Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Archives for 2011

“Tolerance” in Religion and Reality

by Leave a Comment

Don’t worry, Part 4 of the poverty series is coming, but not here yet. Meanwhile…

In response to this essay by an admittedly non-religious person, a friend posted the following totally legitimate question on another forum:

“What would YOU do if you found out a friend was gay?”

Simple. Assure them that while I disapprove of such behavior on various grounds (including religious), I also accept them as fellow humans, creations of God as are all of us, imperfect as I if in different ways, and wish to remain friends if they will tolerate me in turn. It’s happened before and it ain’t hard.

I’m not the least bit scared of this issue, or any for that matter, and will not hesitate to take it on head-on. So here goes…

You don’t have to agree with the things people do to care about them. I definitely do care about those friends of mine in that situation, knowing none of us are perfect. I’ve also told a couple of my friends who are homosexuals and worried about their safety, that if somebody started trying to assault them in my presence for any reason, I’d forcefully defend them against whomever was doing that. The same applies to those friends I haven’t gotten around to saying that to as well.

Still, there’s more than a minor element of passive-aggressive pomposity and selective omission evident in that writer’s entry, as if he’s got the single right answer about what “love” is. BS. If you look under the hood of that otherwise reasonable essay, you will see two cylinders missing:
1. Sometimes love means *tough love* and
2. Imperfection does not preclude calling out behavior with which we disagree.

Those of us who are parents should know both of those all too well. Apparently that parent doesn’t.

Regarding #1: With friends, that means being honest about my beliefs and why I believe them. [Hiding such things to avoid conflict is a form of cowardice.] Then they need to accept me for who I am–which includes social-conservative Christian thought. Fortunately, a few of my homosexual friends do just that. They may not like my stance on that one particular topic, which BTW is just one issue among thousands in this civilization…but we’re friends anyway because we can look past that disagreement. That’s a way to be civilized and still knowingly disagree. It takes mutual respect and openness, without which lasting friendship is impossible.

“Tolerance” and “respect” go both ways! It also includes the attitudes of many homosexuals, and their supporters, toward Christian social conservatives. “We” repudiate Westboro’s lunacy (my thoughts about that) because “we” know God truly hates no person. “We” are not inevitably nut jobs nor slope-headed, IQ=50 rednecks. Many of us are intelligent, well-read people, and like it or not, “we” are not going away.

“Tolerance” and “respect” MUST go both ways or the whole expression merely is a hypocritical double standard. In my experience, too many people confuse “tolerance” for “approval”, “acceptance” for “agreement”, “disapproval” for “bullying”. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Those are NOT synonyms. Look in any dictionary or thesaurus.

That brings me to #2: Those of us who disagree with such behavior have the right to do so, and to speak out about it, regardless of our own imperfections. Just because somebody sins one way does not preclude speaking out against sin in another. Think about how ridiculous the writer’s argument is, via this example:

Shall a dude never criticize drunk driving because he looked lustfully at a gorgeous woman at some point in his life, or stole a pack of gum from 7-11 when he was 7 or 11? Of course not. Otherwise, nobody ever would speak out against anything wrong, because we’re all imperfect! The logic of the writer’s misconstruing is ridiculous…not the intent of the “cast stones” scene, and completely off-base.

I will not permit non-religious pundits’ ignorant misinterpretations of the “cast stones” scripture to censor me on matters of sin, so…get used to it. Jesus himself, along with all four authors of the canonical Gospels, and the Apostle Paul in his letters, freely criticized sins. We Christians can and should, as well. Love the sinner, yes, but not the sin…

And disapproval of homosexual behavior is absolutely, positively, NOT “hate”, nor “bullying”. It just isn’t. Period. Those who call others “hateful”, “intolerant” and “bigoted” for disagreeing with their actions, need to look in the mirror and see those very same characteristics in themselves.

Sometimes the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Sometimes tough love is necessary. I may be expressing my brotherly love for you by engaging in the very the act of telling you what you don’t want to hear.

Far too many of those who preach “tolerance” need to practice it first.

“Poverty” in America, Part III: The Misleading “Solution” of More Taxation

by Leave a Comment

In Part II, I posited that “luck is overrated” in escaping poverty.  That doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent — to the contrary, we all experience lucky opportunity.  What do we do with it?  That’s the issue.  One “opportunity” involves handouts from governments, as opposed to private charity (another opportunity).  I’ve experienced both and do not deny that fact.

