Death of Political Correctness

And we have a winna, winna chicken dinna! ;-)

…see it hit…

Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm still pretty raw as I know many of you are. I still think we are better off having the discussion. All three of my cats are strays. One of them came crying to my door nearly ten years ago. She may have weighed one or two pounds and couldn't walk well because of a mysterious injury to her back left paw. We never found out what happened. She could have been hit by a car but the vet thought it was nerve damage from malnutrition. After steroid treatment and TLC she weighs about nine pounds as is still with us. She still drags her paw and has occasional seizures but she seems to be a happy cat and is very affectionate. She and another of our cats frequently miss the litterbox and sometimes have gone on furniture but we just can't bear to part with them. Someone once said you could tell a person's character based on how they treat animals. I have to believe that to be true.

frozen cat...that's a horrible story.

Scott: You know I am a fan. I had no idea this was such a hot button topic for the regulars at the Hurricane. I'll bet you get more traffic now.

Good idea about that dick Cheney.

Sorry Scott, I thought I was done here but as I had stated earlier, I feel pretty strongly about this issue on both counts. Barbie, regarding your comment,.”I tend to think what Mr. Bauer was saying was that if you quit giving people welfare, that they will survive anyhow. Even the stray animals don't die off, they find a way to survive.” I can tell you for a fact from first hand experience that strays die, and die horribly and live very short lives compared to their pampered counterparts in a loving home. Right now I have 19 year old cat and a 20 year old dog in my home. Of all the dozens to perhaps hundreds of strays I fed, none have survived more than 2 or 3 years. They live a life of deprivation, never obtaining adequate nourishment for any reasonable length of time. They live a highly stressful life, constantly having to be wary of other predators such as coyotes, dogs, cruel humans, cars, and for young kittens, even raccoons, hawks, and owls. They have to dodge cars and even fellow territorial cats. In their weakened state, they are highly susceptible to extremely contagious diseases, some fatal even for the healthiest of cats, such as Feline Leukemia, Feline Infectious Peritonitis, and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (Kitty AIDS). Those 3 are guaranteed death sentences. Even diseases that would be minor for healthy cats such as upper respiratory diseases and wound infections are death sentences to weak and immunosuppressed cats living on the streets. I’ve rescued cats and dogs that were literally skin and bones without exaggeration. I rescued a cat that I initially thought was hit by a car and paralyzed in the rear. Turned out he was so malnourished and weak, he was unable to move the back part of his body and legs. I don’t doubt that some manage to survive. But for domesticated animals that were bred to be dependent on humans for their care and well being, do any of them deserve to die that way?

This incident occurred 18 years ago but still haunts me to this day. One cold morning driving to work, I saw a small orange cat sitting up calmly in a sphinx pose as cars were whizzing by. I thought it was a cat that had escaped from a home and wasn’t smart enough to stay away from speeding cars. I stopped to either pick up the cat or shoo him away further from traffic. Apparently I needn’t had worried. That poor cat had died already and was frozen solid in that sitting position.

The same would apply to humans, some may be resourceful, maybe most would be resourceful and survive, but even if one child falls through the cracks and dies because we as a society either didn’t care or felt that it “would work out by itself” isn’t that one too many?

What a crock of a post! Sorry Scott but your thinking is wrong on so many levels - it stinks! "god helps those who help themselves" is NOT even CLOSE to being a religious, Christian saying or proverb...it is NOT in the Bible and has NO PLACE in decent, moral behavior. If Christianity were about needing "personal responsibility" and "helping" your own damn self, the story of the Good Samaritan would be rather pointless wouldn't it?

So what if children have parents who are drug addicted or too young, or, how about just plain stoopid - that'll teach 'em - we'll let their innocent children suffer for THEIR shortcomings? THAT is a solution in your mind?

I can assure you Scott, your education, your job, your roof over your head is the result of some of those single moms who had too many kids doing their part.

You don't have to worry about being "politically correct" - this was an offensive and demeaning post - especially to women and the poor.

you vewy funny...

Hey Scott: 32!!!

