Stop “making a difference”

Thomas Sowell's picture

Among the many mindless mantras of our time, “making a difference” and “giving back” irritate me like chalk screeching across a blackboard.

I would be scared to death to “make a difference” in the way pilots fly airliners or brain surgeons operate. Any difference I might make could be fatal to many people.

Making a difference makes sense only if you are convinced that you have mastered the subject at hand to the point where any difference you might make would be for the better.

Very few people have mastered anything that well beyond their own limited circle of knowledge. Even fewer seem to think far enough ahead to consider that question. Yet hardly a day goes by without news of some uninformed busybodies on one crusade or another.

Even the simplest acts have ramifications that spread across society the way waves spread across a pond when you drop a stone in it.

Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?

How many have studied the impact of drunken idlers on other people in their own society, including children who come across their needles in the park — if they dare to go to the parks?

How many have even considered such questions relevant as they drop their stone in the pond without thinking about the waves that spread out to others?

Maybe some would still do what they do, even if they thought about it. But that doesn’t mean that thinking is a waste of time.

“Giving back” is a similarly mindless mantra.

I have donated money, books and blood for people I have never seen and to whom I owe nothing. Nor is that unusual among Americans, who do more of this than anyone else.

But we are not “giving back” anything to those people because we never took anything from them in the first place.

If we are giving back to society at large, in exchange for all that society has made possible for us, then that is a very different ballgame.

Giving back in that sense means acknowledging an obligation to those who went before us and for the institutions and values that enable us to prosper today. But there is very little of this spirit of gratitude and loyalty in many of those who urge us to “give back.”

Indeed, many who repeat the “giving back” mantra would sneer at any such notion as patriotism or any idea that the institutions and values of American society have accomplished worthy things and deserve their support, instead of their undermining.

Our educational system, from the schools to the universities, are actively undermining any sense of loyalty to the traditions, institutions and values of American society.

They are not giving back anything except condemnation, often depicting sins common to the human race around the world as peculiar evils of “our society.”

A classic example is slavery, which is repeatedly drummed into our heads — in the schools and in the media — as something unique done by white people to black people in the United States.

The tragic fact is that, for thousands of years of recorded history, people of every race and color have been both slaves and enslavers.

The Europeans enslaved on the Barbary Coast of North Africa alone were far more numerous than all the Africans brought to the United States and to the 13 colonies from which it was formed.

What was unique about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery, and that it stamped out slavery not only in its own societies but in other societies around the world during the era of Western imperialism.

That process took well over a century, because non-Western societies resisted. White people, as well as black people, were still being bought and sold as slaves, decades after the Emancipation Proclamation freed blacks in the United States.

Those who want to “give back” should give back the truth. It is a debt that is long overdue.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

login to post comments | Thomas Sowell's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 7:24am.


"Giving Back"
by Neal Boortz

Hopefully there’s a little light bulb floating over your head by now. If you haven’t completely abandoned your logical thought capabilities Laughing out loud , you realize that these people aren’t “giving back” anything. They’re just plain giving! “Giving back” means that you are returning someone else’s property. “Giving” means that you are giving away that which you own. You can’t give back something unless it was given to you or you took it in the first place.

Something in the illogical and irrational way that liberals perceive our world has rendered poisonous the very idea that anyone who has achieved great wealth actually did so through hard work. This “giving back” nonsense completely negates the reality that the people doing all of the donating actually earned that which they are giving through hard work, good choices, responsible decision-making and perseverance.

“Oh,” your typical liberal will say, “they didn’t earn that money, they inherited it!” Right. Tell that to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The inconvenient truth for the wealth redistributionist crowd is that fewer than two percent of millionaires in this country inherited their wealth. God forbid that we should ever recognize that people might actually earn their wealth!

Before we’re through here, let’s not forget the ever popular “less fortunate” phrase that is also a mainstay of leftist newspeak. If you don’t want to come right out and say that the high-achievers were given their wealth or that they merely received it, you could always just say that they were just lucky. This would mean that those who somehow, in spite of all the opportunities available to them, managed to stay poor were merely un-lucky. We’ll call them the “less fortunate.” Why, if wealth is all a matter of luck, what’s the problem with just evening out the odds by redistributing the winnings here and there?

