Bill Cosby Is Right, Again
Acton.org | Anthony B. Bradley | October 24, 2007
Bill Cosby’s status as sage is confirmed by the release of his new book, co-authored with Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School, Come On People: On The Path From Victims to Victors. Cosby and Poussaint remind us that black America’s hope for escape from abysmal self-destruction is moral formation — not government programs or blaming white people.
This book will arouse needed controversy as it challenges the victim mentality often promulgated by men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson, and other black liberal elites. Cosby and Poussaint are direct, candid, and engender a spirit of urgency. We need to put silly racial politics aside and concentrate on the real reasons that black America is hemorrhaging.
Cosby and Poussaint open with the $64,000 question: “What’s Going On With Black Men?” Without strong black men, they argue, the black community will continue to decompose. In 1950, five out of every six black children were born into a two-parent family and today that number is less than two out of six. Irresponsible men and fatherlessness have destroyed for many of us any hope of achieving Dr. King’s dream. White people do not make black men father children outside of marriage.
“A house without a father is a challenge. A neighborhood without fathers is a catastrophe,” the authors note. Most black boys are never morally formed into manhood by virtuous men and many end up in jail because of it. Ninety-four percent of all blacks are murdered are killed by other blacks. For many blacks, a Klu Klux Klan rally is a safer place than their own neighborhoods.
. . . more
Wednesday 24 Oct 2007 | Blog-Editor | Culture war, Family |
I love Bill Cosby and hope more of us ((Black people)) will start listening to him and folk like him. We’ve been telling ourselves it’s someone else’s fault for so long, we actually believe it and embrace being victims instead of standing on our own two feet and making things better.
Strength of families, spiritual and practical
I once worked for a very successful trial attorney who was third-generation Italian-American. We’ll call him “Fred.” He never missed Sunday dinner with his extended family at his grandmother’s home. There he met with aunts, uncles, cousins, neices and nephews on a regular basis. This simple family tradition had been kept up for decades.
This extended family created a network of people who helped each other in both large and small matters. A younger member of the family who was a qualified plumber would help an older aunt with home repairs. Fred provided encouragement and practical coaching to younger members of the family who were participating in a debate team competition. Family members who were ill were taken to doctor’s appointments by various nieces and nephews.
The first generation of this family arrived in the U.S. with virtually nothing and spent many decades working in strip mines. The second generation benefited from free public education in the elementary and secondary schools and low-cost public education in college. At all times there was “more love than money.” Every family member was expected to get a job as soon as possible. High school students were expected to have a paper route or to work part-time as a grocery sacker.
The core of the family structure was faith and a life-long marriages. Fred is a member of the Roman Catholic faith and his family took the teaching of the church with respect to marriage seriously. Divorce was not an option, things would have to be worked out somehow, and the couple would stay together.
Stable married couples provided stable homes for children. Married couples stayed connected with extended members of the family and every family member helped every other family member in any way that they could.
Not too surprisingly, the third-generation of this family contained a number of notable individuals who attained success in a variety of fields. They still had one thing in common, they all went to grandmother’s for Sunday dinner.
Somebody once said that they would rather than 100 friends than 100 dollars. So too, it is better to be connected with a network of 100 family members than to win a lottery.
Stable marriages and solid family ties are the foundation of individual and group success. It requires commitment, staying-power and faith, but, the “strategy” has provided solid and enduring success for wave after wave of Americans.
Cosby is right. All American families need to be strengthened and honored. We have a rebuilding process here. Our culture has engaged in an orgy of ridicule of the nuclear family and of life-long bonds, it is time to change that pernicious tune.
If we want to strengthen families let’s not forget the economic component. Men are more likely to marry when they have jobs and an income adequete to support a small family. They are more likely to get jobs when they have an education, skills, and access to jobs.
Efforts to improve education in lower income areas through better funding of public education, and charter schools and vouchers where neccesary, should be increased. Teachers who take jobs in lower income areas should be paid higher wages. Government should designate lower-income areas with concentrations of poverty as economic opportunity zones and provide tax incentives for businesses to locate there.
A great deal of poverty was eliminated during World War II as millions of Americans were put to work in defense factories and shipyards. Instead of throwing billions down the rathole in Iraq, we should be funding public works projects at home that would provide jobs to the unemployed and underemployed. We can also support families by legally requiring that workers be paid a living wage, so that parents don’t have to work two and three jobs to get by, but have time to spend with their children.
I’m not saying that economic factors are the sole reason for the breakdown of the family. Culutral mores and religious beliefs obviously play a strong role as well. However, difficult economic conditions place a tremendous strain on families, and inhibit the development of new families. To the extent we can mititate these difficulties we will be encouraging the family development that Bill Cosby describes.
Note 3, Dean, family strongs are substitues for material wealth as a strategy for solid success
Again, your economics determinism shows. When Fred’s Italian grandparents reached America they had NO MONEY. They had their Christian faith and Christian standards of conduct. The second generation didn’t have much money because they were the sons and daughters of strip miners.
The second generation married and stay married because 1) they saw that their parents did so 2) their Faith taught them that this was the proper way to live. The second generation didn’t have much money and the men married anyway.
The entire point of the post is how family is a substitute for economic wealth and can be a strategy for solid, legitimate success.
Blacks, any ethnic group, any group of people can use this strategy for success. Hard work, strong marriages, family cohesiveness— all these things are building blocks to success in America.
Greeks, Italians, Poles and many other SUCCESSFUL ethnic groups have used these strategies.
Give money to a broken, disfunctional family and all you get a rappers.
Re: #4
What he said. My grandfather was a grown man in the 30s. He was a black man from the rural south with a 7th grade education. Not only did he not get any help from the government but he didn’t want any. He put my mom through school by using his talents to get jobs, not waste time and blame the man. During the 40s and 50s he was a chef that “exclusive” country clubs across the nation asked to come and fix their kitchens; my grandmother went with him and would take charge of their housekeeping help. Through their “manual labor for the man”, not only did my mom get a first class education but she also had opportunities to associate with the Firestone kids, the Carnegie kids and folks of that ilk. Had my grandfather been sitting at home waiting for Uncle Sam to make things better, I would not be where I am today.
Hence my resentment of the very idea that black people “can’t” without help from the government.
Note 3, Dean, Money is not the answer, learn from Marva Collins
The school system of Washington D.C. is awash with money. The spending per child is one of the highest in the nation. The schools are a disgrace as a resulst of the leadership of the Democrat party for 40 years. Students with deficient academic skills are socially promoted and disruptive students are treated as victims and not disciplined. It is an unholy mess and the true victim are the students who come ready to learn. THERE IS NO LACK OF MONEY. There is a lack of willingness to actually teach, to discipline and to guide children firmly in the path of correct conduct.
By way of contrast, look at Marva Collins who took low-income youngsters and turned them into Shakepearan scholars using a blackboard, some chalk and a tremendous amount of discipline.
Ms. Collins, a brilliant black teacher, left the Chicago schools because she could not teach there. Her students adore her, they also stand when she enters the room, wear uniforms and address each other a Mr. and Miss. It isn’t about money, it is about culture.
I would rather send my child to ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL in Lindsborg, Kansas than ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL in Washington, D.C. Lindsborg is so small and isolated that they never abandoned the sound teaching techniques that stood America so well through so many waves of immigrants.
I would rather send my child to a classroom run by Marva Collins than any public school anywhere.
MONEY IS NOT THE PROBLEM. MONEY IS NOT THE ANSWER
Information about Marva Collins:
http://www.marvacollins.com/biography.html
If you check the web you will see that her books emphasize the task of forming a child’s character, values and conduct. She also emphasizes the value of strong families. Nothing, repeat, nothing about throwing money at a problem.
Dean, St. Paul says that love of money is the root of all evil. Your econcomic determinism is a form of love of money. It turns money into an idol. As a consequence it both dehumanizes and desacralizes. At the same time you decry “greedy capitalists”.