One oft-championed road out of “poverty” in America, advocated by the aforementioned Kos writer and others, is through tax increases to fund assorted social-welfare programs nominally directed toward aid for the poor. Advocates ignore this model’s greatest flaw: inefficiency.

For two decades, I’ve wondered how the enormous bureaucracy of government, with all its red tape and layers upon layers of salaries and overhead, is the solution to the problem of American “poverty”.  The clear answer is that government is not the solution to poverty.  The fact (not opinion) that government has tried to solve poverty for 200 years, and failed, proves me right here.  Results are what matter.  The results show little.

Who in their right mind, I’ve asked, thinks that big government can help the “poor” more swiftly, nimbly, and effectively, with more rapid return on the dollar, more situational familiarity and a lower rate of chronic dependency, than charitable aid at the local level? National, large-bureaucracy programs take a one-size-fits all approach, almost out of necessity, since they aren’t familiar with local problems and local solutions.  Are we all one size?  You tell me!  More on that later…

As for the rich (or anyone else) who advocate more taxes, such as the Kos writer? Pay attention, for I am calling your bluff, right here, right now. Put your money where your mouth is. Don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk. Stand up for your principles. Live by what you advocate. How? Take my longstanding “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Tax Challenge”, which is this:

The government will take payments in any amount through pay.gov. Show how true you are to your ideals and pay, on your own, the extra amount you think you should.

Or, do you selfishly advocate that higher taxes apply only to others?

Which way is it?

If you advocate that your income bracket pays more, then…do it! Nobody is stopping you. It’s simple and easy to pay. Do you have the courage of conviction to take my challenge? If not, there goes your credibility in that argument too, because you refuse to back it up with your own behavior. “Do as I say, but not as I do.” Well, I once lived in Missouri, so…show me. Don’t be a hypocrite! Pay the extra amount you think should go to the government that you seem to believe is so streamlined and effective at eliminating poverty.

Yes, that means you, Elizabeth Warren, naturally gifted with verbal eloquence and expository skills, but misguided in your lack of non-bureaucratic solutions. That means you, Warren Buffett, who benefited from the system but won’t give back your own proposed rates in this way. That means you, George Soros, big rich guy who wants higher taxes. That means you, Michael Moore, big rich guy who wants more taxes. Pay them now! Why wait for government to force the issue? Take my challenge. Will you do what you say, or do your pseudo-populist proclamations melt away like burning flesh in the hellish heat of reality’s kitchen?

I’ve been challenging advocates of higher taxes for years this way, and nobody–I mean not one person–has had the guts to take my challenge. That sort of spinelessness and unwillingness to stand up for one’s ideals, to me, manifests the very selfishness and greed that advocates of higher taxes and more bureaucracy (like Warren B. and Mrs. Warren) belittle.

It’s not a matter of national-debt elimination–which raising taxes on “the rich” a thousand times over won’t accomplish anyway. [By the way, who are “the wealthy”? What is the unambiguous, consistent threshold for “rich”?] It’s simply a matter of principle. That’s all. Who will stand up for their principles on this? Anyone? I wait patiently, as crickets chirp outside the window and a lone clock ticks wistfully in a dark corner of the room. Tick, tock, tick, tock…snooze. Wake me up when somebody actually lives up to their professed ideal there.

Are there problems of greed and corruption in America? Absolutely! This applies to the ilk of Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff, but also and equally, to every single welfare parasite. Yes, there are rich folks who didn’t earn it. The unearned rich get far less respect from me as a result; for they share with shameless welfare moochers the common denominator of unjustified attitudes of entitlement.

No economic stratum has a monopoly on greed. It just manifests differently. A minority of the rich take bailouts and kickbacks, and fleece the public and corporate coffers through schemes of varying legality. A minority of the “poor” flip public aid into drugs, alcohol, flat-screen TVs, cell phones and/or Air Jordans via their own little schemes of varying legality. I’ve seen it at both ends and in between. Greed is human nature crossing all bounds of income and society. Don’t ever pigeonhole all rich as greedy and all poor as victims; that’s unadulterated BS. And I say that as someone offering intimate familiarity with roaches, rats, leaky ceilings, ceaseless collection-call harassment, and the sounds of gunshots and sirens in the night.

