TigerHawk

Sunday, January 08, 2006

All my lefty thoughts

By TigerHawk at 1/08/2006 04:09:00 PM

Regular readers know that we're pretty right-wing around here. Just when I've thought that I've written something really extreme one of my more eloquent co-bloggers comes a long and makes me look soft on communism. It's a good thing that I have robust self-esteem.

The ugly truth is, I have lefty thoughts. They haunt me, and make me wonder whether my position in the conservative 'sphere isn't all a sham. Am I going to snap one day and start taking gratuitous shots at Glenn Reynolds and Wretchard? Other wobbly conservatives have done that. Am I a righty poseur?

The only solution, I believe, is blogotherapy. Yes, I am going to "share" all my lefty thoughts, and hope (fear?) that you "share" your thoughts back.

In no particular order, with various waffles and other qualifications in italics, I hereby unburden myself at your expense:

We still have a lot of desperately poor people in our country, and we don't do enough to help them. [I also believe that most government programs to help the poor have exacerbated the problem by creating what economists call moral hazards. How do we help poor people become more capable and less dependent in the middle of this wonderful economy that is so flush with opportunity? Neither party has a persuasive answer.]

There are a lot of dishonest businessmen. [They are not, by and large, "corporate chieftains," though, who generally work hard to get their huge sprawling bureaucracies to comply with the law. No, the dishonest businessmen are most often the owners of small businesses, and their primary dishonesty is the evasion of taxes. They are also more likely to discriminate against protected classes of employees and get involved with petty political corruption.]

I think that golf is our most destructive sport. My reasons are legion. If you don't agree, it is because you haven't thought about it enough.

I do not understand the impulses behind conspicuous consumption, "keeping up with the Joneses" or any other motive for consumption that depends from a desire for status or recognition. People who believe -- consciously or otherwise -- that a big house or expensive watch will confer class in and of themselves are quite mistaken.

End "corporate welfare" now. No federal, state or local government should subsidize any particular business -- I don't care if it's an NFL franchise -- especially if the motive is to "keep" or "create" jobs. In all likelihood, the subsidy will destroy as many jobs as it protects or creates.

Tom Delay is a greaseball, whether or not Ronnie Earle is a partisan thug of a prosecutor.

For the life of me, I did not understand the public reaction to Janet Jackson's breast revelation at the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. The NFL and its trappings are soaked in sexual imagery. It is hard to see how a fleeting glimpse of a female breast increases the depravity of that sport at the margin. Indeed, I do not understand middle America's faux prudery, which tolerates any amount of sex -- including socially destructive sex -- in its primetime entertainment as long as no nudity is involved. I am at a loss.

I think homosexuals should be allowed and even encouraged to get married, because I think it will promote, rather than degrade, social stability. It is also the kind thing to do.

There is something very insidious about the way that Congress, the Pentagon brass and big defense contractors relate to each other. One gets the sense that cost-effective weapons systems are not the usual result.

I don't really understand why people get so bent out of shape over porn. Or pot.

After years of living in New Jersey (after having grown up in Iowa), I have reluctantly concluded that when government has to do something, the feds will do a better job of it. And, yes, I thought this when we had a Republican governor and the president was a Democrat.

We are not taking the risk of global climate change seriously enough. Even if the observed changes are ambiguous in their magnitude and causation, the "precautionary principle" that explains our offensive war against Islamic jihad also justifies much more attention to the possible impact of climate change. [I depart from my lefty friends, though, in what I think should be done, and why.]

While I am a strong individualist and believe that both free markets and free men is the best policy, I also recognize that certain businesses (including state agencies) exploit human weaknesses. Sometimes this is virtually harmless -- who cares if DeBeers convinces a lot of dumb men that diamonds lead to sex with supermodels? But sometimes it is horrendous -- is there any doubt that certain consumer credit companies promote high cost credit to people who do not understand it and cannot handle it? Is there any defense for the tactics used in the advertising of state lottery programs?

I believe that government-mandated monopolies are appropriate in certain circumstances. [I think that inventors of novel and useful drugs should benefit from them, and leftists believe that primary and secondary education should be a monopoly, but we both believe in monopolies.]

