That is just ridiculous, Pooch. The world hasn't been like that for thousands of years. There's no evidence that it was even like that in pre-historic times. Even robins won't abandon a chick that falls out of its nest. According to your theory, if the dumb fuck can't stay in its own nest, it should be left to fate or mother nature to do what evolution dictates be done. You are taking some construct based on a fantasy of pre-historic social life that even had it existed would have existed thousands of years ago, and trying to pass this off as "the world as it is." Sorry. No sale.
It's not ridiculous. Even today there are still cultures that allow the weak to die - and not necessarily with dignity. There is a gray area in some places now. Mothers will abort a child for sex selection instead of letting it be born and leaving it in the woods to die. But while one can debate whether that is killing the "weak" (in this case the weaker sex) the mindset is still the same. But I am not saying "if the dumbfuck, etc." I am just suggesting that, in spite of natural tendencies towards protection of the herd, the weak are weeded out - and often left to die intentionally. If you disagree just ask Darwin. Again, I am not saying that is the way it SHOULD be, but rather that is the way it is. You appealed to the "real world." I am simply stating that the real world is not as you choose to define it.
Wrong again. The "world as it is" is a world where almost nobody thinks that the damaged and the incompetent should be left to die on the streets.
That statement is based on a false premise. I never suggested or implied that people should be allowed to die on the streets. I simply suggest that most people believe that other people should be held accountable for their actions instead of blindly supported by the government and thereby allowed to fail. Your assumption seems to be that welfare cases "can't change" and should therefore be allowed to simply become wards of the state. That is not only a paternalistic viewpoint, it is the same sort of logic that led to eugenics. That is not to say, of course, that I am suggesting that you would approve of such a thing. But the idea that there is no hope for the "feeble minded" appealed to no less formidable a jurist than Oliver Wendell Holmes who upheld a Virginia law prescribing sterilization of undesirables with the famous pronouncement "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 - 1927). He wasn't talking, as most presume, about mentally retarded persons. He was talking about "low lifes" who are on welfare roles and in prisons. What is appalling to us now was upheld by science and the Supreme Court even in the twentieth century. Both of us would agree that eugenics was a terrible idea (at least I think it is safe to say so) but I would suggest that your mindset towards the "low lifes" is - if more charitable in effect - no less paternalistic in principle. I disagree with both you and Justice Holmes that they cannot change. There are only a very few whose physical or mental handicaps are so great that they require perpetual assistance. But most people on the dole are there because they can be - not because they need to be.
AND it is also a world where for various reasons some people are so damaged and fucked up that they will never be contributing functional members of their society. Kudos to you and anyone else who climbed out of the pit, but that does not negate the fact that there are millions of others who never can and never will.
I think it DOES negate that assumption (not fact). Indeed, if I were only one example you might call me heroic. But in fact I have done far less than others who grew up in far worse circumstances. Allowing the "llow lifes" to compete - indeed requiring them to - is the only way to actually encourage them to move forward.
It's only offensive if you believe that one human being is worth more than another depending on their relative degrees of self-sufficiency. I think that if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and another guy is a conniving, cheating lying Republican millionaire, the helpless fuck-up is still a human being, deserving of love and understanding. I'm still trying to make up my mind about the Republican. On a more serious note, if one guy is a helpless fuck-up and the other isn't, they are both human beings and they are both, as such, and for no other reason, worthy and deserving of our love and understanding. Difficult as it may be to keep that in mind at all times.
But that is exactly my point. I do not judge people soley by their achievements. I judge them, when I judge them, by what they are trying to achieve. I have more respect for someone who works hard and barely pays his bills than I do for someone who inherits Daddy's business and drives a Lexus. But I have far more respect for either of them than I do for those who sit on their asses and wait for a welfare check each month. The only caveat I put on it is that many of those do so because they have no rational motivation to do otherwise. There is a difference between love and respect. There is also a difference between compassion and paternalism. In the same way that I had my children immunized even though they thought it was cruel at the time, I think we have to innoculate people from falling into the trap of dependence. That does not mean I am completely against charity. It just means we ought to make sure that charity doesn't cripple its intended beneficiaries more than it helps them.
