White people are poor because of their culture

The Atlantic - Map of OpportunityPaul Ryan has been in trouble recently because of his comments about the “inner city” poor and their culture of laziness and dependency. Ryan’s courage in standing up to the PC Nazis is admirable. His stand may finally open up the potential for Americans to confront poverty without hiding behind euphemisms or dodging uncomfortable facts.

Thanks to Rep. Ryan, we may at last be able to confront the last taboo in political correctness. We may finally be able to address the culture of poverty that keeps white people poor.

It is unfashionable to talk about the depths of poverty in the white community, but the truth is that white people are the most persistently and deeply impoverished Americans. Poor whites are far more government dependent than their minority peers. Their poverty is more persistent, stretching deeper into history than any other group. Worst of all, their isolation, drug dependence and decaying culture renders them far more resistant to relief than other groups.

America’s most persistent poverty is found among the benighted white people of the Banjo Belt, stretching in an arc from West Virginia across the mountain South into East Texas and Missouri. Their condition is far worse than their lucky brethren in the urban ghetto. An unemployed Kentucky coal miner may have no place within a five hour drive to find alternative work. Meanwhile, a struggling young person on the hardest streets of Chicago’s West Side is within walking distance of some of the most vital and dynamic economic activity in the world.

This proximity to opportunity is a key reason why persistent poverty is so rare in urban areas compared to the countryside. The largest portion of the poor in cities are in fact recent émigrés, struggling to establish themselves. Since many of these people are not yet citizens, they have little access to the safety net, aggravating their poverty while they make their climb and skewing poverty statistics. The urban poor are many and they are a constantly regenerating pool, but they are temporary.

Compared to the miserable stretches of countryside that have been poor for as long as they have been settled , urban residents experience upward mobility at the same rate as in Western Europe. If you want to find persistent, widespread, inter-generational poverty in America, you need to find Southern mountain whites.

Though the politically correct will punish anyone who mentions it, culture plays as much of a role as geography in keeping Banjo Belt whites poor. Family structures there have always been informal, brittle and transient. The inhabitants are consistently some of the country’s most drug-addicted and the region is a center for crime, violence, drug-production and trafficking going back into time immemorial.

White cultural degradation is readily apparent from generations of their music and art. Cherished traditional songs like Little Maggie celebrate drug addiction and prostitution. The entire catalogue of Hank Williams is a litany of addiction, betrayal and misery. Johnny Cash got his big break with a hit song about a sadistic murder. The most popular sport in the region was originally developed as a competition among drug traffickers. From Lefty Frizzell to Dolly Parton and beyond, the culture elevates habits that destroy prosperity.

The problem is so bad that it has passed barely noticed into popular culture, tolerated by whites at almost every level. The unofficial theme song of the University of Tennessee commemorates drug traffickers who murder anyone foolish enough to wander into their lair. The site of thousands of young students blithely singing this song about drugs and violence should chill the hearts of those who long to see white people reach their potential.

White poverty is fed by other cultural burdens that interfere with their children’s ability to compete. Raised with an almost paranoid fear of outsiders and a resistance to change, many white children never have a chance at a decent life. A religious structure that crushes curiosity and instills a desperate suspicion of science means white children of the Banjo Belt face considerable difficulty mastering technical or scientific fields so essential to a modern economy.

Capitalism demands a global outlook and a willingness to enthusiastically embrace nearly continuous change. The cultural baggage of white people leaves them crippled in this environment, unable across generations to develop the habits and skills that breed success. White children bred in this culture are doomed to failure before they even get started.

Clearly, if the white children of the Banjo Belt are ever to have a realistic chance to break the fetters of a culture of poverty, some intervention will be required. This will be impossible so long as the dictates of political correctness prevent us from describing white poverty as what it is – an illness bred from a sick culture. The PC-police who would characterize such an assessment as anti-white bias are simply ignoring the facts. Their misguided attempt to protect the precious “feelings” of the white community are condemning a new generation of young whites to continue in a cycle of relentless degradation.

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our mountain South in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with. No poverty relief will succeed until we address the cultural factors that keep white people poor, shiftless, and unemployable. Government programs are admirable, but until white people are ready to confront the ways that their culture enforces their poverty conditions will not substantially improve.

About

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He is a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Race, Welfare State
513 comments on “White people are poor because of their culture
  1. DanMan says:

    One judge called the Obamacare rollout an “unmitigated disaster” and said the administration is stretching to try to cover up for how poorly the law was written.

    “I know there’s an absurdity principle, but is there a stupidity principle?” said Judge A. Raymond Randolph. “If the law is just stupid, I don’t think it’s up to the court to save it.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/federal-court-skeptical-obamacare-subsidies/?page=all#pagebreak

    yikes!

    • bubbabobcat says:

      One judge in a 3 judge panel with the other judge acknowledged to be clearly supporting the law even in a right wing hit piece as this. It’s up to the 3rd swing judge and the article says nothing of his view.

      Cherry picking information to determine your own wingnut reality. Again. This is getting tiresome with you delusional types.

    • Crogged says:

      Ok, Dan, you win ( decision in this case and Hobby Lobby go the way you want).

      Now what?

      http://acasignups.net/

  2. Crogged says:

    Well, yes, I support lies because I’m in the “Rucas Posse” (insert trademark here and beat you to it Dan-untold wealth is coming my, and only my, way). And the Rucas Posse is part and parcel of the Liar Clan, which stringent requirement is one has to be a liar, ever, to be part of it. We’ve been around since the Snake Grangers got aholt of that woman in the orchard and did all kind of unspeakable things, even though she didn’t complain. Story goes she came out of some man there, which only those foolish Indians believe is any kind of a truthful story, but anyway, he said in transition.

    Those who aren’t part of us are against us. We ride hard and often and this is not a metaphor for anything other than how stupid it is to think all human knowledge came out of an apple in a story from thousands of years ago and now we can’t write our own stories, right now, only using the truth from liars.

    • DanMan says:

      what part of Colorado are in Crogged?

    • Tuttabella says:

      Crogged, I’ve been meaning to ask you, and now’s as good a time as any — does your user name consist of one syllable or two?

      • Crogged says:

        Depends on whose asking.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Both Cap and I are wondering. Does each of us get a different answer?

      • Crogged says:

        And that was an intentional dang conflagration of ‘who is’ because I can’t write Western consistently.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I noticed your misspelling of “who’s” as “whose” but I decided to take the high road and ignore it. I applaud you for owning up to it.

        In any case, is Crogged pronounced like “rugged” or “drugged?”

      • Crogged says:

        You should be calling me a liar right now cause I did not intend it-that dang dude with the grimy glasses at the telegraph station told me.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, Tutt, maybe that is a secret that Crogged won’t give up.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged – Yes, I also noticed that the “intent” came after the misspelling. So, if you are a liar as you say, as opposed to simply having told a lie, does that mean we can’t believe anything you say?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Cap, we may never know, but at least we can narrow the answer down to two possibilities — it’s either Crogged or Croggd. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out which one it is. But it will take some time.

      • Crogged says:

        Both sides of the nickel used to get you a cup of coffee.

      • Intrigue says:

        Tutt, I’ve been meaning to ask you if it bothers you to be referred to as Tutts?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Intrigue, no, it doesn’t bother me, although when people put an S at the end, it’s usually TUTS, which reminds me of Theater Under the Stars.

        Actually, I pronounce my name TOOTabella, with a long U, but when I see “Tutt” I hear a short U, as in “cut.”

        Anyway, I picked that name because it appeared to me in a dream, similar to John Lennon’s dream that “You shall be Beatles with an A.”

        In the dream I was back in my college dorm, and I heard or saw the words Tutto and Bella, and I remember thinking that they did not agree in gender, that TuttaBella sounded better, and that it would be a good name for my cat. Then I woke up.

        The name stayed in my mind, so when I signed up for the Chron, I decided it would be a good user name to take.

      • objv says:

        Tuttabella, a grammar tuttorial from you is always welcome. (I had to laugh at how Tthoroughly you addressed tthor.)

        Believe it or not, one of the family names that shows up in my genealogy is Tutas.

      • objv says:

        I assumed Crogged rhymed with clogged. Crogged, if you’re still out there, please illuminate us.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Queen Tutt

      • Crogged says:

        Objy, the light is on until I turn it off.

      • objv says:

        Crogged: That’s better than saying, “The lights are on, but nobody’s home.” :)

    • Intrigue says:

      Ok good, I’m glad I asked. I had to really refrain from standing up for you as I took it as referring to you as Toots. I know Toots is not necessarily sexist but it just seemed wrong to me. Thank you for clearing that up:)

      • DanMan says:

        it’s bound to offend somebody in this bunch, and that of course will be offensive to others that aren’t offended

      • Tuttabella says:

        Intrigue, thanks. I never thought about it that way. Now I’m mad as heck. How dare they. :)

      • Intrigue says:

        Well Dan it would not surprise me if you added sexist to your blog character. Actually, you probably already have but I missed it like I do all your comments:) It is a character you portray, right?

  3. DanMan says:

    Holy smokes! kabuzz invited me to see what’s been happening this morning and I must say Capt Sternn you rule this roost! If we’re going to invoke Atlas Shrugged characters you absolutely own the Francisco D’ Aconia title. Well done sir, very well done.

    oh, and btw, thanks Crogged.

    • Crogged says:

      You are gold Dan, thanks for this. It’s a huge part of why I think ‘personal finance’ should be hammered into every kid, each year, all semesters, in high school. I don’t care that it is repetitive and boring. And because I worked at a famously failed energy company.

      • DanMan says:

        If it was Enron I know several of your co-workers.

      • GG says:

        Crogged what happened to Ken Lay’s wife and family? I was discussing Ken Lay the other day with someone.

      • Crogged says:

        Some say Ken, Elvis and that dude who stole all that money and jumped out of a plane are still around, somewhere. Lots of country out there, where a man can vanish as if he were a woman or didn’t want to pay his water bill.

      • GG says:

        Yes, I know someone who knows a guy who used work with Ken and he swears Ken is still alive and his death was faked and aided by the Feds.

      • Crogged says:

        He’s dead alright. We took all that money and gave it to his rightful heirs because they earned it.

  4. texan5142 says:

    Hey Cap, the Pentegon has recognized climate change as a national security threat again……why don’t you give them a call and tell them how wrong they are based on your personal internet shearches of blogs and such, I am sure they will be amused.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago much of the glaciers that covered North America melted. Did you have any other point to make?

      • texan5142 says:

        Yes they did, you always seem to leave out the part about the increased rate that they are melting due to man made acceleration of climate change. Plus according to Christians there was no humans around at that time to be burdened with the effects of natural climate change. But you seem to know more about it than the scientist that study it. I just thought the Pentegon might benefit from your insight.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Most scientists say that human activity doesn’t cause climate change. Nor do you seem to have any better understanding of what Christians believe, or what Christianity is about.

      • texan5142 says:

        According to a Gallup poll last November, 46% believe in the creation view and that the world is less than 10000 years old. So my statement stands for the 46%.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I don’t personally know any Christians that believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. So I will stick with what I know. Being a Christian, you don’t speak for me at all. If I remember right, you are not a Christian, so you don’t speak for any Christians at all.

      • texan5142 says:

        Don’t shoot the messenger , that is what the poll says. I was just repeating it. I would never, ever, try to speak for you Captain, nor would I want to.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sure, glaciers melted 10,000 years ago for reasons different than human industrial activity. Does that mean human industrial activity has no effect now? Well, to claim so would be the logical argument of a child.

        Just because I once had an auto accident due to a failed universal joint does not mean that ALL auto accidents must be caused by such mechanical issues, nor that driver error could never be a factor.

        Sane, educated adults recognize such crucial logic. Sternn doesn’t.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Human activity contributes maybe 0.001% of the total greenhouse gasses. We do not control solar activity, tilt of the planet nor the orbit. Human beings cannot control the global climate. If we could, then we should hope for a warmer climate. Colder climates cause crop failures, famine, disease and death.

        But hey, for those that believe humans do control the climate, you should be cheering the fact that we reversed the global cooling we experienced between WWII and the 1970s. We prevented the predicted return of the ice age, glaciers did not cover North America by the year 2000.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        People who aren’t fetid, slope-headed atavists understand that there’s an obvious and important difference between the meanings of the words “control” and “influence”.

        Sternn doesn’t.

        He has nothing but comfortable delusions to swaddle him in ignorance, and to protect and prevent him from having to contemplate difficult reality.

      • GG says:

        No one believes humans control climate. Some believe that human activity contributes to it though.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, some people do believe it. That doesn’t make it so. And there is no reason that we should work to cripple the U.S. economy, promote polluting nations like China and give the wealth of the top economies to poor nations to “settle” for the damages climate change has caused, especially when those “scientists” that believe it say we can’t stop it from happening anyway no matter what we do.

      • GG says:

        So please name some people who claim humans control Mother Earth. Contribute and control are two different words.

      • GG says:

        I may have misread your statement Cap. Doesn’t change the fact we contribute to climate change.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Patriotic Americans with a reasonable education and understanding of the world believe that “green” technologies could be an area of new economic pre-eminence for the Unitied States.

        Sternn is not one of those people.

        Craven liars afraid of the future and devoted to protecting the limited world of their own navel-gazing, self-satisfied imaginations once vigorously opposed pollution controls or safety equipment on cars, using very similar doom-and-gloom arguments about the inevitability of a crippled economy.

        That is where we find Sternn’s benighted peer group.

      • CaptSternn says:

        GG, any contribution from human activity is negligible, it wouldn’t be enough to measure. Nature is going to do what it is going to do, with or without us. We adapt or we perish.

        Odd how the people scoff at Christians and firmly believe in evolution also think nature should be static, and the reason it isn’t is because human beings exist.

        Owl, oil and natural gas are cheap and abundant and will fuel the world for centuries to come. And no, just because there are people that understand human beings don’t control the climate doesn’t mean those same people are against pollution controls or conserving the environment. In fact, we tend to be more concerned about conservation as we hunt, hike and generally enjoy nature and a clean environment. But not to the point of crippling the U.S. economy, which is the main goal of those that promote the idea of AGW.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        My, now it is a FACT that humans effect global warming. It is a fact that Christians believe there weren’t human’s around 10,000 years ago. Wow! We are making it up as fast as we can today. Tee-hee.

        Very cold winter this year. Axis tilts. Volcano’s erupt, forest fires and other natural causes but hey! Let’s blame human’s.

        Darwin says adapt or parish. The liberal’s say adapt or we will help you stay alive.

        The double mindedness of today’s left is simply astounding.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn is a liar as well as a buffoon.

        kabuzz, would you care to explain what you mean by throwing “axis tilts” into your foam-flecked litany of misspelled and ungrammatical conservative tics? (Jeez, learn to use apostrophes, already!) Or should we just accept your abject ignorance as understood?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And again we see the casual immorality of craven conservatives. What matters self-respect if you can find someone who agrees with you?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

        “The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.”

        “In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample ‘of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.': ‘Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.'”

        “Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield says scientists are not experts on every topic…. Rather, they must specialize. ‘In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. … The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don’t do any research into it. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. … So the petition’s suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that’s been done, is patent crap.'”

        And “patent crap”, of course, describes virtually everything else that Sternn says, too.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Very good read Crogged! Thanks for the link.

    • Crogged says:

      So what would a guaranteed minimum income do? It would truly help all of us-every single citizen, despite the color of their skin. What would it mean if we truly supported Article 7 of our own Texas constitution? What if we simply legalized marijuana and for those in jail right now, for possession of amounts of pot under, hell, a pound, (and cocaine under three grams) walked out and had their records expunged, no felony conviction, nothing-a clean start. What if we really did give everyone no matter where or to whom they were born a real chance at achieving “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

      Anarchy, freedom.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I still have major reservations about the minimum income, but I’m with you on the drug offenses, especially the part about the fresh start.

      • Crogged says:

        Tutt, I can grok that–it’s a dream and the devil is always in the details.

      • CaptSternn says:

        A minimum income would mean far fewer people working for a living, penalizing tjose that do with much higher taxes.

        We do support Article 7, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. The bulk of the state budget is for public education.

        Prohibition should be repealed.

        Everyone does have a chance at life, liberty and property, except for the unborn, whom many do not even consider human.

        Limited, constitutional government is viewed as anarchy only by socialists and communists.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, I hate to break it to you but the people at the top don’t work a f____g bit. They either love what they do and it coincides with a public demand (hence, they don’t feel it is ‘work’) or they do what you fear would have happened to you, if someone gave you a 24k income when you were 21 years old. I’m sorry but I don’t have any sympathy about people in the top 50 percent of our income and their ‘tax burden’. And if this burden is so great, rather than spending 6 times what the next 7 countries do on what we call ‘defense’, do I need to say more?

      • CaptSternn says:

        You didn’t seem to finish your thought there, Crogged. Nor does it matter what we spend on defense. Our economy is bigger than the next several nationas combined, and that is because of capitalism, not in spite of it. And national defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Handouts are not.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain I’m not looking at the list of those countries right now (and don’t have a vague recollection even), but I think most are ‘capitalist’, except for China? Someday China’s economy will dwarf our own. Russia is a feudal, criminal, capitalist society right now-no joke there even, who knows how to describe it. May argument with our military budget is what constitutes ‘defense’ and our national interest. Reasonable people disagree.

      • CaptSternn says:

        China will not overtake our economy unless we cause our economy to fall. Our ability to project our military power and keep trade lanes open and safe, to secure sources of energy and protect our interests around the world is in our best interests and good for national defense and national security.

      • Tuttabella says:

        My opposition to Obamacare is based on the same concept. It’s not about the money. I have no problem with a modest increase in my personal taxes, if it will help other people get health care, but I resent being forced by law to participate in this bureaucracy to get health coverage for myself, which may or may not result in actual health care. I would like to keep things simple, deal directly with medical personnel, without all these middlemen, or purchase insurance, if I decide it meets my needs, at the level of coverage of my choice. But it should be my choice.

      • Intrigue says:

        The requirement that health insurance cover birth control is now a law. I have no problem with Hobby Lobby or any other company choosing not to increase the percentage they supplement to premiums to cover the additional cost of coverage but they do not have the right to refuse the mandated coverage to their employees.

