Commencement watch: the speech you won’t hear
Mr. O’Rourke gives us a nice example of the kind of commencement speech we won’t be hearing this month, at least at most colleges and universities. For your benefit, I have reprinted the best lines here, in the form of advice to the young graduates
- “Go out and make a bunch of money! [...] There’s nothing the matter with honest moneymaking. Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino’s box. In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.”
- “Don’t be an idealist! Don’t chain yourself to a redwood tree. Instead, be a corporate lawyer and make $500,000 a year. No matter how much you cheat the IRS, you’ll still end up paying $100,000 in property, sales and excise taxes. That’s $100,000 to schools, sewers, roads, firefighters and police. You’ll be doing good for society. Does chaining yourself to a redwood tree do society $100,000 worth of good?”
- “Forget about fairness! [...] I’ve got a 10-year-old at home. She’s always saying, “That’s not fair.” When she says this, I say, “Honey, you’re cute. That’s not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That’s not fair. You were born in America. That’s not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.” What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.”
And this one’s my favorite.
Be a religious extremist! [...] The Bible is very clear about one thing: Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there’s the tenth: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.”
Here are God’s basic rules about how we should live, a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts. And, right at the end of it we read, “Don’t envy your buddy because he has an ox or a donkey.” Why did that make the top 10? Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, include jealousy about livestock?
Well, think about how important this commandment is to a community, to a nation, to a democracy. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don’t whine about what the people across the street have. Get rich and get your own.
I’d throw my cap in the air for that one.
HT: Phi Beta Cons




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top62 Comments to “Commencement watch: the speech you won’t hear”
Thanks for that Harrison. What an unpopular, yet brilliant message.
Report comment to moderator
So simple, and so true.
What’s amazing to me is that some people in our country who have a donkey think that somebody should give everyone a donkey.
Report comment to moderator
“Go out and make a bunch of money
Don’t be an idealist
Forget about fairness
Be a religious extremist.”
HSK’s “Amen” to the above explains so much! As I suspected, it has nothing to do with any version of Christianity I’ve ever encountered. It does, however, bear a striking resemblance to key planks in recurrent versions of the GOP party platform.
Report comment to moderator
kyle a post 2,
but perhaps it does matter how these people got their donkey in the first place!
Report comment to moderator
and of course the following point:
“In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich”
is arguable. It assumes limitless resources, and a totally free market, neither of which we have.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. I am surprised however, that HSK would sign on to the idea that being a corporate lawyer is good for society.
Report comment to moderator
#5 It’s not just arguable, it’s false!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza … it does explain a lot, doesn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza – O’Rourke is engaging in hyperbole. And he makes clear in the explanations following each ‘outrageou’ tag line that the application of it he envisions is actually more beneficial.
Report comment to moderator
He should add in “Go out and rape someone” if he is going to rattle off all of Ayn Rand’s talking points.
Report comment to moderator
spinoza post 7,
be a bit careful
I can construct the following scenarios:
1) one person gets rich the next person as a consequnce also gets rich: positive sum
2) one person gets rich, the other person gets poorer by the same amount: zero sum
3) one person gets rich, the other person gets even more poorer: from a societal perpsective a negative sum
4) one person tries to get rich but actually gets slightly poorer as a result, secone person also gets significantly poorer: very bad negative sum
For positive sum situations to occur there must be “limitless” or at least large quantities of uncommitted resources brought to bear so that both can increase in wealth.
In a resource limited situation, my sense is negative sum situations case 3 or 4 are most common.
Report comment to moderator
#2 I’ve always thought this anecdote was deToqueville, but I aint sure.
He said in Europe if you have a horse and I’m walking, I might get folks to move to action if I whine “It isnt fair that I have to walk and he has a horse. He should have to walk just like me!”
In America, if I’m footing it and you’re on horseback the attitude is (or should be): I’m walking and he has a horse. I gotta get me a horse too!
Report comment to moderator
so lets consider the following example:
we have a natural catastrophy and food is in short supply (think Myanmar if you like)
An external entity owns the only food in the area and chooses to operate in a captialist manner.
Person A is rich.
Person B is poor.
Person A buys all the food, staying alive.
Person B starves to death.
