sometimes it is not, and the truth value of the statement is less important than your belief in it. Do some people become rich by working very, very hard? Sure. Others, however, become rich by having opportunities that were beyond their control, such as those pointed out by Jed (who their parents or parents in law are), or dumb luck. They don’t necessarily work even a fraction as hard as people who are not wealthy. Furthermore, there are people who are born poor, who grow up poor, and who work every bit as hard to educate themselves and maintain themselves as some guy who worked hard getting rich. Sometimes, it is because the rich guy had the time to work only to support himself and his own ambitions, while the poor guy had to work not only to maintain himself, but to maintain his family and support their ambitions as well. Sometimes, the poor guy in those circunstances gets the right opportunities, and he tells the story about how he pulled himself up by his bootstraps and got rich. However, the other poor guys who work just as hard do not have the right opportunity at the right time, or just missed it, due to circumstances beyond their control. They don’t tell their stories, or contribute to the popular Horatio Alger mythology that conservatives seem to think explains why the rich are rich and the poor are poor.
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend, “If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,–
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm.”
Then he said “Good-night!” and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.
Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.
Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,–
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel’s tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, “All is well!”
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,–
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.
Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse’s side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry’s height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.
A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.
It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer’s dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.
It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.
It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.
You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,—
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;=
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,—
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
Can Obama use any of this in his Iraq speech? Not sure the teleprompters can handle all this:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam.
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.
How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?
How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?
What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?
What choices do we have if we are to end the war?
What are the prospects for peace?
Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for four years. Thirty-one thousand Americans had been killed in action. The training program for the South Vietnamese was beyond [behind] schedule. Five hundred and forty-thousand Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number. No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.
The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.
In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces. From a political standpoint, this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat, which would be the result of my action, on him — and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.
But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my Administration, and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation, and on the future of peace and freedom in America, and in the world.
Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war. The great question is: How can we win America’s peace?
Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place? Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.
In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.
Now many believe that President Johnson’s decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others, I among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.
But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before. They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.
We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.
With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities at Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.
For the United States this first defeat in our nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world.
Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.
In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said,
“We want to see a stable Government there,” carrying on the [a] struggle to maintain its national independence.” We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. So we’re going to stay there.”¹
President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.
For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of worlds conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace — in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace. It would bring more war.
For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end the war fought on many fronts. I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts. In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, on a number of other occasions, I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.
We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year. We have proposed a cease fire under international supervision. We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon government has pledged to accept the result of the election.
We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we’re willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable, except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future.
At the Paris peace conference Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings. Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave.
We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized in January that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations, I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.
Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.
I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace. Soon after my election, through an individual who was directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi’s replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations. Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my assistant for national security affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam.
None of these initiatives have to date produced results. In mid-July I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I’m now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh. I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.
Let me read from that letter to you now:
“Dear Mr. President:
I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one, least of all the people of Vietnam. The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war.”
I received Ho Chi Minh’s reply on August 30, three days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative. The full text of both letters is being released to the press.
In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam’s chief negotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions. And we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive.
But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago, and since this Administration came into office on January 20th, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.
Well, now, who’s at fault? It’s become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government. The obstacle is the other side’s absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.
There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi ’s deciding to negotiate — to negotiate seriously. I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth — the bad news as well as the good news — where the lives of our young men are involved.
Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front. At the time we launched our search for peace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiations. I therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace — a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front. It is in line with the major shift in U. S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine — a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.
We Americans are a do-it-yourself people — we’re an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy. In Korea, and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.
Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen. He said: “When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war, but not to fight the war for them.”
Well in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us, or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.
The defense of freedom is everybody’s business — not just America’s business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous Administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this Administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.
The policy of the previous Administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significant did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.
The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird’s visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces. In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams’s orders, so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam. Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 per cent.
And now we have begun to see the results of this long-overdue change in American policy in Vietnam. After five years of Americans going into Vietnam we are finally bringing American men home. By December 15 over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam, including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result, they’ve been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.
Two other significant developments have occurred since this Administration took office. Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack over the last three months, is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year. And most important, United States casualties have declined during the last two months to the lowest point in three years.
Let me now turn to our program for the future. We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.
I have not, and do not, intend to announce the timetable for our program, and there are obvious reasons for this decision which I’m sure you will understand. As I’ve indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts. One of these is the progress which can be, or might be, made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.
The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June.
Now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable. We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time, rather than on estimates that are no longer valid. Along with this optimistic estimate, I must in all candor leave one note of caution. If the level of enemy activity significantly increases, we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.
However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point. At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam, they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam.
I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal program. We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors. If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy. Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage.
