Words Are Dangerous Things

Feb 2040
Port au Prince- Haiti

In a surprising turn of events, do-gooders all over the world had their sensibilities shaken as they came to learn that much of the aid that was collected for Haiti after the earthquake of 2010 was of little use, for  twenty  years after that devastating earthquake, Haitians still live in conditions of poverty and disease that are essentially the same as that in which their nation existed beforehand.

Such turn of events has been used by the World Nations League as poof of the niggardliness of the Western Nations and Prime Overlord Amid Kerchi chided the "West" that although they had risen themselves up from poverty and strife by having a  national pride of self responsibility,  and were now after years of national work and toil enjoying the fruits of their labors, that they should "give back" to those that are not interested in the least in helping themselves and instead demand to live off the labors of others. 

The United North American League, responded to these allegations of neglect that prior to the quake, saying that they had spent over 3 billion in aid to the Haitian nation and that such expenditure over  17 years of "giving" was of absolutely no use, citing the facts that employment and poverty at the commencement of their giving was at a lower level compared to in the subsequent years.

As example of how this all came to be, President Jacobssen of the United North American League, played at the  World Nations League general assembly a tape of a 2040 interview with Jamil JabJube a citizen of Haiti.

When asked about the impact of foreign aid to his country, Jamil JabJube said that after 1960's when the aid started pouring in from the western nations that had been made guilt ridden from their misunderstanding and conflating of the concepts of  responsibility and poverty, that people like him had seen that there was no need to work and  provide for their families, as the lower cost option was to be shiftless and wait for aid to come from a West that can always be black-bagged into a sense of guilt. Indeed, he was proud to live in a nation that has such poverty, as it helped in achieving his aim of getting something for as little expenditure of energy as possible.

He cited that he has 13 kids - all qualifying under the Western Nations Guilt Plan for direct payments and medical attention. He further stated that while in generations previous to his, married and unmarried couples practiced Haikde and Jayal, forms of sexual self or mutual stimulation and gratification without intercourse that had been developed over centuries of their society's evolution as a means to relieve sexual tension without the risk of pregnancy and consequent increase in population that would, if not practiced, soon strip the tiny nation of all its sustainable resources, there was now no need for such practices for no matter how bad it gets, as the Western guilt can always be counted on.

He went on to say that in the last 50 years the so called Western Aid has completely destroyed their one means of rising out of poverty (working/doing it themselves) , reiterating that it is because the aid has made it so that there is no need of practicing Jayal and Haikde which results in a swarms of povety stricken children and indeed has created a nation standing at every street-corner of the world demanding "need" payment to their outstretched palms.

He further heaped contempt and disdain on one particular class of do-gooders  - those that come over for 2 months every year and build a couple of homes for those that are considered "deserving" and after doing so, then jet  back to their lives of luxury and leave a couple of Haitian families in a "new home", which does nothing more than cause envy and jealousy among the neighbors.

He said that when everyone is poor, nobody is poor and such "charity" upsets the delicate balance of life that rests of personal responsibility. Citing the philosophical truism that wealth created by ones own initiative is hard enough to protect from attack by those "in need", the said that it is even harder to protect when its possession has merely been handed over. As example, he said that a man who builds his own house while the others sit and watch is soon beset by the jealousy of his neighbors, those same neighbors are even more jealous when he got that house without having to do any work other than being  judged to be "in need" and "deserving".

Asked why the Western League persists in sending "aid" he said that it is because those nations have forgotten  that need does not create a "deservement" and have conflated the word and concept of "deserve" with the concept of "a claim" and the concept of "need", citing the very definition of the word as shown above as proof. He said that the beauty of the English and French Languages of old were that they had a plethora of words intended to convey subtle but important distinctions on meaning, and that the lazy American and Western minds, due to a dumbing down from  the "no child left behind" education system which acts so that "no child gets ahead, has started conflating ideas and concepts that should not be so associated.

He ended his interview by reminding that "lack of" something should not be conflated with "need" for something, and that neither should be conflated with "claim" for something , warning that a society that does not understand the boundaries and fences erected make these terms good neighbors, will create a nation of citizens who try and stake a claim based simply on their "need".