The Gospel is in direct opposition to economic determinism “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God…” As described in The Episitle of Diognetus circa A.D. 200:
Blacks or Afro-Americans if you prefer, survived and built a sub-culture founded on a martyric Christianity, families and community. The most effective tool “the man” found to disable what had been built was state money controled to create and maintain dependency, just as it was with respect to American Indian tribes in the 19th century. (Read: The End of Indian Kansas).
It has been the capitalization of these cultures that sapped the life, humanity and faith from them so that “the man” could do with them what he willed with the help of the collaborators within. What was created in the process was a sterotype machine that disabled and emasculated the men in both cultures and protrayed the people as without virtue, morals or ability to make it in “the white world”.
I recommend the works of Albert Rabateau, Fr. Paisius Atschul, and a little book called “An Unbroken Circle”.
“How small, of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws and kings can cause or cure”
Dr. Johnson quoted by Richard Neuhaus
If you actually read my comment in number #3, I said that economic strains were only one “component” among many that inhibit family development and weaken established families. In my last paragraph I acknowleged the importance of “cultural mores and religious beliefs”.
I’m sorry, Michael but your comment seems impractical and divorced from reality. How can we on one hand we wag our finger and tell middle-class men and women to spend more time with their children, then on the other hand oppose the type of laws and programs that would actually make that practically possible.
Can you not see that most middle-class familes are now required to have both parents working, or one parent working two jobs, in order to make ends meet? That is because of wage stagnation, the rising cost of health insurance and crushing medical bills, the rising cost of college tuition, the rising cost of gasoline, and now, the rising of food as grocery prices reflect the higher truck transportation costs and record high commodity prices.
Serious people base their opinions on fact and empirical data rather than hearsay and predjudice. Let’s examine the Census data.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0204yates.htm#3
Another finding:
My Priest in his sermon this morning reminded us that we should not “confuse self-worth with net worth.” As Christians we should be the last people to champion an ideology that does that.
There are a lot of people making mediocre salaries doing very useful jobs, such as teaching schoolchildren, and some people making obscene amounts of money from activities of dubious utility such as selling securities backed by fraudulent subprime mortgages to pension funds and other unwitting investors. To suggest that the higher paid person is automatically the better person and that his success is based entirely on his own instrinsic value is wildly incorrect.
The only measure of individual worth that matters to a Christian is the proportion of our hearts that is filled with God’s love. As we act as agents of God’s love and assist others our only concern should be to use the most expedient and effective means possible to achieve our end, whether the means be personal action, private charity, or the power annd resources of government. We cannot let ideology place contraints on our ability to help others.
Dean, I said nothing at all even remotely close to what you state. What you read into my statement seems to me more a reflection of your own unwillingness to consider the non-economic components as primary. How you could ever believe from my post and the several hunderd more that you’ve had access to over the years that I would ever champion a cause that confuses self-worth with net-worth it a perfect example of why I say I do not understand how you think. Evidently, you return the favor.
To suggest that the higher paid person is automatically the better person and that his success is based entirely on his own instrinsic value is wildly incorrect.
Who suggested that? No one thus far.
In the current system, folk are rewarded for what is essentially a moral problem ((consistently producing children out of wedlock)) and penalized for doing the right thing ((marrying and having a working father in the home)) by the government in order to get the check they need. It isn’t a “cultural” thing to produce baby after baby with various different people. That’s just immorality.
Top that with a bunch of people telling these same people just how much they can’t do, patting them on the head and telling them how much better off they are this way and, voila! Slavery all over again but this time we don’t have to do anything to earn it.
That’s not “helpful”.
Dean S., the reason families can’t keep up is mostly due to gov’t over-regulation and over-taxation. The cost of living has only been rising at the going inflation rate. While gov’t and state regulations and taxes have continued to go higher and higher in number: federal, state, city, county tax, sales tax, gas tax, property tax, electricity tax, water tax, phone tax, cable tax, airport tax, sewer tax, tolls, bonds on this, bonds on that, etc. etc. etc.. That’s the HUGE burden that forces both parents to work.
Chris, I don’t know if you’ve ever thought about it. I’ve never been able to really clearly articulate it, but I’ve long felt that there is a malformation in the job description/pay scale that feeds into the overwhelming feeling that people have that it is necessary for both parents to work. I must also mention the attitude toward accumulating things vs caring for people that tends to form the thoughts and actions of many young families today.
When my wife and I made the decision for her not to work outside the home, we sat down and did a simply cost/benefit analysis of the jobs she was likely to get. At that time (25 years ago) she would have had to earn the equivalent of $9.00/hour just for us to break even. In Wichita Kansas in office manager, executive assistant type positiions even in the major companies at the time that was highly unlikely.
It really hasn’t changed a whole lot since, except the break-even salary has gotten higher while the wage scales have not changed that much.
I believe there was a time when employers took into account the necessity for one wage to support a family. Now, in many cases, they no longer do. They simply assume that families are dual earners. What do you think?
Dean, do you have any idea what I mean by the phrase “capitalization of these cultures” that I used in my note #8?
Mr. Scourtes #3 and #10:
You might consider that the American family remained strong through the 1930s. People still married and had kids - a lot of kids, in fact, by today’s standards. Many, like my grandparents, had cabbage soup or some other lean meal every day for years on end, and just two outfits - one for church and one for everything else. Add to this the perceived insult of economic inequality that you care about so much - there were some rich folks who lived very well at the same time. But the strength of the American family was never, ever in doubt.
So how have today’s comparatively benign economic conditions contributed to the weakening of the American family?
The only way they have contributed at all is that a couple generations of Americans were raised with an unprecedented level of prosperity. Americans became used to ever-increasing levels of material wealth in the decades following WWII. Now, with the entry of women into the workforce (not necessarily a bad thing), rapid globalization, and uncontrolled immigration subsidized by American taxpayers, the labor supply has increased greatly resulting in the wage stagnation you note. This is partly why we worry so much that the next generation (including me) won’t see the same wealth as the baby boomers.
Sure, the rich have benefitted disproportionately. What would you expect, as business owners and shareholders gain the most from the increased labor supply? But this is immaterial to the situation faced by most Americans.
Let’s be clear. The typical American knows nothing like the poverty that was common in the 1930’s, yet the nuclear family is in trouble. So how is it that you think the economy has been detremental to the family?
Truth be told, most Americans are addicted to stuff. They want nice cars, nice electronic toys, big screen televisions, cable/sattelite TV, fancy cell phones, etc. We have come to the point in which Americans will either put off marriage and family to attain material wealth, or go into deep debt (something that does put strain on families) to buy the worthless junk that they want so badly, or both. Although this is tangentially related to the expansion of the labor pool as noted above, it has a lot more to do with allowing ourselves to be spoiled and would not be a common phenomenon if people had kept the American ethic and the Christian faith.
In my opinion, the solution is not to soak the rich, or even to fix the economy. In fact, I would bet that if the typical American today had 20% more income (whether it came from better wage growth or by taxing the rich and giving the credits straight to the lower and middle classes), he would just spend 25% more as a result. Would you bet against this? The root cause of the breakdown of the family is spiritual in nature.
Beware the “poverty pushers”
People who make a living handing out government benefits need a constituency. They need to have a great deal of poor people to minister to. Two of the most common intellectual tricks employed are comparisons of wealth or income distribution AND the “poverty rate.”
Comparison of income or wealth distribution.
America has some of the richest people in the world because we attract entrepreneurs. Andy Groves is an immigrant who built Intel, he is very, very rich. I am glad he is here and I don’t mind the fact that he is 10,000 times richer than I am. I am a middle American in income but I am fabulously wealthy by any honest historical standard. I am wealthier than Louis XVI “The Sun King.” so are all Middle Americans with me.
Are not envy and covetousness sins? If we have food, shelter and health-care and have enough to live a decent life, should we be hunting down those wealthier than us? Can anyone suggest that Andy Grove used illicit means to grow rich? Weren’t millions of people delighted to be able to purchase high-quality Intel products? Wasn’t the overall productivity and wealth of our country increased because America is the home of Intel? Is it Christian to demonize a brilliant man who enrich America through his genius? O.K. he owns original Picasso’s and I do not, but I have enough.