I think that the Bush administration was guilty of wishful thinking in its handling of the Iraq war, particularly after the government in Baghdad collapsed. Why didn't they realize that we would be greeted both "with flowers" and intransigent resistance? If 80% of the population throws flowers and 20% hates your guts, it is going to be a problem, especially if the 20% is armed to the teeth. It was obvious that they could be right in general and still have a huge security problem, so why were they so little prepared? [As disappointed as I am in this, I also believe that (a) this sort of wishful thinking is tragically repeated in American history, and (b) the war was and remains the right policy among painful alternatives.]

There is something depressing in American consumerism. Look at all the glassy-eyed purposeless people who wander the malls. Do people really find happiness prowling the mall aimlessly, compared to reading, playing music, playing golf, fixing something, cooking a meal, working in the garden, programming an iPod, rooting for the Chicago Cubs, drawing stick figures, playing a board game with their friends, chatting over coffee, gossiping on the phone, venting about the New York Times or Fox News, shooting pool, writing a letter, working out, blogging, quietly nursing a drink, teaching their children "the meaning of respect," watching a movie, watching the sun set, or plotting a coup? To me, a mall is a place to go because there is a Barnes & Noble attached to it.

Corporate capitalism has its pros and its cons, and while I think the former massively outweigh the latter, all is not sweetness and light. One of the flaws is that certain industries fight to grow even when their growth is not necessarily the best thing for the community or country. Consider the processed food and chain restaurant businesses. Our population isn't growing, but our waist lines are. The only way these industries can grow is to persuade the weak-willed among us that we are not fat enough and need to eat even more. Or the homebuilding industry. We are paving over farmland, meadows and forests to build tract housing that is extravagant in its requirements for land, energy and infrastructure (such as roads), while the older stock in many cities crumbles away. Some of this is the result of political systems -- monopoly schools drive a lot of the sprawl. Much of it, though, is because the building industry invests a lot of money in advertising to persuade people that they should want a particular kind of house and in local politicians who want a certain kind of development.

The "war on drugs" is just dumb.

Most of the time, capital punishment is more trouble than it is worth.

If DNA evidence reveals that there are a bunch of people on death row who are probably not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted, why should we assume that there are not "false positives" in a similar proportion in the general prison population? Aren't we learning something ugly about the poor precision with which we convict people?

The American love of cheap gasoline is very expensive in treasure, and increasingly so in blood.

We need a more efficient method for conferring medical care on the "working poor" than emergency rooms and hidden subsidies inside the hospital system.

We need to find a way to bring the American descendents of African slaves decisively into the mainstream of American life. The Civil War ended 140 years ago. We should not be arguing over the legacy of slavery in, say, another 70 years with any more fervor than, say, we argue about the conversion of Constantine.

Peace is better than war. Freedom is better than oppression. Justice is better than injustice. Those in a position to alleviate war, oppression and injustice and do so are better people for it.

*Cleansing breath* I feel much better now. Thanks!

Permalink - - Main

46 Comments:

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 04:09:00 PM:

Wow, you sound just like me and most of my friends, i.e., moderate republicans that are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. The big question for me is that, since there are apparently so many of us, why can't we seem to get elected representation that mirrors our perspective?

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 06:17:00 PM:

April 1st is still amost 3 months off yet.

By Abc, at Sun Jan 08, 06:29:00 PM:

Maybe you're just a libertarian?

By Christine, at Sun Jan 08, 06:55:00 PM:

I totally agree with you and anonymous above. These days, political labels are extremely difficult to deal with. When it comes to voting, egads! You find yourself making a serious checklist of good and bad. Then you hem and haw about whether you want to vote at all. There are a number of us who thought of ourselves as Democrats before 9/11. That event caused alot of deep thoughts about what that actually meant.

You have an audience out here.

By Papa Ray, at Sun Jan 08, 07:04:00 PM:

I have come to believe that the major problem with America is that no politician wants to work for the good of America unless it is his bill or his state or his pocket that benifits.

There are good ideas and good people all across the "political" stage in this country. But the fighting for power and for the buck negates getting anything good for America done. If anything is done it is either so watered down or so strictly applied that the original idea is not only lost but corrupted.

For the people, my ass.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 07:09:00 PM:

Wow, I hope you got that out of your system because most of what you said is pure crap. Let me give you a few examples.

1. "We still have a lot of desperately poor people in our country" Where? And by whose standard? I ain't seen any starving people in this country yet, including street people.

2. "There are a lot of dishonest businessmen... and their primary dishonesty is the evasion of taxes." You are mistaking tax avoidance which is legal with tax evasion which is not... Tax avoidance was taught in my MBA course work.