For the Children - Yeah Right

My wife and I were listening to the Glen Beck show just a few minutes ago and I had to push the pause button on the Tivo and come write this. The bottom line of this entry is that even Glen Beck does not get it!

Here is how -
Beck started his show this evening making a big deal out of how the meaning of words really matters (duh!) , and taking Obama to task for Obama's Orwellian use of words and phrases that really mean the opposite of what they would mean to most people. For example Glen Beck says that he [Beck] "wants a responsible government", but that when Obama says the same thing, Obama really means the opposite. To make his point he played a clip of Obama saying "Lets build a government that's responsible to the people."

Building a government that's responsible to the people sounds good to the likes of you and me. Why?

• Because we know what a government responsible to the people is. A government responsible to the people is one that lives within the deliberate confines of the Constitution, a document which was deliberately crafted the way it was to impose shackling limitations on government power in light of the fact that men are corrupt, and in light of the fact that if all men were angels there would be no need for government.

• Because we know that a government responsible to the people would not introduce fascism into our society and would uphold the traditions of a person's ownership of that which he created.

• Because we know that a government responsible to the people is one that understood that "No, It does NOT take a village. It takes a Mommy and a Daddy working for themselves and instructing their children in morality and the ethic of work."

But, this is not what Obama means. What he means by "a government responsible to the people" is a government that will rob me and 92% of others like me to make sure that the deadbeat that took out a loan on a house that he never should have gotten a loan for in the first place can keep that home instead of getting removed, forcibly if necessary, to other accommodations. What Obama means is that it is not my job to do anything for myself, but that of my neighbor to pay to have someone else do it for me.

Beck was going apoplectic over this as he rightly should. So far so good then - up until the point where Beck, in talking about all the party faction and the statist craziness on both sides, says "I'm not here for anybody's party, I'm here for my children."

It is at this point where I come unglued, for that kind of thinking and dumb statement making is exactly an example of the muddled thinking that gets people into trouble and it exposes the fact that even Beck in unable to connect the dots.

Not to put too fine a point on things and just to make things clear (connect the dots) - I am not here for my children ... or your children, and every time I hear someone use this maudlin sop I want to vomit.The reason is that if your idea can't stand on its own two feet and has to be cloaked with the shroud of "the children", then it is an idea that is unworthy of being put into practice.

To make an example, the reason not to rob people is because it is just plain wrong, and the reason that it is just plain wrong is that without private property and ownership that is secure, the society breaks down into chaos. (Oh my, am I speaking here of 2009?) There need be no plea to "the children" or "my children", or "your children" to make or prove the point, and the kernel of truth is that if I take care of myself, and if you take care of YOURSELF instead of asking me to do it, then I won't have to worry about my children, you won't have to worry about yours, and I will not have to look over my shoulder to make sure that you not using the power of the state to "worry" about mine.

(In Beck's defense, it can be said that at least he referred to "his" children, and not children in general. But, even at that, use of any term having the word "children" in it is dangerous becasue that very word is the raw material that will be picked up by your opponent and used against you as it is used to whip the mob up into a feeding frenzy at your pocketbook's expense.)

So then, leave "the children", especially my children, the hell out of it. First, because they are not the basis for why we have a government founded on the principles of individual responsibility and consequence, and second because once YOU start politicizing "the children", using terms like "my children, "your children", or "the children", then ANYTHING can be justified by ANYBODY, using them , the children as pawns. (Why do you think that "the children" are constantly referred to in collectivist's attempts to shakle us with State run health care?)

Need to turn the country onto a gulag by implementing another unsustainable system (health care) that will go broke in 20 years from being robbed for other "social" programs like social security was? No problem, because, after all, its being done "for the children", those poor little urchins who do not have health care [because their parents either did not want it or because they were too lazy to get a job and pay for it, or because they spent the money on a bigger house]. If you do not have health care for your children so what? That should not be my problem? Care for YOUR children is YOUR responsibility, not mine, whether directly or through what you want to use as a proxy - the government.

A closing point - I am not my brother's keeper, and neither is he mine. I am my own keeper. Any other view of the proper state of things puts both feet firmly on the slippery slope leading directly toward the collectivist state.