The Poverty Rate
An excerpt from a study of the “measures of poverty”
Source: House Ways and Means Committee
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=5597
Remember this when the huckster John Edwards talks about 37 million people in poverty. It is a scam.
Dean, before you go off on a self-righteous post, no one here suggests that Christians in particular and Americans should deny the existence of real poverty or ignore the needs of the less fortunate. However, Americans have every right to question the value of statistics thrown out by politicians like Edwards. Edwards is the supreme hypocrite as he has earned a great deal of his wealth evading social security taxes in his personal corporation and through hedge funds with questionable ethics.
These statistics are used to condemn America’s fundamental character and the economic system which has brought prosperity to an unprecedented number and porportion of people. Beware the scam.
D. George: I don’t disagree that cultural factors and religious factors play a strong and critical role in the strength or weakness of the families. Dan Quayle was right - children growing up in single-parent families are at a great disadvantage and all the empirical data affirms that.
Bill Cosby’s major argument that African-Americans need to replace an attitude of victimization with with an ethic of responsibility is largely correct. In the movie “Glory”, about African-American Union soldiers in the Civil war, Morgan Freeman growls at his comrades that it’s time for them to “ante up and kick in like men. Like Men!”
I am afraid I cannot share you simplistic, “blame the victim” economic views and cannot agree with you that growing economic inequality in not material. When there are people in the lower classes trying to do the right thing, working, going to school, buying homes, we should support efforts by our government to give them a hand up. Why shouldn’t we spend more to improve our schools and health system, put more police on the street to keep communities safe, spend more money repairing our crumbling infrastructure with projects that create new jobs, and help middle-aged workers impacted by outsourcing with job retraining and insurance?
Unfortunately, we are are shortchanging investment in our families, communities and nation’s future because our political leaders have other priorities. Growing inequality is symptomatic of an illness and corruption within our political system. Wealth and income are being concentrated in greater amounts among the very rich because we have an uneven economic playing field. Legislators from both parties depend on contributions from wealthy contributors to get elected, and consequently have written our nation’s laws to direct more and more wealth towards the rich in the form of corporate welfare, earmarks and tax breaks.
The ability of agri-business and defense contractors, especially, to gorge themselves at the public trough is virtually unchallenged. Why is Halliburton able to defraud US taxpayers for billions of dollars and get away with it? The State Department revealed last week that it had one person to oversee billions of dollars in private contracts in Iraq and that one person was unable to say how the money had been spent. Why are we continuing to pay billions in crop subsidies to agri-business when corn and wheat prices are at a record highs? If you are an ordinary citizen the war in Iraq seems like a ghastly mistake, but if you are part of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against, the war in Iraq is a tremendous opportunity to make lucrative connections and profits.
As the article I referenced in #10 states, growing economic inequality in associated with indicators of poorer social well being across the board. Where there is greater inequality there is poorer educational performance, and more crime, disease, addiction and socially undesirable behavior. Frank Capra provided a good depiction of the consequences of economic inequality in his movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”, when he contrasts the happy, neighborly town of Bedford Falls, where George Bailey foregoes profit in order to put families in homes, with the mean-spirited dystopia of Pottersville under the acendancy of the greedy old Republican curmudgeon, Mr. Potter.
Kansas City spent $2 billion and its teachers picket City Hall because they fear for their safety
Money is no longer an issue. See Marva Collins. The State of Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri spent over $2 billion dollars upgrading the physical plant of the Kansas City School District in the 1980’s. This was good and was needed, that effort was completed long ago. The buildings are just great. The School District has been lead by a majority Black School Board and Black superintendents for more than 40 years.
Just recently Kansas City School District school teachers picketed the School Board headquarters because they, the teachers, were unsafe in their own classroom from assaults from students.
These students have been raised in a “rap culture.” They believe that studying hard is “acting white.” They believe that steady daily hard work is for chumps. Life-long marriage and faithful fatherhood is something that only a very small percentage of the children have even seen close up.
Our schools do not discipline unruly students for fear of lawsuits from the students and parents. Unruly students are not removed from classrooms and teachers can’t teach because they are glorified juvenile detention officers.
Police officers arrest criminals in the inner city and the Courts let them off on probation. Reverand Sharpton tells young black men that their crimes make them victims. Businesses don’t want to locate in the inner city because criminals are not locked up and put away for good.
Everyone knows that inner city Kansas City is simply not safe after night which hurts the decent, law-abiding poor more than anyone because they have no place to go to get away.
If I were a parent I would do whatever I needed to do to get away from those dysfunctional neighborhoods and the dysfunctional school system.
Here’s your problem Dean S, your heart’s in the right place but you keep providing the same ** failed ** solutions over and over and over again to “help” the people: “When there are people in the lower classes trying to do the right thing, working, going to school, buying homes, we should support efforts by our government to give them a hand up.” That simply does not work as effectively and fairly as reducing the tax and regulatory burden on them. That’s how you help them best. Not with a hand out, but by ethically and fairly allowing them to keep more of their own hard-earned money and spending it where they think it best.
Note 18, Hand-outs consistently reward dysfunction
Dean argues that when people are doing the right thing we should reward them. A reward is differential positive treatment. I agreee but what Dean doesn’t acknowledge is that government programs consistently reward dysfunctional behavior.
Marriage. We don’t treat life-long marriage with respect and we don’t reward it. We discourage life-long marriage by making divorce a trivial matter. Anyone in America today can obtain divorce “on demand” for no reason whatsoever. Pseudo-marriages such as “gay marriage” an oxymoron if there ever was one are on the cusp of being given equal treatment. Co-habitation carries no social stigma
Fatherhood. Families with fathers at home do not qualify for Aid to Dependent Children. Welfare is maximized when fathers leave the home.
Legitimacy. In Missouri, I know of a young couple (white by the way) who chose to remain unmarried so that the young child would qualify for health insurance for children. This is shocking but true. The families of these two youngsters could easily have raised the minimal funds necessary to provide health insurance for the child. it was not done, it was considered “smart” to arrange things so that the government paid for the insurance.
Legitimacy. Unwed motherhood has been “mainstreamed” into American schools in all neighborhoods. It is politically incorrect to ask that young girls and boys who become parents outside marriage suffer some form of penalty or social sanction. Again, they are treated as appropriate objects of compassion as if their problems were not of their making. There is no social benefit to legitimacy because they is no social sanction for illegitimacy.
Unwed parents should be sent to special schools and separated from the general population. They should be given a solid academic and practial education but perks like proms, homecoming dances and cheerleading should be omitted. Academically related clubs should be allowed such as science clubs and debate. The presence of pregnant girls and unwed boys in schools send a powerful message that getting pregnant out of wedlock is “no big deal.” Parents of children in these schools should be required to contribute in some signifcant way, if not money then by volunteering something practical. Children in the lower grades see this and draw the appropriate conclusions. We need to stop sending that message. It is a big deal.
Crime. Crime is not punished as a moral failing. In the inner city those who do not commit crimes are seen as naive fools and dupes for taking the more difficult road.
Unabashed Communist Tom Hayden actually proposed that juvenile criminals, even those with violent crime records, be given “leadership grants” and fund to open “community centers.” I am not kidding. This was actually done. The young juvenile offenders turned the “community center” into gang club houses. Tom Hayden had no program to reward good students just the criminals, because in his mind the criminals are victims and society is the perpetrator.
Chris, I don’t know if you’ve ever thought about it. I’ve never been able
to really clearly articulate it, but I’ve long felt that there is a
malformation in the job description/pay scale that feeds into the overwhelming
feeling that people have that it is necessary for both parents to work. I
must also mention the attitude toward accumulating things vs caring for
people that tends to form the thoughts and actions of many young families
today.
When my wife and I made the decision for her not to work outside the home,
we sat down and did a simply cost/benefit analysis of the jobs she was
likely to get. At that time (25 years ago) she would have had to earn the
equivalent of $9.00/hour just for us to break even. In Wichita Kansas in
office manager, executive assistant type positiions even in the major
companies at the time that was highly unlikely.
It really hasn’t changed a whole lot since, except the break-even salary
has gotten higher while the wage scales have not changed that much.