3. "I think that golf is our most destructive sport. My reasons are legion. If you don't agree, it is because you haven't thought about it enough." Claiming the high moral ground without explaning why is about as leftist as you can you get. In my experience, most golf course are located in flood plains and other areas where no one else would build and contrary to eco-nuts, golf course have a lot of wildlife.

4. "I do not understand the impulses behind conspicuous consumption". Don't know what you're talking about. I know very few people that can buy anything they want when they want it and I'm not talking about poor people.

I could go on and on shooting down your assertions but I don't think it's worth it. Hopefully you will wake up from your bad dream tomorrow and do something extravagant like buy a super large latte with all the ingredients in it.

By Cassandra, at Sun Jan 08, 07:19:00 PM:

Before even reading most of your post....

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Told you I'd embarrass the heck out of you.

*snort*

And now I will read it.

Sincerely,

The Recidivist Reich-wing Drive-by Guest blogger

By Matt McIntosh, at Sun Jan 08, 07:22:00 PM:

Ahem.

First: "End "corporate welfare" now. No federal, state or local government should subsidize any particular business..."

Then: "I believe that government-mandated monopolies are appropriate in certain circumstances."

Do you have as much trouble walking in a straight line as you do thinking in a straight line?

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 07:23:00 PM:

re: prudery

I think the secret is that middle America doesn't mind sex in its shows, *so long as it is shown to have destructive consequences*. Desperate Housewives is actually a morality play!

By TigerHawk, at Sun Jan 08, 07:26:00 PM:

Dodave -

1. Well, you can argue what "poor" means, and it may not any longer mean a calorie deficit as it still does in Africa or parts of Asia, but it is obvious from any drive through an inner city or a poor rural area that there are a lot of people who have a long way to go before they become middle class. I'm not much interested in a statistical battle, since I am quite confident that one of the lefty readers of this blog will show up eventually and wage it for me.

2. As a corporate lawyer who does acquisitions for a living, I know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Believe me, there is plenty of the latter.

3. What sport is more destructive? Anyway, my big objections are not environmental. Someday, I'll attack golf in detail. Your criticism is fair, though, that it was a typical lefty claim with no substance -- as were most of the statements in the post.

4. I think you get a good sense of what I'm talking about if you live in an affluent suburb around a big city. If you don't, consider yourself blessed. Also, a great many of those people who can't buy what they want when they want are only in that position because they want so much damn stuff.

5. I get a latte with all the stuff virtually every day. There is no defense for my Starbucks budget.

By Cassandra, at Sun Jan 08, 07:32:00 PM:

Holy Hell.

I hope it was a *very large* cleansing breath.

Several years ago the spousal unit and I listened to (wait for it...) Jesse Jackson speak at the Democratic National Convention. And we agreed with everything he said when he talked about what was wrong with America.

We just didn't agree about what ought to be done about it.

Conservatives aren't heartless, by and large. We don't hate the poor, minorities, the oppressed masses yearning to partake in the American dream more fully. But we do see events through a different lens.

That said, you can expect a responsive post in the morning :)

It will be an interesting exercise.

Screwy, I hope you'll take this on too - I think it would be a good conservative/liberal dialogue.

By Counter Trey, at Sun Jan 08, 07:34:00 PM:

Sometimes, when I'm driving my gas-guzzling Mercedes S500 on the way to the mall, smoking a stogie with my Rolex hanging out the window, I think maybe I could do more for world hunger. Maybe I should give away all of my income and wealth like...I dunno...Barbara Streisand, Mr. and Mrs. Theresa Heinz, Michael Moore, and Martin Sheen.

Nah. Who wants to be that poor?

Snap out of it TH. ALL of the prescriptions from the left go against human nature and cannot possibly be successful. At least Conservatism tries to harness human nature and has a shot.

By TigerHawk, at Sun Jan 08, 07:34:00 PM:

Matt McIntosh - In the second instance, I was, of course, referring to patents. This point was one of the tongue-in-cheekier in the list. Sorry it wasn't clear.

By TigerHawk, at Sun Jan 08, 07:35:00 PM:

Cass and Counter - You will notice that I offered no prescriptions.

By Matt McIntosh, at Sun Jan 08, 07:43:00 PM:

Patents are arguably corporate welfare. I don't think you can hold both of those opinions at the same time, though you could weaken the first one and squeak by on nuance.