Carguy,

There was a guy that was documented as a professional sperm donor that had about 15 kids and wanted more...no child support. In most cases he didn't even know their names. It was facilitated by a 'genius institute' that was selling quality donors. This particular guy stated that he felt that everyone should be the beneficiary of his high quality stuff. The kids that were traced back to him were in the typical case...typical, but anyway, he still thought he was pretty special.

Don't ask me what this has to do with anything...but I bet if one looks hard enough one can be found...

Huey wrote: I also think Carguy is wrong when he stated that we "reward" such behavior.
---------------
Perhaps badly phrased. The "reward" to which I referred was that if a person has a child and needs assistance, IF they have ANOTHER child we give them more money. And more for the third. I actually worked with a person who had three kids this person could not adequately support. BUt, I will admit this person DID have a job.

I read in an interview that this rap star, Flavor Flav, claims he has 31 kids. Even IF he is successful now (and I don;t know that for a fact) he spent 20 years in and out of prison and as a drug addict. I'm pretty sure he wasn't writing child support checks during that period.

But please let me restate, I don't know how to discourage irresponsible social behavior without punishing the innocent and I am NOT for that. Poverty is not something people choose, but exploiting the social welfare system IS a way of life for some.

Scott, 28 comments today. Ain't that a record for you?

I think that you're making a false assumption, which is that government is subsidizing most would find irresponsible. I don't think that it's subsidizing so much as it is recognizing that, as a society, we're still better off helping those that are in need, particularly children.

I also think Carguy is wrong when he stated that we "reward" such behavior. How many people do you know who have multiple kids that are on welfare. The amount received is not enough to cover the costs of having one child, much less mutlitple children. Not exactly much of a reward.

The Lt. Gov. of S.C. didn't make an accurate statement in a clumsy manner. He made a patently stupid statement and is rightly being criticized for it.

Also, you said that you are familair with the theology of "God helps those that helps themselves." Is that really theology or is that just a saying? From the best of my knowledge, it's not found in the Bible, and there are ample examples of God helping those that can't help themselves.

Another point you mentioned is your resonse is that poor people who make bad decisions are not held responsible for their poor behavior. That is simply not the case. Poor people who make bad decisions remain poor and often become even poorer. Government assistance has never lifted anyone out of poverty and into a middle class lifestyle.

Carguy, convergence of cats & kids. ;-)

The NYT article is an interesting read.

And the generational explanation of why a country's social system may fall out of favor is telling -- if it didn't happen to me, personally, it really didn't happen.

I heard one economist express surprise that he still had Keynesian (sp) colleagues; they'd all been underground for decades and only rose up when the current crisis hit. He also said that all we can say for certain about our two major economic philosophies is that, when put into practice, both eventually fail.

Today, an NPR commentator said that Americans have a problem: they seem to want social security, they just don't want to pay for it. If that's true, what proposal could possibly enchant enough Americans to become law? Especially if it helped someone else?

I also read a chron.com article that mentioned that a local car dealer who charges his low-income buyers 30% on car notes. How is that even legal? Once poor, it can be very difficult to get less poor.

We have a knee-jerk belief that competition is always good, always produces the best result; trying reading Alfie Kahn's No Contest if you'd like to be disabused of that notion.

It's pretty easy to be middle class in this country. Nobody judges you on your commitment to a better society because it's not required. I have a friend who donates nothing to no one, to no charity, and considers it a weakness of liberals. In his arena, they don't keep points that way, it's not in their frame of reference. I can't live that way, but he does.

Perhaps because I look out for some feral cats, too, I think your analogy is sound. Feral cats exist because of irresponsible people, maybe people not even on welfare, if you can imagine lack of accountability in some other class.

I sometimes think that getting out of poverty is like coming to terms with the fact of your dysfunctional family. You have to focus on getting out, knowing full well that all those years of dysfunction will have an impact on you sometime and you'll have to deal with it. It has to be acknowledged but not used as an excuse -- at least until you can afford counseling.