I believe there was a time when employers took into account the necessity
for one wage to support a family. Now, in many cases, they no longer do.
They simply assume that families are dual earners. What do you think?
Michael, re: Note 22, You raise a valid point regarding the value of wages in many areas of our economy. I don’t think there is a perfect solution no matter how you look at it. Freedom and a capitalistic system comes with a price and there is a lot of risk and inequality out there. The key issue is who should decide? The “nanny state” communist and leftist idealists always say that a very tiny group of career politicians and bureaucrats should decide. I completely disagree! Having lived through the communist holocaust and seen the horrors and inequities that created, I experienced first hand what happens when power is concentrated in a group of unaccountable, unethical, power hungry, and immoral individuals. The people should decide.
I do believe that our country’s failure to deal with the tsunami of illegal immigration is probably mostly to blame for the wage stagnation. I also believe that abuses of the outsourcing mentality by companies who only consider the short-term “costs savings” and fail to see the problems that causes to customer support, employee loyalty and productivity, and competitive advantages and the affect on the long-term value of the business, has also contributed to the problem you mentioned.
This is where our gov’t has failed in its duties to insure an ethical and level playing field for all companies (no special rules, tax breaks, and special legislation for visas) and allowed the unproductive and mismanaged ones to avoid accountability. Gov’t has also failed miserably to protect the legal immigrants and citizens of this country by allowing tens of millions of illegals to flood the culture encroaching on our wages and rewarding, once again, the lazy and complacent industries who benefited from this and failed to innovate themselves into the modern world. In effect our gov’t has allowed many companies to escape the consequences of competition and the free market. This in turn has depressed wages across the economy and created problems for all Americans.
The only role the gov’t should play with respect to this is to enforce the rule of law and punish those companies and individuals who abuse, cheat, lie and steal, while ensuring that the hard-working, ethical, productive, and responsible individuals and companies are rewarded and given as much freedom as possible.
Chris - Unfortunately there is no other way to harvest a field of strawberries or lettuce except by manual labor involving a lot of bending and stooping, and that is a job very few US citizens seem willing to take on. Likewise, in the prairie states undocumented immigrants are providing labor in areas that have experienced population declines.
I was at a Townhall meeting with my Congressman, Dan Lundgren (R-CA-3rd) last August. A large group of men from the local Farm Bureau lined the back of our city council chambers and their spokesman pleaded with Lundgren to drop his immigrant-bashing rhetoric and work on a guest-worker program. If not, they said they would all soon be out of business from lack of labor. Lundgren sheepishly replied that he supported 10-month temporary visas for farm workers, but a dairy farmer replied that his cows needed to be milked all 12-months of the year.
Can you cite any scientifically rigorous economic studies that actually found that the presence of undocumented immigrants depressed wages for middle-class Americans? If not, I am inclined to believe that immigrants are being made scapegoats for the failure of right-wing economic policies.
Dean S., Yet again, you are wrong on this issue: “there is no other way to harvest a field of strawberries or lettuce except by manual labor.” I suggest that you do a quick google search on strawberry harvester automated and read some of the resources that come up: http://www.calstrawberry.com/fileData/docs/ProdResearch_funded_2007_Wickham_Robotic_Harvester.pdf
Technological innovation pushes agriculture toward a brave new world.
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/issues/Issue.07-27-2006/cover/Article.cover_story_1
Speaking of “scientifically rigorous economic studies”, I’m still waiting on the Carbon Dioxide “causing” global warming one I asked you about 3 times. All the “rigorous scientific” studies I have seen (backed by ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years) clearly show that global warming precedes carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Also, consider this to be the FIRST WARNING regarding this kind of meaningless comment: “right-wing economic policies.” Unlike Fr. Hans, I will consider moderating posts when unsubstantiated and flaming statements like this get posted. I already covered the reasons why last week, and you’re testing my patience. First of all, it violates the very rule you yourself demand in the same post: “scientifically rigorous economic studies.” Second of all, the premise is false since: (a) Bush is not a right-wing economist, (b) Congress has roughly 50% Democrats and another 20% liberal Republicans, and (c) the economic “policies” we have seen are virtually the same as the Clinton era. Third of all, what the heck is “right-wing economic policies”? Finally, such baseless flaming raises the tempers (especially mine right now) uselessly and distracts from the reasoned and well-argued debate above. I will not hesitate to not approve comments like this going forward. If you want to argue and debate like a mature adult please do, but stop the bomb dropping. It’s intellectually dishonest and immature. This is not a propaganda board, but a forum for debate and reasoned defense of arguments and ideas. Ideological garbage like that belongs in Michael Moore and AlGore movies only.
Chris - I can cooperate if you will be evenhanded.
I have been slandered as ‘anti-Christian” on this blog on numerous occasions not for my religious beliefs, which rigidly adhere to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, but for my politcal positions. To read the comments of those whom I try and engage in debate you might think that I am some sort of athiestic monster. In fact I am a former alter-boy, and current dues-paying member of my Orthodox Church in good standing.
I appreciate the work you are doing on the blog and feel it provides real value. As I indicated on your post entitled “A dangerous precedent Building in California”, these topics you have selected are extremely relevent and provide good case studies for understanding how we apply the lessons of faith to sometimes difficult moral and ethical situations.
It is political ideology and partisanship masqaurading as religion that gets me agitated. I won’t tolerate the name of my faith being hijacked to sell a political agenda. Perhaps other people think I do that as well and I need to be clearer about when I am making a purely technical
observation and when I am invoking the teachings of our faith to support a position.
Chris quotes: “With that data in hand, Ramsay engineers produced a machine the size of a small airplane that follows strawberry and lettuce pickers on the field so they only have to pick the crop and place them in boxes on the contraption’s “wings.” That results in big labor cost savings for the growers.”
Please note that the pickers still have to pick the crops. So that’s manual work, right? Strawberries don’t ripen all at the same time, so strawberry fields have several pickings, and it is the job of the picker to take the ripe fruit and leave the green fruit. You also watch out for rot and “monkey fists” - ripe strawberries that are underdeveloped and covered with seeds. A machine doesn’t do that. You don’t see those in the stores because pickers and low-paid cannery workers eliminate them. 70-hour work weeks in the fruit canneries - been there, done that, 7 pm to 5:30 am.
As a child I grew up picking strawberries, right next to the Mexican men and their families. (This was part of my elite, liberal lifestyle in my younger days.) Strawberry picking is backbreaking work. You’re either on your knees in the dirt bent over or standing and stooped over. I love the phrase “only have to pick the crop.” Yeah, “only.” One of the very few pleasures in strawberry picking was actually being able to stand upright and carry your full crate over to the truck. Guess what else was at the truck — drinking water. I see that this one pleasure has been eliminated by modern technology for the “cost savings” of the growers, so the pickers can stay bent over all day long. I wonder how much of that cost savings has been passed on to the pickers.
In addition to the physical pain of strawberry harvesting, you’re exposed to the sun all day. If it has rained the night before then you’re not in the dirt but in the mud. Welcome to my childhood, and to the Mexican workers and their children who work in the fields with them. Been there, done that, got the tshirt. Please forgive me if I feel for those who do that work today. Without the Mexican workers the crops would rot in the field. That ain’t theory, it’s fact.
Dean says:
.
Yes Dean, you do what you decry all the time. I still remember when you first appeared on this site slathered and foaming at the mouth with what can only be described as wild-eyed Bush hatred. Since that time I have seen almost nothing from you that I recognize as Orthodox. You most often quote from liberal Protestants, the Pope and politically left wing web-sites. You rarely engage in substantive debate. On the very first go-round with the Terri Schiavo controversy, you showed no awareness of the basic Orthodox reasons for objecting to her killing. Even when they were explained to you and some understanding seemed to dawn you did not admit that you held to those beliefs, only that they made more sense to you than before. I have frequently questioned your understanding of your faith and your seeming inability to distinquish the democrat political agenda from tenents of the Church, but I have often commented that I felt you had a genuine heart.