      • Intrigue says:

        Sorry my previous response was to Stern

      • CaptSternn says:

        The government doesn’rt have the legal authority nor power to make a person or people violate their religious beliefs. That would violate the constitution.

      • GG says:

        You may believe that Sternn but the government has stepped in on occasion and said, yes, we will violate your religious beliefs. Most cases involved parents who believed prayer would cure their kids diabetes or cancer and refused medical treatment. I’m sure you remember the raid on Warren Jeffs little community of underaged child brides too.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “The government doesn’rt have the legal authority nor power to make a person or people violate their religious beliefs. That would violate the constitution.”

        Someone with a brain larger than a flatworm’s might have contemplated the fact that the U.S. prohibits human sacrifice, which has been a part of many human religions over the millennia.

        But Sternn is not one of those people.

      • Intrigue says:

        Stern, we will have to wait and see how the Supreme Court decision plays out but I’m pretty sure the Establishment Clause will trump the Freedom of Religion argument.

      • CaptSternn says:

        GG, you are confusing freedom of religion with doing harm to others. Nobody has a right to harm another without serious justification.

        Intrigue, they are one in the same. Congress doesn’t have the power to establish a religion nor infringe on the free exercise thereof.

        Owl, adults are trying to have a discussion here. thanks.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If this is a discussion for adults then Sternn should be far distant. Or at least leashed.

        As anyone would realize who hadn’t spent years routing out his neural cavity with the spork known as modern conservatism, refusing medical treatment isn’t “doing harm”; in fact, someone with a shred of intellectual honesty might connect it to the idea of being “left alone” in splendid thumb-sucking libertarian isolation. But we all know Sternn is apt with a spork, if with nothing else.

      • Intrigue says:

        Stern my understanding is that Hobby Lobby is arguing that they are protected by the first amendment under the free exercise clause. The establishment clause prohibits the first amendment from creating undue burdon on a third party because of religious practices.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigue, the argument is going to be that not being given free birth control presents an undue burden? That still doesn’t fit with the fact that congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion and church.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Owl sa-id sp-ork! Owl sa-id sp-ork!

      • Intrigue says:

        Stern, it’s not free!!! You make it sound like the Government is forcing Hobby Lobby to hand out morning after pills and IUD’s to their employees at their expense. That’s not the way insurance works.

    • Intrigue says:

      Crogged, I just can’t wrap my mind around the cost of a basic income. From a rough calculation of the number of adults multiplied by $20,000 = close to 5 trillion, 2 trillion more than the total tax revenue collected at the Federal level.

      • Crogged says:

        Right, thank you, the first devil detail–which the author has pointed out be addressed with a sliding scale-as other income increases, the subsidy decreases. Then, it becomes an issue like Tutt and the Captain fear. Would most people really do just enough work to get to the minimum income (minimum wage and subsidy on top) and full stop, watch the telly and envy the Kardashians all day?

      • Intrigue says:

        Well I personally know a few who would be perfectly happy quitting their jobs and living off the basic income, including a few hardworking tax payers who are waiting to retire. Some, Chris included, argue that this is a good thing because it would free up jobs for those wanting to work. I’m not closed minded about the idea but it’s hard to see it as a plausible solution without knowing how it would be funded.

      • Crogged says:

        I hear you Intrigue and the argument you just made is why “Obamacare kills jobs”–when the subsidy makes people not dependent on their jobs to get medical insurance, some may quit working (because the spouse does etc). Which is also the real issue with the “Hobby Lobby” case-why should the users of medical insurance have their employer in the middle of it-is there no other way?

      • CaptSternn says:

        There has always been other ways, Crogged. Insurance comapnies have always offered policies to individuals. Or a person could choose not to have insurance and pay for their health care directly to the providers. It was a free choice, freedoms the left couldn’t accept and had to destroy.

      • Crogged says:

        Yes, we could all elect to die earlier by pretending we are bullet proof or would always be able to pay a medical bill-which is how I lived the first 30 years of my life.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Why would we die earlier? What is so hard about paying $65 for on office visit once every few years? Much cheaper than paying hundreds of dollars per month for a service a person never uses. Besides that, where is the logic that suggests a person can afford to pay hundreds of dollars per month because they can’t afford to pay hundreds of dollars per month?

      • Crogged says:

        Why not take your philosophy further, I can go to the crick and boil my own water-why should I participate in modern sewage disposal. Why do I need insurance? Because I’m stupid, poor and fully comfortable with it. I sponge off of everyone else. As usual my philosophy was better said by someone else.

        “I don’t want to care very much about whether one particular implementation of TARP or another is better. I don’t want to insist that my kid’s teachers and school need to follow my exact pedagogical preferences. I don’t want to bring a court case because this one time somebody had my kid be part of a moment of silence before a fifth-grade class. I don’t want to regard myself as endlessly called upon to personally participate in the righting of every wrong I can see, understand or know about. I want to flip Marx around and get to the point where most of the time, the point of thinking and talking and writing is not to change the world but just interpret it and enjoy the interpretations of others.

        Flip it. I don’t want anybody telling me what the fuck to do in my house. I don’t want my kid’s pediatrician who I otherwise like to quote me media effects research that I know a great deal about and regard with skepticism and make my daughter recite the appropriate catechism in order to get out of the annual exam without a lecture. I don’t want the guy down the street and his co-religionists to start relentlessly lobbying the school board to remove references to evolution from high school biology class. I want fellow professionals who push constantly for ever-more insane levels of meritocratic pressure to be structurally and culturally inflicted on our kids (or on my students at Swarthmore) to just cool it in public, if they have to be tiger moms and dads, to keep that as private as they would if their sex lives involved razor play and urinating on each other. I want to accept and marvel at human resiliency rather than build an endless managerial and supervisory apparatus for preemptively protecting every potentially vulnerable person from every potential kind of trespass or offense. I want rules and strictures to be a last resort rather than a leading preference.”

      • Intrigue says:

        IMO Basic Income is totally different than Obamacare. It was easy, for me at least, to understand how Obmacare would be funded and by requiring everyone to be responsible for obtaining healthcare insurance, we have insurance that is funded the way health insurance works. Unlike Medicare and Medicaid where everyone is high risk and likely sick you have a forced balance of healthy and sick. The healthy pays for the sick. This program was thoroughly researched and modeled after successful programs in other countries and the mandate was the common denominator with all successful healthcare.

        As for Hobby Lobby, I had to reread your comment. You scared me for a second. “why should the users of medical insurance have their employer in the middle of it-is there no other way?” I agree the employer has no right to designate which medical coverage their employees will recieve. Do we really want a jehovah witness owned company stating they refuse to carry an insurance that covers blood transfusions because it is against their religion?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Many people get their water from wells, not public utilities. Many people have septic tanks, not public sewer systems. If you want insurance, you should be free to purchase it, if you can find somebody that wants to sell it to you. If you don’t want insurance, you should be free to not purchase it. Make your own choices, reap the rewards and sometimes suffer consequences. If their are consequences, deal with them and move on. If there are rewards, so much the better. Take care of your corner of the world and mind your own business and have others do the same.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You don’t have to work for a company owned by Jehova’s Witnesses, Intrigue. Or you can purchase additional insurance, or just purchase insurance on your own.

        This is what I see so often on this blog, one person wants to be free to make their own choices, but they do not want others to have that same freedom.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, my misgivings about the minimum income are not so much about people losing the incentive to work, but about the strings that come attached to anything that is free. I don’t like the idea of conditions. True freedom comes from earning your own money and spending it as you wish, even if it means having to reap some not-so-nice consequences. If I blow my paycheck in Vegas, that’s my business, I have only myself to answer to. If I blow my “minimum income” in Vegas, I have to explain my actions to the taxpayers, because the income came from them. Thanks, but no thanks.

      • Intrigue says:

        Let me add my personal anecdote;) I worked at a place that tried to remove the prescription valtrex from their insurance coverage because they naievly believed that valtrex was perscribed solely for the treatement of Herpes and they should not have to pay for STD treatment. This was a very stressful workplace resulting in many cases of the Shingles also treated by Valtrex. So yeah I agree employers should not be able to delegate medical treatment.

      • CaptSternn says:

        In your example, Intrigue, the employer had no power to stop the employees from purchasing and using the medication. They just didn;t want to pay for it.

        That is another example of the thinking from the left, if they can’t get somebody else to pay for something, they claim they are being denied access to that thing, that they are not being allowed to purchase and use it. The concept of paying for it directly elludes them. That’s why I often wonder how any of you pay for groceries or gasoline or electricity or clothing or anything else?

      • Crogged says:

        I didn’t say anything is free-nothing is free. Except, you know, the lilies of the field.

      • Intrigue says:

        Stern, employers typically offer 2-4 different coverage options and they supplement the cost to their employees. Employees then get to chose whether they pay higher premiums for more coverage or purchase the basic plan. The coverage options designate what treatment options are covered not the employer.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, and even if a medication or treatment is not covered, the person is still free to pay for it directly. Neither the employer nor the insurance comapny can prevent that.

      • Intrigue says:

        Stern, how many employers do you know that pay 100% of their employees and families health insurance premium? The employers get to choose the percentage they supplement and the employee is responsible for the rest. The employer paid supplemented portion of healthcare premiums is considered part of the total compensation. If we allow employers to designate how an employee uses their healthcare coverage we might well allow them to designate how employees spend their paychecks. Are you sure you are for freedom of the individual?

      • CaptSternn says:

        The employer doesn’t dictate how an employee will use their health insurance. The employer offers comapnsation, and that compensation is agreed on by both parties, just as the amount of pay per hour or salary is done, just as holiday pay, sick time and vacation and all other benefits and compansation is done. I support freedom for both parties, not just one side.

  5. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    “Hey dipshit, quite citing bubba’s description or get the same attitude from me he gets. You another angry queer?”

    I just don’t get it. This person has enough brain cells to have a working knowledge of a computer keyboard and this stuff comes out?

    I’m trying to get into the mindset that not only thinks these things, but also thinks it is cool to type them on a keyboard for others to read. I would understand it from a 12 year old, but beyond that, I just cannot wrap my head around it.

    The only way it makes any sense to me is that this dude does not really have such a horrible mindset. He just thinks it is funny to get folks all riled up over his comments about gays. I think I can wrap my head around that way of thinking, but then it means he is just using gay people as the punchline to a pretty poor joke, and that may be even worse than just being a bigoted dude who does not care for gay people.

    I get that there is no reaching or reasoning with someone like this, but I just do not get it.

    Normally this little corner of the world is a bit more reasonable than other corners, but sometimes not.

    There just are some unpleasant folks on this planet and you can’t always avoid them.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Come on, HT, a statistician like you ought to be able to wrap your head around the high probability of any type of behavior showing up in any given moment in any little corner of the world, even this one.

      • Tuttabella says:

        By the way, HT, I know I often get on your case for being so statistical, but it’s usually in fun. Thanks for defending me here on this blog on more than one occasion. Cap and I both appreciate it.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Yes Tutt that is true but it need not be accepted as such.

      • Tuttabella says:

        As a relative newbie to blogs, I am tempted to stand up for everyone every time they are insulted but it would be a full-time job, plus I’ve learned that most people can take care of themselves.

        Sassy, my dear, you have a good day.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        This is true…with a large enough sample, you will find some instances of everything.

        So, I understand it occurring, but I don’t understand the mindset.

        There is a very good probability that I am never bothered about statistical teasing.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      HT:
      Yes.

    • flypusher says:

      “I just don’t get it. This person has enough brain cells to have a working knowledge of a computer keyboard and this stuff comes out?”

      The danger in feeding trolls is that they are not housebroken.

    • objv says:

      Homer wrote: “he is just using gay people as the punchline to a pretty poor joke, and that may be even worse than just being a bigoted dude who does not care for gay people.”

      ——————————————————————————

      I’ve got to agree with you, Homer. No matter what the initial motivations of the people taking part in the gay jokes and innuendo, the ultimate result could be hurtful to gay people since their lifestyle is being mocked.

      Is there any way that the parties involved here could mutually agree to stop?

    • DanMan says:

      Allow me to respond to Homer. A week or so ago our humble host opened a thread with a mention of Lindbergh, I believe it was a reference to Pat Robertson doing the ‘full Lindbergh’. I responded, as a few others did as well that it seemed to be a pretty benign piece but then I related that I had just been in a discussion with a couple of guys, one who happened to be in the Navy and even in the Pacific theater of WWII (the other an avid aviation enthusiast) and in listening to them discuss Lindbergh it was brought out he had to with stand charges of being anti-American because of perceived praise of Germany’s superior military when (according the discussion I heard) he was really warning that American needed to get up to speed in the area of aviation. A whole of stuff was mentioned that evening other than that but I responding to Chris’ take that he was tarring Robertson with.

      I believe the first response was a typical rant by bubba with an NPR link he used to call me a racist for my ‘hero worship’ of Lindbergh. In my very first mention of Lindbergh I said the only thing I recalled about the guy was his historic flight across the Atlantic and speculation he was involved in his own kid’s abduction. I even pointed out the link bubba provided mentioned Lindbergh immediately changed his planned move from England to Germany as a result of the Kristalnacht.

      Go back and follow the thread and look at how that escalated. It was all about me embracing the “aryanist” notion etc. That may be the thread where bubba completely lost his chili but they kind of run together. So yesterday along comes Way citing bubba’s exact words about hero worship of Lindbergh. Way decided to come out and call me a racist out of the blue. I gave Way exactly what I give bubba when he fires his weak cannon of nonsense when he’s lost another argument or just wants to stir the pot. And again all hell breaks loose but this time the entire rucas posse was ready and waiting. It was quite a spectacle to observe and yeah, I threw an old Dave Chappelle joke in there to lighten the mood and the hits kept coming but that didn’t bother me at all and it gave me some insight for why perhaps a few of our commenters justify lies as normal political process.

      So to all of you in the rucas posse who think we are going to stand still while you destroy meanings of words, rewrite history, lie incessantly as a political tactic be aware. As Ta-Nehisi Choates has done his entire life of agitiating for his cause, I and many others are also ‘sharpening our swords’. We are having to reject your efforts to reduce us to your perception of us. Hope that helps to clear things up.

      As you were.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Dan, you are correct except I also remember Bubba making quite a few references to butt’s and things. And Way2 has started getting into the gutter with them. So, as usual, when you defend yourself, the echo chamber cannot take it so they twist it around like you started it.

        HT, you should catch up.

      • DanMan says:

        That was my spontaneous reply this morning and cutting and pasting didn’t seem helpful. That’s why I said go read the thread, it was all there and I didn’t see the need to provide a list.

        I’ll see what’s shakin’ up there.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        More proof wingnuts are bipolar. Their only two modes are hypocrisy and whining.

        And that they can’t take what they dish out.

        And have no mirrors.

        As you were.

      • DanMan says:

        I’ve got a great comeback bubba but I’m worried about piercing the sensitivities of your cohorts.

        But feel free to let your flag fly.

  6. rightonrush says:

    Ya’ll have a good evening, I’m heading N. on 45.

  7. No worries. Raylan Givens will clean it up. Either that, or the DNC. As Raylan says, “Sometimes, we have to make deals with lowlifes because we have our sights set on life forms even somehow lower on the ladder of lowlife than they.”

    • Tuttabella says:

      I love that trickle-down wisdom. I am Tthoroughly impressed!

    • Crogged says:

      Hmmm, I wonder who the ‘lower on the ladder of lowlife’ is? Is it the architect John Galt discussed below getting paid to write about what he understands of ‘global warming’? Those who pay him? Interesting….btw, love the show too. Funny thing, empathy, sometimes we all deserve it.

    • Crogged, architect? Heck, I’m still tryin’ to figure how this thread got from poverty to climate change. LOL. “Vikings” is another fav show of mine (naturally). Interestingly, the Viking Age largely coincides with the Medieval Warm Period, and came screeching to a halt with the onset of the Little Ice Age. The last Vikings settled in Greenland starved to death sometime around 1430. Ah, the hazards of too light a carbon footprint…

      Tuttabella, Raylan officially became my muse during the “Justified” episode in which he can be seen partaking of a little of Art’s Blanton’s at the end of a hard day of crime fighting. Curiously, at the same moment as those electrons coursed across my trusty Sony Trinitron cathode ray tube, I was enjoying a tumbler of Blanton’s (neat) myself.

      The way I see it, I’m too old to shoot ugly guns, wear ugly gun leather, or drink cheap liquor. I’m just glad Raylan and Art agree with me. ;-)

  8. texan5142 says:

    DanMan says:
    March 25, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    “you can’t defend the lies you endorse ”

    What lies?Be specific please.

    • DanMan says:

      all of them, any of them just defend it better than the “They all lie so its okay” Cuffy, flypusher and Crogged settled on yesterday as their defense.

  9. rightonrush says:

    OT but did anybody else see this? If you have little girls now the religious right are saying they can’t be “Tom Boys”. http://www.wset.com/story/25061872/little-girl-taken-out-of-christian-school-after-told-shes-too-much-like-a-boy

    • Crogged says:

      Private schools with populations of better scoring students either (a) do a better job of educating or (b) can choose whom they educate?

      • texan5142 says:

        I do not care who a private school educates, but if they are receiving any kind of tax payer money, be it voucher or whatever, then they should not be able to discriminate.

      • rightonrush says:

        or (c) can discriminate if don’t meet their so called “biblical standards”. The graduates do well as long as they enroll in a religious university like Liberty College. We saw how smart and ethical their most famous alumni Bob McDonnell has proven to be.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s why most thinking conservatives and private schools are against the voucher idea, Texan. It’s really just a way the left wants to control even more people and squash the freedom of religion.

      • rightonrush says:

        “American conservative parents have always had the freedom to send their children to religious schools rather than sending them to schools where the instructors and the administrators dare to teach science and the scientific method. But up until recently, choosing to send your child to private school to prevent the Satanization of your child at the hands of science-spouting liars, was just too damn expensive.

        Better to get the government to pay for that child’s anti-science, religious education. And cheaper too”.http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/the-holy-mystery-of-school-vouchers-1.475773

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You reference a blog? BWAAHH! That is so…predictable of you. We all know blogs are the high standard bearers of investigative excellence. Gosh you crack me up. And the echo chamber just climbs on board. A blog! Cheesh!