Within the context of the situation where food is the primary medium of wealth, Person A has gotten rich but it is obviously at the cost of person B.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
But do your scenarios actually exist?
I work for a franchise of a national learning/tutoring center. We provide a service for which parents pay (too much, imo, but that’s for a different day). The more students enrolled, the more money the franchise owner makes. But it also makes me richer–more students equals more teachers needed and/or more hours worked by those teachers.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner:
Now the liberals in America will take your horse and give it to the other guy. Social justice requires that you learn to walk and allow the other, poor, disadvantaged, held back by your riding individual to ride and you must also buy horses for all others who have been victimized. Oh yeah, and you must also pay for riding lessons.
Report comment to moderator
There are so many hats in the air, the one he catches won’t be his own. Not to worry, it will fit. All of the others were tossed by fatheads (excepting GRACELAND, KYLE A., KRM, etc., of course).
I’d hate to live in a culture where what’s evoked by the word “fair” is no longer fair. If the word’s not in the Bible, so much the worse for the Bible. Contrary to O’Rourke’s self indulgences, there’s nothing more popular about fairness than about beauty, fitness, clarity, and justice, all of which require both work and genius.
Harrison and O’Rourke need to renew themselves with a few hours of Chaucer (a writer who know how to get rich, by the way). I don’t covet my neighbor’s livestock, but I don’t want it trampling the commons, but I do resent his slave and slave-girl.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron post 14,
all the time.
The U.S. is wealthy, 5% of the people buy up 25% of the oil, causing the price of oil to rise, resulting in decreased ability to farm in Africa and attendent starvation.
Or corn farmers in the midwest divert corn to make ethanol because it is profitable and food prices rise about 20% causing food shortages world wide.
Or people in the U.S. demand private health insurance which drives up the price of health care so that those who are unisured die for lack of health care (there is a nice CNN article with a vignette on this point).
So it happens all the time. All too often, however, the negative sum effects are hidden from us.
Report comment to moderator
Tsar of all Rush-ians: Social justice requires norms that prohibit a few individuals from grabbing all the money using the fiction that they’re the ones who “created” it. Someone’s got to be a corporate lawyer and, more to the point, a CEO, but social justice requires that we not worship such people as Midases.
Report comment to moderator
cameron post 14:
but your example:
“The more students enrolled, the more money the franchise owner makes. But it also makes me richer–more students equals more teachers needed and/or more hours worked by those teachers.”
is assuming an unlimted resource in the form of students needing tutoring.
If the number of students were limited, your franchise owner could only get tutoring deprived students by diverting them from other tutoring entities.
Report comment to moderator
The Teacher, returning from lecturing all day at the temple – his lecture being on the dialectics of the class struggle), was walking (wearing recyclable sandals and a Save-The-Whales T-shirt) with His disciples when, lo, they saw a poor, ill-clad and hungry person struggling to get out of the ditch.
“Yo, Rabbi”, says the disciple who leaned left the most, “Should we not do something for that poor wretch, forsooth he mayhap not VOTE for our party come next election?”
“Yea”, sayeth the Teacher, “Verily, it is wisely said. Lo, verily I see his very ribs, verily. For what profiteth it us if he should croak, at least before we get his vote?”
Then spaketh the disciple who shall not be named but who did NOT lean so far left. “Okay, lo or yo, whatever, should we then giveth our OWN money out of OUR PURSE so that this poor wretch mayhap get a double cheeseburger, extra olive oil, and hence live a while longer?”
“Nay, say it not,” spake the disciple who leaned left. “Yo, instead, let us sneaketh up on those two strangers there walking just ahead of us, beat them up, rob them, and give the poor guy their money! We can just tell them (as we are beating them up and robbing them) that they art being TAXED for the common good.”
And so they all agreed that it was good to do that and, afterwards, were overjoyed and filled with the spirits of self-righteousness and income re-distribution, Etc., Etc.
They even managed to skim some of the proceeds by levying a processing fee on the loot they got and bought themselves a SUV.
And after that, the Teacher promised that, verily, the very next day He would lecture about how they could reduce their personal CO2 footprints by over 50% by simply holding their breath for every other minute.
Verily, he who hath ears let him hear. Selah.