This post strains my credulity however. I do not see how you can possibly say the words I led with and keep a straight face. Are you so unaware of the positions you hold and the venom with which you frequently write? Your slanders against anything you perceive as being “right wing” far exceed anything I have seen directed at you. Yes, you have been hammered repeatedly, but your excessive, seemingly out of control rants deserved hammering. They have continued with only slight modification in language. Unfortunately, I think you have entered my constitutionally unable to communicate with list. However, you will remain as one of the Orthodox for whom I pray. I say once again, probably for the last time, I have no comprehension of how you think.
Mr. Scourtes:
“I am afraid I cannot share you simplistic, “blame the victim” economic views and cannot agree with you that growing economic inequality in not material. When there are people in the lower classes trying to do the right thing, working, going to school, buying homes, we should support efforts by our government to give them a hand up.”
I wouldn’t call my economic views simplistic. I mentioned a direct link between increased supply of labor and the wage stagnation that you brought up. This increased supply of labor is due to policies that have been tolerated by lower and middle-income Americans, so they are to blame. All I am saying is that people shouldn’t buy things they cannot afford.
You mention examples of doing the right thing. Sure, one can’t go wrong working, but going to school at the cost of $100,000 for, say, an English or a womens’ studies degree is a bad economic decision in most cases (it would be better to get training as a skilled laborer), and buying a house one cannot afford with an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad decision too. These decisions are not made by anyone but the people making them. Responsibility rests with the individual. Add to this the common pursuit of unnecessary items like big-screen HDTVs, $400+ video game systems with monthly fees, nice cars, etc. When you say we should give people who consistently make stupid economic decisions a hand up, you’re really recommending giving “hand-outs” that feed an addiction to overspending.
Do you really think that people addicted to spending will start to behave if they just have their hand-out from the federal government? I don’t - I think they’ll overspend that cash too. I don’t mind government assistance to those who are truly struggling, but I expect such people to NOT be purchasing tons of electronic gadgetry, the latest cell phones, nice cars, etc.
“Growing inequality is symptomatic of an illness and corruption within our political system.”
No it isn’t. It is a symptom of a populace consistently tolerating (through the vote) politicians who do not work in their interests, and instead vastly increase the labor pool, even going so far as to create an “off-the-books” underclass, in a manner that the only beneficiaries are well positioned business owners and shareholders. This is simple supply and demand. The people rule, so the responsibility rests with the people.
“The ability of agri-business and defense contractors, especially, to gorge themselves at the public trough is virtually unchallenged.”
The people rule. They do not vote for people who will challenge this practice. You can complain about money, etc., but at the end of the day the responsibility is with the voters.
“A large group of men from the local Farm Bureau lined the back of our city council chambers and their spokesman pleaded with Lundgren to drop his immigrant-bashing rhetoric and work on a guest-worker program. If not, they said they would all soon be out of business from lack of labor.”
They are dead wrong. What will happen is what happened when the federal government recently started enforcing immigration laws in various factories and meat processing plants: The employers stayed in business, but found plenty of Americans willing to do the jobs for a few dollars-per-hour more. In many cases these workers were predominantly African-American, which kind of brings us full circle back to the topic here.
If you care about the very-low-income Americans, those who are truly poor and many of whom are African American, a good place to start would be to eliminate the vast undocumented labor pool with which they cannot hope to compete. The wrong thing to do is to implement well intentioned hand-outs that have been demonstrated to destroy the social fabric of such communities.
I have been slandered as ‘anti-Christian” on this blog on numerous occasions not for my religious beliefs, which rigidly adhere to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, but for my political positions.
This is your own fault. Yes I myself have leveled the charge of “anti-Christian” at you (or more accurately the preponderance of your positions). The reason is simple, and something we have talked about many many times: You refuse to talk about premises. Your thinking is almost all standard left-wing-democratic-hack propaganda, and when the rest of us question your the underlying truth, facts, lies, misconceptions, un-Christian propositions etc. that support and lead to the kind of assertions you make, you simply post more “policy” and the like, completely ignoring how Christianity might speak to the underlying truths about man, the polis, etc. How many times have we asked “what is man”? When you do start to address these REAL questions, you do in a bible scripting, sophomoric manner, maybe for a post or two. You simply ignore it another words.
It is political ideology and partisanship masquerading as religion that gets me agitated. I won’t tolerate the name of my faith being hijacked to sell a political agenda.
Laughable coming from you, because all you do here is peddle left-wing political agenda. Your thinking, your posts, are the most “hijacked” of anyone here by far. You relentlessly, constantly, un-waveringly “sell a political agenda” here on this blog, and have for years now. Your whole point of being here, is to simply counter what you perceive to be “right-wing bias” of the articles and the majority of the regular posters. You have no interest in the underlying Christian informed ideas that may or may not support the philosophy of the articles, or the thinking or the regular posters. In other words, you are a Troll.
Dean conveys the opinion that Christianity and socialism are identical — or at least inextricably intertwined. I don’t believe that idea myself. In fact, I strongly reject it. So, although I respect Dean as a person, and I respect his right to have and communicate his opinion, I have no respect for the opinion itself.
Michael writes: “You most often quote from liberal Protestants, the Pope and politically left wing web-sites. You rarely engage in substantive debate.”
I think Dean has a legitimate beef. If someone quotes from conservative protestants and right-wing web sites, there’s no problem. At times virtually all of the lead articles come from right-wing web sites — Wall Street Journal editorials, Weekly Standard, Focus on the Family, and so on, and no one bats an eye. If Dean posts something on the other side of the issue from a “liberal” source, then there is protest.
A couple of years ago a friend who is the director of statistical and demographic data analysis for a large city responded here to a couple of articles on the economy written by conservative authors. He basically destroyed their arguments using publicly available economic and demographic data. The response he got was — nothing. Nobody said “oh, maybe you’re right.” No response at all. He stopped posting because, as he said “it’s a waste of time.” In other words, the conservative bias was so strong that a total refutation of conservative economic articles was ignored.
It’s interesting you mention Dean quoting from the pope, as if that indicated some kind of deficiency in his argument. But much of the language used here in referring to the “culture wars” comes from the Catholic tradition — the phrase “culture of death,” for example.
One problem is that in Orthodoxy there is no well-developed body of social, ethical, and economic teaching. A while back I was looking at some things writen by Fr. John Schroedel, the budding Orthodox ethicist who is now working with Fr. Hans over at the AOI. (Yes, I even read things that people don’t recommend.) Fr. John wrote about a 2004 conference on biotechnology that he attended. Here is a description of the attendees, from his own pen:
“This past July 17-19, a few hundred Evangelicals, a handful of Catholics, and an Orthodox Christian met on the campus of Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois, to wrestle through the implications of recent developments in human biotechnology.”
http://www.anglicansforlife.org/resources/readarticle.asp?
number=196&topic=&display=
Did you catch that? Hundreds of Evangelicals, a handful of Catholics, and one Orthodox Christian. It’s a good thing that the one Orthodox Christian didn’t have car problems that day, or else there would have been no Orthodox Christians present. I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but it sounds like the first step in engaging the culture is to make sure that the one Orthodox Christian who goes to these conferences has a reliable vehicle.
You know, on all of these issues, it would be easier for Dean to cite the Orthodox position if there actually were an Orthodox position. But I guess what is supposed to happen is that people will read ancient theological texts that don’t talk about taxes, the economy, the environment, and so on, and then infer from that what to do about taxes, the economy, and the environment. But then, if the person infers that taxes should go up instead of down, then the person is accused of “not understanding” Orthodox theology or of having the “wrong anthropology” — even when the connection between the theology and the issue is not clearly stated.
But if you look at the Catholic church, you’ll find papal encyclicals on these topics. There are entire books written on these topics. Therein you find not just the “position,” but the arguments, the reasoning, the connection of ideas, the essential concepts, the relevant scriptures. So on the one hand Dean is criticized for not “talking about his premises.” But then, when he quotes from the pope, in effect the Catholic position, in which all the premises are made clear, you criticize him for that. He can’t win.
Michael: “On the very first go-round with the Terri Schiavo controversy, you showed no awareness of the basic Orthodox reasons for objecting to her killing.”