My apologies. I really was speaking rhetorically, the meaning being that I had a lot of real-life experience with welfare recipients and the welfare system and I didn't believe (from your arguments) that you did. I still think it is quite possible that your knowledge of the system may be limited to one particular system and how it interacted with you and the members of your immediate family, whereas mine covers a much broader range of welfare recipients with various kinds of disabilities and entitlements (including various scam artists with no disabilities or entitlements) and several different kinds of welfare systems and jurisdictions. And the reason I say this is because I am just floored by your idea that all of these unfortunate people can be straightened out. Not in this lifetime. Not on this planet.
Not all can be. But I no more meant that extreme than you did the other one. I just think we should lean more toward personal responsibility than towards government responsibility.
I got the feeling, reading of your experiences with the system (and BTW, thanks for sharing them!) that you were one of the lucky ones. I am certainly not trying to claim that all of them, or even that a majority of them, are beyond redemption. But some will climb or claw their way out of it and some will not. I found that some of the people least sympathetic to the plight of welfare recipients are former welfare recipients who made good: "I fought my way out, now why can't they?" To state the question is to recognize the illogic of the position. "I scored 100% on the math exam, now why can't he?"
But again, the way you word that is presumptive. The fact is, I am VERY sympathetic to those in need. I just believe that the way out of need is learning the hard lessons of life. It takes hard work to get out of some of the messes life leaves us in. I am all for educational benefits and training programs for those who want to take advantage of them. I think the WPA and CCC were two actually pretty damn good ideas tha FDR had - though I think his socialization of America was largely a terrible thing. Those organizations were not welfare, they were (forgive the anachronism) workfare. People got JOBS and accomplished great things for the country while simultaneously supporting their families in a time of need. For that matter, I was fortunate enough to get hired to do a couple of musicals in high school as part of a Cultural Arts grant in Baltimore. Maybe performing "Oklahoma" isn't quite on par with building the Hoover Dam, but at least I was doing SOMETHING instead of just taking a handout. My sympathy expresses itself in trying to help people up, not letting them stay down.
Avoiding the question because Doolittle's a fictional character is a cop-out.
No it isn't. I did answer the question, though it was buried perhaps in my words (not an uncommon problem with my posts). Doolittle was endearing BECAUSE he was fictional. Aside from the fact that few dead-drunks can sing and dance with the style of dear old Alfred (though some, lamentably, try) Doolittle was a classic buffoon - a bit of light comic relief in the darker comedy that Pygmalion was. He was given funny little lines (like the one I paraphrased - "I'm undeservin' - and I mean to go on being undeservin') that played up his weaknesses as comic strengths. His laments about middle class morality are funny on stage - and we can all have a good laugh at his unexpected "good" fortune and how he'd chuck it but "I haven't the nerve." But in fact, we are in reality more inclined to agree with Tevya who, told by Perchik that money is a curse, proclaims "May God smite me with it - and may I never recover!" Doolittle is a bit like the classic "Hooker with a heart of gold" - a nice idea, but one that doesn't really exist.
You raised a valid point, but there's a valid answer to it. The welfare system's fundamental purpose is NOT to rehabilitate but to support. There are other arms of the government which try to rehabilitate. Ideally, welfare supports those who either temporarily or permanently cannot support themselves. The welfare system is underfunded. Always has been, always will be. It does not have to funds to provide adequate support for everyone, so it cannot afford to squander its inadequate resources on activities not within its mandate. (such as rehabilitation) - - In an ideal world, the welfare support system could be individualized. Each recipient would be minutely scrutinized - - "This one needs support to tide her over till her next job, but this one is in serious danger of having her work ethic undermined if we provide support without attaching character-building conditions to it and supervising them." You are asking for a level of personalization and therapy that the welfare system is not designed to deliver and is not capable of delivering.
That's one way of looking at it. But there is another. I am not suggesting that we get more "personal" with the assistance. I am suggesting that we make certain accountability requirements. In my state, if you get unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are actually seeking employment. Mind you, the requirement is not terribly hard to meet. You need only provide two or three names a week that can verify you visited them for an interview, turned in a resume or filled out an application. And though I do not know, I expect they only check randomly among those names. But at least there is some effort expected of you. I suggest that there is no reason that a welfare system should not be expected to turn its focus from "support" to rehabilitation. It is indeed possible to do, but it would require a change of mindset first. That is what I advocate.
True, your sister-in-law fell between the cracks. She and thousands of others are the casualties of an imperfect welfare system that delivers help on a "shotgun" style delivery system.