Report comment to moderator
#20 DRILL
Lo, so why didn’t someone just give the guy a hand and pull him out of the ditch, give him the rest of his bag of Hot Cheetos, the extra bottle of water from his backpack and walk with him a while?
Report comment to moderator
#11 Clearly one *can* get rich at no one’s expense, but the statement was: “no one loses when someone else gets rich” and the context was without qualification, implying “no one [ever] loses when someone else gets rich.” Maybe that wasn’t intended, but that’s how it reads to me… As such, it is patently false!
Report comment to moderator
KRM Spinoza – O’Rourke is engaging in hyperbole. And he makes clear in the explanations following each ‘outrageou’ tag line that the application of it he envisions is actually more beneficial.
You mean the explanations like:
“no one loses when someone else gets rich”
“be a corporate lawyer and make $500,000 a year”
“What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.”
“Get rich and get your own.”
Oh – I see how these “explanations” actually square with the Sermon on the Mount and have nothing to do with pillars of GOP belief. NOT!
Report comment to moderator
Of course P.J. O’Rourke was using humor and hyperbole in his speech. While one should appreciate humor for humor’s sake, there are always certain “truths” or beliefs being conveyed behind that humor by the comedian. That’s where we should be taking P.J. on.
His speech exemplifies, among other ideas and attitudes:
The new Golden Rule – “Do unto others before they do unto you”.
“I’ve got mine. If you don’t have yours, tough!”
“It’s every man for himself. If you have to step on other people to get what you want, do it”.
“If I’m rich, I have no moral responsibility or obligation to help those who are poor”.
“If you’re poor, it’s your own damn fault. I’m not lifting a finger to help you”.
I’m not sure Christians should be applauding this kind of stuff, but there ya go.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure Christians should be applauding this kind of stuff, but there ya go.
But I’m not applauding the statements you made in 24. I’m applauding the article.
Report comment to moderator
O’Rourke’s position would be a cruel joke, if it were only possible for a select few to achieve economic success. With free public education and grants and loans for college, anybody can become gainfully employable. The fact that some don’t take advantage of a free education is their own choice, and even they have alternatives. The ones who really cannot work should expect their family, community, and church to support them. Why do they want to have money that was confiscated from somebody else? What is the moral justification for that?
O’Rourke’s position would also be a horrible taunt if wealth were a finite thing that is depleted the more people have. Think. In America’s 230 years, has the total combined wealth of people in our country remained the same, or has it increased? Through ingenuity and effort, it has increased. For example, I now own two laptop computers and am running Windows Vista Premium. Thank you, Bill Gates. I don’t resent your billiions, I’m thankful for the products that earned you those billions, and they help me in earning my own money. And thank you for the jobs you created–not only at Microsoft but at retail outlets, business offices, etc., etc., etc.
We don’t need to think of certain people having a bigger piece of the pie, we should think of each person having his own pie and making it as big as he is willing and able to do.
Report comment to moderator
I think the point O’Rourke is making is not so much that those who “have” should not help or be merciful to those who “have not”, but that people in general should be industrious and self responsible.
You certainly see plenty of precedent and encouragement for that in the Bible. I decry your twisting of that sentiment into meaning that conservatives are always mean and judgemental… speaking of which, have you looked in the mirror lately? You haven’t been exactly kind just now.
Report comment to moderator
And speaking of moral justification for taking other people’s money. . .
I can lay out a perfect case for voluntary giving to those in need. Unfortunately it would contain Bible texts and would offend some of the previous commenters.
What I would love to see is a justification for taking money from somebody by force and giving it to those who did not earn it.
Report comment to moderator
#26 KYLE A
“With free public education and grants and loans for college, anybody can become gainfully employable.”
1. College isn’t for everybody.
2. Not everybody is interested in “college” jobs.
Report comment to moderator
For example, I now own two laptop computers and am running Windows Vista Premium. Thank you, Bill Gates.
You are probably the only person who has thanked Gates for Vista.
The day Microsoft stops supporting XP is the day I switch to Apple. Vista is horrible.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza – O’Rourke is not a theologian. He is a conservative (semi-libertarian, essentially secular) satirist/commentator who tends to write in the political area.
He wasn’t purporting to recast the Sermon on the Mount.