By Cassandra, at Sun Jan 08, 07:58:00 PM:

You will notice that I offered no prescriptions...

Hence the title: "All my Lefty Thoughts?"

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 08:21:00 PM:

Basically, all I see here are a pile of meandering gripes against the state of the world in general, and a lot of guilt for your (and others like you) success. Throw in a dash of classic east coast cultural superiority complex too. A good conservative understands these gripes but knows that we live in an imperfect world and there are no solutions to any of these problems - only trade-offs.

DoDave is right on. America is a country where the "desperately poor" have a big problem with morbid obesity. There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance. Want people to pay taxes? Tax them with a g-d flat rate. Etc, etc.

Read, I don't know, all of Tom Sowell's books. Maybe you just endured an enormously emotional experience, like the robbing of Iowa in the Outback bowl, causing you to launch an equally emotional tirade.

By TigerHawk, at Sun Jan 08, 08:43:00 PM:

I'm not an especially good conservative. I have a lot of doubts.

By Pile On®, at Sun Jan 08, 09:09:00 PM:

I don't think we take global warming seriously enough either.

But then I don't think we take the threat of global cooling seriously enough.

An errant asteroid could really ruin your picnic too.

And don't get me started on that volcano that could erupt under Yellowstone.

By TigerHawk, at Sun Jan 08, 09:09:00 PM:

I've been worried about the Yellowstone caldera for a while. It's overdue.

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 09:37:00 PM:

Tigerhawk -

I find myself in agreement with the vast majority of what you write. Something about spending lots of time in NJ and going to Princeton (Great Class of 2002), I suppose...

The point that especially resonates with me is the comment about companies that abuse consumers who don't understand credit. After graduating for Princeton, I went to work for a large credit card firm. I think it's fair to say that I had few doubts about corporate capitalism until I spent a year hawking credit cards to high risk customers.

I'm looking forward to hearing the golf argument... that one had me scratching my head.

I also selfishly have to register disagreement on the lottery stuff. Any time the government can get people to effectively voluntarily pay a whole bunch of tax (which I then choose not to pay), that makes me happy.

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 10:16:00 PM:

Seriously, read Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. If you can't understand the real sticking points between the world views that lead to what is manifested as "conservative" and "liberal" thought, then all you're doing is mouthing talking points - and that doesn't do anything useful, as I'm sure you've witnessed on CNN or Fox News. All you end up with is the winner of the argument is the one who shouts loudest.

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 10:22:00 PM:

Three or four birdies in a row (this is much more effective than a hole-in-one)will no doubt resolve most of your problems and provide the spiritual and moral clarity your are now lacking.

Basketball is demonstrably more destructive than golf. So there.

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 10:25:00 PM:

Sorry, that's "you're".

By Anonymous, at Sun Jan 08, 10:56:00 PM:

"I think that golf is our most destructive sport. My reasons are legion. If you don't agree, it is because you haven't thought about it enough."

I think that dissing golf without explaining why is our most destructive conversational gambit.

By TigerHawk, at Sun Jan 08, 11:15:00 PM:

Jeez. Idiot that I am, it did not cross my mind that a simple, unsupported, shot at golf would generate virtually all the controversy in the comments. Golf, apparently, needs defending!

By Anonymous, at Mon Jan 09, 05:58:00 AM:

tigerhawk: One of the best things about this blog is that you encourage respectful dialog between people on the left and people on the right. So in the spirit of your post, as a lefty commenter, I will list a few matters in which the right is not all wrong (and there are others).

1/ There are way, way too many lawsuits.

2/ There are too many teachers who use their classrooms as a forum for preaching partisan ideas to a captive audience (oddly, though, I had more right wing teachers do this than left wing teachers).

3/ Charter schools can play a useful role in the American educational system, especially in inner cities.

4/ Pat Robertson isn't a representative conservative.

5/ Most of the great ideas that we live by, especially in science,
are due to white European males ( this has been changing rapidly in the last 100 years, though, and won't be true in the future).

6/ At the moment, nobody on the left has any better ideas for what to do in Iraq than what we are currently doing (but we should never have invaded Iraq, made terrible mistakes in the first year after the invasion, and hurt ourselves even more with a policy that tacitly encouraged the torture of prisoners).

- Levi

By Cassandra, at Mon Jan 09, 06:08:00 AM:

Basketball is demonstrably more destructive than golf. So there.

Heh...great minds...