There is, though, a purpose behind this language of the left: It is oh so much easier to promote grand schemes of wealth seizure and redistribution by the government if you first condition the public to the idea that this wealth wasn’t earned in the first place.


Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 8:36am.

All B.S.
Anytime anyone ends up with more money than they started with, they took it from someone else! Sometimes legally, sometimes not altogether!
Lots of people work extremely hard---they aren't rich.
Some are smarter than others--they aren't necessarily rich.
Some are great charmers, and are rich, Dollar, Hinn, Crouches, Long, Roberts',Copelands, Meyers', and about 80 others.
We put many of them in jail eventually, as we have since Adam, but it is only the thin top edge!
I heard someone say theother day that Enron collapsed due to lawyers suing them, otherwise they would still be here! Fantastic! The Robber Barons (in jail or dead) didn't cause it, did they?
All, B.S.

Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 8:35am.

All B.S.
Anytime anyone ends up with more money than they started with, they took it from someone else! Sometimes legally, sometimes not altogether!
Lots of people work extremely hard---they aren't rich.
Some are smarter than others--they aren't necessarily rich.
Some are great charmers, and are rich, Dollar, Hinn, Crouches, Long, Roberts',Copelands, Meyers', and about 80 others.
We put many of them in jail eventually, as we have since Adam, but it is only the thin top edge!
I heard someone say the other day that Enron collapsed due to lawyers suing them, otherwise they would still be here! Fantastic! The Robber Barons (in jail or dead) didn't cause it, did they?
All, B.S.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 7:34pm.

To "the many mindless mantras of our time, 'making a difference' and 'giving back'" I would like to add "the less fortunate."

____________________________________

That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street instead of education and personal responsibility.

If the Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit, aren't we?

This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky; all they did was buy the right lottery ticket. What an insult this is to the man or woman who works that 60 hour week to provide for a family.

It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. [Now wouldn't you think that liberals would tout economic and school "choice" as loudly as abortion? Puzzled ] One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice."

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S.O.B.! You did this to me!"

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

Quite a few people have followed that tragic path.

____________________________________

Read more HERE.
To those who prefer a visual, GO HERE.
Enjoy!


Locke's picture
Submitted by Locke on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 1:03pm.

Oh Yes. The playing field is level and everybody has an equal chance. A child born to an unwed mother in a slum has the same choices as another born into a nurturing stable household and can be expected to make the same good decisions. There is no discrimination and hard work is always rewarded with wealth and success.

Let us not pretend that everything is equal. Hard work can bring success and wealth. So can manipulation of the system.

Steve Appleton, the chief executive officer of Micron Technology Inc., received $8.6 million in pay last year following plus $1.3 million on vesting stock awards after a $320 million loss in 2007 and the decision to lay off 1,200 workers.

Merrill Lynch's departing CEO, Stan O'Neal, got $161.5 million in stock, options and retirement benefits; a week after the investment bank reported its largest-ever quarterly loss, $2.24 billion.

Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, whose company stock fell and lost market share, got $210 million golden parachute after departing.

Jill Barad received a $57 million severance package after nearly destroying toy-maker Mattel.

Wyeth paid $40 million to CEO Robert Essner's over the past two years, while Wyeth’s shareholder return declined 9.3 percent.

Did these people attain wealth through “the sum total of the choices he has made in his life”? Did they choose to fail? Did they suffer the consequences? Did they accept responsibility?

Or did they just manipulate the system.

The top 1 percent of the people in the US owns close to 40 percent of the wealth; about the same amount as the bottom 95 percent of households.

Is there any point in Republican economic theory where any amount of concentrated wealth becomes a detriment to society?

At least be honest, come on out and say that you don’t care whether people starve and freeze. Don’t sugar-coat it by calling them wharf rats.