If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation. This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy which as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.
My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war. I can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement, if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization, if necessary — a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.
I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way. It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace, not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.
In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.
We have faced other crises in our history and we have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what has to be done when we knew our course was right. I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading, “Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home.” Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view.
But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street. For almost 200 years, the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this nation has no future as a free society.
And now, I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war. I respect your idealism. I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It’s very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.
I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam some place in the world.
And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.
I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed. If it does not succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter. Or if it does succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won’t matter.
I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days, but I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion. Two hundred years ago this nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world, and the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free-world leadership.
Let historians not record that, when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.
So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed. For the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand — North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
Fifty years ago, in this room, and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: “This is the war to end wars.” His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard reality of great power politics. And Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.
Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars, but I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which — to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated — the goal of a just and lasting peace.
As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path for that goal and then leading the nation along it.
I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command, in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.
Thank you and good night.
“So, while their bank account is still full you want to punish those still earning their money with an increased income tax and call it social justice…”
Oh please. Whine whine whine about the poor abused rich. The reality is, the rich pay more because they have more, and when they contribute more in absolute dollars, they still have more than enough left over that the impact on their resources to meet their wants and needs does not change.
“I would be curious to know if you support the Fair Tax which would actually hit those real wealthy people you are talking about when they purchase things with their money as opposed to those still earning it with an income tax?”
No I would not, and no one who is serious about reducing deficits or the national debt woyudl support such a thing, because in most cases expenditures do not increase proportionate to increases in income at the very top (See above about the economic reality about resources versus wants and needs). I know for a fact that my spending has not increased proportionate to my income, and I am nowhere near the top end of the spectrum (the greatest variability in income, by the way, occurs in the top 1%).
Agnatha (Greek, “no jaws”) is a class or superclass of jawless fish in the phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata. Many recent textbooks regard the group as paraphyletic[2] but recent molecular data, both from rRNA[3] and from mtDNA[4] strongly supports living agnathans as monophyletic. It has existed since the Cambrian, and continues to live now. There are two extant groups of jawless fish (sometimes called cyclostomes), the lampreys and the hagfish, with about 100 species in total. Although they are in the subphylum Vertebrata, hagfish technically do not have vertebrae; they are sometimes classified in Craniata. In addition to the absence of jaws, Agnatha are characterised by absence of paired fins; the presence of a notochord both in larvae and adults; and seven or more paired gill pouches. There is a light sensitive pineal eye (homologous to the pineal gland in mammals). All living and most extinct Agnatha do not have an identifiable stomach or any appendages. Fertilization and development are both external. There is no parental care in the Agnatha class. The Agnatha are ectothermic, with a cartilaginous skeleton, and the heart contains 2 chambers.
While a few scientists still regard the living agnaths as only superficially similar, and argue that many of these similarities are probably shared basal characteristics of ancient vertebrates, recent classifications clearly place hagfish (the Myxini or Hyperotreti), with the lampreys (Hyperoartii) as being more closely related to each other than they are to the jawed fishes.
Agnathans are ectothermic or cold blooded, meaning they do not have to warm themselves through eating. Therefore, Agnathan metabolism is slow as well as the fact that Agnathans do not have to eat as much. They have no distinct stomach, rather a long gut more or less homologous throughout its length.
[edit] Body covering
The only modern Agnathan body covering is skin. There are no scales at all. Many extinct Agnathans had thick body plates (see below).
[edit] Appendages
Agnathans have no paired appendages, although they do have a tail and a caudal fin.
[edit] Skeleton
The internal skeleton of the Agnatha is not bony but rather cartilaginous (made up of dense connective tissue). Also, Agnathans have a notochord for their whole life, a characteristic distinctive of the class. This notochord is the first primitive vertebral column.
[edit] Reproduction
Fertilization is external, as is development. There is no parental care.
[edit] Fossil agnathans
Although a minor element of modern marine fauna, Agnatha were prominent among the early fish in the early Paleozoic. Two types of Early Cambrian animal apparently having fins, vertebrate musculature, and gills are known from the early Cambrian Maotianshan shales of China: Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia. They have been tentatively assigned to Agnatha by Janvier. A third possible agnathid from the same region is Haikouella. A possible agnathid that has not been formally described was reported by Simonetti from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia.