Report comment to moderator
#31 Yes of course – and World writers like HSK routinely side with conservative satirists who contradict Christian values, thus showing their true colors.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles, that was not my point. My point is that education is there for the taking. Nobody can claim that rich white people are the only ones who can afford to become teachers or lawyers or doctors or businessmen.
In our world today there aren’t as many opportunities available to people without a college education, but fortunately they still exist. Those kinds of opportunities actually strengthen my argument. Just about anyone can provide for himself or herself in the United States of America. One can be self-trained and start a business or farm one’s own land. One can help out in the family business and work one’s way up the ladder there. One can go to a vocational school or get on-the-job training in a trade of some kind.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, I haven’t had problems with Vista so far. The Premium version seems to be better than the Basic version.
That wasn’t my point, either. My point is that Bill Gates has created wealth for a lot of people as he has created wealth for himself. The layers are almost endless when you start thinking about it.
Report comment to moderator
“My point is that Bill Gates has created wealth for a lot of people as he has created wealth for himself.”
And apparently the left takes issue with that. I dunno why…
Care to disabuse us of the notion?
Report comment to moderator
I wanted to see if I could do what Musing said he could.
1) one person gets rich the next person as a consequnce also gets rich: positive sum
A brilliant chef opens a restaurant and hires a manager to run it. Before long they are both raking in the dough as co-owners of a huge restaurant chain.
They provide jobs for hundreds of people and have money to invest in many other wealth-creating ventures.
In one way or another this is the usual pattern.
2) one person gets rich, the other person gets poorer by the same amount: zero sum
The only way I can see this happening is for the first person to steal something from the second or to swindle him. We have laws against stealing and swindling.
3) one person gets rich, the other person gets even more poorer: from a societal perpsective a negative sum
The only thing I can imagine is a situation in which an indentured servant or slave must pay off the owner for his upkeep. He will get deeper in debt and will never pay it off. We have laws against such a thing. (I think it happens in prostitution and drug dealing.)
4) one person tries to get rich but actually gets slightly poorer as a result, secone person also gets significantly poorer: very bad negative sum
How about the first person invests some of his own money and a larger amount of somebody elses’s money in a terrible idea. The idea is useless, and the investment is lost. There’s no law about such a thing, but the second person was obviously foolish.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been part of WMB for a few years now, and I still can’t believe how many liberals, er, socialists we have here!
Way to go Harrison, you’ve forced them out of the closet with this post!
Report comment to moderator
It usually goes like this:
Owner of a business gets rich off of paying his workers starvation wages year after year. The idea that he might have some moral obligation to treat them decently is anathema to him. To him, they’re nothing more than slaves, to be exploited for as long as possible. Meanwhile he lives lavishly, never having so much as a pang of guilt that he got rich off the backs of his employees. Oh, and get this: he’ll claim to be a good Christian.
Sadly, we’ve seen that repeated over and over again in America.
Report comment to moderator
“A rising tide lifts all boats,” observed the moral philosopher Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations. Somehow in the few centuries since then, the majority of people live lives of greater luxury than medieval potentates could have imagined. And no one got poorer as a result. With wealth came productivity and innovation and the discovery of new resources. If stratification of income appears stagnant it is because it hides the movement of people from one layer to another and ignores that someone still in the bottom rung after many years now owns the same small percentage of a much bigger pie.
Robert Thomas Malthus, writing at approximately the same time as Adam Smith, predicted the over population of the world would soon outstrip the resources to feed itself.
History suggest that Adam Smith had the better understanding.
Have people ever cheated others out of money? Of course. Look at Hillary’s windfall in commodities training. Someone lost their shirt for her to make those profits.
But building businesses and innovating, the way most people make their fortunes, increase the wealth for everyone.
Blaming the wealthy for the poverty of others, the
impetus behind redistribution plans of confiscatory taxation is bad policy and O’Rourke is right to satirize it.
Report comment to moderator
“To him, they’re nothing more than slaves, to be exploited for as long as possible. Meanwhile he lives lavishly, never having so much as a pang of guilt that he got rich off the backs of his employees. Oh, and get this: he’ll claim to be a good Christian.”