---------
It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. John Locke


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 9:45pm.

merely a cop-out when used in that sense. What you call choice is merely another way of saying, "I've got mine now you get your's". It allows you to put on the blinders of righteousness and absolves you of any responsibility you might have to aid those whose life-circumstances {Katrina, Ford plant moved to Mexico, etc} have dealt them a mortal blow.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 8:47pm.

Quote from you:

"It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. [Now wouldn't you think that liberals would tout economic and school "choice" "

You are right, Denise. It is not luck (usually) to prosper or to suffer. Many times it is choice. And here is the choice that 1 of every 4 HOMELESS people made. They (unlike Rudy "vietnam deferrment" Giuliani) chose to serve their country. Denise, one out of every four homeless people who you describe thusly: "That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life." A quarter of all of those "bums" is a military veteran. They served and fought so that you can sit in your chair and have the calous audacity to call them bums with no fear of interference or persecution. They are the reason you didn't need to learn German or Russian or Japanese. They went to serve when called. They brought home scars that, after four year tours, they had not the insurance to heal. They had the subtle emotional injuries that are so difficult to diagnose. This makes it very, very difficult to get disability. This makes it very difficult for these types of men and women to exist like you and I when the anxiety attacks and flashbacks come and they have no money for medication. How do I know Denise? Because my brother, a veteran of the Army who has many mental challenges now, is one of these bums you speak of. He has a roof over his head, but he cannot hold a job. He is deeply emotionally scarred, Denise. He also has a name. We don't call him bum, we call him Chip. His real name is Stanley. And it amazes me that good "christian" people such as yourself cannot think these issues through! You don't care to know names or hear stories to provoke empathy or sympathy. "Everyone living off of government assistance is a sponge after your hard earned tax dollars" is the message of modern conservatism. Oh, and abortion is murder too. Always have to plug that in, don't you.

Denise, in as gentle a way as I can put it, modern conservatism sickens me. You and yours look down on people like my brother and countless veterans that Iraq is creating because they can't just suck it up and deal with it after they have served their nation. And never mind the non-veterans that have found themselves homeless for reasons you probably do not even care to know. You just need to be able to use them as fodder for your argument against tax increases. Never mind what your guys' policies do to national debt and the dollar's value. Never mind that the people you support have created a tax structure that gives Warren Buffet half the tax responsibility by percentage of his secretary.

You support the war and forget the veterans who these wars create. And that is what turns my stomach, Denise. This isn't a game. It's not idle talk. There are real people out their in the street; people created in God's image. People who for one reason or another can't win the battle with their physical or emotional demons; alcoholics like George Bush but without his family's money.

Yes, Denise, it is choice. I choose to think about Americans that need the help of their government just to make it through the day. They should have made the good choice that Rudy Giuliani made when, as a legal clerk, he had his federal judge boss declare him "essential" so that he did not have to serve his country in Vietnam. A CLERK! And now he, free of the scars of battle, can step over the "bums" that smell like "warf rats" all the while enjoying the endorsement of good christians like Pat Robertson. (Did someone not tell Pat that Mike Huckabee is a minister?)
I pray that one day we christians can remember those parts of the Bible we always forget that pertain to caring for the less fortunate. And I hope we can vote as many people that think of the poor as you do out of Washington DC in 08.

Kevin "Hack" King


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Wed, 12/05/2007 - 11:09pm.

I'm very sorry about your brother, Chip, and hope that he will recover. Don't give up hope. Family support plays a big part in recovery. There is supposed to be help available, and I pray that all veterans will be treated with respect and love and receive the help that they need to recover from the mental and physical horrors of war.

(BTW, I didn't call vets "bums." I quoted someone's opinion about homelessness.)