In my observations over time, most of the Orthodox here showed no awareness of even the most basic facts of the case. When the facts were mentioned, they were dismissed as irrelevant, and those who presented the facts were denounced as trolls. Even a few months ago one of the lead articles posted here claimed that Terri Schiavo was learning how to walk and talk — an assertion that, without doubt, was totally false, based on nothing at all. Now if some folks cannot be troubled to understand the most basic facts of the case, why should anyone take their theology about the case seriously?
Christopher - I have always accepted and shared yours and Michael’s argument that Christianity views the primary solution to the world’s problems as spiritual, and not political. If we look at the ministry of Jesus Christ we can see that the Palestine that Our Savior lived in was a hotbed of political factionalism, from the anti-Roman Zealots to the Pro-Roman Saducees. Jesus Christ sought very deliberately not to associate himself with any political movement and probably paid for that decision with His life when the mob yelled to Pilate to spare Barabbas from the cross instead of Jesus of Nazareth.
We cannot hope to break the chains of political oppression, until we break the stranglehold of sin around our own souls.
When I have posted a “political” statement it has usually been in response to someone else’s initial political remark. Ask yourself, why is a web site that includes the name “Orthodoxy” attacking environmentalism when our own faith teaches us that the environment is God’s creation and the Ecumenical Patriarch is Constaninope is known as the “Green Patriarch” for his outspoken advocacy on behalf of the environment. There is no religious basis for attacking environmentalism, only political.
Likewise, if we go back to the 2004 Presidential election there were plenty of suggestions made that people of faith could not vote for John Kerry. While I concede that Kerry’s abortion position created problems for people of faith, other positions of President Bush, such as his warmongering and disregard for the poor, were (and are) also problematic for Christians. So the issue was less clear cut than some on the blog would have you believe
So when others step into the political arena and use the name of Orthodoxy to promote a political viewpoint that has nothing to do with religion, I feel there is no reason why I may not engage them in repectful debate on the issue.
Dean S., Once again you are twisting the truth and posting false generalizations about what Fr. Hans and other conservatives have posted and said on this blog in regards to “environmentalism.” This comment from you is unjustified: “Ask yourself, why is a web site that includes the name “Orthodoxy” attacking environmentalism when our own faith teaches us that the environment is God’s creation” I don’t suffer liars lightly! Not even 24 hours after I warned you to stop dropping flaming bombs into the debate, you somehow manage to insult the intelligence and maturity of a vast majority of the posters here. Enough already! Consider this the SECOND WARNING!
What Fr. Hans and other intelligent and mature posters on this site have attacked is the lunatic policies and idiotic arguments of radical environmentalists and leftist environmental groups masquerading as stewards of Mother Earth who in fact hate human life and worship Nature for its own sake. Not one conservative on this site has “attacked environmentalism” or the idea of caring for the environment. That is simply not true! What all of us have attacked is the mindless and God-less manner in which many radical environmental groups go about implementing their atheistic philosophies and the way they revere Nature more than man.
So, although I respect Dean as a person, and I respect his right to have and communicate his opinion, I have no respect for the opinion itself.
Same here. Now, what is it about Dean’s specific communication that is the problem? He does not really communicate this idea, he simply asserts it (over and over and over). He will not talk about the presuppositions of any idea (whether it be Christianity, or something like socialism). That is why you do not (can not) “discuss” anything with Dean, all you can do is “debate” him (or rather, that’s all he will do with you). We have been pointing to the underlying ideas for years - to no effect. This is why he is a Troll, and not an honest participant (even if he is really that stubborn and ignorant - which I doubt)…
I think Dean has a legitimate beef. If someone quotes from conservative protestants and right-wing web sites, there’s no problem. At times virtually all of the lead articles come from right-wing web sites — Wall Street Journal editorials, Weekly Standard, Focus on the Family, and so on, and no one bats an eye. If Dean posts something on the other side of the issue from a “liberal” source, then there is protest.
EXACTLY!!! This is not a “liberal round table” - it is not a “free for all”! It has a perspective, a place where it is coming from - your goal of “balance” and what not is simply liberal speak for not going anywhere…
In other words, the conservative bias was so strong that a total refutation of conservative economic articles was ignored.
Don’t believe it for a second - because your bias is so strong. Which simply reveals why you are here. You don’t respect any of the regular posters, or the perspective of the articles (conservative and Christian almost all) and certainly not that this is a website that is Christian. You want it to be something that you are - a “free thinker” in the liberal, nietzchian, materialistic vein. You even think after all this time that Terri S life should be judged on materialistic grounds. Your a Troll
One problem is that in Orthodoxy there is no well-developed body of social, ethical, and economic teaching.
Only a problem for the non-Christians (at least in the sense you mean it). You want pat answers (if x, then y) and can’t stand the fact that we judge things in different ways than you (going back to different presuppositions). Orthodox Christians are NOT fundamentalists or Catholics - and if you were not a Troll you would have understood that long long ago…
So on the one hand Dean is criticized for not “talking about his premises.” But then, when he quotes from the pope, in effect the Catholic position, in which all the premises are made clear, you criticize him for that. He can’t win.
LOL! He has almost NEVER discussed a premise, Catholic or otherwise. He simply asserts the same old left-wing-democratic talking points. Apparently, you don’t know what I am talking about either.
In my observations over time, most of the Orthodox here showed no awareness of even the most basic facts of the case.
Liar!! patently false!!! We simply don’t agree with the either the “metaphysics” of man (what it means to be “alive”) or the morality of her death and the philosophy that leads to it. STOP TELLING CHRISTIANS TO THINK LIKE A MATERIALIST LIKE YOURSELF. It really only shows how much of a Troll you are…
why should anyone take their theology about the case seriously?
Mr. Banescu, why is this TROLL still posting here? He neither respects the very basics of Christianity, nor understands it, and constantly accuses us of ill will. He is not honestly participating, but simply Trolling…
I think the problem here, one that I’ve observed countless times in political discussions, is that the “liberals” - say Dean S. or Jim - accuse the other side of being bad: that they want people to be poor and want floods and famines to occur. The “conservatives” say that the other side is wrong, not bad. As a result, the exchange is asymmetric from the start. Dean S. assumes that his ideas are self-evident and spends his rhetorical energy on name calling. His opponents spend their energy trying to explain why his reasoning is incorrect.
I would encourage Dean S. to try to write a post in which he demonstrates understanding of this distinction.
Christopher writes: “EXACTLY!!! This is not a “liberal round table” - it is not a “free for all”! It has a perspective, a place where it is coming from - your goal of “balance” and what not is simply liberal speak for not going anywhere…”
I’m not talking about balance. Of course there is a perspective here. But nobody gets everything right all the time. And as far as the perspective, I have never heard that only posts or quotations from only one perspective are allowed. Quite the opposite, actually.
Holman wrote: “In other words, the conservative bias was so strong that a total refutation of conservative economic articles was ignored.”
Christopher: “Don’t believe it for a second - because your bias is so strong.”
Yeah, well I saw it. Just because the articles posted here come from a particular perspective does not mean that they are all correct. That should be obvious.
Holman wrote: “In my observations over time, most of the Orthodox here showed no awareness of even the most basic facts of the case.”
Christopher: “Liar!! patently false!!! We simply don’t agree with the either the “metaphysics” of man (what it means to be “alive”) or the morality of her death and the philosophy that leads to it. STOP TELLING CHRISTIANS TO THINK LIKE A MATERIALIST LIKE YOURSELF. It really only shows how much of a Troll you are…”
Do you think that Terri Schiavo was leaning to walk and talk? If so, please demonstrate that in the legal or medical record. If not, how could anyone who understood the facts of the case post something like that?
Note to Chris Banescu: I notice that Dean S. has had a couple of warnings. I’m wondering when that will happen to Christopher. He continually calls me a troll. I’m not a troll by any reasonable definition of the term. And this is in addition to a continual stream of other invective and personal insults directed my way. He continually brings up administrative issues that should be directed off-list to the moderator. The things that he directs to me are intended to be inflammatory and add nothing to the discussion; if anything they are intended to disrupt discussion. If Dean’s “right wing economic policies” statement deserves a warning, how about “troll,” “liar,” and other similar remarks?