I do not think she "fell between" anything. She leapt into. She is not a casualty, she is a willing participant. It ain't rape if she says yes.
Again, you seem to ignore my contention that a lot of these guys are an open book. If they won't admit they gambled away the rent, their wife or girlfriend will spill the beans, or their kids will. The other problem is that even if you can detect the drug use, there is no way to correlate the drug use with the lack of funds - - the guy could smoke a joint or do some hash or opium and still be capable of managing his money. And yet another problem is, even a drug-abusing, coke-fried-shit-for-brains junkie needs food in his belly and a roof over his head.
That assertion (about the "open book") may be true in many cases, but it does not negate my point. Girlfriends lie. Mothers protect. Kids make false assumptions. A complaint of "gambling away the rent" might be falsely made for any number of reasons. So could an absolute assertion of innocence. And again, while any addiction can cause money problems, drugs can do far more damage than gambling or porn addiction or compulsive shopping. But again, your point that one moral consideration is as good as the next is, by itself, a perfectly valid one.
Well, you made some good points. But you have to consider the limitations of the system. Also that not every method of teaching works equally well on all pupils. It's cruel to foster an attitude of permanent entitlement in persons who might otherwise have earned self-respect and pride through being forced to go to work after being cut off benefits. It's (IMHO) just as cruel, if not more cruel, to force people to work at jobs which they either can't find or can't perform without damaging their mental health or self-respect permanently, in order to qualify for a welfare benefit which, in essence, is supposed to be charity. If the system could assess each potential recipient and make an accurate diagnosis of the problem and prescribe just the right combination of giving and firmness, that would be great, but you are talking about a welfare system that never was and never will be. You're talking about a welfare system that has a much broader mandate than any system that I know of.
That makes sense given your perspective, but again we disagree on what the basic function of welfare should be - not what it is.
No, we disagree because you drew the wrong conclusions from what you observed. To pick the simplest and most obvious example, from the fact that you could pull yourself out of welfare, you concluded that everyone else could as well. Or at least that most others could. That's just plain old-fashioned faulty reasoning.
I made no such conclusion. I concluded that what made me stronger could also make others stronger. That may not be true, but it is perfectly logical reasoning. The fact that you disagree does not make that faulty reasoning. It is just reasoning which differs from yours. Again, that boils down to a difference in experiences - which is most often the cause of disagreement between intelligent people of good will.
The real world is what it is. One of us has a more accurate picture of it than the other.
I disagree. I think that we both have equally valid viewpoints, but that neither of us is omniscient enough to make definitive pronouncements on the subject. I would suggest, however, that one of us is more objective about his omniscience than the other.
Well, thanks for not questioning my motives, but I don't see how anyone could question the motives of someone willing to pay MORE taxes to support a bunch of strangers, including strangers on dope.
Well, one could say - and I hasten to say that I do not - that you are a racist, elitist who likes to keep people down because to bring them up to your level would, in your mind, lower you to theirs. One could also say that disallowing the opinions of others who see the world differently from you allows you to have a sense of superiority rather than to face the humbling possibility that you may be wrong. There are lots of ways to question any persons motives. But I tend to think that most people are motivated to do what they think is best, even if they sometimes are just rationalizing. So I don't question your motives - I just see things differently from you.
I see where you're coming from, Pooch, and I don't question YOUR motives, but I think a lot of people who want drug tests for welfare recipients have a number of issues as follows:
1. dislike of welfare recipients and/or junkies
2. resentment at having to pay money to persons disabled, especially if disabled by a drug habit
3. stinginess, greed
4. racism
As I said, there are many ways to question motives. But those labels are no less a means to avoid having to deal with those different from you than are labels like "nigger," "faggot" or "junkie." It takes effort and a little humility to accept the fact that - just as welfare recipients and drug addicts are "real people" when you take the time to actually open your mind and heart - Republicans and Christians and Americans and Southerners and whoever are just the same. People are people, whatever their viewpoints. Experience is what makes people develop opinions, and it is deeply arrogant to think that only your experiences (talking generically - not about you personally) are valid. You can hold whatever opinion you like, and recognizing the merit in an opposing arguments does not constitute betrayal of your principles or mean that you have to change them one bit. But adamant refusal to see another point of view is bigotry - no matter what side of the issue you are on.
Thanks for the kind words, btw. It's nice to come back. I do admit I have missed it - especially the mental stimulation. Thanks for providing your share.