Hack, some of those veterans are my relatives. The ones who survived WWII went through very hard times and suffered physical and "emotional injuries" that were not "subtle." One was a medic when Pearl Harbor was bombed and saw his best friend blown to bits. He had to pick up the remains. When he came home after the war, he had nightmares and what today we would label post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He only had a short recovery time, though, because he had to go to work very soon after coming home. His dad was an abusive drunk (alcoholic) and his mom had a very small farm and several young children; so they had food but little else. This veteran worked hard almost all of his life (manual labor), despite health problems, physical and mental. He only went on disability when he was in his 70s, legally blind, and had severe heart and other medical problems. He overcame the PTSD and did not let it overcome him. His 2 brothers, as well as many of my other relatives, were in similar circumstances and approached life the same way.

My dad, also a veteran, has lost one foot and most of the other one as a result of military duty. Although he is in constant pain and came near to dying many times, he's worked hard all of his life. He's always had a can-do attitude and I've never heard him once complain and express that others owe him anything. He and my other relatives never point out that they're veterans. In fact, they seldom talk about it; it's just one part of their lives. Having relatives who survived the Great Depression, they had role models who worked hard and would not give up. They grew up poor and worked hard all of their lives. They just didn't expect someone else to take care of them.

I admire Sen. McCain, who, although he was beaten repeatedly and kept in solitary confinement in leg irons for 2 of the 5 1/2 years of his captivity, overcame being terrorized. I also admire Rear Admiral (Retired) and former Senator Jeremiah Denton, who spent almost 8 years as a POW (4 years of torture and solitary confinement -- When Hell Was in Session), and the many other POWs.

"He lives daily with the physical reminders of those days. He suffers from back problems, a damaged disc, migraine headaches, nerve damage in his hands, and muscle twitches in his legs. He is 60 percent disabled." Yet, he's lived a productive life.

“The historians found that some prisoners [Vietnam] made the transition to life back home more easily than others. ‘Some picked up their lives as normally as if they had merely served overseas for the better part of a decade, and some never recovered from dissolved marriages, missed career opportunities, or the awful memories,’ the study found.” – Did the reception that the vets received when they came home contribute to their inability to cope? I believe that it did (as well as drug addiction), but it’s never too late to ask for help and to hope for a better life.

(See “Health and Functioning Among Four War Eras of U.S. Veterans.”)

Does this mean that veterans should not receive help? No, but maybe some of them (as well as many of the other people who are homeless) have the wrong attitude of expecting others to do for them instead of pushing themselves to make it on their own. Drug and/or alcohol addiction is a contributing factor many times, and all too often addicts really don’t want to make the changes necessary to give up their addiction. Some fight it and win and others stay addicts all of their lives. Also, families have a responsibility to take care of their own as much as they can before asking for help (that was the attitude 60+ years ago).

The statistic that 1/4 of the homeless are vets does not specify WHY they are homeless, nor does it indicate what kind of help is available that some have not taken or have already received. Did they become homeless because of President Bush's administration? Did they receive care under President Clinton's administration that has been eliminated?

Here's one big reason that vets aren't getting the care that they should: "the disability system is swamped by vets with health problems that are unrelated to their military service." See "Insult to Injury" and "Faking It."

I also have some relatives who were hobos (tramps or bums, as their relatives called them) during the Depression and continued in that lifestyle most of their lives. They'd show up after a few years and stay for a while, but then they'd leave. They didn't like the responsibility of a normal life: a steady job, a family, etc. They preferred homelessness and alcohol.

I'm acquainted with alcoholism, drug addiction, etc. within my own family, but the lives of personal responsibility that my dad and some of my relatives have chosen have inspired me to try to live my life that way, too. I identify with the worldview of people like Star Parker (Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats: From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger and Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It) and others and applaud private programs that emphasize personal responsibility.

Contrary to your blanket statement that conservatives "forget the veterans who these wars create," there are more programs for them and the poor today and more money spent than there was 60 years ago. Your side "use[s] them as fodder for your argument [for] tax increases" more than conservatives. After all these years of the "war on poverty," why are there still so many poor? Puzzled

You surely don't hesitate to criticize Giuliani, but what about Clinton, who "went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft" and "used political connections to obtain special favors"?

You call President Bush an alcoholic, but he gave up alcohol 20 years ago without rehab, and "his family's money" had nothing to do with it.