Do you really see small businesses like this? If so, then you are really the enemy of all small business owners and those that they employ. That would be the bulk of the American people in case you didn’t know…. I find your view point not only inaccurate but quite uncharitable.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir’s simplistic little story ignores many things.
1. Not all of the workers that start out with a particular boss stay low-level employees throughout their lives. In almost every business in America they will have opportunities for advancement and salary increases. And, as I said before, there is always the possibility of training to do something more lucrative.
2. Most business owners struggle to make ends meet and are already paying their workers the most that they can afford. Very few business owners become very wealthy, and those who do probably have several layers of people under them who are also making a lot of money.
3. I’ve never met a business owner who did not treat his best empolyees as valuable assets to his business. I’ve seen employers bend over backwards to accomodate workers who make themselves indispensible to the company’s success. My stepfather’s company, for example, paid for him to fly out to see my sister two weekends a month while she was battling cancer.
Anlir has read too many Dickens novels, I think.
Report comment to moderator
And this is the paradox of the Christian Right. The radical selflessness of Christ (sell all you have and give it to the poor?) and the school of hard knocks, get yours while the gettin’s good, stolid and stubborn good common sense of economic conservatism.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
Again, it’s a matter of perspective. For you and your fellow Republicans, employers can do no wrong and employees are over-paid good for nothing leeches. Republicans have forgotten what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck, to have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet (because employers pay so little), to struggle financially.
*****
Kyle A.,
If you’ve never met a business owner who mistreats his employees, you are living a very sheltered, privileged life.
Report comment to moderator
#43 ANLIR
“Republicans have forgotten what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck, to have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet (because employers pay so little), to struggle financially.”
The problem with Democrats is they realy believe this stuff! I can’t believe you said this, Anlir. I am flumoxed about even trying to give an answer.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
What a piece of tripe. You must live in la la land, and subscribe to fa la la la la for financial news, not to mention those who are trying to help their employee’s with their every day problems, expenses, and family situations.
Many employers have paid for many things which employees have not worked for, but because they are sick, or their families are in need have ’stepped up to the plate’ to provide whatever needed, sacrificed by the employer. Of course Anlir, you would NOT know about this, since you aren’t the owner of a business, but you believe you know the heart of a Christian businessman? I know you don’t.
As you continue to spread this nonsense, those of us who KNOW BETTER, understand where the ROOTS of this kind of thinking come from, you aren’t fooling anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Bob, they haven’t a clue.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I used the word best. In my experience the best employees are valued and taken care of. Most of the employers I know are very accomodating to employees who give 100% of their effort and their devotion to the work. An employee who brings in money and makes the business succeed would not be mistreated except by some psychotic boss. It would not be in an employer’s own interests to mistreat excellent workers.
As for a privileged life, you have it completely wrong. I can remember the time when I was growing up that my family received state aid in the form of surplus food. I can remember the time in my young adult life when I had to scrounge for change in my apartment to have enough money for some gasoline to get to work. Some privilege!
Report comment to moderator
Bless your heart Kyle. You don’t have to explain yourself to anyone.
People will think what they want, just remember it’s what GOD ALMIGHT knows that counts, all this stuff doesn’t matter. I have to remind myself all the time.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – You are clearly talking out of ignorance.
There was a very well written book about 20 years ago “The Millionaire Next Door” or something like that. Some academics went out and talked to a lot of ‘millionaires’.
They found that they generally built up a small business into a moderate business over many decades of very long hours and very little playtime. They did not live extravagently (the vast majority drove non-luxury make American cars, often bought used and kept several years). They lived in houses well below what they could afford and were overwhelmingly long term married (overwhelmingly to their original spouse).
In my private practice days, that description fit the majority of the ‘millionaire’ clients I had.
Report comment to moderator
The part I loved was the part about life is not fair. If we could teach that to every school age child they could have a different outlook on life. While I agree on principle of making money is good for the country, I must caution it can be disastrous for the individual Christian. Money has the power to corrupt and take your focus off God. The writer of Proverbs said don’t let me become rich and forget You.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
2001-2004: One-income family while I worked and TJ went to seminary (roughly $28K gross)
2004-2006: $20K in MS (gross) but with provided housing
2007-present: $30K and provided housing
My mother lives in in Gwinnett County on $25K and just paid off her condo she bought less than ten years ago.