    • texan5142 says:

      How so Cap? What religious freedom do you speak of? How is not wanting public tax dollars to be involved in religious teaching “It’s really just a way the left wants to control even more people and squash the freedom of religion.” ? Please explain? If a religious institution whats public tax money then that is fine by me when they start taxing the church.

      • CaptSternn says:

        If vouchers are used to send kids to a religious school, the left would use that as an excuse to dictate what can or cannot be taught. That is why most thinking conservatives and private schools are against a voucher system.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Oh, and Texan, the church has as much authority to tax the state as the state has to tax the church.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Well I guess I would have been thrown out of that school as well! Shame on them for their very unchristian like behavior.

    • GG says:

      What the heck are “biblical standards” for girls? A burqa, covering your hair? Makes no sense. We are not living in biblical times.

      The girl is probably better off going to another school and maybe she will receive a better education than she’d get from a bible-based “education”.

      • rightonrush says:

        No doubt the little girl is much better off in the long run. Hurting any kid like that is just about the most unchristian thing I can think of.

      • Texan5142 says:

        Yep! RonR it is cruel and unloving no matter how one looks at it.

      • rightonrush says:

        So Sternn, I’m more valuable because I’m wealthy and buy more “stuff”. My grandkid’s are better than the little girl in Virginia because their parent can afford a private nonsectarian school. Thanks, you indeed have a sheep’s mentality.

      • CaptSternn says:

        RoR, come back to earth and explain how parents that send their kids to a private school want to burn the Texas Constitution and claim to be too good to use public roads.

        Otherwise you are just thrashing about wildly, flopping around like a fish out of water, or running around in circles aimlessly, throwing everything at the wall hoping something sticks, only it isn’t even the right wall.

    • Crogged says:

      Any ‘thinking’ conservative opposes school vouchers because it violates the Texas constitution and an understanding of why public education matters.

      ARTICLE 7. EDUCATION

      Sec. 1. SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Crogged, the state and local districts will still have public schools. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

      • Crogged says:

        It means despite the blood shed by the men who wrote this Constitution, parents of Christian private school students should have to carry their own children on their backs, since they are too damn good for the roads we pay for.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, they pay for the roads as well. Still not making the connection here, though.

      • rightonrush says:

        Crogged wrote: “It means despite the blood shed by the men who wrote this Constitution, parents of Christian private school students should have to carry their own children on their backs, since they are too damn good for the roads we pay for”.

        Damn Crogged, you nailed it!

      • Crogged says:

        Captain I didn’t stutter, take the cotton out of your ears.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You aren’t making any sense, Crogged. Parents that send their kids to private schools usually have vehicles and end up paying more in sales taxes to the state, more in property taxes to their city, county and school districts, more in registration for their vehicles and more in gasoline taxes. They ARE paying for the roads just like most of the rest of us, only paying more. So again, what was your point?

      • Crogged says:

        If they are too good for Article 7, Sec 1 and the ‘general diffusion of knowledge’ I don’t care what blood and circuses they buy or bribes they pay or taxes they dodge. Start hoofin.

      • rightonrush says:

        Sternn wrote: Parents that send their kids to private schools usually have vehicles and end up paying more in sales taxes to the state, more in property taxes to their city, county and school districts, more in registration for their vehicles and more in gasoline taxes.

        That’s BS Sternn. For the record I have 3 grandkids that go to The John Cooper School in the Woodlands. My Son doesn’t pay extra taxes, he pays the same taxes as I, Crogged, and you.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Well crogged, you know how to cut and paste. Is that what you were trying to show us? Good. Very good. Now, focus on that word ‘efficient’ and see if that applies to HISD. What? No? But keep sending the kids to it? Huge drop out rate. Kids can’t read. But send them anyway.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, private schools have nothing to do with Article 7, Section 1. Just because a parent sends their kids to private schools doesn’t mean they have any desire to change the Texas Constitution or do away with public schools, nor does it mean they are too good for the Texas Constitution.

        Maybe you are suggesting that just because I live on a private road that makes me think I am too good for public roads? Is that where the road part came in? No, you still aren’t making any sense at all.

      • CaptSternn says:

        RoR, people that can afford to send their kids to a private school usually have more wealth than others. Not always, but usually. That means more expensive homes with higher property values and property taxes. They drive more expensive vehicles that burn more gasoline, so they pay more in registration fees and more in gasoline taxes. They have more disposable income and spend more, so they pay more in sales taxes.

        I think you are making the mistake others have made, confusing rates with actual taxes paid.

      • rightonrush says:

        Sternn wrote:”I think you are making the mistake others have made, confusing rates with actual taxes paid”

        LOL, No, I’m not the one making a mistake. Please don’t try to “educate” me regarding wealth, taxes paid etc. You are way out of your league.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’ll be the day. If a person spends more on taxable items in Texas than another person, they pay more in sales taxes even though they pay the same rate of sales tax. Not rocket science there, RoR.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Yet again Sternn has it wrong,

      School vouchers were largely created and supported by Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s and continued with George W Bush. It is currently being implemented in those liberal bastions of Wisconsin, Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama and nine other states as well. But oh wait! Those aren’t liberal bastions are they Sternn?

      http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2014/03/24/taxpayers-fund-creationism-through-voucher-programs

      http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-choice-vouchers.aspx

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/education/states-shifting-aid-for-schools-to-the-families.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      • CaptSternn says:

        What part did I get wrong? I oppose school vouchers. I have no say in those other states. I didn’t like Reagan and Bush43 was a real RINO.

        My guess is that it is only a matter of time before lawsuits are filed and private schools in states that do have voucher programs and accept those vouchers will be forced to adopt the same ciriculum as public schools and any religious teaching will be prohibited. That is the main reason I oppose a voucher program for Texas.

        If a private school wants to remain private, it should accept no public funds in the form of vouchers. Parents that want to send their kids to private schools need to pay for them. That has nothing to do with burning the Texas Constitution as Crogged claims.

      • rightonrush says:

        So Sternn, I’m more valuable because I’m wealthy and buy more “stuff”. My grandkid’s are better than the little girl in Virginia because their parent can afford a private nonsectarian school. Thanks, you indeed have a sheep’s mentality.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You only have to post it once, in one place, RoR. And where are you even coming from with this “more valuable” stuff? How does that lead to parents wanting to burn the Texas Constitution and claim to be too good to drive on public roads that Crogged suggests they don;t pay for?

        Try making a little sense here, please. You and several others are just saying things that have no connection to anything else that has been said.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        March 25, 2014 at 3:56 pm
        “What part did I get wrong?”

        This part Cappy:

        CaptSternn says:
        March 25, 2014 at 1:48 pm
        That’s why most thinking conservatives and private schools are against the voucher idea, Texan.”

        You’ve been thoroughly debunked and discredited. You don’t get to create your own definition of “conservative”. So now even Ronald Reagan is not a conservative? At least you now acknowledge how far to the right you have run to. Bill O’Reilly not a conservative? And neither is Paul Ryan? Is “conservatism” a party of one, just you Cappy?

      • CaptSternn says:

        I didn’t say all thinking conservartives and all private schools are against a voucher program, or that all conservatives, or that all republicans are against it. And even Obama can get something right occasionally.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You said most Cappy and that was wrong to the extreme also. Losing track of your conservative memes in your little bubble Cappy? Even the “Conservative agenda” is not determined by you. Just admit you were wrong and stop flailing already to just appear “right”.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Cappy, school voucher programs have been a darling meme of the conservative right from George W. Bush to Paul Ryan.

      And here’s your litmus test to whiplash your view 180 degrees on a dime.

      Obama opposes it.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/05/obama-smacks-bill-oreilly-on-school-vouchers/

      Break out of your bubble man.

  10. kabuzz61 says:

    I am loving the Global Warming debate. So many things are blamed on Global Warming it is becoming comical. Minnesota has a scientist claim the reduction in the moose population is Global Warming fault.

    I think the environmental alarmists will start blaming Global Warming if their donuts are fresh.

    And then we have Way2 Snobby comparing Sanger and her ilk to just about everything that was institutionalized yet eugenics was (thank God) never supported by government. Only the North Eastern Liberal Elite had the view of minorities and some whites being inferior. Who else hung with them? Oh yea! FDR, his mother and the societal structure. Nice try to attempt to tie it to the right side of the political divide, but even democratic polities that are law basically say minorities can’t compete with white people equally. Tsk!

    • way2gosassy says:

      You really need to get your nose outta the litterbox, Oh and it is now Miss dipshit and as usual you are so far behind we will have to send a search party to look for your remains.

      Get over yourself nobody cares what you think.

      • Crogged says:

        The North Eastern Liberal Elite didn’t make the NCAA tournament this year, but are returning all their starters. See you next year.

    • rightonrush says:

      Sorry Buzz, you fail the relevant test again.

    • Crogged says:

      And who needs a “Minnesota scientist” when we have a man with a cat in pajamas.

    • Texan5142 says:

      Dementia is a terrible thing to witness.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Actually I like Way2 Snobby since you like to show condescending manner when dealing with people with a POV different from your own, and with your recent support of Sanger, it really is a great moniker.

  11. Tuttabella says:

    I don’t know about you guys, but I am really enjoying this thread. I’ve seen a lot of good ideas about how to address poverty, people are getting along for the most part, and there’s just enough mischief and drama to keep things interesting.

  12. way2gosassy says:

    OV seems obsessed with Margaret Sanger and convinced that she is a “liberal hero” and yet has no problem whatever with Dan’s hero worship of Charles Lindbergh.

    It seems to me that the beliefs of both of these people and many others of their time are more in line with far right. Charles Lindbergh’s accomplishments in flight not withstanding, nor is Margaret Sanger’s accomplishment of giving women the right to choose when and under what circumstance to have children through birth control.( something I’m sure OV has never availed herself of) As with all men and women of considerable reputation there are going to aspects their lives in which we do not agree as looked through the lens of time and changes in societal belief systems.

    But to be fair, here is just one small example of Dan’s hero,

    “The eugenics movement was no small movement in America. It raised money from the Carnegie Institute, the Harriman Family, and John D. Rockefeller, and the genetic laboratories of renowned schools such as Harvard, John Hopkins, Cornell, and Columbia were sympathetic to eugenics, promoting it in their research. The former president of Stanford University, David Starr Jordan, chaired the America Breeders Association Committee on Eugenics, whose goal was to research heredity and to “emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Eugenics laid the groundwork for Hitler, the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the skinheads. Charles Lindbergh’s famed sympathy for the Nazis came from his preoccupation with eugenics. In a dark chapter of our American history, from 1907 to 1965 intelligence tests were used as criteria to enforce laws in approximately 30 states, which allowed tens of thousands of individuals to be sterilized for such conditions as pauperism and “feeble mindedness”

    http://crackingthelearningcode.com/bonus1.html

    My opinion is that through the course of time we Americans have been guilty of many shameful things, the list is long and includes the interment of Japanese-Americans, the extermination of Native Americans, the enslavement of African-Americans and the exploitation of Hispanic-Americans.

    • rightonrush says:

      I nominate Sass for Miss America. Excellent post, well thought out and brilliantly worded….and the best yet, the TRUTH.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Thanks ROR but I have no desire to be “Miss” anything! =)

      • rightonrush says:

        You know you are right, you’re much too brilliant to be stuck with a silly meaningless title.

      • GG says:

        Yes, I’m curious why Obj keeps bringing her up. A lot of historical figures were right in some ways and wrong in others. Thomas Jefferson was one such person and is generally regarded as a “hero” in this country. Brilliant man, way ahead of his time, yet owned slaves along with almost all the FF’s. If anyone is ever in the VA area I suggest stopping in at Monticello for a visit. I hate to say it but it’s more interesting that Mt. Vernon, Washington’s home, IMO.

    • Crogged says:

      And because the founders of Eugenics had read Darwin–it’s his dang fault! Somewhere the power of books is discussed in these comments. The power of books reside outside of the book and the author.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Actually Crogged we really can’t blame it all on Darwin but more to a cousin who was jealous of his acclaim. It’s that family thing you know! =)

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged wrote: The power of books reside outside of the book and the author.
        **********************************
        Excellent. I have posted the same thought many times, especially with respect to Ayn Rand, how her philosophy is still valid, despite the fact that she did not live up to it in her personal life. A work of art has a life of its own, separate from its creator.

        This is both good and bad, because once you put your ideas out there, especially in word form, you lose control of those words, and they can be used and misused in all sorts of ways.

        I had a dream the night before last, in which I was told by a sage old man that there was a microphone over me at all times recording every word I had ever uttered, even to myself, and that I could not shrug off any words I had used. This was not Google. This was God, or someone sent by God, telling me that every word that I utter has power, and so therefore I should never throw words out casually, not even to myself, especially self-deprecating words. It was an awesome dream.

      • Crogged says:

        Dan, you can call me MR. Margaret Sanger Eugenics et al……or a cab, or a beer.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Cool dream, Tutt. Something to think about.

    • DanMan says:

      Hey dipshit, quite citing bubba’s description or get the same attitude from me he gets. You another angry queer?

      • way2gosassy says:

        Who are you calling a dipshit? and more to the point why? Maybe you should look in the mirror to your own dipshittery before passing it on to someone else.

      • rightonrush says:

        Dan, that’s a new level of low even for you.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Dip & Sh!t? Dude, stop it. This is not type of forum.

      • Crogged says:

        We can call you Miss Dipshit if you prefer.

      • DanMan says:

        Of course I’m referring to you way, you Margaret Sanger eugenics worshipper you

      • DanMan says:

        what is this? gay day at Disney Land? before you know it’s going to smell like ass and Brut aftershave around here. Good grief.

      • rightonrush says:

        Damn, I just spit tea all over my keyboard. Somebody get Dan his meds!

      • way2gosassy says:

        I guess that “buzz saw of truth” is burning your butt Dan. However you show your true colors when you respond with such base and undeserved remarks. And yes Crogged I would prefer “Miss Dipshit” if you don’t mind. If being called a dipshit by the likes of Dan is a badge of honor I will wear it proudly! Can’t take the heat Dan? Then I suggest you get the heck out of the kitchen.

      • Crogged says:

        I see Archie Bunker in front of a computer, waving his arms, then pushing his reading glasses up the bridge of his nose and typing LOUDLY.

      • GG says:

        Are you kidding? No self-respecting gay man would caught dead wearing Brute.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        DanMan says:
        March 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm
        “what is this? gay day at Disney Land? before you know it’s going to smell like ass and Brut aftershave around here. Good grief.”

        You know you luuuuv it Danny. Thou doth protest excessively.

      • Texan5142 says:

        GG says:
        March 25, 2014 at 12:37 pm
        Are you kidding? No self-respecting gay man would caught dead wearing Brute.

        LOL! That means that Danny boy must wear it.

      • DanMan says:

        there ain’t no heat in here, y’all have fallen in line with insults after losing every argument you resort to

        you can’t defend the lies you endorse and you want everybody else to take care of you in the bizarre style you’ve become accustomed to, there’s plenty of good out here beyond your echo chamber so no worries for my sake

      • CaptSternn says:

      • Crogged says:

        So Dan, when you call me ‘stupid’ or address my comments as ‘sucked’, are you and Charlie Sheen winning? Look up the rules of improv and you will become a better player–which is not an insult, you aren’t stupid.

        http://sostark.net/post/4965998605/tina-feys-rules-of-improvisation-that-will-change-your

      • rightonrush says:

        Tex wrote:GG says:
        March 25, 2014 at 12:37 pm
        Are you kidding? No self-respecting gay man would caught dead wearing Brute.

        LOL! That means that Danny boy must wear it.

        I’m thinking Dan is more of the “English Leather” type.

      • DanMan says:

        excellent again stern but when their already wound up and ready to pounce this kind of thing can happen

        Crogged, you have been goading for a rebuttal…oh wait, a terse response as evidenced by your earlier observation of admiring my not resorting to cussing. I merely gave you the release…oh dang, the opportunity to…uh…oh.

        Carry on you happy fellas. Its grab ass at the rucas ranch for the rest of the day.

      • Crogged says:

        Dan, I love the smell of victimhood in the afternoon. Some day, this will all end and you and Sparkle will live happily ever after.

      • GG says:

        No, kidding Cap. Sheesh…..

      • DanMan says:

        my hunch is there’s quite a bit you love that I have no interest in biggun’, I pine for the old days when I didn’t have to know about it to go along with my not having to care

      • texan5142 says:

        No one if forcing you to be here Dan.

      • DanMan says:

        You’re right Texan but it would have been nice to know I was dealing with a whole site full of people with gay rights being the number one issue motivating their views. Let’s face it, except for bubba not being able to have any kind of conversation other than vitriolic, most of us can have some decent exchanges. Like the rest of you, I’m going to swing back when swung at though.

        You guys get pinned in a corner when anything of political substance comes up that requires a simple question of how to pay for it and then all hell breaks loose. Now I know why. Most of you don’t give a dang about the future because you likely have a more unrestrained live for today mentality. They plays well with anybody that thinks they are owed something just for being alive and the dem party goes to great lengths to instill that notion and to buy those votes. with young people’s and future generation’s wealth at stake.

        Several of you have mentioned you are not Christian, have no use for Christians and some even despise Christianity. Fine. I don’t have anything to hold over your head nor you mine in this regard. But there has to be some kind of ground rules I would think if we are going to function as a society. Several of you declared you don’t care if Obama lied, that all politicians do it. That’s a cop out and you know it.

        So meh, I’ll just come for the entertainment and glean what I can from both sides and jump in when I feel like it.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        DanMan says:
        March 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm
        “my hunch is there’s quite a bit you love that I have no interest in biggun’, I pine for the old days when I didn’t have to know about it to go along with my not having to care”

        Oh pshaw DannyDenial. No one is forcing you to do anything. You know you like gay sex and partake of it with your own free will(y). Despite your incessant transparently flimsy denials. You’re quite obsessed with it and initiate the discussion topic ad nauseum for someone who claims to hate it so much. Stop it with the faux victimization already. That high pitched whine is quite tiresome.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Great response Sassy

    • way2gosassy says:

      Forced Sterilization. If you think anyone is proud of this you are certainly a very sick individual. Many of these laws were not even repealed until 2003.