By Tom T., at Mon Jan 09, 08:30:00 AM:

Patents are a different species of "corporate welfare." Society as a whole arguably benefits from offering legal protection to a company's innovation, since in theory that encourages further innovation. There is no such net benefit, however, when State A offers a company a tax break to locate there rather than in State B. That is at best a zero-sum transaction, and probably often a negative sum.

By Gordon Smith, at Mon Jan 09, 09:05:00 AM:

Wow.

I hate to be coming into this conversation so late.

Hawk, while you've been taking a courageous walk through your political and social beliefs on the internet, I've been doing the same while attending the christening of my newest goddaughter in the conservative wilds of southwest Alabama.

You make several excellent points, and your commenters who want to argue against the existence of the poor sound a lot like Iran's leader denying the holocaust. There's just a wee too much evidence to the contrary, eh?

I like to think my political views boil down to just a few simple things - care for your fellow man, prosecute criminals (including the coprorate variety) swiftly and with compassion, tell the truth, live and let live so long as others are not actively engaged in harm, don't shit where you eat, life is made of relationships and time not money and things.

I'd like to see an efficient national health care system, an efficient government aid system for the poor that acknowledges the power of the culture of poverty, equal treatment under the law for all, and less lying.

Hawk, you know we'd get along like a house on fire if ever we crossed path out in the world, and it's your honesty that would cement the deal.

Cheers, all. I hope to be back here more often now that I'm returning from Alabama (currently in Atlanta on the way to Asheville). You've somehow managed to let your troll numbers slip...

By Charlottesvillain, at Mon Jan 09, 09:06:00 AM:

Countertrey, I damn near busted a gut reading your comment. I don't drive a Mercedes or wear a Rolex (and never will) but would give my life to defend you right to do so...or something like that.

TH, like many of commenters here, I don't think these should necessarily be labeled 'lefty' concerns. The whole essence of liberalism and conservatism is in what if anything should be done about these problems. Putting aside quibbling over golf and your definition of poor, you list a bunch of things that are troubling to American across the spectrum. It is the approach to solving these problems that defines where you sit on the spectrum (and likely whether you will actually solve any of these problems).

By the way, please don't use New Jersey as your yardstick for local government. They didn't set the Soparanos there for nothing.

By Anonymous, at Mon Jan 09, 09:25:00 AM:

Screwy -
"You make several excellent points, and your commenters who want to argue against the existence of the poor sound a lot like Iran's leader denying the holocaust. There's just a wee too much evidence to the contrary, eh?"

Hmmm, the vast majority of America's "poor" own color TV sets, a huge percentage own a car, and they have a higher percentage of morbid obesity than the better off classes in America. Compare this to the PI, where the poor live and rummage through the garbage dump for sustenance.

Seems a bit hyperbolic to equate saying America's "poor" are not really that bad off with Iran's President denying the Holocaust, eh?

Regardless, Charlottesvillain is right. Nobody wants to see their neighbor struggling. Nobody wants their rivers polluted so they can't enjoy them. Everybody wishes we had magic fairy dust so we could fly to our job instead of jamming the Turnpike. Tough shit, this is not a perfect world - and here we have the difference between conservatives and liberals - the difference is in how to approach the intractable problems in society. Liberals have a worldview (vision) of mankind and the world as perfectible, and conservatives have a worldview of mankind as hopelessly fallible and imperfect. Decisions on all the great questions of the day (war, government, economy) all arise from this fundamental assumption on the nature of mankind, and this is why the same people (conservative vs. liberal) tend to always be at odds when it comes to answering these questions. BTW, this is lifted directly from Sowell's A Conflict of Visions...

By Anonymous, at Mon Jan 09, 09:27:00 AM:

1. "We still have a lot of desperately poor people in our country" Where?

Any city, inner-ring suburb, small town, or rural area.

And by whose standard?

I don't know, what's your standard?
Federal poverty line for a family of four is about $19,000 a year. How well would you do under those conditions. SSI, the bare-bones support program for elderly or totally disabled individuals, expects people to make it on less than $7000 a year. Subtract about $3000 -$5000 a year for an efficiency apartment, depending on where you live, and figure from there. When you need to choose between paying your heat bill and buying nutritious food, to me, that's desperate poverty. This is the kind of willful ignorance and total lack of empathy that drove me out of the republican party. I have no love for the left - the republicans were absolutely right about the corrosive effects of the old welfare regime - but there's a difference between disagreement over solutions and spiteful refusal to acknowledge a problem. are poor people better off in absolute terms than poor people, in, say, victorian england or modern somalia? absolutely. is that the final word on the subject? i don't think so. dodave seems to disagree. is he representative of this blogs readership?