Tom C writes: “The “conservatives” say that the other side is wrong, not bad.”
In light of Christopher’s post #36 above, would you care to revise that statement?
Jim, I agree with Christopher that this comment from you: “In my observations over time, most of the Orthodox here showed no awareness of even the most basic facts of the case.” is in fact false and not an accurate description of the situation.
Regarding Christopher calling you a “Troll” I agree that he should focus more on the discussions and let me worry about moderating.
Christopher, Feel free to disagree with the issues, defend your positions, and call posters to the mat for misleading posts, but please stop launching into name-calling. It does not add to your already strong case to repeat it over and over again. You have enough amunition speaking truthfully and rationally.
I am working to reduce the “trolling” and mud throwing behavior around here and hopefully significantly reduce the non-sensical and misleading comments I keep running into. Not sure if I am going to succeed but we’ll have to see what develops. I had sincerely hoped not to change anything in how this blog is moderated for at least 2-3 months, but events have a way of pushing a decision on me. Reluctantly I am stepping in hoping to drag this blog back to substantive issue discussion and away from bomb throwing and name-calling. I pray that God will bless this effort and help me maintain and expand upon Fr. Han’s original vision and purpose.
#39
I don’t like Christopher’s tactics. However, there is an important distinction. He is angry about the spirit in which you and Dean S. approach the discussion and the rhetorical strategy you employ. If someone were to put up a post where they argued, from Orthodox or other traditional Christian sources, that higher taxes would be good in the US right now, I don’t think he would respond with invective. If he did I would object.
So, Jim, do you think that, for example, Mr. Banescu and I am not worried about global warming because we hate people and want misery visited upon them? Or do you think that we don’t want these bad things to happen, but are wrong in our analysis? How about you, Dean S.?
Mr. Banescu:
I use the term not as “name calling”, but as a descriptive term to identify a behavior and stance vis-à-vis this blog. I believe Jim is even better described as a internet Troll than Dean, as Dean at least claims to be Orthodox (even if his philosophy reveals himself to be nominal). Jim is an explicit non-Christian and moral relativist who refuses to even acknowledge basics like their is a non-materialist morality and way of judging the killing of Terri S for example.
If someone is acting like a Troll I think the name fits. Notice this response from Jim:
Do you think that Terri Schiavo was leaning to walk and talk? If so, please demonstrate that in the legal or medical record. If not, how could anyone who understood the facts of the case post something like that?
How many times do we have to point out that we don’t define “life”, “man”, etc the way he does? HOW MANY TIMES??????
All that said, if “Troll” is anathema then I will cease to use the term. For some definitions see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
&
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
&
http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp
Also, I really must take issue with this statement of Jim’s:
And this is in addition to a continual stream of other invective and personal insults directed my way.
He IS an neo-pagan, a materialist, a moral relativist - this is his explicit philosophical stance. He IS a “Troll” on this blog (even if we are going to ban the term as uncivil or whatever). He IS a disruptive presence here, constantly baiting and “debating” endlessly with the same old neo-pagan/materialist arguments that we have already gone over again and again and again. I argue he IS a stubborn jackass, in that he does not have the common sense and honor to take a hint and respect the forum and its name, if nothing else.
IS this blog a liberal round table, any thing goes, forever open ended “debate”, or is it in some sense a “Christian” or “Orthodox” blog? If the latter, is the neo-pagan simply allowed to assert the same anti-Christian philosophy over and over and over again, year after year, the whole time disrespecting the basic Christianity of others (as in: “why should anyone take their theology about the case seriously
)? INDEED, why does anyone take Jim assertions of honest participation in an “Orthodox” blog seriously?
Chris writes: “Jim, I agree with Christopher that this comment from you: “In my observations over time, most of the Orthodox here showed no awareness of even the most basic facts of the case.” is in fact false and not an accurate description of the situation.”
I see that “no awareness” is too strong. I should have said “a number of important facts were generally not known.” (I think that’s a problem with Internet communication. We write things in fifteen minutes and send them off, and there’s no editor looking over our shoulders saying “do you really mean that?”) With that correction, I will stand by the statement that a number of important facts were generally not known, and that throughout many posts I tried to supply those facts. I could say far more, but I really don’t want to belabor the point.
Many people here disagreed with me about the morality of the case. But I NEVER thought that their disagreement with me was evidence of some moral or spiritual defect on their part. The same courtesy was not always extended to me.
Christopher writes: “I use the term not as “name calling”, but as a descriptive term to identify a behavior and stance vis-à-vis this blog. ”
My understanding is that contrary points of view are permitted here, as long as they are reasoned and supported with legitimate evidence. If that’s the case, then it seems to me that my posts are well within those guidelines. Or let me say that I at least aspire to stay within those guidelines. As far as I can tell, you want to change those guidelines. In effect, you want a different kind of blog.
Holman wrote: “Do you think that Terri Schiavo was leaning to walk and talk? If so, please demonstrate that in the legal or medical record. If not, how could anyone who understood the facts of the case post something like that?”
Christopher responds: “How many times do we have to point out that we don’t define “life”, “man”, etc the way he does? HOW MANY TIMES??????”
But you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not saying that walking and talking define life. I’m saying that as a matter of fact Terri Schiavo, post-collapse, did not walk and talk. If you can point me to evidence that she did walk and talk, I would be very happy to read that.
Many people here disagreed with me about the morality of the case. But I NEVER thought that their disagreement with me was evidence of some moral or spiritual defect on their part. The same courtesy was not always extended to me.
Your kidding right? Christianly speaking, we ALL have a rather serious moral and spiritual defect. It’s all that “Christian” speak you seem to ignore so often around here. You know, “man created in God’s image listened to the serpent and is now a fallen image of what he is supposed to be” and all that.
Let me be clear, you have some SERIOUS moral and spiritual defects. It has nothing to do with “courtesy”, it is simply the truth. This blog has the name “Orthodoxy” attached to it - why don’t you at least pretend to know what that means?
As far as I can tell, you want to change those guidelines. In effect, you want a different kind of blog.
Yep, I want the blog name to have a relationship to it’s content. “Orthodoxy” has a meaning - you are uninterested in “Orthodoxy” so you want the blog to be a free-for all, liberal round table, “market place of ideas” where as Stanley Fish says:
“If you persuade liberalism that its dismissive marginalizing of religious discourse is a violation of its own chief principle, all you will gain is the right to sit down at liberalism’s table where before you were denied an invitation; but it will still be liberalism’s table that you are sitting at, and the etiquette of the conversation will still be hers. That is, someone will now turn and ask, “Well, what does religion have to say about this question?” And when, as often will be the case, religion’s answer is doctrinaire (what else could it be?), the moderator (a title deeply revealing) will nod politely and turn to someone who is presumed to be more reasonable..”
You don’t take an idea of man where Terri S is “alive”, fully and unreservedly human, severing her God and her family, even her erroneous “husband” who ultimately killed her. So you continue (yet again) to ask:
…If you can point me to evidence that she did walk and talk…
As if the disagreement, the moral question, the weight of “what is man” has something to do with walking and talking. Give me a break - you don’t even PRETEND to be interested in Christianity.
Christ went around healing the lame, asking them to get up and walk, or more accurately commanding them. You apparently are not aware of this. Check it out, and stop “debating” with Christians - you will be glad you did…
note 37:
Related to the moralizing, is the fact that the liberals do not get down to presuppositions. To do so would mean they would have to discuss the substantive (i.e. what is wrong instead of claiming “it’s bad and everyone knows it”), which would expose their thinking to fundamental ways of looking at the world (Christian vs. materialism for example). This would reveal fundamental and irreconcilable differences, ones that are of the will and not of discursive reasoning as such. This in turn would expose a farce - marxists/socialists (such as Dean) and neo-pagan materialists (such as Jim) who consistently post at a alleged Christian blog. Now why would they do that?
Tom C writes: “I don’t like Christopher’s tactics. However, there is an important distinction. He is angry about the spirit in which you and Dean S. approach the discussion and the rhetorical strategy you employ.”