      “Eugenics was a scientific theory that grew in popularity during the 1920s. Eugenicists believed that poverty, promiscuity and alcoholism were traits that were inherited. To eliminate those society ills and improve society’s gene pool, proponents of the theory argued that those that exhibited the traits should be sterilized. Some of America’s wealthiest citizens of the time were eugenicists including Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter and Gamble fortune and James Hanes of the hosiery company. Hanes helped found the Human Betterment League which promoted the cause of eugenicists.

      It began as a way to control welfare spending on poor white women and men, but over time, North Carolina shifted focus, targeting more women and more blacks than whites. A third of the sterilizations performed in North Carolina were done on girls under the age of 18. Some were as young as nine years old.

      For the past eight years, North Carolina lawmakers have been working to find a way to compensate those involuntarily sterilized in the state between 1929 and 1974. During that time period, 7,600 people were sterilized in North Carolina. Of those who were sterilized, 85 percent of the victims were female and 40 percent were non-white.”

      http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-victims-speak-out-about-north-carolina-sterilization-program-which-targeted-women-young-girls-and-blacks

      The last documented case of forced sterilization was in 1981.

      • way2gosassy says:

        As I have said before and will say again, this is yet one more shameful period of American life. As with many of those periods the agendas of the wealthy and privileged were forced upon the poor and unsuspecting.

  13. objv says:

    As I begin my busy day, I ponder what would Margaret Sanger do (WWMSD) to end culturally induced poverty. Fortunately, she wrote extensively on the subject.

    As with any problem, her main solutions were birth control, birth control and more birth control; but surprisingly, she was opposed to giving aid to the poor.

    From http://www.scribd.com/doc/2396503/The-Pivot-of-Civilization-by-Sanger-Margaret-18831966 CHAPTER V: The Cruelty of Charity:

    The charges include the high cost of administration; the pauperization of deserving poor, and the encouragement and fostering of the “undeserving”; the progressive destruction of self-respect and self-reliance by the paternalistic interference of social agencies; the impossibility of keeping pace with the ever-increasing multiplication of factors and influences responsible for the perpetuation of human misery …

    Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the “failure” of philanthropy, but rather at its success.
    In other words, Margaret Sanger believed that charity (both private and state) only perpetuated poverty. Her way was to give women birth control options and to encourage having children only when one was financially able to raise them.

    Any thoughts on this? I’m not giving my own opinion here – only throwing this out as a bone for discussion.

    • objv says:

      Whoops – bad cut and paste job. MS’s quote ends at the word “success”. My summary starts at “In other words.”

    • Crogged says:

      We are down to three finalists for Miss America: Crogged, Margaret Sanger, and Objv. We believe people have children for reasons other than as the result of sex and long for a return to our reptilian predecessors, when we could lay eggs in the desert sand and let instinct and nature to determine delivery of health services and provision of social services. Next, in the talent competition we will sing songs of the Motherland.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I nominate OV for Miss Congeniality.

      • objv says:

        Sigh, Tutt …. I could never get the votes necessary for Miss Congeniality – although you might have a shot. (The best I could hope for is Miss Photogenic.) The title of Miss America would, of course, go to liberal heroine and icon Margaret Sanger.

        Crogged, I thought you were male …. ????

        Now all together …. “My Country ’tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty…..”

      • Crogged says:

        I am male, but I have goals, aspirations and dreams of purple mountains majesties-who knew the songwriter was John Lennon and it was about acid?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Don’t mean to break up the light conversation, but Tutt and I discovered the answer to an age-old question on our road trip this past weekend. We now know why the chicken crossed the road. Turns out she was following the rooster.

    • DanMan says:

      I can only smile at the Sanger defenders that also espouse free money for everybody. Nice catch. I’m pretty sure this is my first comment about her since I initially mentioned her name several days ago. I’m reminded of Ford Prefect in Hitchiker’s Guide to the Universe being asked to say something at level 3 and that comment is credited with destroying a planet and all of it’s inhabitants later around level 6 with the admonition “Next time, choose your words more carefully”.

  14. Texan5142 says:

    CaptSternn says:
    March 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    ” They reject scientific studies, scientific facts and findings and would rather attack the person or the studies or the scientists than discuss the example, point or facts”

    OMFG! You have got to be kidding. You are the one who rejects science, 97% of scientist confirm that man made climate change is real and yet you still deny it. When asked to back up your “facts” you post opinion pieces from WND.

    This my friends is projection personifidied !

    • CaptSternn says:

      No, 97% do not agree to any such thing. That lie was debunked years ago. But you reject the facts, then attack the source, just as I said you would do.

      • Texan5142 says:

        CaptSternn says:
        March 25, 2014 at 7:45 am
        No, 97% do not agree to any such thing. That lie was debunked years ago. But you reject the facts, then attack the source, just as I said you would do.

        No Cap YOU are the one who is rejecting facts. Well lets see your scientific proof Captain BS.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/

      • Texan5142 says:

        That opinion is based on a study in 2009, this a current study that you can look at and if you find fault in this current study, then please enlighten us all with your observation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Texan, there never was and never has been the claimed consensus among scientists. There is a handful of “scientists” that rely on government funding, and they get it from politicians because those politicians think they can get financial gains for their nations and bring the top economies down a few notches.

      • John Galt says:

        Sterrn, you impugn the motivations of climate scientists with the assertion that they will say whatever is needed to keep the dollars flowing. At the same time, you post a link to a column written by an architect with no formal training in science, posted to a business magazine that pays him, and who writes climate change denial books. Do you think it is just a teensy bit possible that he has a substantial bias (more than the scientists, in fact, since it directly affects his income)? And that maybe you don’t see this because he’s telling you not to worry about anything, which is what you’d like to do anyway.

        I am amused, as well, to read Larry Bell trying to rip apart a National Academies of Science panel as incompetent and biased. Well, no, it’s not amusing, it’s rather pathetic.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, irrelevant. There is no “consensus” among scientists. The whole idea behind man-made global warming is that the climate changes, human beings exist, therefore human beings are the cause so we need forced wealth redistribution among the nations.

      • John Galt says:

        Irrelevant? You and (mostly) Dan keep cawing about “follow the money”, but when it is following the money to your guy it is irrelevant? What intellectual dishonesty.

        That obvious bias, your simplistic understanding of the science behind climate change and denial that humans emitting 30,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere could possibly have any effect on anything pretty much invalidates any comment you care to make on this subject.

        Just out of curiosity, have you ever met a professional scientist – like with an advanced degree and paying job?

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It plays a very small part. Water vapor makes up over 95% of the greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Where CO2 is concerned, human activity contributes only about 1% to 2% of the total per year, nature produces far more, mostly from the oceans. Human beings are a tiny fraction of the biomass on the planet, we have no ability to control the global climate.

        But it comes back to the idea that the climate changes, humans exist, therefore humans are responsible and that means we should have wealth redistribution among the nations. Oh, and even those scientists that make such claims also claim there is nothing we can do about it in the end. It will happen no matter what we do. But lets have wealth redistribution among the nations anyway.

        Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Not.

    • DanMan says:

      another rube getting shredded by the buzz saw of reality

      http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131121_winteroutlook.html

      your cabal of seasoned scientists couldn’t predict this winter and your clinging to your tired trope about global warming. Here’s an idea, evolve on the issue like your precedent has done on all of his previous campaign promises.

      • texan5142 says:

        Hey dumb ass Dan. weather and climate are two different things.

      • John Galt says:

        Like my precedent?

      • DanMan says:

        Yeah right Tex, yet somehow the same guys that predict seasonal weather are part of your climate change group of morons led by the useless NASA brain trust that pushes muslim out reach now.

        The mantra for global warming has ‘evolved’ to climate change now yet the predictions made over the past 17 years since y’all started peddling this crap have proven to be as stupid as the original assertions.

        James Hanson is a supreme joke that has gone from predicting global cooling to global warming in a span of about 35 years, which coincidently is his entire career. Using your guidelines he can never be wrong when disagrees with his own work! You think we give a dang about your fantasies?

      • Crogged says:

        Primitive, luddite AND racist all at the same time! Good one Dan!

      • DanMan says:

        I noticed you didn’t counter any of my claims oh gullible one.

      • DanMan says:

        oh, and from Tex’s link…

        “97 percent of scientific papers (that take a stance on the issue) agree, the study finds.”

        Here’s a question for you Tex. What percentage of those papers were funded by and/or researched by folks dependent on the meme to keep their funding intact?

        Always follow the money when looking for clues in politics.

      • Crogged says:

        Dan
        You have questions about climate and science? Why not go to John Gammon’s blog on the Chron? He went to Texas A&M, was appointed by Rick Perry, why not ask him about your concerns with the findings of climate scientists? Sometimes appealing to authority is a good thing, you can ask him all the questions you want and he will answer them. He posts, like this author, under his real name and no one has to rely on these personas you and I operate under-what’s to lose from your perspective?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I don’t argue with Global Warming. I think it is cyclical. No one has proven human’s cause Global Warming. Only the ones that can make money off that theory are sure.

        Dan is right. Always follow the money.

      • DanMan says:

        Hey Crogged I don’t have questions other when if ever you libs quit chasing your tails over it.

      • Crogged says:

        Yes, these are enlightening comments. Who needs him when you have each other. Carry on.

      • DanMan says:

        Like I told Intrigued yesterday, when the entire premise is wrong why try drag out a enlightening conversation about it? Run over to Kos or WaPo and fed your need.

      • Crogged says:

        The Premises According to Dan is destined for a short run on Broadway.

      • DanMan says:

        meh, I saw The Premises open for KISS at the Drum in Austin in ’01. They sucked as much as that comment Crogged.

    • GG says:

      World Nut Daily????

    • way2gosassy says:

      It would seem that Capt Sternn does most of his “research” standing on his head as he comes to most of his conclusions upside down. The 97% of scientist agree with climate change claim has been “debunked” is a claim made by the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobil and projected by Forbes.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm

      Yet other studies absolutely refute his assertions going back to 2010 to present.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/

      Including this from the UN,

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-panel-95-percent-certain-climate-change-is-man-made/

  15. Tuttabella says:

    So, if poverty is not cultural, what would the opposite term be? Is poverty PERSONAL, then? In a way, the idea of personal poverty, and by extension, personal wealth, sounds rather empowering, because it implies that your fate is in your own hands, that you are not destined to fail just because you were born into the “wrong” culture.

    Maybe we should stop thinking in terms of cultural poverty and cultural wealth. Yes, culture is powerful, but more important is the power of the individual to define him or herself.

    • Crogged says:

      The dictionary does a good job of defining ‘poverty’. Certainly everything you say is correct, important even, but when did ‘empowerment’ ever pay an electric bill or tuition?

    • John Galt says:

      Tutt, I think that we default to a sense that “cultural” boils down to racial or ethnic bounds. This seems a lazy way that we all view the differences within us. But the persistent poverty in Appalachia, to take one example, is not racially based, it is community-based. These are largely white communities, but the poverty is pervasive within all the ethnic groups and over long time periods. Poverty of this sort goes beyond personal to communal. If nobody, or almost nobody, gets out of these places, then solutions that focus on individuals are unlikely to succeed. How do we lift communities out of poverty? What are the most effective tools? These are good – and hard – questions worth hard thought.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “How do we lift communities out of poverty?”

        We don’t. We can’t. They have the opportunities, they have to lift themselves. Giving them handouts only encourages them to stay where they are. Those that refuse handouts and stay in poverty do so because they are comfortable with it.

        This gets back to the point of leaving people alone, to their own devices. Who are you or I to decide that somebody living a different lifestyle must be changed and controlled? Whoe are we to decide and dictate how others must live?

      • DanMan says:

        Here’s one for you John Galt. What views do you hold that we can find in the character of the novel you poached your on-line name from? Prove to us your whole persona isn’t a joke.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I think it makes sense to give them opportunities, to encourage them to take advantage of existing opportunities, in case they are not aware they are available, but they cannot be forced to accept. Their autonomy and privacy must be respected. I still think education is the key.

      • John Galt says:

        I picked this pseudonym many years ago for reasons that had more to do with the avowed atheism of the author than her libertarian fetish. “Atlas Shrugged” is a great book but, dear Dan, it is fiction. Paranoid conspiracy theorists can find similarities between it and today’s headlines, but I can find similarities to Star Trek, too.

      • John Galt says:

        Oh, and Dan, I do believe that progress in society is largely driven forward by a relatively small number of innovators. I do not believe that there is a very good correlation today between those innovators and the top 1%.

      • John Galt says:

        Sternn, I have a friend who works for the Ann Richards school, an Austin public school for girls from primarily underprivileged backgrounds. They took the juniors on a college visitation trip. Over half these kids had never left Texas before. Some had never been to Houston or Dallas. How do most of them even know what opportunities are when they have no experience outside their narrow family or community. And these are kids from Austin. What about those from Dumas or Mount Pleasant or Eagle Pass?

        You’re an adult. If you want to be left alone, want no help, then more power to you buddy. Persistent poverty exists because children of poor families largely do not have the opportunities to break this cycle. There are just enough Ben Carson stories out there to provide fodder for the right-wing, “I did it all myself” nonsense. Despite the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches mythology, income mobility in this country (the likelihood that someone changes income quintiles from the one in which they grew up) is poor and getting worse. It is worse, in fact, than much of Europe. But hey, if you think the further stratification of society is healthy and would rather not trouble yourself with complicated problems, you’ve got that right too.

      • DanMan says:

        oh look! Cuffy Meigs answers! first he choose his name in honor of the author because he identifies as atheist, an attribute the left celebrates while completely shunning the context of her work…and then he tries to point to some linkage to the concept of gathering the 1% in the novel that dropped out of society by decrying the current 1%.

        Dude you are a cartoon wrapped in a joke smothered in weakness.

      • DanMan says:

        Ann Richards. Champion of liberal Texans. While still governor she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. She had put together a group that was purchasing huge tracts near Manor as she worked behind the scenes trying to steer Austin’s proposed airport that way.

        And then tragedy struck. Base re-alignment started under Reagan designated Bergstrom for closure and wiped her dreams of capitalizing away. Her politically groomed daughter Cecile has been president of national planned parenthood for the last 8-9 years.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It is not my place nor yours to interfere with the childrenn of others John, just as you wouldn’t want me to take your children and undermine your parental authority.

      • Tuttabella says:

        John Galt, it’s interesting how you focus on travel, which illustrates how we all have different ideas of what is important. I don’t think a lack of travel experience is necessarily a negative thing, a sign of a lack of something vital in one’s life. Look at the example of Emily Dickinson. I’m a native Houstonian, Mexican-American, and my childhood travels consisted of going from Houston to Mexico via San Antonio. That was it. Oh, but I read voraciously, and books were what expanded my horizons.

      • objv says:

        Tutt: I grew up in a poor household and we rarely traveled anywhere, but like you, I read extensively. Books gave me a way to escape.

        As an adult, my husband’s job led us on overseas assignments and we moved frequently. Although being a tourist, is fun, nothing compares to a good book.

        Btw, Happy early birthday! I love Texas in the spring – my favorite time of year. Enjoy the beautiful flowers from your beloved. :-)

      • Crogged says:

        I always wondered why Gertrude Stein said, “A rose is a rose is a rose”. Metaphor is a good thing, but a book isn’t an experience.

      • John Galt says:

        Did you forget to take your meds today, Dan? Or do you just need a hug?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Thanks, OV. My point was that there are different ways of defining poverty and want. I think it was Rush who pointed out how ladies and kids in the Appalachians without knowledge of basic, personal hygiene being a sign of poverty. For John Galt it’s a lack of travel experience. For me, I guess I would consider illiteracy to be the main sign of poverty and want.

      • John Galt says:

        Sternn, my kids have plenty of opportunities. If circumstances were different and I could not provide them because, say, I was working two jobs to pay the rent and keep them fed, I would be delighted to take advantage of programs that would give them those opportunities. Under no circumstances would I sit around telling everyone that I was proud of my poverty and proud of holding my children back.

        Tutt – I was using the travel thing as an example. There are many ways to recognize the differences in the world and to open one’s eyes to a bigger picture and books are a great one.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, never underestimate the power of books.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I am in 100% agreement that poor children would do much better if taught to read. Reading will educate them, take them to distant places and allow them to escape their lives while enjoying a good story. I was raised very poor, but I learned to read and loved it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, it would be up to you to decide if you wanted your children in any programs, and what programs if any. It is not up to me to make those choices for your kids, and not up to you to make those choices for the children of others.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain I direct you to Article 7, Section 1 of the Texas constitution.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Did you have a relevant point with that, Crogged?

      • DanMan says:

        nah Cuffy, I was responding to your drunken blogging at 10:19 last night…

        “Good lord, Dan, but you are a one-track record. This is a blog about persistent poverty. You seem to have no ability to think or articulate thoughts beyond today’s FoxNews meme.”

        I cancelled my satellite TV over a year ago JG but I have a good hug story. I have a sister in law that wants a/to hug everybody in the room when she comes in to it. It bugs the hell out of me when people do that, she knows it and makes an air hug gesture when she passes me by. So one day recently she walks into my folks house and goes around the room and does her deal to the 10-12 people sitting there, except me of course.

        One of my sister’s asked right off “So Barb, what’s been going on with you?”

        “Oh not much. I’ve been fighting the flu for almost two weeks but I’m starting to feel better”

        Everybody looked at me as I busted out laughing.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, another way to look at it is that even if travel to exotic places like Austin or Dallas is not within reach, books are readily available, even to the poor — at the library for free, at the thrift shop — paperbacks for 25 cents each, hardbacks for $1.00. Call me a Luddite, but I don’t think iPads are the answer.

      • GG says:

        I’ll kindly disagree OV. I’ve traveled extensively and pictures and books cannot compare to the reality. Every country I’ve been to has a different pulse, even smell. Even the sky looked different in some. I like to immerse myself as much as possible in the local cultures. I, however, will not eat any type of insect or bats on a stick.