By cakreiz, at Mon Jan 09, 12:53:00 PM:

I'm late here as well. Good job. I have more than my share of lefty thoughts too, which is why I consider myself (drumroll) one of those dreaded moderates. Most of us who visit here know that you're an independent, non-Kool Aid drinking thinker. We expect and appreciate it.

By Anonymous, at Mon Jan 09, 02:22:00 PM:

The idea that conservatives spitefully refuse to acknowledge the "problem" of poverty in America is ridiculous. Heard of Bush's faith-based initiatives? How about the numerous religious charities on both the local and national levels, many of which are run by conservative Christians? I'm willing to venture a guess that those who lecture the right on not "caring" enough do not donate all of their disposable income (and time) to charitable causes.

The problem is we (conservatives) don't wear it on our sleeves like the self-anointed saviors of the world on the left, who are looking more for praise for their "caring" than to actually do some good. Reagan did more to alleviate poverty in the world than all the "caring" war on poverty types did by ensuring that a robust economy would help EVERYONE. And it did - again, look at how the desperately poor in this country compare to the desperately poor in other countries - yes, even the great Socialist welfare states of Europe. We kicka their ass!

By Anonymous, at Mon Jan 09, 04:11:00 PM:

5. I get a latte with all the stuff virtually every day. There is no defense for my Starbucks budget.

Oh. My. God. I thought you had gone over the edge when you started talking about the precautionary principle and global warming. But this is really nuts. Please turn in your conservative credential immediately. You've been officially kicked out of the club.

Seriously, it's hard to imagine a conservative spending upwards of $1,000 a year (do the math) on Starbucks lattes. Liberals are the people who spend extravagantly, no? Aren't conservatives supposed to be tightfisted? Get yourself a good espresso maker - you can even get a good super-automatic which will make your espresso at the touch of a button for less than $1,000. Then we'll welcome you back into the club.

By Lanky_Bastard, at Mon Jan 09, 04:40:00 PM:

Wow.

By TigerHawk, at Mon Jan 09, 04:54:00 PM:

I wish that my Starbucks budget were only $1000. I go, my wife goes, I get breakfast and lunch there when I travel on business. I bet I spend more money on overpriced coffee than I do on gasoline. But, I get a lot out of it. I sit there and work (or blog) for roughly 90 minutes every day, soaking in the ambiance. And, as we've established, I'm saving a lot of money elsewhere, such as in greens fees.

By Anonymous, at Mon Jan 09, 07:31:00 PM:

Mr. T, having been raised by a dirt poor family by anybodies poverty standard and then advancing step by step to the level I am now as a retired engineer WITHOUT handouts or government assistance, how can you expect me to have any sympathy for 'poor' people like I was although I never considered that I was poor or disadvantaged in any way. Like me, almost all of the alleged poor have food, clothes and shelter, basic stuff which is really all you need to survive. If you are not too lazy to get off your ass, work is available for you in this country. Sure you may have to start off with a minimal job but while you are working that one you keep your ears and eyes open for a better job. As necessary you get more education which in turn helps you qualify for better jobs. On my own, I earned a degree in engineering. Later I got a MBA with tuition help from my employer. I married, had a family and overall a useful and satisfying career. I am not unique. Anybody can do what I did but you can't do it if you believe that you are impoverished and helpless.

Tigerhawk, if you ever get to Dallas Texas, the latte is no me.

By cakreiz, at Tue Jan 10, 07:33:00 AM:

It's interesting how this has reduced itself to a golf/latte post. I was just glancing at golf comments at Jane Galt's Assymetrical Information, which is more tedious than playing golf. Golf is a wonderful game that gets a bad rap. But it takes too long to play. 9- 12 holes would be plenty.

By Gordon Smith, at Tue Jan 10, 08:47:00 AM:

By TigerHawk, at Tue Jan 10, 11:14:00 AM:

I don't think any compassionate conservative, including George W. Bush, that doesn't think there are poor people in this country. For my part, I am particularly familiar with rural poverty in places like southside Virginia and upstate New York.

My disagreement with most liberals is not that I do not believe that there are poor people, but that I believe that most interventions tried to date have had very deleterious unintended consequences. We need to find a way to help people help themselves without creating moral hazards that make the problem worse.