Many Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian agnathans were armored with heavy bony-spiky plates. The first armored agnathans—the Ostracoderms, precursors to the bony fish and hence to the tetrapods (including humans)—are known from the middle Ordovician, and by the Late Silurian the agnathans had reached the high point of their evolution. Agnathans declined in the Devonian and never recovered
Amphirhina are animals, a phylogenetic classification within the subphylum vertebrata. They are more commonly known as the Branch Gnathostomata, and are described as having double nasal chambers, or nostrils, and jaws. The parallel branch in this naming system is Monorhina (more commonly Agnatha), which possess a single nostril and a circular mouth without jaws. The ears of all animals within Amphirhina possess three semicircular canals.[1]
Gnathostomata (pronounced /ne?.???sto??m??t?/) is the group of vertebrates with jaws. The term derives from Greek ?????? (gnathos) “jaw” + ????? (stoma) “mouth”.
The group is traditionally a superclass, broken into two top level groupings; cartilaginous fish, and all other members, including the familiar classes of bony fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Some classification systems have used the term Amphirhina. It is a sister group of the jawless vertebrates Agnatha.
Recent genetic studies are causing a reassessment of Gnathostomata as a grouping.
New fossil finds suggests thelodonts as the closest relatives of the Gnathostomata.[1]
It is believed that the jaws evolved from anterior gill support arches that had acquired a new role, being modified to pump water over the gills by opening and closing the mouth more effectively — the buccal pump mechanism. The mouth could then grow bigger and wider, making it possible to capture larger prey. This close and open mechanism would with time become stronger and tougher, being transformed into real jaws.
Placoderms used sharp bony plates as teeth instead, and newer research indicates the jaws in placoderms evolved independently of the rest of the remaining gnathostomates.[2]
Other distinguishing characteristics of living gnathostomates are the myelin sheathes of neurons. Another is an adaptive immune system that uses V(D)J recombination to create antigen recognition sites, rather than using genetic recombination in the Variable lymphocyte receptor gene.[3]
The Gnathostomata first appeared in the Ordovician period and became common in the Devonian period.
The “jawless fish” bit gives it away.
“RoaCH” has to be the decidedly not regular “Regular”.
#
Jed
Posted May 16, 2009 at 9:42 pm | Permalink
reggie,
“Every once awhile one reads a statement that defies imagination and common sense.”
And possessing neither in any appreciable measure, you would know that how?
==============================
I learned from my grandparents and parents. We learned to barter,raise our own food and how to keep what we have in good repair. I was nine years old before I knew canned goods came in something other than mason jars. :)
Always giving to the company and working for the company.
Thats why they jump ship at every better offer, accept huge bonuses for in essence doing what they were paid to do. Few below the first tier of management in a company get a bonus even if they far exceed expectaions and goals —
————————————-
How so? The economy is basically based on market value. What someone is willing to do or pay in exchange for something.
The economy will adjust accordingly to those things. It doesn’t depend on people missing opportunity.
Yep you are an idiot
Reggie,
You learned rural poor, an entirely different life from urban poor.
Your folks probably raised chickens too, at the very least, and had a kitchen garden, so groceries weren’t a problem, both fairly impossible in an urban appartment in a neighborhood you would be afraid to walk in, and your battered 20yr-old car with the transmission leak isn’t reliable transport. You may or may not have friends who will loan you their bathrooms when the water gets turned off because the landlord decided to keep the payment instead if giving it to the water co. while your apartment is flirting with a red “condemned” sign, and you can’t come up with both the security deposit and first month’s rent for another equally ratty place since you already paid this month’s rent and water. On top of all that, you’ve got an infected foot from stepping on a nail, and no doctor and no way to get to the nearest ER. Meanwhile, your kids are outgrowing their shoes simultaneously and you’ll have to come up with new shoes and probably other clothes and school fees and supplies while fending off that lawyer who wants $1400 for the fender you scraped on the way to pay your expired car insurance premium. And all that on about $984 a month. You’ll begin to understand that what people with money buy is freedom from impossible hassles. And you wouldn’t last. You’d either be running back to your current life or be carted off in an ambulance, to an ER you can’t afford!
Gloom, despair and agony on me, ohhhhh
Deep dark depression, excessive misery, ohhhhhh
If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all, ohhhh
Gloom, despair and agony on me. — HeeHaw
Found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt1fBjCm49g
“The ‘jawless fish’ bit gives it away.”
Not necessarily. Regular started it, but since I adapted the name, others have used it.
“‘RoaCH’ has to be the decidedly not regular ‘Regular’.”
Regardless of whether he is or is not, like Regular, the (cock)RoaCH is a troll who spammed the board with three long and, really according to the topic, irrelevant, quotations.
Re: the (cock)RoaCH
DNFTT
Nathan: “How so? The economy is basically based on market value. What someone is willing to do or pay in exchange for something.”