      • DanMan says:

        I gotta agree Tutts. I have read a lot of books on my Kindle but I prefer a book. I do something I learned from my father-in-law and that is to write notes in the margins when I see something I can relate to sometimes.

        Getting a book from him a trip because he has been about everywhere and knows a lot of interesting people. To talk to him after reading one his books is to hear about a whole other perspective occasionally. It was with him the conversation of Charles Lindbergh came up over a meal a couple of weeks ago.

      • Crogged says:

        Do we have to create a world and society based on the false dilemma of ‘books or travel’? Who’s running this place?

      • way2gosassy says:

        I have lived in the foothills of the Boston Mountain chain in NW Arkansas. For those who are not familiar with this area it is actually the tail end of the Ozarks. Similarly the Ozarks and the Appalachians share many of the same attributes. Both areas are absolutely beautiful and their inhabitants are fierce in their dedication to keeping them that way and their way of life. Homesteads in these areas tend to be family owned and passed down through several generations. Throughout this countries history we see that communities spring up based on as little as a single economic shared interest, they either grow or die based on whether they are able to expand those interests. Many of these small communities have few resources to offer their inhabitants because their inhabitants have few resources to share with their community. A viscous cycle to be sure but one that can be sometimes broken by something as simple as an improvement to the infrastructure or the placement of a small industry.

        One example of how improved infrastructure can improve impoverished areas goes back to the 1930’s when electricity costs were being regulated at the Federal level and grids were expanded to rural areas through the TVA. The TVA and the CCC provided many good paying jobs that utilized the residents of the areas in which these improvements were being made.

        These were not handouts by the government, the people earned their pay through hard work in what was many times very adverse conditions. The money they earned helped to improve the lives of their families and the communities in which they lived.

        Just my opinion but I don’t see how you can improve one without improving the other. I think we have the puzzle of the chicken and the egg. What the CCC and TVA did was to lift both at the same time.

      • DanMan says:

        I was driving one of my restorations to Indianapolis for an international car show and between Hope (The Childhood Home of Bill Clinton!) and Little Rock (The Home of Bill Clinton!) the car over heated in a little burgh named Social Hill. Yanked out the thermostat and got some water in it and made it with no further hitch. Got there a joked I must have the GOP model Thunderbird Special Landau.

        DanMa’am flew up there and drove the Speedway as I filmed and we decided to go home via Memphis. I filled up near Elvis’ place and wanted to make it to Texarkana before filling up. She was able to squeeze better than 14 mpg out of the big ‘ol FE 390 while she drove. Ran out of gas halfway down the State Line exit less than 1/4 mile from glory.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, there you go again. You are the one creating the false dilemma. Who is saying that society should be based on either books OR travel? My world is based on books, with some travel thrown in. Some people’s lives are equal parts travel and books. It depends not only on one’s economic circumstances, but on personal preference. I would rather curl up with a good book than travel. GG is the opposite.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Surprise, surprise. Danny deranged has dredged up yet ANOTHER variant of the numbingly same self aggrandizing anecdote about his family that just screams insecurity and a multitude of family dynamics issues. And the story ALWAYS ends the same with with Dashing Dan sooooooo much smarter than eeeeeeveryone in his family.

        You really were pretty unloved as a little Danny weren’t you? Sure explains a lot of why we see so much of the richard in Dan now.

      • Tuttabella says:

        That said, in addition to books, students do get the chance to travel if they’re involved in extra-curricular activities, to other Texas towns for sports and academic competitions. My very first trip to Dallas was at age 14, when I went to participate in an academic rally with my school. I placed first in French three years in a row!

      • GG says:

        I like to read too Tutt. Crosswords are also a favorite pastime. The biggest turn off right now to travel, at least for me, are airports and the hassles you go through now so I think I will focus any new jaunts to very short trips like Belize and Costa Rica and there are some places in the States and Canada I’d still like to see. Carlsbad, Taos, Santa Fe, along with Roswell, just because I like aliens, are at the top. I’ve seen the East Coast a lot so I think I need to see the West Coast now.

      • Tuttabella says:

        GG, you’re into aliens? Cool.

      • GG says:

        A cousin of mine just went to Roswell and took his kids. They had a blast. Very fun place to visit.

  16. Crogged says:

    So writers from the left and right completely misunderstood the point. Poverty is not about culture or beliefs, you just don’t have any damn money.

    • CaptSternn says:

      “you just don’t have any damn money.

      Well I have dealt with that problem many times over. Are you going to send me some money?

    • Intrigue says:

      Crogged do you really think a minimum income would eliminate poverty? I find it hard to believe when we can’t even solve homelessness because of mental illness, pride, and addiction.

      • Crogged says:

        I don’t think “pride” is a statistically important aspect of homelessness. Why raise a dollar, spend 85 cents of it administratively and constantly monitor the recipients eligibility? The purpose of that is the maintenance of a bureaucracy, not help to those who need it. We can maintain a system of less oversight, lower cost and more direct infusion of money to those who need it.

      • Tuttabella says:

        How about, instead of having to continually prove you’re eligible for benefits by continually proving you’re poor, which keeps you in the same rut, instead, to keep receiving benefits, you have to prove you’ve worked toward improving your situation in some way? That way, doing something constructive is rewarded. The same could apply to the minimum income. The more wisely you use it, the more you are eligible to receive.

        Isn’t that how it works in real life? Wise management of money begets more money?

      • Intrigue says:

        Crogged, I agree that eliminating adminstrative costs would allow those in need to recieve more of more of the funds, however, I think poverty is more complex than just not having money. Poverty can be attributed to the norms and lack of economical resources in a particular community which some would say is a cultural problem. So instead of incentivizing people in poverished areas to make a better life we would throw some money at them and say poof your not poor. Problem solved. Isn’t that what we do now? I’m really just trying to understand the concept.

      • Intrigue says:

        Tutt I agree with you. I lean towards empowering and incentivizing people to better their lives but I seriously cringe of the thought that any of my proposed solutions involve even more bureaucracy. Which is why I want to buy into this idea of a minimum income but it goes against everything I believe in.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Intrigue, a major reason I don’t like Obamacare is because of the increased bureaucracy, having to jump through hoops for medical care.

      • Crogged says:

        Intrigue, you answered your own question with circular logic about ‘culture’ and an admission of ‘lack of economical resources’.

        “Poverty can be attributed to the norms and lack of economical resources in a particular community which some would say is a cultural problem.”

        Sometimes it’s fun to make things bigger than they are. Poverty is ‘cultural’ and if we just taught somebody all the wonderful things we learned from not being born in poverty the world would be a better place. I think I’ll run for Miss America.

  17. CaptSternn says:

    “It’s pretty infuriating when an entire race is tarred with bigoted assumptions isn’t it?” – Lifer

    So back on topic (if possible), and since there is no new entry. We all understand your goal with this entry, the point you tried to make. But you failed, and failed miserably. You failed to blame an entire race, you had to narrow it down to a specific culture. And you had to focus on one race in said culture, ignoring the fact that other races also share in that culture. You tried to narrow it down to a specific region, but also failed on that point because it can be found in many other regions, and even in other nations, and races you chose not to include.

    You made racist assumptions about some areas or regions, but you ignored other areas and cultures. Maybe if you still lived in the Houston area you would not have made those mistakes. There are a lot of suburban areas in my neck of the woods that are predominately black with good schools. They have strong family structure, good jobs, good homes, two parent families and a focus on education, invloved with their kids education and lives. Are you suggesting they are “too white”? Or maybe they end up being single parent homes, but still with a strong focus on family values, education and responsibility.

    There are run-down areas where hispanics are moving into, and they are improving their neighborhoods. Since Intrigue likes using anecdotal examples, my parents had a white couple move into the house next door. They were basically renters and had no idea of how to deal with home ownership. The house was falling apart, yard not mowed, property getting worse and worse. My dad even gave them a riding mower, which was trashed before one mowing was finished.

    A young hispanic couple recently bought the property, keeping the yard taken care of, doing a whole lot of work on the house, improving the whole place and being great neighbors.

    What is their “culture”? What was the “culture” of the couple that lived there before them? What was the “culture” of the lady I knew that lived off of the government, or the entire apartment complex that was doing the same?

    What does either have to do with race? That is where you and so many others on the left fail, making assumptions based on race. You focus on race, which is what racists tend to do. You have pointed out over and over how the GOP establishmnet, that you support and are actively involved with, is basically racist.

    Go ahead and make your confessions and point out what the GOP establishment is, because the tea party movemnet is very much against the GOP establshment and those farther to the left, the democrats. The democrats know it, and the GOP establishment knows it even more, facing primaries.

    The left, democrats and GOP establishment types, beg us to split and form a third party. That way the far left extremists, the democrats like Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Biden are given the elections by default. We know that is how the GOP establishment thinks because so very often when the liberal/progressive republican is defeated in a primary, he or she will turn and endorse the democrat.

    Your attempt to turn the tables with snark and satire failed, and it is because you make racist assumptions. Your threat to ban Kabuzz unless he met your demands to say the tea party movement was just religious extremism, your attempt at blackmail or extorsion, also failed.

    Suppose it is time for you to make new entry. But you also know that older entries don’t exactly die right away.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Blackmail and extortion? Isn’t that illegal?

      • DanMan says:

        not anymore, ask Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and several others that accepted bribes, kickbacks and assorted favors for their votes. And that was our money that was used to do it.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Stern…I think that was the whole point.

      I’m clearly not getting what you are getting at because all of the points you just made were exactly the point Lifer was making with this posting (which would seem a rousing success rather than a failure).

  18. Tuttabella says:

    Okay, so back to Square One. Poverty is cultural, whether it’s Black, White, inner city, or in the Appalachian mountains. So how do you change a culture of poverty, how do you break the cycle?.

    How does any culture change? The culture and cycle of slavery were broken. The culture and cycle of Jim Crow laws were broken. The culture and cycle of discrimination against women and gays were broken.

    Maybe the problem of poverty needs something similar — an awakening of sorts, a jolt, with some help from the media, a heroic figure like a Dr. King.

    If an entire mindset could change, resulting in the abolishment of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination against women and gays — things we thought were written in stone — why can’t the poverty mindset change? Not just the the mindset of the poor, but the mindset of all of us.

    • way2gosassy says:

      No snark or snide intended here Tutt. But to break those cultures this country shed a lot of blood of it’s own people both North and South not just to abolish slavery but also to stop the Jim Crow laws of the south as well as eliminating the discriminating practices you mentioned. After the blood was shed and the treasure spent it all came down to passing laws enacted and enforced at the Federal level causing even more disruption.

      Some people think it’s best to do away with most of our social safety net because of fraud and abuse. The truth is that there is very little fraud at the user level but there is certainly a huge amount of fraud that occurs at the administration level specifically in Medicare and Medicaid. The shame of it is that a lion share of that fraud occurs in the Doctors office.

      In my opinion if you want to change the mindset of the poor you have to first change the mindset of the prosperous about the poor.

  19. DanMan says:

    Tuttabella hits another home run in her 12:45 comment today:

    “If all the ideas presented here are just red herrings, then this entire blog is nothing more than one big red herring, a waste of time, and we should all stop typing right now and go help someone in need.”

    So far I have flypusher, John Galt and Crogged admitting the lies were necessary to pass the law. I can predict GG and bubba agree with them. Just like the WaPo bloggers that forward lies and think its a relevant form of political discourse.

    To those not predisposed to democrat dogma, be aware a few your fellow commenters have zero integrity and seem quite proud of it. Lie away guys, see how easy a little common sense can make you look desperate.

    Okay, this thread is rendered useless, got another one Chris?

    • Tuttabella says:

      Actually, my post about red herrings was in response to Crogged’s saying that all our talk about one’s ability to hunt, to Margaret Sanger, and to the past in general are nothing more than distractions from the matter at hand, that we should keep it simple and focus on what’s important – that people must be fed. Period.

      My response was that we are having a valid discussion about poverty, which has no simple solution, but if he insists, then maybe our entire discussion is a waste of time, and let’s close up shop right now and go help someone in need.

      I do often wonder if being an armchair activist is of any use.

      • way2gosassy says:

        If you a help a single soul by your armchair activism it is not a waste in my humble opinion.

      • Tuttabella says:

        True, Sassy, that’s what Cap says, but what if we HURT a single soul with one of our comments? Someone out there (or in here) could really take something to heart and be devastated by some of the words thrown out so casually here.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Not all are thick-skinned. Some do take it very personally and are more sensetive to comments. I can still be harsh and hard, but I do try to think about that as I post comments.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Cap, that’s just blog culture for you.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Well Tutt I guess you can always fall back on “the road to hell being paved with good intentions”. =)

    • John Galt says:

      Good lord, Dan, but you are a one-track record. This is a blog about persistent poverty. You seem to have no ability to think or articulate thoughts beyond today’s FoxNews meme. This is NOT a blog about the ACA – we have had no shortage of those. I admitted only that I assume all politicians lie a great deal, Obama included. Seriously, do you have any original thoughts?

      • DanMan says:

        John Galt? How about Cuffy Meigs you lightweight. Did it ever occur to you that the reasons for persistent poverty in Appalachia might be because they are one of the most subsidized per capita areas in the nation? There are plenty of stories out there of those folks sitting on their ass waiting for the noble college kids coming through on Spring Break to earn credits for fixing up their places.

        If you want to make an issue of helping people in that region tell us what you’ve done. You can’t because you haven’t and you won’t. You’ll sit back and demand more charity through government programs. Well guess what? You and your party have burned through $8 trillion in 5 years selling this BS and you have nothing to show for it except borrowing from todays kids to fatten todays already wealthy investing class and that’s about the only place you can find any trace of that stolen money.

        You’re not offering ideas here. Your promoting more of the same theft you lying sack.

      • Crogged says:

        Dan, exactly and precisely, we do EVERYTHING BUT empower them with their own capital! We give them coupons for food, pay college students via tax deductions to ‘fix’ their homes and nothing piled upon nothing to allow these people to make their own decisions with their own capital, because, of course, they are poor and don’t know how to get capital.

        And about that stupid video Captain posted.

        Barack Obama campaigned on changing the delivery of medical care in this country with a single payer system, exactly how did it hurt him? Did you and the Captain not notice the campaign of 2008? Somehow, this burden gave him a larger margin of victory than in 2012, but I’m sure glad you and the Captain outed the “progressive police” who deleted the videos from the internet. Now that the President backed off his original idea and used a Republican idea in order to get something accomplished you and the Captain fear for the future of the Republic. Good for you, own your fear, sleep with it and live with it because it’s done and over with.

        It may help ya’ll in the future to actually pay attention to your opponents campaign next time. I actually watched the Republican presidential debates in 2011/12, because I’m a glutton for reality.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Crogged, Obama didn’t back off. But as predicted, at first you claimed it was all a lie. When shown that it is fact, you turn to defend it and justify it. But knowing how wrong and terrible it is, you attempt to blame it on republicans even though not one single republican voted for it.

        You claim you wanted it, you claim it is good, you stand up and support it, but when people actually look at it and see teh facts, you run from it and blame others. That speaks volumes. It says you are deeply ashamed of what you advocate and support. You understand the damage being done, and you don’t want to look in the mirror.

      • DanMan says:

        Oh yeaeth! another liar from the rucas posse weighs in. Let’s give them cash instead of EBT cards. You think we didn’t notice when all the Katrina folks were given unfettered $2,500 vouchers and it started showing up in strip clubs all over Houston? You give them YOUR money if it makes you feel better.

      • Crogged says:

        I said I wouldn’t do this, but Captain, all you think is bullshit. Examine your premises every once in a while.

        1. Yes, he ‘backed off’ because the ACA is NOT ‘single payer’. Look it up.
        2. I didn’t claim it was a ‘lie’-you did. He changed his approach, got legislative action accomplished and pissed you off. He ‘lied’ to the AFL CIO, not you, he didn’t get ‘single payer.
        3. Yes, the Republican Party didn’t vote for it. The Republican party in the legislature is disciplined. Unprincipled and idiotic, but disciplined.

        I understand you see the world as Prog and Con–which made for a pretty good Star Trek episode when I was a kid, but is a limiting way to view the world.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Obama supports sinbgle payer and aims to destroy the private sector health insurance and care to get government control. He admits he couldn’t do it in one shot, that the PPACA is only a first step in a process that could take 10 to 20 years to reach his goal. That is what I said to begin with, and the reason I said it was his goal is because he said it is his goal. What part of that do you not understand or accept? And you didn’t claim it was a lie? You didn’t write, “I’ll have to view this later, good thing I have time to prepare myself for the shock of the biggest lie ever uttered anywhere ever in time or space or Des Moines”? You should stick to blogs where you can delete your old comments if you can’t be consistent.

      • DanMan says:

        The entire premise of the law is based on lies you idiot! It was passed over four years ago and has now exempted about 190 million out of 330 million from participating in until late 2016! Democrats are campaigning in fixing it and not nixing it yet Harry Reid won’t allow a single vote in the senate that changes the law per Obamas existing alterations.

        You copped to accepting the lies as part of the process. You are watching the process baby! Get used to it.

      • Crogged says:

        Danman and Captain, I’m enjoying the process, your inability to refrain from name calling and seeing the world with bizarre, conspiratorial, rose colored theories all at the same time.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There is no conspiracy theory. Just Obama’s stated goals.

  20. Tuttabella says:

    Hey, everybody, sorry to interrupt the intense mood here, but I just received a bouquet of birthday flowers via special delivery, courtesy of Captain Sternn!

    My birthday is actually next week, but Cap likes to send me flowers in advance so that I can enjoy them for an entire week.

    Thanks, Cap! :)

  21. way2gosassy says:

    Kabuzz, this will be the last time I engage with you in any way and these are the reasons why,

    You said,
    “Well, I have to say that I think GG is obsessed with me. She mentions me many times, never in context or truthfulness, but I guess the mentioning is good if you go by the adage of ‘all press is good.”
    Actually I and most everyone else thinks it is the other way ’round when it comes to that you cannot resist the unhealthy urge to make disparaging remarks to every thing she says regardless of who she says it to.