Despite the sound-bite mischaracterizations aimed at fiscal conservatives like me by the left, the truth is that I do not defend corporate or personal greed. I don’t defend predatory lending practices, medical overbilling, or an avalanche of fine print (though it is everyone’s responsibility to read and understand every word of a contract they sign). Who really does want predatory financial crime, except for a pathological 1% of 1%? To paint any anti-tax advocate with that label is irresponsible, misleading, over-simplistic, ignorant, disingenuous, diversionary and cowardly. Don’t try to apply the label to me because it won’t stick.

Greedy corporate thieves and rapacious big-bankers? Lock ’em up! The place for criminals is incarceration, and that includes white-collar thieves like Madoff, Lay and anyone else who breaks laws. If you don’t like what some financiers (in any field) have done that is technically legal, work and lobby to make their actions illegal through legislative processes, and hope the laws stand the test of constitutionality.

Of course faultless misfortune exists, and there is a (limited) place for welfare. Don’t you think I, of all people, know this? Go ahead, use heartbreaking, real-life examples of honest and terrible events to (mis)characterize the entirety of public-aid recipients as such. Only an delusional sadist will deny the existence of legitimate stories of need. I’ve seen many. I know and love someone (my elderly, senile, blind mom) for whom I cannot provide necessary direct care, and who is justifiably dependent on state and federal help. Who argues that situations like hers aren’t deserving targets of what should be the last-ditch options of public aid, in combination with private charity? But I’ve also known plenty who game and cheat the system out of more than they are entitled–including those who are both needy and greedy!

And don’t try to lay some sort of false guilt trip on us with “self-made” capital that we are somehow responsible for “helping” others solely via big-government spending of our tax money. No, no, a thousand times no. Far from it! We as responsible citizens (and especially those of us of faith) rightly are responsible for helping others however is the most efficient, beneficial and direct–and most often, that is NOT through big government.

For those on the so-called “Christian Left” (a term that, in reality, is a complete sentence) who claim that one must pay higher taxes to love thy neighbor, I demand to see the literal, black-and-white words of Jesus where he appended “by governmental gunpoint” to “Love they neighbor.”  He did not.  That’s because love, unlike taxation, cannot be authentic if it is coerced.  You cannot, by definition, love when forced to do so.  Love isn’t a bureaucratic exercise!  Therefore, the “love” arguments revolving around higher taxes invalidate themselves ruthlessly.  For these “Christians” I demand:  Stop your idolatry of bureaucracy!

This is where the pompous, finger-wagging, schoolmarm style scolding by Elizabeth Warren about “social contracts”, and others of similar mindset, either speak from within the cage of a politically convenient delusion, or deliberately offer a disingenuous red herring for the sake of emotional appeal. Yes, the roads to our factories were built and are maintained with taxes. Yes, police protection is paid for that way. Irrelevant!

No conscientious fiscal conservative that I know advocates elimination of all financial aid to the poor, or of student loans. None of them (us) call for elimination of highway funds to transport goods and people, food inspectors, storm forecasters, national-disaster aid, or other economically essential, taxpayer-funded infrastructure and public-protection functions that cross state lines by necessity. The argument that any factory owner got where he is partly through such “help” is factually true but meaningless; as I don’t offer such things for utter elimination at any governmental level.

Instead, I offer the idea that a great deal of aid to the truly unfortunate is best done away from the tentacles of the governmental hydra. I understand the reality of it from the other side, from directly within the envelope of what we call “poverty” in the USA. As such, I’ve seen first-hand that the governmental method of throwing more money at the problem won’t solve it.  I shall reiterate…

Government hasn’t solved American “poverty” in twenty decades of trying. What makes higher-tax advocates think that will change? It won’t, no matter how much money we feed to the red-tape-covered entitlement monster and mass-promoter of public-dependency addiction that is big government. We cannot tax our way out of “poverty”.. Ever. More of the same failed idea only means more failure.

Remember this: every dollar spent on taxes is a dollar not donated to charity or spent creating jobs on Main Street.  That is factual, irrefutable arithmetic.