By Gordon Smith, at Tue Jan 10, 11:34:00 AM:

Oh Hawk,

That most recent comment was aimed at other commenters who choose to demonize or dismiss the poor.

I think various programs to aid the poor have had varied results. I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all solution to this, but I can safely say that across the board cuts in Medicaid, housing, etc. won't be terribly helpful. It's sad to watch the military budget rise and tax cuts continue while the Republican Congress talks about fiscal responsibility while narrowing the deficit on the backs of the poor.

By Anonymous, at Tue Jan 10, 12:25:00 PM:

"A universally acceptable definition of poverty, one that does not rest on standards that apply only to some cultures, is almost impossible to provide. One reason is because many people around the world conduct at least part of their lives without using money. Some grow their own food; others barter for goods and services. Thus, using dollars to categorise either individuals or whole nations as rich or poor, while helpful in some contexts, is inadequate in others, and in some cases may be ethnocentric as well.

Thus, poverty can not be adequately defined, cross-culturally, as the lack of particular material objects or of money. Instead it must be defined in terms of whatever is needed for adequate living in a particular cultural context. If, whatever their cultural setting, people lack any of the things they consider necessities in the context of their individual setting- and especially if they also lack the means to obtain those- then they can be considered impoverished. Poverty is a state of want rather than scarcity."

Puh-leeese. In other words, if I live next to someone with a 10-car garage while I suffer along with an 8-car garage and no means to expand it - I am poor? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha ....

My definition of poverty is simpler: you are poor when you are forced to live at the edge of your means. Forced is the key word there: having to choose between cable and new sneakers doesn't make it. Having to move into a smaller apartment doesn't make it. Not being able to afford a new car doesn't make it. Not being able to afford a DVD player doesn't make it. Not being able to buy drugs as often as you'd like doesn't make it.

Some indicators:
If you can afford illegal drugs, you are not poor.
If you can afford "bling", you are not poor.
If you have cable, you are not poor.
If you spend your time sitting around when there are jobs available (even minimum wage jobs) you are not poor.

Spending your money only on food, basic utilities, and rent, having already downgraded as much as possible (i.e. moved into a smaller place, bought less expensive food, disconnected the cable and internet, etc) and still having nothing left over at the end of the month, makes it. That's poverty; I believe it exists in this country, but I think you will have to search far and wide for it. Try some Indian reservations in Montana and Wyoming.

When the bi-polar mother has twins after yet another impulsive sexual experience with another babydaddy who's out the door, and her 11-year-old is taught to drink by the next-door neighbor neighbor trying to repair a weedeater to pawn. When Mom's never had a job, and drugs are all over the place. When the real unemployment rate is 25%, and this 11-year-old doesn't have a single person in his life he can trust or look up to (outside of the wrestling images on the Salvation Army acquired television). When his home is Section 8.

Poverty is being bi-polar? Poverty is preying upon children? Poverty is never having a job? Poverty is using (quite expensive on the street) drugs? C'mon, you should have wrapped up this paragraph with "When the teary-eyed urchin slinks up to the Beadle and whispers, 'Please sir, can I have some more?'" This isn't poverty, it's a list of cultural causes of misery. To characterize all those who are struggling to better their condition as bi-polar, drug-addicted child abusers is seriously unreasonable.

By Anonymous, at Wed Jan 11, 12:04:00 AM:

To see something interesting about American poverty, check out the last installment of the PBS documentary "Country Boys" tomorrow night (the initial installment aired last night). Clearly a large part of American poverty is the unavailability of parents who are strapped with work or other issues (although this could be a more general comment unrelated to income level). Perhaps on the list of things one might do besides go to the mall (or -- dare I say? -- Starbucks) would be to mentor a young person.

By Anonymous, at Tue Jan 02, 01:38:00 PM:

Perhaps being poor means that, as a human being, you are unable to achieve Maslow's first need:

PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS
"These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction."

http://www.satyamag.com/sat.site.images/hunger.jpg - perhaps living on the bread line isn't so bad after all?

I didn't see many of those faces during my short stay in America.

TigerHawk

Sunday, January 08, 2006

All my lefty thoughts

46 Comments:

Recent Posts

Center-to-right Blogs

Law and policy

Specialty and Unclassifiable Blogs

Left-to-Center Blogs

Other Links

Archives