"Bush said that he gave up drinking after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: 'I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then.' He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with Reverend Billy Graham, after which he began serious Bible study, as well as to gentle but firm pressure from his wife, Laura."

This is the same man who promotes "compassionate conservatism." So, why the the disdain for a president who believes in the federal government helping people and has increased spending (i.e., not a true conservative)?

_________________________

"I pray that one day we christians can remember those parts of the Bible we always forget that pertain to caring for the less fortunate." Does that include women facing an unplanned pregnancy?

Just which "Christians" are you referring to? The ones who help women and children through ministries supported by private donations (i.e., non-taxpayer funded), such as Wellspring, The Pregnancy Resource Center of Fayette, Fayette Samaritans, Fayette CARE Clinic, The Salvation Army, Atlanta Union Mission, Christian City's Home for Children, Samaritan's Purse (just to name a few)? Puzzled

So, despite your judgmental attitude ("it amazes me that good ‘christian’ people such as yourself cannot think these issues through! You don't care to know names or hear stories to provoke empathy or sympathy."), I do know names and have heard stories.

I also know names and have heard stories from women who were not told the truth about abortion and regret their decisions, women who very often were pressured into that "decision" by the baby's father and/or family members. ("Oh, and abortion is murder too. Always have to plug that in, don't you.")

A very recent example is a high school girl who very much wanted to give birth to her baby but was forced by her mother to abort. The child was over 20 weeks and likely was viable. The girl had hidden her pregnancy from her mom until it was too late to get an abortion in N.C. So, her mom brought her to Atlanta although the girl's grandparents offered to help the girl if she decided against adoption. Am I not to feel compassion for them and for the millions of unborn children who are not alive today because of such "decisions"?

I spent Thanksgiving Day with 2 "choices" and their moms -- moms who were pressured to get an abortion because they were not married, the "fathers" didn't want the responsibility, one mom had serious emotional problems (suicidal at times), the children are not "white," etc. But these moms chose life, and now their sons are 7 (very affectionate and smart!) and 13 (quiet, a good student, polite, and wants to be a Marine!).

Please excuse the "plug," but these kids, and so many others, are special to me. Smiling

_________________________

“What Is Compassionate Conservatism?”

“It's About Power” by Marvin Olasky

"Goodbye to All That" [Compassionate Conservatism]

Book Review: The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky

Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Can Transform America by Marvin Olasky

Post-Traumatic Stress in the Military (Part 1 of 3) AUDIO

Post-Traumatic Stress in the Military (Part 2 of 3) AUDIO

Post-Traumatic Stress in the Military (Part 3 of 3) AUDIO

“Study Details Mental Health of War Veterans”

_________________________

I've attempted to post this 2 other times but lost it because of power failures. Hopefully, the third time's the charm! Smiling


Paul Perkins's picture
Submitted by Paul Perkins on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 3:07pm.

Having "hands-on" experience with most of the local charitable groups you linked to above testifies to the fact that we have a number of Fayette county folk who want to help their neighbor(s).

I think we could extend the same helping hand to our local vets.

This is the way to blog!


Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 8:51am.

Snobby, self-important people with no real experience or who have made no dangerous contributions to America are usually the worst, and are usually only protecting their own stuff. Giuliana Cheney, G. Bush, Wolfowitz, and many others in this administration only understand how to make money---they care nothing for the people who really make us go.
Denise will tell you about the bums who won't work but rob banks and convenience store instead of the homeless and grate dwellers!
Actually i think maybe the "bums" do less harm that corporate and administration snobs! And their followers.

Submitted by skyspy on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 9:04pm.

I was shocked when I read the recent news story about homeless vets. On the eve of veterans day this was appalling to say the least.

I know there are no easy answers,...but are there any groups or organizations that are dealing with the plight of our vetrans that we as society have cast aside??

Some of our homeless made the "choice" to serve, rather than be a draft dodger like so many of our poli-criminals(that is the only accurate name a politician in this country has earned) As long as bush is president I can make up my own words.

