June 30, 1997
As a society, we have accepted, with remarkably little complaint, drug testing in a broad variety of pursuits: for airline pilots and train engineers, as a matter of prudence; for athletes and other kinds of public figures or "role models," as a matter of public morality; and for employees of government and government contractors, as a matter of public policy. But, for some reason, we tolerate rampant drug use among the recipients of welfare.
In the spirit of a modest proposal, I suggest that we require all persons receiving public assistance, whether it be public housing, AFDC, SSI disability, food stamps, or even residence in public shelters, be tested for drug use, such assistance to be withheld in the event of a positive test result for anyone in the family. It seems to me that the least we can ask of those who are to be granted aid, particularly aid on behalf of minor children, in the spirit of good stewardship, is sobriety and abstention from drugs.
Am I dreamin', or what?
Profit never needs a reason.
... Stan Freberg
Those who are engrossed in the rapid realization of an extravagant hope tend to view facts as something base and unclean; facts are counterrevolutionary.
... Eric Hoffer
Well, how's about dat? Massah is finally gonna allow his chillin to p'tend dey owns dey own propity! Ain't dat de limit? He say we gone be able to borry money on our own houses, fum now on. 'Course, this hyere is Texas, so we still gots to pay propity taxes. We still has to send money to Massah ever year. But he say our propity is finally our'n, to do wit' as we sees fittin'.
'Course, we still gots to ask Massah's permission if we's gonna put up a buildin', or tear one down. But Massah's pretty good 'bout dat. He usually say dat it's OK. 'Course, we still gots to use Massah's utilities. No gettin' 'round dat. But they usually be plenty good. 'Course, Massah still gets to say wheah we send our li'l chillen to school. But Massah's schools be pretty good. Usually. In fact, Massah's talkin' 'bout usin' dat money from the lott'ry for education, jes' like he promise.
Fact is, us folks got it real good down hyere on the Texas plantation. We livin' high on de hog. Massah's pockets be full, the way Massah's pockets oughter be. And we livin' the life o' Riley, jes' workin' away on Massah's plantation, enjoyin' all our privileges. Long as we brings our share to the countin' house, now, we can even p'tend we owns our own propity! How's about dat!
Note:
- House vote opens door for home equity loans -- The House of Representatives of the Texas Legislature voted to "let voters decide whether they should be able to borrow money using the equity in their homes as collateral," a practice which has been prohibited for 152 years, since the 1845 Texas constitution.
... Dallas Morning News, May 10, 1997
The roll of martyrs in the cause of property rights has some new names to be added. The city of Hurst, Texas, a squalid, little, bedroom paradise between Dallas and Ft. Worth, has exercised its powers of imminent domain against 6 homeowners, the last holdouts of some 300 whose houses were bought out and will now be torn down, after 30 years' occupancy.
What cause of public good justified the use of eminent domain? Against what forward-looking token of human progress did these coarse and backward citizens assert their selfish, narrow interests? What giant edifice of public works will now serve the citizens, the community, and the human race, displacing the few ramshackle dwellings that had heretofore squandered the land resources in its place? Was it a highway over which the commerce of the nation may pass? a public building in which society's justice may be meted out and the unjust confined? the campus of a new school in which the learning of tomorrow will replace the prejudices and superstitions of the past?
It was a shopping center. You heard me right, a shopping center. Nordstrom's was persuaded to move into a new portion of the "Northeast Mall," provided that enough parking area could be secured. On behalf of this mighty public work, the forces of government were mustered, and the recalcitrant individualists who stood in the way of progress were swept aside in the public interest. Even a state district judge affirmed the city's right to do this.
What I find astounding is that everyone knows that this was wrong. Everyone knows that the people who were paid "market value" for their houses took a screwing. Now, there is nothing new about venality, but morally and ethically, it is simply indefensible. Yet the action went forward, blandly justified by a city official, on the grounds that the tax rolls would experience a net benefit.
Texas was once a proud utopia of individualism and property rights. No more.
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
... Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 6:1-4)
Everyone I know, who is not at the moment overwhelmed in the task of child-rearing, volunteers at something -- some good work, some beneficial task, some charitable activity or cause. Not only is it as American as apple pie, it is the legitimate product of both Christian and Jewish ideals, not to mention those of several atheists and agnostics I know. But it is of the essence that people who perform such good works must be disinterested, that is, they must derive no personal financial benefit from the activity, apart from attaching their name to the work.