“Poverty” exists nationwide, but is not a national problem in the sense of what works well. Helping the downtrodden has limited governmental justification, but is far more a local problem with local solutions. In Part IV, I’ll cover examples of some, and suggest ways you and I can help the poor far more directly, fulfillingly and efficiently, both through charity and supporting job creation, than via the money you are forced through legal compulsion (not “love’) to fling at the bloated bureaucratic pig.

I’ll also suggest some ways the big pig can help. [Hint: get out of the damned way!]

“Poverty” in America, Part II: Luck is Overrated

by Leave a Comment

In Part I, I drew a line in the sand regarding credibility in arguments over poverty–that line being personal and direct experience with it. Even among those from the experienced side of the line, however, there exists a fairly pronounced dipole of thought as to its origins (this part) and solutions (Parts III and IV). My ideas arise from the rightward limb of the spectrum. Yes, the sociopolitically conservative ex-poor do exist, and we are far more common than you may think! [Many are Depression-era elderly; but some are the kids and grandkids of that generation who have picked up, through necessity, the same thrifty ethics as well.]

Yet, there are those who have been there, as such bearing credibility in the “poverty” debate, and somehow think it was government handouts and happenstance that largely were responsible. That stance strikes me as woefully ignorant, and moreover, self-flagellating. Take this BLOG entry as an example–ignoring some grammatical and usage errors therein.

“Gaius” is much wealthier financially than I; but I’m doing OK for the time being. I have no major economic needs, largely due to thrift, avoidance of debt-inducing materialism, and an otherwise conservative philosophy on personal economics. I don’t want or need the biggest, newest, fastest or shiniest of anything in particular. It takes a lot of justification to get me to part with even a few shekels (as the youngest offspring of one born in the Depression). By contrast, he attained his wealth via aggressive, smart entrepreneurship and prolific return on investment. Outstanding! I admire that. He has earned his way up, and deserves all the platitudes that go with that willingness to work hard and take risks. He cites personal experience on rising from adversity. Fine. So will I. For every story there’s a counter, and I’m the yin to his yang.

Like him, I grew up poor (albeit inner-city instead of Appalachia). Only as a last resort, and with great reluctance (as it should be), did we benefit from occasional public assistance in welfare and health care. Many other times, we refused public assistance out of idealism. It was better to earn soup, soap and saltine crackers through sweaty manual labor, choosing which bills to defer to next month or next, whether to buy roach spray or deodorant this month, than to drive welfare Cadillacs. It was more honorable to listen to the landlord threaten to evict us, and to put up with the daily rounds of calls from bill collectors, than to take the wrong way “out” and get into drug dealing, fencing or con games.

The author doesn’t elaborate hereon, but in my household the primary sentiment associated with public aid was a combination of embarrassment and deep shame, most definitely not any sense either of entitlement or tactical strategizing to attain more. The adults in my house acted like it; they took the high road and set the right example for their child.

The red tape involved in securing public aid seemed intrusive and oppressive at first; but upon more careful contemplation, we knew it had to be that way to reduce (if never eliminate) welfare abuse. As I’ve noted before, however, plenty of folks we knew still had creative ways of gaming the system–some involving effort approximating or even exceeding that involved in, say, finding gainful employment. Ironic, eh? Surely “Gaius” witnessed abuses of the system, but neglects to write of that. Why? Is it selective memory, or deliberate omission of truths inconvenient to his sociopolitical and economic agenda? I’ve seen both from those who offer similar lines of argument as that author.

Rising from American “poverty” is hard, yet quite possible (as many of us have proved), and yes, dependent on occasional opportunism. I believe that God allows us no challenge we can’t overcome with sufficient effort, willpower, and most importantly, openness to accept wise guidance from around and especially above. Having been there and done that, seen this and seen that, I firmly and resoundingly refute his notion that luck plays the biggest role in rising from what we call “poverty”. Hard work, attentiveness, and focus do. Did I get help along the way? Absolutely. Who doesn’t? That argument is moot. Plenty of people screw up despite getting help! Their negative examples show by default that diligence and effort are the ultimate keys.