    You said,
    “Yes, Chris threatened to ban me if I didn’t answer his questions. Well, I take offence of that, because no one on this board should have to jump through hoops to stay on this site. Personally I like this site FOR the open forum. I think Chris got pissed at me, which is fine, but then he cooled down and decided not to ban me. Either way my life goes on.”

    I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that Chris was not asking you or anyone else who comments here to “jump through hoops” he was asking for simple honesty from someone who constantly implies that others lie without providing any proof that they are lying. You demand attribution for opinions expressed by others and yet you provide none for your own.
    Your attribution amounts to “well I know you are wrong because I know you are wrong.”

    You said,
    “I will say this, I never come back with the name calling to other commenters unless they ‘shoot first’. Check it out if you would like. Way2 decided to make a snide remark when I thought we were having a great back and forth. When I came back with a snide remark, well all of a sudden she became apoplectic. Folks, you can’t have it both ways, it just won’t work.”

    Says the King of snide remarks! We don’t need to “check it out” Kabuzz because everyone of us have been blessed with what you call debate. You also assume that anything you have to say to me affects me in any substantial way assumes that you think I value what you what you have to say about me is ridiculous.

    You said,
    “Homer is another issue. For the most part I read every bit of his comments. I disagree often, but he maintains a certain small respect for the opposing view. Kudo’s for that. Way2 used to do that also.”

    Yet again you have it wrong. Homer shows a tremendous amount of respect for the opposing view. He also has a huge amount of patience ( saintly ) to engage with you. You, sir, have finally worn mine out.

    You said,
    “On Chris: I respect his forum. I think he writes well. He does skew everything to his bias but I know he sees it. I think most if not all his posts can apply to both party’s and would probably get even more viewers if he did equally blame the two party system for the ails of this country, He decided not to do that, which is his right, but he must know conservatives won’t agree with his conclusions when it is narrowly drawn.”

    Two things, first I don’t think many here believe you have any respect for Chris or this forum. Second when it comes to bias maybe you should remove the log in your own eye before you worry about the speck in someone elses.

    Last but by means the least you end by throwing these two little poo bombs,

    “GG, your only problem in my estimation is you bring a knife to a gun fight.

    Captain, I try not to wallow in the gutter but sometimes the dip is just too tempting.”

    Still needing validation that your constant shit throwing is a good thing and approved by…..wait for it……. your echo chamber!

    • DanMan says:

      I’m detecting irritation or something.

    • GG says:

      You said a mouthful, Sassy, and the absolute truth. I don’t have the patience to write that long. I’m sure our little stinky puss thinks he’s clever but he employs the tactics of Trolling for Dummies 101 than feigns outrage.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I need no validation and if you do I pity you. You should be confident to stand on your beliefs. I really have no idea what your screed was about except to reiterate what I wrote.

      Here is a fact. Every single person on this site engages in name calling. I seem to be the only one owning up to it. So please, carry a floatation device because regardless of what you think, you cannot walk on water. So take a rest. Grab a cup of tea and stare at your Margaret Sanger poster can chill for awhile, then come back for more fun.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Nooooooo you didn’t own up to it buzzy. You lied and claimed to only “respond” to achieve some fake moral authority in wallowing in the mudpit. Which I easily debunked by quoting you verbatim.

        You are a lying, trolling instigator buzzy. Own it.

  22. Crogged says:

    So when someone is hungry we give them food and when someone is poor we give them, attitudes. It must be human nature not accept simplicity. How Margaret Sanger or the ability of some people to hunt addresses the issue is beside the stupidly obvious point.

    • Crogged says:

      “to not accept simplicity”-sorry. I give up on my own last sentence.

      There is no reason to go down rabbit holes of history to chase bad thinking. Margaret Sanger was wrong about many things, what in the bloody hell does that have to do with the RIGHT ideas she had? Is it to buttress the non-argument that Margaret Sanger was a ‘progressive’, hence anyone who feels we should establish minimum incomes or supports birth control favors genocide? You don’t cure a lack of capital with less capital and more stupid ‘insights’ from the past.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, I understand your point about Margaret Sanger, but who said anything about a minimum income being a precursor to genocide?

        I know I’m pro simplicity, but not everything can be simplified. If you ask me for food, I will give it to you, but after the tenth time, we have to ask ourselves if one of us is doing something wrong. It’s not necessarily you. It could be me. Or, I might offer you food because you look hungry to me, and you may tell me to go to heck and that you don’t need my help, that you are just fine. There’s a lot of psychological baggage attached to the act of giving and receiving.

      • Crogged says:

        Because people and motivation are far more complicated issues than that of economics doesn’t mean economics is wrong. Lack of capital leading to privation and stunted social mobility is easy to address.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Crogged, I’m not an economist, but I would think economics cannot be separated completely from the question of human nature.

        When there is a lack of capital, it may make sense to fill that lack, no questions asked, in the short run, but not necessarily long term.

        I believe that we have a lot to learn from history — from our past mistakes, to see what works and what doesn’t work.

        And I don’t think that every idea that has come up on this thread is a red herring thrown out for the purpose of ignoring or downplaying the issue at hand, which is poverty. Most of the ideas I’ve seen here are honest efforts at addressing the issue.

        If all the ideas presented here are just red herrings, then this entire blog is nothing more than one big red herring, a waste of time, and we should all stop typing right now and go help someone in need.

      • DanMan says:

        whoa Tuttabella!!! she hit the entire gist of issue with the first sentence!

      • Crogged says:

        We are a democratic republic and can choose to help all of us (at some time in our life we are all ‘those in need’) by how we chose to govern and regulate ourselves. It’s like insurance, we can choose to face the common obstacles of life by ‘ourselves’ or we can choose to use the benefits of sharing and pooling risk, we can agree to make a floor and if it makes you feel better, make fun of those who do well enough there.

        It’s not communism, no one is told how or where to spend money.

        As the author here pointed out in a prior post, the obstacles to ‘free markets’ come up in surprising places and the common features of the ‘free markets’ which work optimally are usually ignored: fungible goods and equality of power of buyer and seller (which have to be established by rules).

        I read the comment below somewhere, ( I don’t think here-probably Sullivan) and think there is much food for thought in it.

        “I’ve been a believer most of my life and a recovering fundamentalist for nearly half of it. That said, I’ve wondered if the “rend to Caesar” passage still applies in our day and age. Rome was a dictatorship; we’re a democracy. The people make the laws in our society, not a corrupt despot. I realize that Jesus only advocates for individual behavior, but maybe this changes the rules a bit? Perhaps the admonition to care for our neighbor can apply to the government because it is believers who (theoretically) make up that government. Rendering unto Caesar means rendering unto ourselves.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        We are a constitutional republic. Things like insurance are supposed to be an option if there are companies willing to sell it and people wanting to buy it. That is based on individual liberty and rights under our constitutional republic. That is being destroyed by the left as quickly as they can.

        The point of “render unto Ceaser” was in response to a trick question, which to pay, taxes or tithes? Jesus didn’t fall for it, he said both are to be paid, one is not a substitute for the other.

        Christian charity and tithes are personal and voluntary. Taxes are forcibly collected. Besides, this is not supposed to be a theocracy, and people should not be forced to support any religion or all religions.

      • Crogged says:

        Organizing the insurance market is not ‘destruction’, but a preservation that enables more participants and thus a bigger, more profitable, market providing more people with the ability to obtain the good.

        Is insurance is a religion and if his answer was pay taxes and tithe, where do you have room to complain about either of them?

      • CaptSternn says:

        The stated goal behind Obamacare, the PPACA, was always to destroy private sector health insurance and put the federal government in control of all health care. Why are so many on the left still denying that fact?

        Again, this is not supposed to be a theocracy. Quit trying to turn it into one.

      • Crogged says:

        Please find any mention of this ‘stated goal’ in the PPACA or any actual words of the President, and if you find it, insert an evil laugh there.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, Crogged, there was once a video showing exactly that. But it was taken down for years. Thankfully, somehow somebody found a way to bring it back. Here ya go …

      • Crogged says:

        I’ll have to view this later, good thing I have time to prepare myself for the shock of the biggest lie ever uttered anywhere ever in time or space or Des Moines.

      • DanMan says:

        uh-oh not again! clean up on aisle 3! Crogged’s down!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, yes, Obama does lie and lie and lie. Even many on the left here now openly admit it. He does change his claims a bit from speech to speech and interviews in that clip, but he is generally pitching his goal of having the government take over health care.

        And I keep on wondering, do any of his followers have a clue about him, about what his goals are, or do y’all follow blindly just because he is a democrat and you really, really hate republicans and especially conservatives?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, allow me to make a simple prediction of your reaction to the video, if you dare to watch it and make a comment about it … you will go from saying no such thing was ever claimed or said, least of all by Obama, to saying that yes, that is exactly the goal and it is a good one, the right path and action.

        It has become the SOP for the left: First claim that the right is wrong about individual liberty and rights being destroyed, it is an empty claim and the right can give not one example to back up that claim. When we do back it up, the left comes back and states that those individual liberties and rights should be destroyed, they should never have existed in the first place.

        I notice ongoing activity here, but you wouldn’t watch the short video you demanded, and nobody else is touching it with a ten foot poll. As it so often goes, when the light is shined into the dark corners, there is a lot of scurrying and running away, looking for other dark places to hide, or there is a lot of distraction and avoiding the subject. “Hush hush hush, yes that is the goal and we all know it, but don’t dare speak of it. If people find out, they will oppose it and us and then it will fail.”

  23. kabuzz61 says:

    Well, I have to say that I think GG is obsessed with me. She mentions me many times, never in context or truthfulness, but I guess the mentioning is good if you go by the adage of ‘all press is good.’

    Yes, Chris threatened to ban me if I didn’t answer his questions. Well, I take offence of that, because no one on this board should have to jump through hoops to stay on this site. Personally I like this site FOR the open forum. I think Chris got pissed at me, which is fine, but then he cooled down and decided not to ban me. Either way my life goes on.

    I will say this, I never come back with the name calling to other commenters unless they ‘shoot first’. Check it out if you would like. Way2 decided to make a snide remark when I thought we were having a great back and forth. When I came back with a snide remark, well all of a sudden she became apoplectic. Folks, you can’t have it both ways, it just won’t work.

    Homer is another issue. For the most part I read every bit of his comments. I disagree often, but he maintains a certain small respect for the opposing view. Kudo’s for that. Way2 used to do that also.

    Captain made a point further down that maybe the conservatives on this board should just stop commenting. If we do that, I would guess the comment section would be limited to just the echo chamber and their only one comment. Bottom line; it is the back and forth that keeps this blog alive.

    On Chris: I respect his forum. I think he writes well. He does skew everything to his bias but I know he sees it. I think most if not all his posts can apply to both party’s and would probably get even more viewers if he did equally blame the two party system for the ails of this country, He decided not to do that, which is his right, but he must know conservatives won’t agree with his conclusions when it is narrowly drawn.

    GG, your only problem in my estimation is you bring a knife to a gun fight.

    Captain, I try not to wallow in the gutter but sometimes the dip is just too tempting. :)

    • Texan5142 says:

      “I will say this, I never come back with the name calling to other commenters unless they ‘shoot first’. ”

      Liar!

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yup Texan5142.

        Let me “misrepresent” buzzy by quoting him verbatim:

        kabuzz61 says:
        February 12, 2014 at 5:11 pm
        Danman, do you wonder why I call this bunch the echo chamber. Not an original thought between them. Just butt kissing each other continuously. They are like the very needy high school clique where they worry all the time that they might not be liked. Sad, sad. Especially GG, she can’t suck up fast enough.

        Didn’t shoot first at all. Riiiiiiiiiight.

    • desperado says:

      Everything’s not always about you, Sarah. Give it a rest.

    • Intrigue says:

      Kabuzz maybe it’s just my perception of you but I think you shit on everyone who disagrees with you. When someone puts a lot of research into a comment or an entire blog post and you just throw shit all over it with no thought or research of your own, it tends to piss people off. The funny thing is that you know it and that’s exactly why you do it. To claim that you are somehow a victim and not in anyway an instigator is ridiculous.

      • DanMan says:

        It may be because the premise, no matter how well researched, is bogus Intrigue. That happens on just about every post Chris puts out because, as Kabuzz duly notes, Chris presents himself as a repub that only wants to help the party succeed yet every solution to achieve that stated goal is a democrat talking point.

        Chris uses the tactics of the media. Take for example the Washington Post this week on the Keystone Pipeline. Put out a proposition, no matter how ludicrous it is and declare just because you don’t agree with their take it doesn’t matter. They don’t try to defend the assertions at all when they are pointed out to be ludicrous, they merely believe that just by engaging the discussion and getting the conversation going then its news worthy. The problem WaPo won’t acknowledge is anybody paying attention knows all the distortions are being fed by John Podesta and George Soros type political agitators.

        Kabuzz pays attention. You don’t seem to like it.

      • desperado says:

        “Put out a proposition, no matter how ludicrous it is and declare just because you don’t agree with their take it doesn’t matter. They don’t try to defend the assertions at all when they are pointed out to be ludicrous, they merely believe that just by engaging the discussion and getting the conversation going then its news worthy.”

        You just described Fox News, Breitbart, Hot Air, Townhall, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, and every other right-wing “news” source in existence.

      • DanMan says:

        No Craig, I just described this week’s Washington Post. Straight out of Harry Reid’s rant on the senate floor. Dems need a talking point to distract you. Well, not you. You are focused on forwarding the lies. Period.

        http://freebeacon.com/wapo-defends-decision-to-report-on-anti-koch-allegations-it-admits-are-baseless/

      • Intrigue says:

        Dan, I haven’t respected Buzz since he accused me of lying about a friend that died of breast cancer, claiming that routine blood tests would have accurately detected her cancer. Buzz doesn’t pay attention to anyone or anything he personally disagrees with regardless of how ignorant or distasteful it makes him look.

        So let me ask you this if you so adamantly oppose Chris’s beliefs and think he is such a sham why do you read his blogs? Why waste your time on something you don’t consider “newsworthy”?

      • DanMan says:

        it’s an open forum, he forwards a leftist agenda and it’s typically easy to counter his posits with common sense arguments and I assume he doesn’t mind it because it gives him hits.

        Once he shows he can generate hits he gets to advertise which will remunerate him. So you see, I actually get to help Chris pay his heating bill. I’m a giver that way.

      • Crogged says:

        “Common Sense?” Do you ever really read these stories you link too?

        The below is from your article regarding the corporation which wants to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that deal with employee health insurance-female version.

        “HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate”

        The amount of hyperbole in every one of your links is over the top ridiculous and has nothing to do with ‘common sense’ in any way, shape or form.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Intrigue, apparently you did not read my comment thoroughly. I repeat. Chris can point his wise old finger at both parties for the same offence but he goes for the petty politics, DNC talking point, liberal prism approach. If something is posted that is not in full context, taken out of context or with no perspective, I can’t accept the premise thus I call it for what it is, just another hit piece. You may call it shitting on it, but whatever, why would I accept a premise I think is skewed deliberately? I don’t think most would, except you perhaps. Why have I come to this site for years? Simple, fun. It is entertaining. Do I learn some things? Most definitely. Homer, Captain, Dan and sometimes Way2 although recently she has taken to ridicule dissent.

        In answer to your friend has cancer story; this is an anonymous blog. People can say anything about anything with no proof just to make a point. As an example: GG has said her neighbors use the N word quite often and they are all GOP, or other such nonsense. Whether true or not, personal anecdotes are not acceptable to be for the reason of being too convenient for an argument.

        And again, I only throw out names after one is tossed at me. I don’t have the patience of the Captain. But I do like to see the echo chamber whine after I answer their name calling with some of my own.

      • DanMan says:

        Well Crogged, I note you completely skipped the context of the blogger’s examples of Time Magazine misleading its readers and focused on a twisted definition of the writer’s descriptions of the mandate. His context of the mandate is having those who object to participating in FUNDING the mandate based on religious grounds. Are you saying that does not exist in Obamacare?

        Did the term sterilization blow a hole in your head? You are aware one of the not insignificant occurrence of sterilization occurring from abortions aren’t you?

        Please tell us what hurt your senses so much but allows you to overlook the misrepresentations (ahem, lies) in the editorial.

        Again I will ask you knowing not one member of the rucas posse has ever answered the question: Did you know Obama was lying when he made his claims when campaigning for Obamacare or do you just accept them after they came to light as necessary to get passage?

      • Crogged says:

        DanMan
        The ‘context’ of a poor Christian missionary, I mean the persecuted Christian multimillion dollar corporation wanting to pick and choose how it participates in the US economy doesn’t escape me. Does it tithe, does it wash the feet of all its customers, is it the lilly of all the companies marketing goods to home decorators? The President directly answered your question about your claims of ‘lying’ and you choose not to believe him.

      • John Galt says:

        “Did you know Obama was lying when he made his claims when campaigning for Obamacare”

        I pretty much assume that anything that comes out of the mouth of someone running for office is at least half lies, whether they are on the left, right, or middle. Most reasonable people do. Somehow, you are grossly offended when the left does it and pretend not to notice when the right does it. Or worse, you actually think that right-wing politicians aren’t lying, which is ludicrous. That makes you a hypocrite.

      • DanMan says:

        I didn’t catch the context of the first stuff you prattled on about but what was Obama’s answer? What is yours?

      • DanMan says:

        the biggest political lie of all time is reduced to flypusher’s analysis of ‘they all do it’.

        Okay, is that your answer? They all lie so it’s all good?

        That isn’t an answer, it’s a dodge. Your answer is actually the lies were necessary to achieve passage. That means you endorse the lie. You know what that makes you? Thanks for the tell.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, you don’t want to be free to chose how you participate in the economy? Want to be forced and to force others, even if it violates their religious beliefs? I hope the tea party movement can turn this around before the U.S. is brought down and turned into the socialist or communist nation you promote. Many have served and sacrificed for the freedom we enjoy, some made the ultimate sacrifice. Shameful that so many on the left would just throw all that away for a false sense of security and safety.

      • Crogged says:

        Dan
        Ok, it’s the ‘biggest political lie of all time’. You win. Insurance companies never changed their plans before Obamacare, no one ever didn’t change jobs and lose doctors they liked. Never.
        You win.
        Next.