I don’t know what that rhetorical strategy is, unless it’s posting from a non-Orthodox point of view. If you perceive some other strategy and can illustrate it with actual quotations I would find that helpful.
Tom C: “If someone were to put up a post where they argued, from Orthodox or other traditional Christian sources, that higher taxes would be good in the US right now, I don’t think he would respond with invective. If he did I would object.”
I have no idea what he would do. Christopher often perceives contrary positions as evidence of some deficiency in the other person, and responds accordingly. There is often an ad hominem component in his responses. But sometimes he surprises me and responds to the issue rather than to the person.
The larger issue is why there is invective in the first place. Is he angry? So what? In anything that Fr. Hans ever said before or that Chris B. says now, I have never had the slightest impression that only Orthodox or conservative posts are permitted here. It is no concern of mine if someone has an emotional problem with that. As far as I know I’m following the rules here. If the moderator wants different rules he can implement those at any time.
Tom C: “So, Jim, do you think that, for example, Mr. Banescu and I am not worried about global warming because we hate people and want misery visited upon them? Or do you think that we don’t want these bad things to happen, but are wrong in our analysis?”
I don’t recall reading Chris B. on the issue, and cannot comment on his position. My understanding of your position is that you don’t believe that the case for human-caused global warming is persuasive, that in fact there are many serious problems with it.
I don’t think people here are evil. I just disagree with them on many issues. On those issues I think they are mistaken. I’m sure they return the favor.
But frankly, even if I did think people here are evil — which I don’t — why would that matter? I’ve been called names for months. I’ve been labeled as a “death-eater,” part of the culture of death, advocate of murder. A couple of years ago I was supposed to be partly responsible for the murder of millions of Cambodians for not having supported the Vietnam war. I could go on, but you get the picture. I don’t know that anyone has called me “evil” per se, but the implication was there. Having for a long time ripped into me with impunity, without concern over what I thought or felt about that, now the home team are shocked, shocked, to find that others also accuse them. Well, good for the home team, and maybe things will be better for everyone now.
I don’t know what that rhetorical strategy is
Your ignorance is hard to believe, given the fact that I and others have been talking about it for quite a while now. Off the top of my head, I would say this:
1) Respect, honor (these words should have some meaning for you) the fact that this is a Christian blog, has something to do with Orthodoxy, and that the regular posters and most of the irregular ones are Christian.
That SHOULD be enough. For example, if I was to go to http://www.modernist.com/blog I might post to ask a question, understanding that people are discussing things from a worldview that is fundamentally irreconcilable to my own (all the while remembering that people are not their philosophy). I would not engage in “debate”, insisting for example that they view the morality of the killing of Terri S through materialistic lenses. I might try to understand their worldview as best I could, but I would not hassle the materialists with 100+ posts deconstructing their world view or simply ignoring it while I accuse them of ill will because they don’t see things through my Christian lenses.
The larger issue is why there is invective in the first place
Nope, no “ad hominine” or the like. You ARE a materialist, a “death eater”. You can’t claim the position but then deny the correct term used to label the position. I AM a Christian, even if I was to go to http://www.materialist.com and post 100+ posts firmly describing a Christian position on Terri S and then (for some strange reason) denying that I am a Christian.
The larger issue is not why a Christian participates at a blog called “OrthodoxNet” but why you, an explicit materialist, non-Christian, and moral relativist disruptively posts here.
I don’t know that anyone has called me “evil” per se, but the implication was there. Having for a long time ripped into me with impunity, without concern over what I thought or felt about that,
Time to go back to Christian kindergarten again Jim {something we have to do frequently which is one reason I don’t think your participation here is honest}: Christian’s believe in good and evil. We do NOT draw a hard line in the sand, and say that people themselves are “evil”, at least not intrinsically, but we do hold that people “commit”, “follow”, and “act” in evil ways all the time. You are “evil”, in the sense that you hold to evil thinking and commit evil acts. Your philosophy Jim is evil - you approved of the killing of Terri S, you approve of abortion on demand, you approve of moral relativism such sex between consenting adults, these are evil things.
By the way, the “concern” we have for the evil that you would do also concerns you, but not in the way you would have it. If pointing out the evil you would do makes you feel bad, this is good - shame is good, as it indicates something to be shameful about.
We will not respect your position as just another answer to the hard questions that will never be answered and can’t-we-all-just-get-along.
Why are you here? Your not going to get affirmation (personal or otherwise) for the evil that you would do. Why do you post on a Christian blog???
Christopher writes: “As if the disagreement, the moral question, the weight of “what is man” has something to do with walking and talking.”
I don’t think that, and I don’t think Jim does, either. However, when we ask you for parameters to define “alive” and “dead”, you refuse and simply say that it requires “spiritual discernment”. Okay, great. Well, what things did you look for in Terri to be able to diagnose her as “alive”, for example? Absent the use of any medical terminology, what criteria did you use? The fact that she was sitting in a room being attented to by other people? Well, yes, but then so is a person in a casket. Why are they not alive? Maybe they are?
In fact, I’m not sure how you can suggest that Michael Schiavo is guilty of “murdering” Terri when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of physical death or the fact that it must be defined in material terms. The term “murder” is only useful for those who accept the reality that the body dies and that there are parameters that define the state of physical death.
You may as well say “I believe someone can be charged with theft, even though I reject entirely the concept of personal property”.
Christopher writes: “Christian’s believe in good and evil. We do NOT draw a hard line in the sand, and say that people themselves are “evil”, at least not intrinsically, but we do hold that people “commit”, “follow”, and “act” in evil ways all the time. You are “evil”, in the sense that you hold to evil thinking and commit evil acts.”
There recently has been some concern about what I think about people here. As I understand it, if I asserted that some people here were evil - which I don’t - that would be a bad thing, in effect a violation of the guidelines of the blog. But if you assert that I’m evil, then that isn’t a violation of blog guidelines? Is that your view? If so, I wonder if that is also the moderator’s view. I don’t think it is.
Christopher: “If pointing out the evil you would do makes you feel bad, this is good - shame is good, as it indicates something to be shameful about.”
My understanding is that the purpose of the blog is to discuss issues directly or indirectly related to the posted articles, not to discuss the other participants. I may be wrong, but you might want to clarify that with the new moderator.
As I said before when Fr. Hans was here, your argument is really not with me but with the moderators. Opposing points of view are permitted. That has been stated many times. If you disagree with that you should bring that up with the moderator off-blog. I post here only with the permission of the moderator. I respect that and try to stay within the rules as I understand them, and I don’t dictate to the moderator how he should run his blog. If you think I shouldn’t be here you should take that up with the moderator, and I would certainly accept his decision either way. I would only point out that in several years of posting here on many topics I have never had a post deleted or edited. So I think I have a good record of following the guidelines.
note 49:
So now instead of talking about your feelings (note 46) you want to narrowly focus on “guidelines” and ariticle content. However, you will of course want to focus in your own liberal, neo-pagan, materialist way - but that’s OK, as long as your disrupting well, your simply disrupting all you can “within guidelines”. LOL! Your not fooling anyone Jim. Why are you here??
p.s. your “evil” paragraph is worth a good laugh. thanks!
note 48:
Jamesk, back for more “debate” I see. As we have already been over this several times - and your post is simply a restatement of your confusion, why don’t you try flame baiting somewhere else?? Or even better, why don’t you actually try to understand what it is you are “debating”? Clark Carlson’s “The Faith” is a good place to start to try to get the basics about Orthodoxy, or “Mere Christianity” or something by C.S Lewis might help you understand Christianity in a more general sense. Until you get a basic sense of Christianity, you will never understand the immorality of Terri’s death. Until you get a sense of what it means to be human, you will not be able to see the inhumanity of her “husband” {bracketed of course because Christianly, he was no longer her husband} and your sincere attempt to take Terri’s humanity away from her…
Christopher, you asked me awhile back why I continued to engage JamesK and essentially ordered my to stop. I took your advice. Maybe you ought to consider it for youself.
note 52:
Good point Michael! I think I will abstain from reading their posts for at least a couple of weeks - it really is futile…