Plenty of people from far more deprived backgrounds than mine, financially or home-wise, also escape. Whether or not we notice, we all encounter opportunities to rise from any form of adversity. Making the proper choices is far more related to initiative and hard work than luck. You see, everybody has God-given talents and, at some points along the way, gets chances. This interesting, multi-page essay offers a great explanation of why luck is overrated with personal and business success.

Substitute the concept of escape from “poverty”, and the idea is the same. I vouch for this more than for the concepts espoused in the first link.

Every poor kid I knew had chances. The ones today who are destitute, in prison or dead almost universally chose not to make the effort needed to climb through at least temporarily opened windows out of the dungeons they occupied. They chose to be gangbangers, to consume and/or sell drugs, to steal radar detectors from cars, to rob liquor stores, to break into houses. They chose not to make the most of the education available; and in so doing, chose the likelihood of destitution. Even in the most low-rated public schools, one can learn enough at least to get into bridge-education such as community college. One also can chose to buckle down and study after getting into higher education, instead of drinking and partying it to waste. Choices…

Despite some mistakes I did make, I chose none that would jeopardize the chance to get out of that situation. Why? Awareness, for one. Plain and clear results all around, even at that early age, revealed all I needed to see about the life-altering dead ends involved in using, dealing and the felonies they accompany. The same applied to promiscuity–really, even singular teenage sexual activity. The results apparent? Teen pregnancies, the mentally agonizing reality of abortion on girls either forced or misled into them, deadbeat “dads” running away from responsibility, delayed or broken dreams of higher education for escape from the hole, and the presence of teens (some I knew) in queue for venereal-disease treatment at public-health clinics. Miserable! All of the above, for ten minutes of thrills in the form of hits or humps. No thanks.

Negative examples are just as important as positive ones. Such examples abounded in such a profusion as to be incomprehensible to anyone outside the “poor” themselves, and aid workers who served them.

Regardless of parental income, regardless of home situation, we all have opportunities for free education in this nation, opportunities to say no to drugs and alcohol, opportunities to tune out harmful temptations and the shallow and useless sideshow of worldly pop-culture), and tune in our teachers and other positive role models. Again, the fact that some kids grow up to succeed from far more intense circumstances of “poverty” than mine proves that it is possible. If they can, anyone can. No excuses! I absolutely will not suffer fools on this issue.

Sure, the “Gaius” had episodes of help, as did I. We both took advantage of what he calls “luck”, and what I call “opportunity”. We chose to accept and honor the aid of those who offered, and like me, I presume he returns those favors through charitable donations of his choosing. As with me, I reckon he doesn’t advertise the specifics of this, because the most honest and sincere charity is performed in private, away from the scrutiny or laud of others.

Given our kindred spirits, even in disagreement, I think “Gaius” sells himself short. Indeed, he unintentionally insults himself by failing to give credit where it is due–to God first (part of his admitted lack of religion) for granting his innate gifts, then secondarily, to himself for using those abilities that we all have to make wise choices. If he can, anyone can. If I can, anyone can (and I’m not that special either). If the kid from a broken, drug-infested home can, anyone can. Again, the fact that it happens proves that it’s possible. Choices are ultimately what determine our success or failure, far more than any other factor. Even if we screw up, we most often still get second chances to rise out through…you guessed it, proper selections. Only on the deathbed is there no longer hope in this life to overcome adversity.

Sure, bad things happen that we can’t control. More often than not, we indeed can overcome, with faith, persistence, determination and resolve. Sometimes the setbacks are so severe that, if they don’t kill us, they legitimately maim and impoverish us (accidents, cancer, unpreventable presence in natural disaster, etc.). For that, assorted and situationally dependent measures of public aid are justifiable and supported by me, payable with near-current levels of taxation given streamlining of inefficiencies elsewhere in government. However, genuine tales of extreme and totally faultless hardship, while they make spectacular news headlines and sympathy stories on TV, are far less common than the choice of being poor–in other words, free-will selection of avenues, such as lack of effort toward education, that keep the cycle going for another generation.

The most prevalent way to escape “poverty” involves a collective sum of individual work ethic combined with personal responsibility to take advantage of opportunities everyone gets, but only some risk grabbing. I say this from first-hand experience. More specifics to come…but first, a needful addressing of some common liberal mischaracterizations of those who advocate taxing our way out of “poverty”.

Next, Part III: The Misleading “Solution” of More Taxation