      • John Galt says:

        The biggest political lie of all time? Oh, puhlease.

      • Crogged says:

        I am free, the insurance companies are not and I like it that way, I vote that way and always will. If you want to be a shill for insurance companies at least be smart enough to get paid for it.

      • DanMan says:

        Crogged, remember Nancy Pelosi’s line about having to pass the law to find out what’s in it? When did you learn that they folks that wrote the law had what was known as a ‘Risk Corridor” that opened the treasury to the insurance companies that were picked to participate getting solvency protection as they tried to get a handle on the machinations of the law? that Obama has changed so many times it guarantees they get bail outs? Why do you paint me as willing to shill for insurance companies when Obama has them covered? I had never heard of that scheme until about two months ago.

        Another question for the rucas posse; Do any of you guys ever deal in truth? flypusher, JG and Crogged are quite comfortable lying for lying’s sake. Is there any truth on the left?

      • Intrigue says:

        “In answer to your friend has cancer story; this is an anonymous blog. People can say anything about anything with no proof just to make a point. As an example: GG has said her neighbors use the N word quite often and they are all GOP, or other such nonsense. Whether true or not, personal anecdotes are not acceptable to be for the reason of being too convenient for an argument.”

        First, I would never make up a story about a friend or loved one dying or being sick. I use personal examples because I know they are true and relevant to the point I am trying to make. To you it doesn’t matter if it is a personal anecdote, a link, or an encyclopedia you are not going to believe it is true unless it validates your opinion. If you actually cared to debate you would debate the point not the example.

        Secondly, very few on here refrain from using personal anecdotes so if you believe this is unacceptable then maybe you should find another blog to shit all over.

      • DanMan says:

        well Intrigue sorry for your loss but as I’ve proven today quite a few members of the rucas posse don’t exactly deal in truth so I can accept Kabuzz’s skepticism as a practical defensive posture on this blog. If Kabuzz told us his friend died of breast cancer I would have no reason to doubt him as I am familiar with his banter over the years and pretty well know and appreciate his character as best as a forum such as this allows.

        I don’t recall seeing you before a couple of weeks ago and I certainly don’t know the circumstances of your original anguish but I can certainly agree any cancer is a very serious and completely indiscriminate task master when it comes to maintaining health and resolve.

      • CaptSternn says:

        So you are free and you will use your freedom to vote to deny others their freedoms. Only in doing so, you are actually voting away your own freedoms. It doesn’t bother you for now because you support this particular destruction of freedom for others and it doesn’t really affect you. You do understand that republicans will be in charge again, right? You have given them the power to dictate to and micromange you in every aspect of your life. Better hope it is the tea party backed republicans that win out because we won’t abuse that kind of power, and will instead work to undo as much as possible. Establishment republicans like Lifer are a different form of republicans.

      • Intrigue says:

        Dan I’m from the Chron.com boards. I’ve followed Chris’s blogs off and on for about 2 yrs. I honestly don’t care if Buzz believes anything I write but spreading lies about cancer detection just to discredit my point was the final straw that caused me to lose all respect for Buzz.

        If Buzz’s post claiming he was the innocent victim of wrong doing wasn’t so ridiculous, I probably wouldn’t have responded at all. Don’t worry no anguish here. Thank you for acknowledging the death of my friend and the seriousness of the disease.

      • DanMan says:

        All’s good Intrigued, Kabuzz sure doesn’t need me to defend his takes but don’t take these comments too personally, things can heated and that is the point for several posters here. Heck that’s the motive of our humble host even.

        I speak from experience in this regard. As you can see when you get caught telling a globally obvious truth it really burns some of these guys up since so many of their views are based on obvious global untruths. A personal fact unfortunately can burn you if you’re not careful.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “To you it doesn’t matter if it is a personal anecdote, a link, or an encyclopedia you are not going to believe it is true unless it validates your opinion. If you actually cared to debate you would debate the point not the example.”

        Intrigue, the leftists here question, doubt, reject and even call people liars over personal anectdotes. They reject scientific studies, scientific facts and findings and would rather attack the person or the studies or the scientists than discuss the example, point or facts. The left set the standard here, and pulled the rug out from under you. What goes around comes around.

        That being said, sorry about your friend.

      • DanMan says:

        another classic Sternism

      • bubbabobcat says:

        DanMan says:
        March 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm
        “another classic Sternism”

        Otherwise known as a totally fabricated delusional lie. My you’re quite obsequiously up a few butts today Danny. More than your usual. Feeling a little more insecure than normal today? What was that you prattled about being a follower or a leader? I guess you must have gotten a new nose ring to be led around with today.

      • GG says:

        Intrigue is well known from the old Chron board. I remember her well. There’s a few others I miss and I wish they would show up here. Anyone remember some guy who would make up personalities and post. I know it was the same guy. He should have his own show. One character was Pluto Swint, another was PimpDaddiesGirl, then there Nancyboi. They were hilarious and really good for lightening up the mood.

      • way2gosassy says:

        That just how he rolls Intrigue!

    • GG says:

      Seems you are the one obsessed Buzzy. You are constantly trying to engage. I realize I’m very attractive but I’m seeing someone right now.

      But I’m very busy at work right now so adios.

    • GG says:

      This remains to be seen. I don’t think it will last long.

      • GG says:

        In the wrong place. Should have been under “I will say this, I never come back with the name calling to other commenters unless they ‘shoot first’.

      • DanMan says:

        somebody tie a bell to GG so we can find her when she gets lost, this happens a lot

      • GG says:

        I bet you wouldn’t say that about Tutt’s misplaced comments which she often does along with some others would you, you suck up?

        Yip, yip, yip…..at their heels.

      • DanMan says:

        ding-a-ling,,,GG’s on the move

  24. Intrigue says:

    Chris, I don’t know how anyone could disagree with your assessment. Poverty is definitely cultural. Growing up in Michigan when the automobile plants were constantly struggling, we were used to the quarterly layoffs when my Dad would suddenly become our primary caregiver as my mom would return to her minimum wage job. This was considered normal and a necessity for the plants to survive. There was no shame in collecting unemployment or any other aid available to survive during these furloughs, it was a way life. As children, my sister and I never even considered ourselves an example of poverty. My parents however eventually got sick of this cycle and moved to Texas for better employment opportunities and they ended the cycle just like that.

    I still have family and friends living in this cycle of poverty waiting for someone to save them. Ironically, they are all politically conservative and convinced that the boogie man, ie minorities, lazy free loaders, or whoever else the GOP targets to be stealing from their benefits as the reason for their situation.

    Perhaps the solution is to promote programs that incentivize the poor out of their declining environments but the businesses who survive on this cycle would do everything in their power to prevent this from happening.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      First off, unemployment isn’t viewed by me as a handout. To collect, you first off have to be a working person who was terminated from employment by either a lay off or a non performance issue. The employer pays half of what you collect and the state matches. That is not welfare or a handout because 95% of those on unemployment benefits would rather and energetically search for another job to live up to the level they have been accustomed to. Your point about them being ‘conservative’ and unwilling to break the ‘cycle’, is disingenuous. All sides of the political spectrum have people who do not and will not leave their home area or state. Why? I don’t know, but they won’t.

      • Intrigue says:

        Kabuzz, I was just agreeing with Chris that poverty is cultural. It was and is still culturally acceptable to receive aid of any form in Michigan, not just unemployment. I do find it ironic that due to necessity they advocate for additional Government assistance but politically support a party that labels them as free loaders and constantly threatens to eliminate the programs that they rely on for survival.

  25. CaptSternn says:

    Ok, couldn’t resist one last post.

    Y’all have a good night.

  26. GG says:

    Did the avatars disappear or is it just my computer?

  27. kabuzz61 says:

    Thank you Obj. That is my point presented wonderfully and I dare say more friendly than I would have. I wouldn’t expect an answer to your question though. You see, if you are on the left, you can do or say just about anything and get a pass. Only the right is held to a higher standard.

    Bottom line, Sanger should not be bragged about. Her beliefs and others of her ilk were evil. In my estimation, the essence of evil. Who is she to determine who is fit to reproduce and who isn’t?

  28. objv says:

    Some words from Margaret Sanger on the subject:

    “Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.”

    “On its scientific side, Eugenics suggests the reestabilishment of the balance between the fertility of the “fit” and the “unfit.” The birth-rate among the normal and healthier and finer stocks of humanity, is to be increased by awakening among the “fit” the realization of the dangers of a lessened birth-rate in proportion to the reckless breeding among the “unfit.” By education, by persuasion, by appeals to racial ethics and religious motives, the ardent Eugenist hopes to increase the fertility of the “fit.” Professor Pearson thinks that it is especially necessary to awaken the hardiest stocks to this duty. These stocks, he says, are to be found chiefly among the skilled artisan class, the intelligent working class. Here is a fine combination of health and hardy vigor, of sound body and sound mind.”

    I decided to do a little research on Margaret Sanger after reading over some of the comments left previously. Downloading one of her works was a real eye opener. Although she advocated primarily birth control and a woman’s control over reproduction, her motivations seem to have been more mixed. Clearly, she believed that the “breeding” of inferior stock was to be avoided. She was part of the American eugenics movement which influenced the Nazi concept of the Nordic races being superior to all others. The objectives of members of this movement (many of our most prominent Americans) were to curb the reproduction of those deemed unfit or inferior and limit immigration to those of Northern European stock.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

    I realize that current supporters of Planned Parenthood do not have the same worldview as Margaret Sanger and that she was a product of her times, but I do wonder why so many here defend her when some of the views she espoused were clearly racist. In the last blog post, Lifer tied Tea Party members to certain belief systems. As a follower of the American eugenics movement, why is Margaret Sanger given a pass?

    • flypusher says:

      I think Sanger (along with quite a few other people, both left and right) was dead on wrong about eugenics. I also think she was dead on right about women having control over whether, when, and how many with regards to having children.

    • GG says:

      Because, as you said, she was a product of her times. Her inferior stock reference doesn’t necessarily mean she meant skin color though. Most whites until fairly recently were convinced they were superior to other races. Remember, back then they institutionalized the “feeble-minded” because they were convinced they were useless. We now know better.

      But she was spot on about birth control and women’s right to control their bodies.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      GG, back in those days, the upper and elite classes were well educated and very articulate. They knew what their words meant. Hitler believed the same thing, but since his engineers and scientists made huge leaps of accomplishment doesn’t discount his initial belief. She is as evil as he.

      • GG says:

        Yes, dear, I know they were well educated but they were still products of that time. Science has come along way since then and I think Hitler was much more evil considering he sent millions to the gas chambers. She merely rallied for women education on birth control. Very interesting woman actually.

      • CaptSternn says:

        So Hitler now gets a pass because he was just a product of his time? Wow. Oh, but he was evil because his policies and beliefs led to about 6 million people being slaughtered, but Sanger gets a pass because her beliefs and the organization she founded has led to the deaths of tens of millions, about 50 million in the past 40 years.

        Yes, back in the 1930s socialism was all then rage. Germany was held up as a model society. Socialism got put on hold when the reality was exposed, and nobody ever wants to talk about the 20 million killed under Stalin and his version. But some decades later and here we are again, more and more people promoting socialism.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        It’s incredible Captain isn’t it? Or ignorance. I will correct you on one thing, Hitler sent 13 million to their death. 6 million were Jews.

        Hitler and Dr. Mengele worked on the genetic level to remove inferior genes out of people (attempted) but also experimented on other races to find the ‘inferior’ gene. This is exactly what Sanger and others wanted to DO. Those thoughts and behaviors are much more than ‘popular at the time’, it was a belief. And like I said before, when Hitler was found out, all of a sudden the eugenics people went back into their closets to redo their resume’s. As if we would forget. But apparently, some fell for the redo and openly decided that killing children is a right.

        If you want a peek at the mind of a liberal just read Way2 and GG’s comments.

      • GG says:

        Cappy, we all know your stance on abortion. We will not change your mind and you will not change mine or others who support choice. I think millions of living human beings who have experienced joy, love, have had children, etc. being exterminated is much more heinous than aborting barely developed, non-born fetuses with no consciousness who may very well be born into a life of drudgery, abuse, etc. That was what Sanger wanted to prevent by educating women on birth control. She knew from experience. Her own mother went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49. Sanger was the sixth of eleven children.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Abortion is not a form of birth control, it is the deliberate killing of a living, innocent human being. Killing people because they may not grow up as happy as you think they should be is just wrong.

      • GG says:

        Yes, I’ve heard the argument.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Margaret Sanger was a product of her times and I do not believe she has been given a pass as you say. You might want to look at the beginning of the Eugenics movement in England 2 decades before she became involved. Well respected doctors and scientists of her time and before believed in “negative eugenics” infanticide and abortion of those they deemed unfit. She absolutely did not. She considered abortion and infanticide to be immoral and murder. She practiced what is referred to as “positive eugenics” by giving the women the right to control when and how many babies they would have by the use of birth control. Her fight for legal birth control was for women of all colors and social status. Was she racist? I don’t know, for her time I don’t think she was thought of as racist at least not anymore or less than the majority of Americans of that time. If she were alive today and still held the same beliefs then yes she would be considered racist. Was she responsible for the Holocaust? absolutely not. Hitler was an evil man who would have found an excuse to eliminate the Jews one way or another.

    • John Galt says:

      “I realize that current supporters of Planned Parenthood do not have the same worldview as Margaret Sanger and that she was a product of her times…”

      And so why did you post 500 (or so) words on the subject, which is totally irrelevant to the subject of this post? Do you have nothing to add to the topic at hand?

      Sanger was who she was. She has been dead for damn close to 50 years. As with all people who still matter a few decades on, she had some good points and some bad ones. Her organization, PP, today mostly seems to focus on the good points (in my opinion) of empowering women to control when, if, and how often they bear children. But if that’s not your cup of tea, then so be it.

      • objv says:

        JG: One of the constant themes of this blog has been that Southern, conservative, white men are influenced by the slave holders and and KKK members of the past. Up above, Chris discusses white, generational poverty. This stretches out further than the time where Margaret Sanger was alive, so I believe my point was applicable.

        Liberals are held to a different standard than conservatives when it come to past misdeeds. Many of the intelligentsia of Sanger’s day held views that were every bit as racist as Southerners in the days of the Confederacy. Since they believed Francis Galton’s theories that Nordic races were most evolved, other races were considered inferior and not worthy of passing their genes on to future generations.

        “Sanger’s writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. In one “What Every Girl Should Know” commentary, she observed that Aboriginal Australians were “just a step higher than the chimpanzee” with “little sexual control,” as compared to the “normal man and Woman.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

        As I noted in my post, I do not think that proponents of Planned Parenthood still hold the worldview of Sanger when it comes to eugenics. Neither do I think that current day conservatives and members of the tea party should be constantly compared to the the old style, Southern racists of the past.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Hitler had his good points and bad points according to JG. Hitler did make huge engineering strides especially in rockets and/or missiles, armaments, transportation, etc.

  29. kabuzz61 says:

    I have been banned? At least post a commenter has been banned. Gravitas? I think not.

  30. CaptSternn says:

    Banjo Belt? Is that a reference to Deliverance? I only saw that movie about a year ago. Once is enough.

    I know this entry is supposed to be satire and snark, and it is based on some reality. But there are several racist assumptions that it is based on. Believing that only blacks live in inner cities and are poor, and only whites live in rural areas you call the “Banjo Belt” are. Having recently (past couple of years) explored much of East Texas, it isn’t all made up of white people, or even poor white people. We haven’t really explored the back roads and small towns of Louisiana, and just barely visited Mississippi and Alabama, so I can’t really say what those places are like. There is a lot to be seen for people that get off the interstates and avoid tourist attractions.

    As others have pointed out, people that live in that type of culture may be poor, but they are proud and independent, both blacks and whites. It doesn’t just apply to your “Banjo Belt” either. Take a look at Alaska. A lot of people move there to live off the grid, in the wilderness, on their own. I imagine there are people like that in Colorado, Kentucky and many other places, even places outside the U.S..

    Yes, they sometimes do turn to drug manufacture and transport, but that is the fault of the federal government imposing prohibition. (I do like the refernce to NASCAR.) Weren’t we supposed to have learned the follies and costs of prohibition back in the 1920s? Even grade school kids are taught that it was a major mistake.

    Anyway, generational poverty and generational welfare are two separate matters. People that live in extreme rural areas or in the mountains can live off the land with little to no income. People living in inner cities cannot hunt, fish, forage and grow their own food or build their own shelter (unless you count cardboard boxes as building their own shelter and digging through garbage cans as foraging and gathering).

    In cases that Lifer (attempts) to bring to the public eye, the only thing we can really do is provide opportunity. And we do that by enforcing individual liberty and rights under a limited government.

    Ok, I am off the soap box. And now for something completely different …

    • Tuttabella says:

      Cool, but I kind of prefer Miles or Dizzy in a duel with Bird. :)

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok, no intent to have a flood of youtube videos (why can’t we post links without embedding the video?), but this one had me almost in tears. I post it, but Tutt is responsible :D

      • objv says:

        Hi Tuttabella, I saw your comment about Rilke. I’m glad you brought his writings to my attention. I don’t know how much I’ll be commenting here in the future. The vitriol is getting a bit much.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Cap, when you said you were almost in tears I expected a real tearjerker of a song, but I see now you meant happy tears. LOL!

      • Tuttabella says:

        OV, I don’t blame you for cutting down on your time spent posting here. I agree about the vitriol and don’t understand why it’s sometimes directed at you in such a way. Frankly, I find it painful to watch, but I don’t know what I can do to help besides just be here for moral support. You and I don’t always agree, but I consider you a friend.

      • objv says:

        Thank you, Tuttabella! You and I are at an advantage because we were involved in other discussions before we ended up posting on politics. :)

      • DanMan says:

        That is hilarious Capt! Is that the Trashmen?

    • bubbabobcat says:

      CaptSternn says:
      March 23, 2014 at 2:26 pm

      “I know this entry is supposed to be satire and snark, and it is based on some reality. But there are several racist assumptions that it is based on. Believing that only blacks live in inner cities and are poor…”

      Missed the mark again didn’t you Cappy? Let me dumb it down for you as apparently it was too “nuanced” for the right. Again. The satire is mocking Paul Ryan’s “racist assumptions” of exclusively “blacks living in inner cities and are poor…”

      Got it now Cappy?