We never lived paycheck to paycheck in those scenarios. We made financial choices that allowed us otherwise (skipping cable, DSL, driving paid-for cars, less eating out, etc.) Did we have sudden expenses? Yes, but we got through them by skimping more and because we carried no debt on our credit cards, so we could spread out a large car repair.
You honestly think all R’s are rich? Frankly, the Republican Party isn’t nearly fiscally conservative enough for me.
Report comment to moderator
Y’all are living in a dream land! Come out from behind your computer and meet people at your local chicken plant, carpet mill, or hotels (to name a few places) where people barely make enough to live. They’re one sickness away from poverty. Listen to them talk about having to choose between food and medicine for their kid. Listen to them talk about having to work in factories with no heat or airconditioning and other inhumane conditions.
Meet the real Americans who can’t even afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Who can’t afford to take their kid to the doctor. Who ignore the lump in their breast because they have no money and no insurance. Who work two jobs and are constantly sleep deprived, giving them health problems. Who have to walk or ride public transportation because they cannot afford a car. Who live in terrible housing conditions with slum lords who won’t fix anything.
Or visit any attorney’s office while he sits there with a middle class family who’s filing for bankruptcy because they cannot afford their medical bills. Listen to them weep as they realize they are going to lose the home that they worked so hard for.
That’s but a few examples of the real America that conservative Christians have such utter disdain and contempt for. Conservative Christians have totally switched loyalties. Now they sing the praises of corporations, greed, money, power, and the rich. Well, when you join the Republican Party, you’re expected to join in that choir.
The rest of us look at conservative Christians and say “You have lost your moral compass”.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, this whole discussion started about P. J. O’Rourke’s imaginary speech to college students. Most of them will not be doing the jobs you listed. And you should be glad, because the programs that support those people could not be paid for unless some citizens made the choice to go to college and to land lucrative jobs. In fact the people you describe would have no job, if it weren’t for those terrible college-educated people who want to do well financially.
Why does anyone expect to make a living doing the kind of jobs you listed, anyway? That just doesn’t make sense. When I was in college I worked at Burger King. A middle-aged lady who worked there urged all the teens to go to college or vocational school. She explained that you cannot raise a family on minimum wage. Those teens are the ones that those jobs exist for.
Just last night I encouraged my niece, who works as a Certified Nurse’s Assistant at a nursing home, to go to college and become at least an LVN, if not an RN.
It’s about choice and ambition and hard work and responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Are you personally supporting a family in the situations you describe, or are you supporting an agency that will do so? I’m talking above and beyond the taxes we all pay–are you doing more than you think we are doing?
I’ve met the people you describe–while volunteering at my local food bank.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A,
Just about everyone around me is a college graduate. They are working in a field they didn’t study for, for a lot less money than they were led to believe. The idea that there are all of these high paying, wonderful jobs just sitting there waiting for people to claim them is not real. It’s like telling a kid he can make it in the NBA. Yes, a few people will make it and make big bucks. But the odds of any ne person making it to that level are astronomical.
Tell me this Kyle: even if we were to somehow turn every American into a college graduate, where will all those high paying, high skilled jobs come from? The fact is, there are not enough jobs for all of the college graduates we have now. Many of them are forced to take lower paying, lower skilled jobs.
Also, there are certain jobs that will always have to be done in this country, no matter how high tech we become. Hotel rooms will still need to be cleaned. The garbage will still need to be picked up. Someone will still have to plunge the commode and clean up the mess on the floor. Those are the people who work the hardest, yet get paid the least. In my mind, there’s something wrong with that.
*****
As a matter of fact Cameron, I’m a lifelong member of the “working class” that conservative Christians so disdain. I’ve worked in carpet mills and other factories, been a janitor, worked in restaurants, and delivered newspapers in the middle of the night. I’ve worked hard all my life. Yes, I do have a “desk job” now after a lot of hard work. The pay is just enough to live on and save a little for retirement. If I get sick or disabled, there is no “safety net”. My medical bills have nearly bankrupted me. I help my family and the people around me when I can. And there are millions of Americans just like me. We represent that backbone that keeps this country running. We work hard, pay our taxes, and hold our breaths that nothing bad will happen that takes away what little we have.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I’ve done many of those same jobs–I’ve worked in warehouses, worked in fast food, waited tables, delivered newspapers, etc. The last two were after my college degree, by the way. TJ and his mother both worked in carpet mills, too; she did for years until she retired.