Hack Thanks for your service to all of us

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 9:30pm.

Thank you so much for the kind words. My church, Heritage Christian, called on all veterans to stand last year. I don't even think of myself in the same league as men and women who have seen war up close and eye to eye. So I didn't stand. My family and friends caoxed me to my feet. Then, the whole church erupted in applause. I was so moved that I couldn't stop the tears. I was embarrassed because my kids were scared having never seen dad cry. But more than embarrassed, I was moved that people cared soo much. I wish we could keep our focus on the names and faces even after the war is over and these vets need the country they served to give back to them; just a helping hand; a counselor or psychiatrist they can afford; a roof over head. I hope our Iraq and Afghanistan vets don't fall victim to the phenomenon that has allowed past vets to slip through the cracks..

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 8:56am.

I also have found myself in such embarrassing situations, where some jack-ass asks all veterans to stand. I hate it. Send some money to Walter Reed if you want to help.
I see that as a ploy to get youngsters to join for the glory!!! And, protect those who won't go. It is all BS.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Fri, 11/09/2007 - 4:16pm.

I noticed on a previous blog you suggesting I read Clarence Thomas' book. I believe that will happen when you read Al Franken's The Truth with Jokes. I am reading Lone Survivor, the Navy SEAL story of survival in Tora Borra. Anyway, if you read and reread Thomas Sowell's column, I believe you might realize why I'll never embrace the current fusion of cultural and financial conservatism.

We have taken the weak and made them political fodder. We have made those who might have improved lives with the help of tax funded programs the "problem" with America. We have done this in a time where 1 in 4 homeless people is a veteran. And yet conservatives still live with the myth that they support the troops. What is being supported is the war that the troops are in. But if we really thought about troops, their families, and others in need of financial, medical, and mental health assistance, we wouldn't veto SCHIP. We would keep our promises to Mississippi and Louisiana and not attempt to veto the "water" bill. We would not try to ridicule people who give back to the society and country that has allowed them to gain wealth (the John Edwards types).

Mixer, I really don't understand this fusion of "9-11 is gays fault" Robertson and Giuliani. I can't support a movement that wants to keep America in fear of terrorists and immigrants and universal health coverage. I am pained by the ever weakening dollar that might be saying "supply side no worky." And I think a party that constantly criticizes the usefullness of government probably doesn't have much use in government. We can start at the Consumer Product Safety Commission and go from there.
Hope you understand why I won't be reading that book. I've spent my life trying to give back, and I'll be danged if some arm-chair columnist is going to change that. God Bless, and have a great weekend.

Kevin "Hack" King


Locke's picture
Submitted by Locke on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:57pm.

So Mr. Sowell scorns those of us who want to feed the hungry. Good ole Thomas says: “Among those who make a difference by serving food to the homeless, how many have considered the history of societies which have made idleness easy for great numbers of people?”

Matthew 25: “35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

I guess Sowell thinks Jesus was misguided. Probably a liberal.

Then this: “Indeed, many who repeat the “giving back” mantra would sneer at any such notion as patriotism or any idea that the institutions and values of American society have accomplished worthy things and deserve their support, instead of their undermining.”

Can he name anyone specifically? No. He makes it up in his own fantasy world then writes about how furious it makes him.

But this is the best: “The tragic fact is that, for thousands of years of recorded history, people of every race and color have been both slaves and enslavers.”

True. True. True. How many regular readers of Sowell are out there who believe for a moment that he would not have bought and sold you in an instant if he lived in that era and had a chance to make a buck doing it?

Rave on Sowell. Here's what else Jesus said:

Matthew 25: [42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: [43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Everlasting punishment.

Wake up Thomas! Somethings are more important than your right wing idiocy.

---------
It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. John Locke


Submitted by Nitpickers on Fri, 11/09/2007 - 8:22am.

they are too sorry to earn money to buy their own food! I have judged!
Give a man a fish and he will not be hungry for now, but teach him to fish and he won't bother you any more!
We don't like people who we feel are ignorant.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.