      As for the White poor assumptions, what are YOUR stats on the number of Blacks living in Appalachia?

      And I noticed your deliberate hypocritical right wing blind side bias is showing again. Surprise. Not.

      You misread Chris’ satire and excoriate him for “racist assumptions” but yet, no response whatsoever to Danny the Divisive for this earlier firebomb just a little further down?

      “Come on, we know fewer young black and hispanic [sic] males work than whites. Let’s face it, in inner city neighborhoods throughout the country, where minorities typically make up the majority, there are no role models to influence them in a positive way.”

      Still waiting Cappy….

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Bubba, you missed the mark. Ryan never said anything about race. You made the assumption that poor inner city people are all black. Did I “dumb it down” enough for you now?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Still no rebuttal to Dan’s factually challenged hate rhetoric Cappy?

        Tuttabella is definitely your better half regarding honesty and consistency of principles on the boards at least.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Still no rebuttal to Lifer’s factually challenged hate rhetoric, Bubba?

    • goplifer says:

      It’s pretty infuriating when an entire race is tarred with bigoted assumptions isn’t it?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Lifer, you didn’t tar any race with bigoted assumptions, except for showing your own bigoted assumptions. Nor did Ryan, except through your own bigoted and racist assumptions.

        In other words, your attempt failed, and failed miserably.

        I see you are back to deleting comments. How long before you delete mine, or ban me? Petty and weak. I thought that was why you had open comments on the Chron.com, then moved here when the Chron.com changed.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cappy devolves to his final lowest common denominator response:

        “Nuh-uh”!

        And get off your persecution cross already. You really have some major insecurity/Munchausen’s faux victimization issues don’t you Cappy?

        Jeez wingnuts are seriously bipolar. They only have two modes: attack and whine.

      • GG says:

        Cappy, I doubt Chris will ban you. My opinion is Chris may have just gotten sick and tired of Buzzy’s antics. Don’t expect to insult your host and act like a toddler and not expect to be asked to leave.

      • CaptSternn says:

        But he invites it from people like Bubba, GG? Oh, right, he is not going after Lifer but conservatives or people that disagree with Lifer. There is another example of that sort of thing from the left.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html

        This quoted comment stands out the most, and fits in with Lifer’s new strategy. Guess we will see how far Lifer takes it …

        “He shouldn’t be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology.”

      • GG says:

        Cappy, don’t you take up for Buzzy because he’s a tp’er and shares your opinions? Oh, and Buzzy has never won a debate.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cappy you have a brain presumably? And it’s even sometimes used?

        WHOSE comment do you see posted right at the top of the comments PRIOR to ANOTHER of your incessantly tiresome fake persecution whines?

        Sometime I wonder if Cappy is a different type of pathetic troll that intentionally mangles facts, logic and basic intelligence just to invite a strong rebuttal to feed his pathetic need to whine and falsely proclaim he is under attack yet again.

      • CaptSternn says:

        GG, did I not just ask Kabuzz to leave the name-calling to the left?

        Bubba, go back to trolling Dan. You really have nothing at all to say to me.

      • GG says:

        Yes, but merely telling him that is not going to do anything.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Let me know when you at least try telling Lifer that. I won;t even sink to the level of comparing Kabuzz to the likes of Bubba or Rucas. Kabuzz says things I don’t like, but at least he makes a point rather than just troll and be hateful. Actually, maybe even comparing him to the likes of Lifer is an insult to Kabuzz.

        Kabuzz, I mean no offense, you say a lot I understand and agree with. I do understand how it can be down in the trenches. But try to keep your head above water. Let Bubba and Lifer sink to the bottom, even if Lifer is deleting your comments and threatening to ban you.

        It is a pathetic, shallow and weak person that would threaten to ban you and delete your comments unless you agree with him. If he does do such a thing, this blog will die. I am regretting even coming here. I stayed away for a while. Had we not propped up what you call the “echo chamber”, it might well have gone the way of TThor’s blog.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Truth hurts don’t it Cappy?

        What happened to your Libertarian “freedom of speech” Cappy? Typical of the right, it only applies to them and they want to restrict everyone else’s. Especially when that “other” constantly disproves the accuracy of your whines. I can say what I want to you as you to me. Especially when I’m right and you’re wrong.

        Now Cappy, how are you going to contort yourself to continue to whine that buzzy has been banned?

      • CaptSternn says:

        GG says: March 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm – “Yes, but merely telling him that is not going to do anything.”

        GG says: March 23, 2014 at 3:07 pm – “Bitch, bitch, bitch…..all you ever do.”

        You had that one coming.

        Yes, Tutt is most definately my better half. She wouldn’t have done that.

        Sternn out.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        March 23, 2014 at 4:30 pm
        “Bubba, go back to trolling Dan. You really have nothing at all to say to me.”

        CaptSternn says:
        March 23, 2014 at 4:47 pm
        “It is a pathetic, shallow and weak person that would threaten to ban you and delete your comments unless you agree with him.”

        But yet not 15 minutes prior you feebly attempt to control my freedom of speech.

        I can definitely say you are wrong Cappy. Again.

      • GG says:

        I think any point he tries to make is lost because of his misery and anger. As far as Chris deleting and banning it’s his blog and, quite frankly, Buzzy’s had it coming a long time. I’m surprised he still let’s Dan on. Besides Buzzy posted up top so I’m not sure if he’s banished or if Chris moderates his comments and deletes any that are just purely insulting and nothing else. He hasn’t banned you and I know he doesn’t agree with you so I’m assuming it’s Buzzy’s presentation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bubba, that didn’t make any sens at all. Bye for today.

      • GG says:

        GG says: March 23, 2014 at 3:07 pm – “Bitch, bitch, bitch…..all you ever do.”

        Yes, indeed all Buzz ever does is bitch and moan and so I told him so.

      • CaptSternn says:

        *ARGH!* Read Bubba’s comment, GG. Tell me how that passes.

        Ok, done, check back tomorrow and see how y’all validate any of that.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        March 23, 2014 at 4:59 pm
        “Bubba, that didn’t make any sens [sic] at all.”

        Now that is just way too easy so I’ll refrain from the obvious response and just let it stand.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You kind of do it once or twice a week Chris. Maybe not a race, but a belief system or ideological view. Bigots are bigots.

      • way2gosassy says:

        It’s even more frustrating when people totally misrepresent what they have read.

  31. texan5142 says:

    One of my cousins was poor like that. Found out at the funeral that as she lay dying of cancer, they did not have any heat that winter, could not afford it. I never new how bad they had it . This was in Livingston Texas.

    • texan5142 says:

      Wrong place , this was a reply to Tutt below.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Thanks, Texan. Cap and I often take road trips throughout East Texas, and we do see a lot of poverty, both Black and White. This often leads to discussions between us about how bad off these people truly are, whether we should even pity them, try to help them, or just leave them alone, how they may be content as they are, and would resent any interference. Maybe this is how your late cousin felt.

  32. DanMan says:

    Come on, we know fewer young black and hispanic males work than whites. And if you’re not working when you’re young what’s going to compel to change if you don’t have to as you get older? Let’s face it, in inner city neighborhoods throughout the country, where minorities typically make up the majority, there are no role models to influence them in a positive way.

    Half of all black kids live in single parent households. Go check the stats if you need a refresher but kids that don’t have the influence of a father in their lives are five times more likely to end up on a dead end in life’s path to prosperity. The facts show young blacks finish high school and have a job at half the rate their white counterparts do.

    Like Paul Ryan said “We have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

    • Tuttabella says:

      HT, have you hijacked Dan’s avatar? What with all this use of statistics to illustrate how minorities are destined to fail.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Speaking for the Hispanic community, I can tell you that Hispanic men in general are incredibly hard-working, with a good portion of them doing blue collar work. Even the bashers of illegals on the Chron admit as much.

      • Tuttabella says:

        My post about Hispanic men being hard workers was addressed to DAN, not HT.

      • GG says:

        When my mother had her house remodeled the contractor had all Hispanic workers who worked their butts off all day and only took a lunch break and were very cheerful. When her wood floor was laid the guys were white and took umpteen smoke breaks and took almost a week to finish. We figured the Hispanics would have knocked it out in a day.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Thank you again Tutt. I don’t know what disconnected leap in hateful logic it takes for people (yes YOU Danny) to determine that people who work long hours in exhausting heavy manual labor under dangerously oppressive weather conditions for slave labor subminimum wages 6-7 days a week, are characterized as “lazy”.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I believe Hispanic men work very hard, no doubt. Does that change my mind about them being illegal? No. One has nothing to do with the other.

        GG, why do you hate white people?

      • Tuttabella says:

        RESOLVED: Hispanic men are hard workers.

        Dan is hereby overruled.

      • GG says:

        Why would I hate white people Buzzy? Did I mention anywhere about hating white people? No, as usual, you are trying to start an argument based on nothing.

    • DanMan says:

      “Fewer young black and Latino men participate in the labor force compared to young white men. And all of this translates into higher unemployment rates and poverty rates as adults.”

      “In troubled neighborhoods all across this country — many of them heavily African-American — too few of our citizens have role models to guide them.”

      “We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households . . . We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school; and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”

      “We know young black men are twice as likely as young white men to be ‘disconnected’ — not in school, not working.”

      I expected to catch bubba and GG on this but am surprised so many fell for it. Those are Obama’s words that I paraphrased. And then added Paul Ryan’s direct quote to.show the similarity. Note Paul Ryan never mentioned race but was editorialized for over a week for his ‘dog-whistle’ while Obama has repeated his speech at least three times since 2008 and is considered a post racial healer of some kind.

      I have a whole lot of experience working with Hispanics and can attest they are extremely dedicated and hard working. I also agree with Kabuzz in that that is a totally different issue from illegality.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Dan – And I had accused HT of hijacking your avatar. Turns out it was Obama’s words. Cool experiment. I do continue to disagree about Hispanic men not being as active in the work force, even the young ones. I know they have a reputation for being remiss with their child support, but from what I’ve seen this is often used as a tool of revenge against the mom for daring to leave him, for petty reasons, not because he’s unemployed.

      • DanMan says:

        Tuttabella, the only reason Obama included Hispanics in his speech was to try to keep them on the same path the dems have taken blacks. The dem strategy is always divide and conquer and that is just another example.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Nice try Danny but you have your own right wing dog whistle semantics which now you disingenuously attempt to pin on Obama. Homie don’t play dat Danny. At least not without a pointy white hoodie.

        DanMan says:
        March 23, 2014 at 11:17 am
        “Come on, we know fewer young black and hispanic [sic] males work than whites.”

        is NOT

        ““Fewer young black and Latino men participate in the labor force compared to young white men. And all of this translates into higher unemployment rates and poverty rates as adults.”

        Distorted to the point that even Tuttabella called you on your racial hate and disdain for minorities.

        So despite your failed attempts at legitimizing your race hate, you still come across as a racist, hateful jerk. Except for your fellow racist, hateful jerks of course.

        But thanks for donning your favorite pointy white hoodie and playing. Not that we needed any of your blatant self identifications.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Dan, you bring up a good point about Hispanics and Blacks. As a Hispanic, I often feel a certain camaraderie with Blacks as fellow minorities, and because we’re often together on the receiving end of some people’s vitriol, but on the other hand, I do resent how we’re often lumped together, and how Black people’s shortcomings are assumed to be our shortcomings as well.

      • DanMan says:

        the words mean the same thing bubba, you distort them by casting aspersions on the one delivering them, keep digging as you always do

      • DanMan says:

        Tuttabella, if you want to see another phenomena of the race game in politics check out what’s happening in California right now. The Asian community votes predominantly democrat but they are agitating to eliminate new affirmative action laws being proposed to be put back into education. They realize it works against them.

        http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/03/13/16074/sca-5-asian-americans-affirmative-action/

        Education is also driving a wedge in some inner cities where democrats rule yet are doing all they can to limit school choices like charter schools and voucher programs. Its all about teacher’s unions and feeding the machine. Kids futures be damned.

  33. Tuttabella says:

    Tongue in cheek aside – there is a real problem here. Why doesn’t the progressive faction try to help poor whites, instead of just ridiculing them? It’s cool and fashionable to help Blacks and Hispanics, while under our noses a large segment of whites is being allowed to waste away. What’s up with that? These people may be the truly forgotten and marginalized. Seriously and earnestly.

    • flypusher says:

      ” These people may be the truly forgotten and marginalized. ”

      I agree, and I think that it’s everyone, across the political spectrum, who are ignoring poor whites. The notion of basing affirmative action on socio-economic status rather than race has been broached on this blog before, and it might be one of the few ideas that gets a thumbs up from everyone.

    • GG says:

      Tutt, part of the problem is they often refuse help. They are very proud. I believe that’s why so many turn to crime. It might be illegal and immoral but they aren’t taking charity in their minds. Some live in places that are very remote and difficult to find let alone get to. I’m not even sure if they report births and deaths. I think some of them quite possibly live completely off the grid.

    • rightonrush says:

      Some fear change Tutt. In the Appalachian area coal is/was king. The coal companies interest is to exploit them and keep them poor. One of my daughter’s-in-law did volunteer work in that area while in college. She spent the Summer teaching just basic hygiene to the ladies and their children. She said it would break your heart.

      • rightonrush says:

        Buzz is out of the litter box trying to be relevant again I see.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Rush, I’ve been thinking a lot lately of maybe eventually retiring to East Texas, and I have considered getting involved in education while there, either paid or volunteer.

    • goplifer says:

      Poor whites receive government assistance at a much higher rate than poor minority populations. “Progressives” are already helping poor whites at a higher rate than minorities.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Maybe so, but further evidence that perhaps government welfare is not the answer, much less a minimum income. I would still advocate a minimum, vocational education, setting examples, role models, etc, but respecting their privacy and autonomy., not overly intrusive. As GG points out, they are a proud people.

      • goplifer says:

        We may be driving past the point here. The point is that racial/cultural explanations of poverty tend to very quickly descend into ignorance and outright bigotry. Whatever remedy seems appropriate, it’s important that the solutions be disentangled from misleading assumptions about who “they” are.

      • flypusher says:

        Remember the movie “Trading Places”? Granted it was meant primarily as a comedy, but I thought it did make a very good point about how both cultures of privilege and poverty perpetuate and reinforce themselves. Throw in racial assumptions and it’s even more etched in stone. I think it’s bad (in different ways) for both poor blacks and poor whites that so many wrong assumptions are made about who is mired in poverty.

      • GG says:

        Love that movie fly.

      • Tuttabella says:

        By the way, I used the word “progressive” because the word “liberal” has become such a cliche around here, and an insult, and my point is not to insult anyone. In any case, “progressive” is more appropriate, a nice, general term covering liberals and moderates, and semantically the opposite of “conservative”

      • Tuttabella says:

        Lifer, I understood the point of your post, and I did go off on a tangent by focusing on the poverty of these White communities, which is very real, but at the same time, I was pointing out that there is also a lot of denigrating of these people – maybe not racism, but a definite snobbishness and a classicism, and even ridicule. It seems to be human nature to want to be superior to someone, to ANYONE.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Seriously and earnestly Tutt, with the caveat that this is just my opinion, this what I think has happened to alot of these folks.

      We are talking about what Chris calls the Banjo Belt, these are areas of the south that are mostly Republican, ( not necessarily a bad thing ) but the mantra of southern Republicans is that if you are poor it’s your own fault and you need to take “personal responsibility” for your lives and climb out on your own!

      Most of these people already receive Welfare, food stamps and other forms of assistance. Part of the problem in reaching these people lies in the fact that they live in very remote areas not always accessible by conventional means. Many in the Kentucky and Tennessee mountain areas prefer their life styles, living off the land, running moonshine and growing pot. Many of them are uneducated and have been for generations.

      Somewhere in this thread both ROR and Fly posted links to an organization that helicopters in to provide medical care for these folks. They are not forgotten but they have been marginalized but mostly by themselves.

      Anecdotally, I have a cousin who lives near there and volunteers some of her time as a nurse and home healthcare specialist for RAM. She also volunteers every week in her churches food pantry. Part of what they do is to help fill the gaps from the food stamp programs and to provide these people a safe and non judgemental place to talk about their needs. Some of the stories these people share are heartbreaking.

      It isn’t that progressives are not interested in helping, they are helping, but many times they are stonewalled by politics.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Thanks, Sassy. I said “seriously and earnestly” because Lifer’s article was tongue-in-cheek, and I wanted to point out that my post was not a continuation of his satire.

  34. DanMan says:

    Great article. I think you should write more comedy like this.

    I saw an interesting comment yesterday but I don’t remember who made it. He said the US has the 3rd highest murder rate in the developed world. But if you took out Chicago, New Orleans, DC and Philly we drop to one of the lowest.

    Besides having some of the most restrictive gun policies and decades of liberal democrat governance I wonder why this is the case?

    • John Galt says:

      As with many things you’ve heard, this is utterly wrong. New Orleans and Detroit do have a high murder rate (the two worst in the US for large cities), but they are relatively small cities these days. New York’s murder rate is half that of Houston. The US murder rate overall is 4-10 times higher than countries of Western Europe, Australia or Japan. Heck, our murder rate is higher than such garden spots like Romania, Mozambique and Cambodia.

  35. GG says:

    Shelby Lee Adams has a whole series of portraits of Appalachian mountain people capturing the dreariness and grinding poverty of their lives as well as joy. Great photographs.

    http://shelby-lee-adams-napier.blogspot.com/

    The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia is a documentary which followed the White family for one year and I highly recommend it.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1396227/

    When I lived in DC I remember driving through parts of West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee that were what I’d have to call creepy. More so than Jasper, TX and that area. Dilapidated shacks literally clinging to the sides of mountains and big pots boiling over fires in front. It was like stepping back in time to the 1800’s. Very poor and depressing but the mountains are eerily beautiful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

GOPLifer

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

FiveThirtyEight » Features | FiveThirtyEight

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Anthony Bourdain

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Hip Hop Republican

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

The Big Picture

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: