Posted on 12/12/2001 6:48:23 AM PST by detsaoT
This is the season of giving and give we should: to the surviving family members of the horror of 9-11; to the needy; to the disabled; to all those unable to provide for themselves. But let's do it without the smugness that too often accompanies the giving.
I say this because it's been my experience that the people who scream the loudest about helping the poor typically do the least. Worse than that, they are among the most self-righteous people God ever put on this earth. Take the late Mitch Snyder.
In the 1980s, Snyder made himself an icon among rich people who claimed to care about the poor. He appeared on countless TV shows - always disheveled and in fatigues - imploring Americans to give to the homeless. A bum himself, he refused to support his own family. This remained true even when he came into big money (he got a handsome check from Hollywood after his life was portrayed on the screen). But Mitch "cared" about the poor. He "cared" so much that he even lied to a congressional committee about the real number of homeless persons in the U.S., hyping the number so it would make him look good.
Synder always reminded me of Karl Marx. Marx made a living off his writings that detailed how badly the working class were treated. Yet he never once stepped foot in a factory and never talked to the working class. But he said he knew all about them. The closest he got to knowing the poor was his own maid, "Lenchen," whom he royally exploited. He never paid the woman a dime, giving her only room and board. But he did get to know her well enough to get her pregnant. Consistent all the way, he never supported his kid and never claimed paternity. We know this because the guy who publicly claimed to be the kid's father - Marx's comrade, Friedrich Engels - spilled the beans on his deathbed.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau did the same thing. The intellectual father of the French Revolution wrote endlessly about oppression. Ironically, he made his own contribution to oppression by fathering five illegitimate children, all of whom he abandoned. To top it off, he even had the audacity to write a book about childrearing, Emile. But to this day those who call themselves progressive could care less what Rousseau did. What matters is that he "cared."
It's so easy to love the poor in the abstract. Who can't love the masses? Who can't love the homeless? Who can't love the working class? The problem begins when individuals appear. Interacting with real live people can lead to all kinds of trouble, especially for those who spend most of their time writing and speaking about the oppressed.
In the 1970s, when I was pursuing my Ph.D. at NYU at night, I was working during the day in a Catholic elementary school in Spanish Harlem, St. Lucy's. The students in my sociology class were uniformly concerned about the poor. The poor were oppressed, victimized, etc. Yet when I asked them to help tutor my students on a weekend, they fell silent. Not because they were busy - few of them worked. But they "cared."
Similarly, when I was a professor I frequently socialized with the men and women who worked in maintenance, housekeeping and in the cafeteria. What I found striking was that the Marxist professors on campus, who loved to pledge their solidarity with the working class, never even knew their names.
Nothing's changed. For example, if I asked college professors which state "cares" more about the poor, Massachusetts or Mississippi, the answer would be obvious. Yet government data show that Massachusetts ranks dead last among all the states in average itemized charitable giving, yet it's the fourth wealthiest state in the union. By contrast, Mississippi is the most generous state in the nation yet only one state is poorer.
Or consider this. Those of us who are religious are constantly being lambasted in the media as hypocrites who really don't care about the poor. Non-believers, on the other hand, are portrayed as being quite generous. But the truth is just the opposite. University of North Carolina sociologists, Mark D. Regnerus and David Sikkink, drew on data gathered by the Religious Identity and Influence Survey, and found that the more religious a person is the more likely he is to give to the poor. Non-religious persons are the stingiest in the country.
So do what you can this Christmas season to help the needy. But beware the "friends of the poor." At the end of the day, they're a lousy role model. That's why Mother Teresa was so great: she comforted the sick and provided for the needy without ever bragging about her work. She not only "cared" about the poor, she actually fed them, bathed them and tended to their every need. And she did it remarkably without a trace of smugness.
To all Christians here - Here is some ammo.
To all secular humanists here - Let's just say that "Actions still speak louder than words."
Freegards, all.
:) ttt
That one line makes the whole article a charm. I live in NYC after moving from a small town in Texas. I am always offended by the lengths my neighbors will go to show that "they care" and how the homeless are "oppressed" that is until one is sleeping in our apartment foyer. When that happens, they knock on my door to ask me to get the "homeless person" to leave. I always say, "Oh, you mean the crackhead bum?" They hate to hear that line almost as much as my NRA sticker on my apartment mailbox. "Don't you know that guns hurt people?", says one of my neighbors.
P.S. I am a Catholic and if you flame me because of it, I will call the Pope and we will run over you in his bullet-proof Mercedes SUV.
Hah ha!!! You and I will get along just fine!
Freegards!
:) ttt
We have good unemployment statistics going back into the 1800's. The government changed its' procedure for measuring unemployment in the early 1990's so that now it counts unemployment at about 10% below what it would count by the old system. So, for example we measure it today at 5.7%, if we used the old standards it would be over 6.0%.
Prior to 1967 the unemployment rate in America was normally 3.0-3.5%. If it ever went over 3.5%, then there would be a lot of screaming that we have to get it down. Sometimes it did go up over 3.5%, even substantially higher, but it didn't stay high for more than 1-2 years. The one exception of course is the 1930's. Sometimes unemployment would drop much lower than 3.0% and even stay low for years at a time. In 1963 unemployment was 2.2%. In 1920 it was 1.0%.
We have been living with very much elevated levels of unemployment for 30 years now. The end result is that many people are discouraged, many more people today decide to sit out of the work force when they really should be in it. People can't switch jobs when oppressed by an employer nearly as easily as they used to be able to do. It is harder for lower income people to get raises than it used to be. There is of course a widening gap between upper income and lower ncome in America. We are becoming a nation divided by class like other nations.
A few years ago the Republican economist Alan Greenspan stood in front of us all and told us that he had to raise interest rates dramatically in order to slow down the economy because the unemployment rate was going too low. He said that it would be inflationary if lower income people could switch jobs and thus put pressure on their employers for higher wages.
In the 1960's all the politicians could talk about was helping the poor, then they had their way and it had a very negative impact on the poor. Nobody says anything about it at all any more.
We are a nation that has regulated some important industries out of existence merely out of spite for our own people in that no other reason can explain why those industries were regulated into nothingness. We are a nation that is completely enamored by the images of our leaders brought to us by a dishonest media and absolutely unconcerned at all for the reality of what our leaders actually do.
Mass citizens are extremely overtaxed. They don't have any money left to give.
Well, duh! Mass. legislators know better how to help the poor, so they do the giving (in tax dollars) for you!
:) ttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.