Bubba,

I love your generosity. All of my cats (three) are strays and one of them is physically challenged. I think alleviating poverty is at the heart of progressivism. To me, welfare is at the very core of the subject. A true progressive looks at welfare as a trap and wants to get people out. A true conservative looks at welfare as a free loading gift and wants to get people out. The common ground is that we want to get people out. In parlance, if that means finding every stray cat and dog a home then that's one way. If that means killing every stray dog and cat then that's another way. So, in short, yes, this is a discussion we need to have and always need to have until poverty is eradicated.

In many ways, LBJ may have been our greatest president if not for that pesky Vietnam thing. He is the only president to really sink his being into eradicating poverty. He made a pretty big dent too. Like with public schools and other issues I have brought forward, there is way to do things better. Essentially, you have two choices: go the way of LBJ and try to find a permeanent end to welfare and poverty or go the way of Eboneezer Scrooge and go the way of eliminating the poor.

Welfare has to be at the center of this discussion because we must discuss how (and why) one becomes dependent on welfare for a lifetime. We need people of all walks of life and perspectives to weigh in on this. I have a jaded view. I see people in my family, wife's family, and here at school that are perfectly capable people. Instead of working they are on the welfare rolls. Statistics tell me they are in the minority, but statistics are hard to believe when your life experience says otherwise. Others don't have that jaded view. I never made it out that welfare was a life of luxury. It isn't. That is why we need to figure out why people stay on it. Is it dehybilitating? Is it a lack of education? Training? However, to me the discussion of welfare is really a discussion about poverty. If we stop talking about poverty as Democrats then we have lost our soul.

Personally, I don't think WE have lost our soul. The fact that I could write something that generates this much emotion from all of you indicates that we are okay in the soul department. We need to talk and not judge people but for the value of their words and not their value as a person.

ok, that makes sense...

Scott, is this really a conversation we need to have/despite all the "welfare reform" already implemented and all the people, deserving or not thrown off the welfare roles? As AlienHunter noted, short of forced sterilization, how do you significantly "improve" further? I would suggest perhaps abortion on demand is not necessarily a bad policy. You want to radically reduce further the number of children born to people unable to care for them right?

And I would argue that free or reduced school lunch programs (even for those that are not poor) is one facet of the solution. Despite Bauer's flawed, unsupported "theory" that schools with free lunch programs have lower test scores, scientific studies have show that children who eat a balanced breakfast or lunch learn better and or more alert and receptive to instruction. And a better educated populace...

And as SST noted, I challenge the right wing myth that being poor in this country is a "comfortable existence" that perpetuates a cycle of poverty. Again, I feel it's a lack of education, formal and otherwise. Education to build the confidence, ability, knowledge to develop self worth and will to break out of that cycle. Hence the free lunch program as one of the solutions to the problem.

And Bauer IS talking about starving children, and based on my referenced NY Times article, possibly to death.

I already noted that in such a flawed creature and society in just about every aspect, why is welfare/support for the poor such a critical zero tolerance issue?

Back to the feeding strays analogy. When I feed stray cats, it's pretty much a shotgun, non-targeted attack. Birds eat it, raccoons, possums, skunks, rats, mice, roaches eat it. Particularly with the raccoons, I'm guessing maybe 25% of the cat food gets eaten by cats. Do I say it's not cost effective and let the cats starve or do I continue to feed all the free loaders too? And in an ironic twist, the cats ARE spayed/neutered, and ear tipped. And that is the best I can do short of taking in every stray and living like a crazy cat lady. I've taken in and adopted out hundreds of cats and dogs over the years. And in my own pro-lifer philosophy, I cannot bring myself to have them euthanized just because there is not an available home for them. It is not their fault they are living on the streets. It's the fault of the irresponsible human parents who dumped them or a predecessor on the streets unspayed/unneutered to breed and fend for themselves in a very harsh environment. So I compromise and spend my money and do what I can to make their short lives a little better in however small way I can. As I noted previously, I find this quite an appropriate analogy.

Tony Judt recently published an excellent piece in the New York Review of Books on the history and future of social democracy - an issue which is of some relevance to this discussion. You might want to read it: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23519 .

"If however I am not made to be responsible for my behavior in any way then what is to make me cease my behavior?"

