Have we been *that* boring, Shemp?  :-)

I wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole.  I'm 
trying to cut down on my posting, not get involved 
in the Shootout at the PK Corral.  :-)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/fischer/fischer11.html
> 
> 
> Heartless
> by Andrew S. Fischer
>         
> 
> About twenty years ago, I had occasion to work with a computer 
> programmer named Carl. One day, for some reason, we discussed a 
> lawsuit which had been brought against a national toy company. The 
> toy involved was a plastic "sprinkler head," which was attached to 
> the business end of a garden hose and, when the water was turned 
on, 
> transformed the hose into a kind of whirling dervish, which spun 
> around in the air, spraying water all over the place to the 
delight 
> of summer children everywhere. Unfortunately, it seemed that some 
> kid somewhere decided to place the device in his mouth, turn on 
the 
> water and, predictably, the child drowned.
> 
> Carl had no sympathy. "Culling," he called it. Nature's way of 
> weeding out inferior designs. While I was shocked at Carl's lack 
of 
> compassion, deep down I had a gnawing feeling that perhaps he 
might 
> be right. A single kid, among hundreds of thousands, and among 
> perhaps millions of uses of this toy, was tragically killed 
because 
> he thought it would be fun to jam it down his throat and open the 
> spigot. The thought that this must have been an inordinately 
> reckless, or inordinately dimwitted child, nagged at me for days. 
It 
> did sound pretty stupid to do what he did, after all. On the other 
> hand, kids do stupid things. Should the penalty for that be death? 
> In any case, we agreed that the lawsuit brought by his parents was 
> absurd. Hundreds of thousands of kids used that toy without a 
> problem; one kid did something stupid with it and died, so that 
> meant the toy should be taken off the market and its manufacturers 
> should pay millions in damages? Obviously not; the fact that one 
> individual out of so many suffered a negative result due to his 
own 
> misuse of a product hardly rendered that product dangerous, 
despite 
> the assertions of government and its legal system.
> 
> Over the years, we've all witnessed scores of cases such as the 
one 
> noted above. Million-dollar settlements, products removed from the 
> marketplace, idiotic warning labels on everything from Silly Putty 
> to cattle prods. All of this to prevent people from doing stupid 
> things and making foolish choices. Yet people continue acting 
> stupidly, not just in regard to consumer items, but in all aspects 
> of their lives. They smoke (sucking a solid into their lungs), 
> damaging their health. They overeat, and don't exercise, ditto. 
They 
> spend too much money and have more children than they can afford. 
> This is all called freedom, and people can do whatever they want 
to 
> do to themselves, as far as I'm concerned (but they shouldn't go 
> begging to the state when they find they've screwed up, of course).
> 
> Culling, he called it. Social Darwinism at its most brutal. It's 
not 
> that I don't have sympathy for people in dire straits, or even 
those 
> in simple need. When I encounter a homeless person on the street, 
> for example, I recognize that under different circumstances that 
> could be me. I typically feel a ripple of sorrow, and sometimes 
hand 
> over a dollar (although I fully suspect it will be used for 
alcohol, 
> or worse). At the mall a few years ago while waiting for the 
> elevator, I found myself standing across from a boy in his late 
> teens in a wheelchair. He wasn't a bad-looking kid, but from his 
> speech and mannerisms I realized he'd never have a normal life. 
> Somehow this brought tears to my eyes and I had to walk away. This 
> kind of thing doesn't happen to me often, but it's necessary that 
I 
> mention that little story because of what I must write next.
> 
> You see, I've reached the point where I have to agree with Carl. 
> This is an unpopular position, to be sure. When discussing it with 
> friends, it always ends up with my being labeled a hard-hearted 
> hater of poor people. With me supposedly caring not a whit about 
all 
> the children who never had the advantages I had. I'll admit I was 
> fortunate enough to have had good parents, a husband and wife who 
> loved each other, worked hard together, and tried their best to 
> provide my brother and me with a decent lower-middle class 
> existence. They made sure I did my homework and do as well as I 
> could in school. Yes, they scraped together enough dollars and 
paid 
> my tuition at an unexceptional, mid-city "commuter college" (in an 
> era when, fortunately, it cost just $300 per semester), and they 
> were supportive in many ways when I foundered in my career and my 
> life. 