This idea that you have that we are somehow fundamentally different is simply wrong. We work hard, pay our taxes, and hope that nothing bad happens that will take away what little we have, too. I wonder, though, if our versions of “just enough to live on” are different. I don’t mean how much we make, I mean the way we choose to spend our money.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
I’m speaking generally, not to you personally on this stuff. The way I see it, conservative Christians have so completely sold themselves to the Republican Party that they can no longer bring themselves to defend the poor. Instead they’ve become part of the power structure in the Republican Party, which requires them to advocate for big business, the wealthy, and the policies that do harm to the poor. It’s a stunning reversal for a religion that was at one time on the side of the poor, the marginalized, the outcasts.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
It’s odd–I spend a lot of time with conservative Christians and I don’t know anyone “sold” to the Republican party, including myself. Now, you may have some conservative Christians within the power structure of the GOP, and many more who title themselves that way without actually being so, but I doubt they reflect the average conservative and/or Christian on the street.
I believe we are often on the side of the poor, the marginalized, and the outcast. I just don’t think the government is the best answer to any of their problems.
Report comment to moderator
Fairness to a conservative means equal opportunity.
Fairness to a liberal means equal outcome.
In one system, government enforces rules so people play fair while earning wealth. In the other system, government redistributes wealth based on rules of “fairness” in accord with some social agenda.
Which system is more fair? Well, it depends on who you ask.
Report comment to moderator
I was thinking about this discussion this morning, and it occurred to me to ask Anlir what his solution to the perceived problem is.
On the one hand conservatives think that a capitalistic economic system, and a representative government is the solution to poverty and oppression. On the other hand it appears that the liberals think that a socialist government is the solution – even though that experiment has failed many times over.
While I think the conservatives solution is closer to the mark (socialism doesn’t produce anything, and therefore no one gets rich) I think that the current problems stem more from moral decay than anything else.
If marriage was still held sacred by our society, or at least by Christians, I think much of our problems would be solved. I think our 50% divorce rate contributes a great deal to the problems described by Anlir. Unlike Anlir, I don’t see a political process or a government as the solution. I see service to a good merciful God as the solution. In this service, men would love their wives and sacrifice their life for them, instead of abandoning them to poverty as single mothers. In this service women would respect their husbands and honor them. Children would honor their parents. Mothers and Fathers would create a stable loving environment for their children. In this service men would take care of their employees, and employees would give a fair days work for a days wage.
This is what Christians should fight for. Homosexual marriage doesn’t threaten our society as much as infidelity in heterosexual marriages. The family unit is in big trouble due to no fault divorce.
The moral aspect is just one facet of our society that is breaking down, and it seems to me to revolve around the the postmodern dilemma. People do not believe in universal truth anymore – even so called Christians. If there is no universal truth as defined by God, even worse, if there is no God, then of course we have no universal moral code. Any moral system that is relative is doomed from the outset. I see the failure to recognize truth, at the root of most of our arguments here.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man,
Well said, as usual.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
You indeed have some perceptive insights that I would agree with, even though we would disagree about the solution.
Capitalism, without the restraint of people with a conscience or morals, would be a very cruel system. Unfortunately, not every one will do the right thing. And that’s where the law comes in.
To give an example: the mining industry. If they had made the safety of their workers their top priority and if they had been good stewards of the environment, the government would not have had to step in and make some rules.
I also think (and this is probably where we part company) that some things should be done for the good of the whole country. Things like education, health care, and caring for the elderly and the disabled. I’m much more socialistic when it comes to these kind of things because I think it shows our commitment toward caring for all, irregardless of their status in life.
For example, without going into detail, I do favor a Medicare type health coverage for all Americans, financed by taxes, but administered by the private sector, with strict cost controls. I would willingly pay more taxes if it means providing medical coverage for all Americans.
I’m much more “communally” minded. I care more for the greater good of the many than the “darwinian” capitalism that says “I’ve got mine. To heck with everyone else”.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!