The Christian model goes even further, directing one to give alms by stealth (see Gospel). The notion of disinterested charity comes from this model, and though it is observed more in the breach, there is a special shrug we all have for the obvious grandstander, the heart-balm peddler who makes a great show of public giving, but who makes it all up in increased sales. In fact, we quantify the underlying mechanism for this hypocrisy in the notion of "name recognition." No one would care how well their name is recognized if he could not turn that into cash.
About the notion of whooping up volunteerism (the current politically correct euphemism for charity), I have not a bad word to say. The First Cheerleader is free to encourage people in charitable works all he likes. But let us not mistake this advocacy for the good works themselves. There is credit in the good works, but not in the advocacy, and the hyping of good works as a substitute for performing them oneself is the height of hypocrisy. Even worse, it is clear that the President is not a disinterested party in this. He has, in fact, a powerful motivation. He wants to harness the power of this movement to help his cause, specifically, to make socialism work.
Here in the United Villages of America, volunteerism means helping the government cover up for failed programs, e.g., volunteering to teach children to read, which is something the schools were supposed to do, or fixing up run-down neighborhoods, which in many cases have come into their present state of decline because of government programs and the way that they impoverish the most vulnerable economic groups. The most important thing to these advocates of volunteerism is not the acts of charity themselves, but the organized determination to make social programs appear to work, thus justifying their cost and the loss of freedom that accompanies them. This is so manifestly the objective that the President has now proposed "compulsory volunteerism," a statement that defies rational analysis, to shore up the failed systems.
The Volunteerism Summit illustrates both the desperation of the socialists and the lengths to which the apologists for socialism will go in the effort to co-opt the charitable works of Americans for political purposes, hammering us with rants about collective guilt. These efforts have to be constantly escalated, because with the passage of time, they work less and less well, as Americans experience what the pundits are calling "compassion fatigue," the constantly repeated appeal to their compassionate nature. It is like accommodation to a drug, at first achieving its effect with a relatively small dosage, but later requiring larger and larger doses with less effect.
Fortunately, the Spirit that moves people by the millions to good works and charity will not be stained by the disingenuity of those who try to use them for personal or political gain. He will not be frustrated, for His purposes are entirely internal. But shame to the Clintons, the professional organizers, and the politicians, who sully the reputation of charity with their tawdry exploitation.
Speaking of eminent domain, the days have shortened until the "handover" (so rightly put) of the peaceful, prosperous, beautiful, free colony of Hong Kong to the bloody, cruel tyrants of the self-styled, People's Republic of Dungeon, I mean, China. Without a shred of legitimacy, the Red Chinese have taken possession of this lovely country, where the British planted freedom, just laws, and self-determination.
"Will the (Red) Chinese keep their promises (to maintain Hong Kong's freedom and integrity)?" the newsreaders ask. Of course not. They never have before; why should they start now? There is absolutely no suspense involved. We know that the time will come, with the certainty of tomorrow's sunrise, when the liberties presently protected by colonial rule will be violently repressed by the Red Chinese. It is simply a matter of when.
But no one wants to admit that there is anything wrong. True, the Chinese can be hard to deal with, but continued "engagement" will eventually work all the problems out, according to the apologists for current policy. Even ordinarily reliable conservatives are abandoning ship on this one. On last Tuesday's vote in favor of MFN for China, Rep. Bill Archer, normally reliable as a conservative voice in the House, said, "Shutting down trade with China... would put in place a policy of unilateral confrontation that would not change China's behavior." I have heard better excuses from Nazis.
I do not know what deals were struck, what compromises were made, to bring about this bastard descendant of the Munich accord. Why was no thought given to ceding Hong Kong to the legitimate government of China, on Taiwan? Why was not independence granted, or even a plebiscite proposed? The world will look back on that day, when the bands played, the British flag was pulled down the flagpole for the last time, and the Red Chinese flag strung up in its place, as a moment of infamy.
Naturally, the parties that struck the deals will not suffer: that will be left to the people of Hong Kong. It is they who will have to endure the imprisonments, persecutions, and killings. It is they whose protests will fall on deaf ears. It is they who will have to put up with the tyranny, with its quislings and party jacks-in-office. Say a prayer with me for the poor people of Hong Kong, as they embark on their dark journey.
No matter what the excuses are, history will judge that it could have been prevented, Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton will take up their seats next to Neville Chamberlain. With what callous indifference does America lead the free world.
I notice that, in Zaire, Mobutu's resignation has been accepted by the Kabila "government." Not with the same grace that Mussolini's resignation was accepted by the Italian people, nor Ceaucescu's by the Romanian people. Now those are the kind of acceptances that truly make a difference. They really provide closure, as the shrinks say.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 10:41 PM