> 
> While these don't seem to me to be extraordinary advantages, this 
is 
> obviously better than having parents who are alcoholics, who are 
> constantly fighting, who don't care about their kids, who berate 
> them or beat them, who let them run around unsupervised so they 
can 
> get in trouble, do poorly in school and fail to develop basic 
common 
> sense or an ethical system, or the ability to solve the slightest 
of 
> problems, or gain any skills for earning a living. Certainly most 
> kids from such an environment will have more trouble than I did in 
> attaining a modest, middle-class existence. 
> 
> Not that it is impossible, however. As the book The Great 
Reckoning 
> notes (quoting Economist magazine), poverty can be overcome fairly 
> effectively if teenagers do just a few things: finish high school, 
> don't have babies, and find a job and keep it. Two people working 
> full time, each earning just $7.50 per hour, should have over 
> $24,000 a year after income taxes. They could spend a third of 
that 
> on rent and have enough left over to live decently, couldn't they? 
> There could be some savings, too, if they shunned the X-box, cell 
> phone, widescreen TV and the new car, right? They might not be 
> living high on the hog, but they could live in a dignified way, 
and 
> would be stable enough to improve their work skills, and get 
ahead, 
> however slowly, wouldn't they? It seems to me that people need to 
> live within their limitations; it's simple: just don't spend what 
> you don't have. Yet, "can I afford it?" is a question no one asks 
> themselves anymore. "Do I really need this?" is another.
> 
> Like it or not, those groups who do not or cannot live within 
their 
> means, act responsibly, perform useful work, provide for their 
> offspring, save money for their future, etc. are supposed to 
wither 
> away; their bloodlines are supposed to peter out. This is Nature's 
> way. Survival of the fittest. Culling. Yes, it sounds heartless, 
but 
> it is inherent in life. The effective and competent members of a 
> species survive and multiply and, furthermore, they instinctively 
> limit the size of their families to match the availability of 
> resources; those who cannot do so vanish, and the species as a 
whole 
> becomes stronger. At least this is how it happens in all of the 
> animal kingdom – except in a single case. Somehow, civilization 
> (specifically its subset "government") has altered this state of 
> affairs where human beings are concerned, and has turned Mother 
> Nature on her head. 
> 
> By providing for and otherwise mollycoddling the incompetent, the 
> state has ensured the survival of bloodlines that were not 
supposed 
> to continue. It has given rise to "welfare queens" and unstable 
> families, abused and forgotten children, illiteracy, crime, and 
all 
> the rest. Groups whose "survival shortcomings" Nature did not 
intend 
> to embrace are instead nurtured by the state, and these groups may 
> even have birth rates higher than average. At the same time, the 
> state taxes its competent citizens so painfully, that they are ill-
> disposed to help the less fortunate – especially since much of 
this 
> taxation is already supposed to be doing just that. 
> 
> While adults can, and should, be held accountable for their 
actions, 
> innocent children can hardly be blamed, since their plight is due 
to 
> the shortcomings of their ancestors, their families – in short, 
> their bloodline. As a civilized people, we don't want to see them 
> suffer; we have empathy. I believe that most people in our 
society, 
> if not taxed as heavily as they are now, would give a lot more 
money 
> to various charities to help the poor, the less fortunate, all the 
> down-on-their-luck folks. (I know I would annually donate twenty 
> times what I do now.) Some might even "adopt a family," not only 
> giving money, but also providing guidance and education. The 
> difference is that it would be voluntary and specific, not 
mandatory 
> and expansive as it is now, and that makes all the difference in 
the 
> world.
> 
> So, when I argue that government social programs and handouts 
should 
> be scrapped, that it's not my problem if some people don't have 
> health insurance, that it's "tough luck" if the elderly reach 
> retirement without having provided for themselves, that all of us 
> are responsible for our own actions, for our own choices, and our 
> own lives... I'm branded as heartless. The question is: do I 
deserve 
> this label? 
> 
> 
> February 11, 2006
> 
> Andrew S. Fischer [send him mail] is a controller for an 
investment 
> advisory firm in Pennsylvania.
> 
> Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
>






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to