Living on welfare, especially post-TANF, is hardly a walk in the park. In the U.S., we subscribe generally to the old English notion that welfare should be a more unpleasant choice than virtually any other (apart from death). Accordingly, we provide people (mostly children and mothers) with limited food assistance, housing assistance, and - under very limited and temporary circumstances, and with many strings attached - cash assistance. We scorn those who need such assistance, and make the application process demeaning. We tell the poor what to do as a condition for receiving welfare. We don't have poorhouses anymore, but we do have plenty of jails.

We blame the poor for their circumstances, yet do very little to improve many of the material, societal, and cultural conditions that contribute to poverty and continue the cycle of poverty into new generations. It's certainly a two-way street - everyone has to do their part - but we can hardly go blaming the poor when, as a country, we're doing so little to hold up our end of the bargain.

It's easy enough to blame the poor when you don't come from poverty or when you've only experienced it from the outside. It's quite another thing to stop telling the poor what to do and instead listen to what they have to say about what needs to be done, and enter into a conversation. Otherwise talking about "standards of behavior we should all abide by" is both cruel and pointless. Who decides the standards of behavior, how do we come by those standards, and does everyone have the resources, both material and immaterial, to abide by them?

Bubba,

I agree again...children. Of course, the involuntary sterilization pogrom was in full bloom in the 30's. The eugenicists thought it was a wonderful approach to myriad social ills.

My daughter's lunch account was close to on empty and the lunch staff literally took her lunch out of her hands when she was unable to pay. When I heard her story I nearly cried and embarrassing as it is to admit I'm not lying.

Her mother not being the politically correct type started a firestorm of protest after meeting with the principal. Speak about whacking things off, she was going to whack mine off because I had approached the Principal in a conciliatory manner.

The end result was a fund started by my ex and her husband (subsidized by me and her husband, of course... :O) ) to never let that happen again to any child at my daughter's school. And the Principal issued an edict to the school staff to never deny any child a meal for any reason.

Targeting children...that my friend is a disease of the mind. I think Jon Stewart couldn't have put it any more eloquently. I think I detected a note of real emotion in his presentation.

I've obviously hit a nerve, but this is still a conversation we need to have. Mr. Bauer obviously started the conversation out in an insensitive way which is why the national conversation has stopped and hit on how insensitive he is. I don't disagree with that narrow point and never intended to get drug into a conversation about stray animals.

Of course, I am not arguing that anyone should starve. What I am saying is that we need to have a logical cut off. As a good Catholic I am also well-versed in the theology that God helps those that help themselves. I don't find the suggestions of brutality towards men or women or draconian suggestions to be particularly helpful. I never argued those. I simply posed a question and hoped for thoughtful answers.

The point is this: if I am a poor man or woman then it is not in my best interest to continue behavior that makes my situation worse. If however I am not made to be responsible for my behavior in any way then what is to make me cease my behavior? It isn't about punishing the kids and free and reduced lunch has nothing to do with the parent. What is about is helping those kids, because if mom and dad can't afford me then what are they going to do when they have three or four more like me?

Really??????

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt you Kel, then we must be doing something right. That's 1. Good start.

carguy - I read today that social entitlement programs are at a much lower level than they were in the 60's and 70's - they haven't risen past pre-Reagan levels yet. interesting, eh?

THis is one of your very best articles ever Scott. I couldn't agree more if I were on Demerol.

Our social welfare system is one of the BIGGEST problems we have. How to be fair without encouraging people to become permanent welfare recipients by rewarding such behavior. I will admit, I don't have a solution. You can't punish the guilty without punishing the innocent too.

You know, every time you turn around we seem to have one problem or another that presents a conundrum like this. Wasn't like this back in 1962.

Hey Bubba,

Right on, duuude! I have a lot of respect for Scott and no disrespect is intended to him. It's all about human dignity. The people that Scott describes are in the aforementioned minority of the generational dependent. As a good Catholic he should realize one soul saved is worth all the effort.

Social research tells us that the group of Octomoms with the addition of cadillac drivers and drug dealers comprise maybe one-tenth of the welfare dependent. Perhaps, a righteous indignation towards them is justified but to use a vogue word it is just 'symbolic'.