Which, in turn, is based on the balance between resources and wants and needs. Unless there are people who need to work for the resources daily to achieve even basic wants and needs, the economy does not work. Thus, an economy always “adjusts” so that there are enough people who have to work in jobs that have just enough market value to earn the workers enough to buy the basics. That’s reality. The economy is dependent upon some people needing to work at jobs that are given low market value, as well as being dependent upon those people who work at jobs with higher market value. It is one reason why the conservative argument that the government is taking “our” money to redistribute to others is largely illusionary. It assumes that the money that is paid to those who work would still be there if it didn’t go into taxes. The cost of taxes is built into the economy. If there had been no income tax, I can pretty much guarantee you that most people would not be making what they gross.
“The economy will adjust accordingly to those things. It doesn’t depend on people missing opportunity.”
Yes it does. It’s like the AMWAY scam (and it is a scam) that tries to infer that if you work it hard enough, you will be come wealthy, and yet each “business owner” is dependent upon other distributorships below them to move them up the organization (and even after that, it is dependent upon how much their upline likes them for speaking engagements, which is where the big money really is). If everyone who had drive had the same opportunities, you would not be seeing the wealth distribution curve the way it is. That’s a fact.
“It is EASY for someone to be poor in the fact that they can get food stamps, low income housing, and other government funded programs offered to them.”
Snort!!!! Absolute bullsh*t. There are a few people who are lazy and poor, and even a tinier group of people who are poor because they are lazy, but there are also people who are lazy and rich. More to the point, there are a lot of people who get these “benefits” who work several jobs just to hold on. The bullsh*t that it is easier to be poor than it is to be say, lower middle class is just that, bullsh*t. And mostly, the benefits go to the children, and are there because of the children. For that matter, there have been companies that have skimped on benefits for their workers because they know most of their workers might qualify for government benefits.
And conservative Republicans accuse the Democrats of waging class warfare. What incredible irony impairment, self described conservatives have made this argument for decades, even before the days of welfare as we know it. The poor are poor because they are lazy, because it is easy. You just rephrased ksgolnut’s bullsh*t.
And if you think being poor is so easy, why don’t you try it? I sure know I won’t.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 17, 2009 at 10:49 am | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Agnatha” challenges –
“…if you think being poor is so easy, why don’t you try it?”
That’d be the real test, wouldn’t it?
If being poor is so damned good, sensible and logical CONs would sign up, wouldn’t they?
It echoes in the debate over raising taxes on the richest 2% of Americans. “It would stymie incentive to earn!” say the CONs.
Really?
Bump the highest marginal tax rate back to Reagan Era levels and everyone in a McMansion would move to a hobo camp under a bridge?
CONs’ addled “logic” so boggles the mind sometimes you have to wonder what drives them.
“Punish the s]ut who gets pregnant by forcing her to support and raise…uhm… ‘God’s most precious gift.’”
Huh?
“If being poor is so damned good, sensible and logical CONs would sign up, wouldn’t they?”
Of course, that’s the point. Being poor is the easy way out, so that conservatives who complain about “wealth redistribution” can make being poor evidence of the moral defect of sloth. The self described conservative, then, won’t “try it” (as if most people intentionally elect to be poor) because he is too hard working and conscientious to take advantage of those who work for their money. Never mind the fact that it is news that the unemployment rate is going up to 10%. If being poor and lazy were so easy, more people would be doing it. And like I said, it’s an old argument that goes back way before the beginning of modern welfare.
#
Jed
Posted May 17, 2009 at 5:01 am | Permalink
Reggie,
You learned rural poor, an entirely different life from urban poor.
Your folks probably raised chickens too, at the very least, and had a kitchen garden, so groceries weren’t a problem, both fairly impossible in an urban appartment in a neighborhood you would be afraid to walk in, and your battered 20yr-old car with the transmission leak isn’t reliable transport. You may or may not have friends who will loan you their bathrooms when the water gets turned off because the landlord decided to keep the payment instead if giving it to the water co. while your apartment is flirting with a red “condemned” sign, and you can’t come up with both the security deposit and first month’s rent for another equally ratty place since you already paid this month’s rent and water. On top of all that, you’ve got an infected foot from stepping on a nail, and no doctor and no way to get to the nearest ER. Meanwhile, your kids are outgrowing their shoes simultaneously and you’ll have to come up with new shoes and probably other clothes and school fees and supplies while fending off that lawyer who wants $1400 for the fender you scraped on the way to pay your expired car insurance premium. And all that on about $984 a month. You’ll begin to understand that what people with money buy is freedom from impossible hassles. And you wouldn’t last. You’d either be running back to your current life or be carted off in an ambulance, to an ER you can’t afford!
====================================
Appears to me there are a lot of self-inflicted wounds there Jed.