September 9, 2017 12:00 pm
We have heard for years the complaints of red state elected officials about federal aid subsidizing the undeserving. Ted Cruz of Texas and other red state conservatives opposed federal aid to the northeastern states devastated by Hurricane Sandy. Now the same conservatives want the federal taxpayers to help them out in the aftermath of a Hurricane Harvey and Irma.
Garrison Keillor called them out for their hypocrisy in this brilliant article.
He writes:
“The Republic of Texas believes in self-reliance and is suspicious of Washington sticking its big nose in your business. “Government is not the answer. You are not doing anyone a favor by creating dependency, destroying individual responsibility.” So said Sen. Ted Cruz (R), though not last week. Sunday on Fox News, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said Texas would need upward of $150 billion in federal aid for damage inflicted by Harvey. The stories out of Houston have all been about neighborliness and helping hands and people donating to relief funds, but you don’t raise $150 billion by holding bake sales. This is almost as much as the annual budget of the U.S. Army. I’m just saying.
“I’m all in favor of pouring money into Texas, but I am a bleeding-heart liberal who favors single-payer health care. How is being struck by a hurricane so different from being hit by cancer? I’m only asking.
“Houstonians chose to settle on a swampy flood plain barely 50 feet above sea level. The risks of doing so are fairly clear. If you chose to live in a tree and the branch your hammock was attached to fell down, you wouldn’t ask for a government subsidy to hang your hammock in a different tree.
“President Ronald Reagan said that government isn’t the answer, it is the problem, and conservatives have found that line very resonant over the years. In Cruz’s run for president last year, he called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. He did not mention this last week. It would be hard to raise an extra $150 billion without the progressive income tax unless you could persuade Mexico to foot the bill.
“Similarly, if a desert state such as Arizona expects the feds to solve its water shortage, as Sen. Jeff Flake (R) suggested recently, by guaranteeing Arizona first dibs on Lake Mead, this strikes me as a departure from conservative principles. Lake Mead, and Boulder Dam, which created it, were not built by Lake Mead Inc., but by the federal government. The residents of Phoenix decided freely to settle in an arid valley, and they have used federal water supplies to keep their lawns green. Why should we Minnesotans, who chose to live near water, subsidize golf courses on the desert? You like sunshine? Fine. Take responsibility for your decision and work out a deal with Perrier to keep yourselves hydrated.
“Arizona is populated by folks who dread winter and hate having to shovel snow. In Minnesota, we recognize that snow is a form of water and that it’s snowmelt that replenishes the aquifers. So we make a rational decision to live here. A warm, dry winter is a sort of disaster for us, but we don’t apply to Washington for hankies. If we made a decision to live underwater on a coral reef off Hawaii, we wouldn’t expect the feds to provide us with Aqua-Lungs. If we chose to fly to the moon and play among the stars and spend spring on Jupiter and Mars and we got lost out there, we wouldn’t expect NASA to come rescue us. Get my drift here?”
Posted by dianeravitch
Categories: Environment, Funding
Tags:
Mobile Site | Full Site
Get a free blog at WordPress.com Theme: WordPress Mobile Edition by Alex King.
Keillor/Franken 2020.
LikeLike
By Ponderosa on September 9, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Like! At least there’d be a few laughs.
LikeLike
By Christine Langhoff on September 10, 2017 at 12:48 pm
How much money is tRump planning to make this weekend? What a creep and he gets away with this type of activity all the time. Isn’t this the quality that Americans expect in a really good president…cheat everybody to make more for himself.
……………….
Trump took $17 million in insurance for damage few remember | Political News | US News | US News
PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Donald Trump received a $17 million insurance payment in 2005 for hurricane damage to Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, but The Associated Press can find little evidence of such large-scale damage.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-24/trump-took-17-million-in-insurance-for-damage-few-remember
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 9, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Excellent!!!! We are always being lectured to, talked down to and scolded by the right wingers, GOP, libertarians about personal responsibility, limited government (crippled government), lower taxes and the perils of the “nanny” state. They vomit up these fake phony memes 24/7 for decades and decades and decades. But when they need help and assistance, oh, that’s a different story don’t you know. Hypocrites on steroids. Their answer to everything is charity. Let charity take the place of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, welfare programs (what’s left of them), the ACA, disability insurance, etc. Oh sure, beg for charity if you are on kidney dialysis which can cost $150,000/year and up. There is no way in hell that charity can supply health care to all Americans, it’s an IDIOTIC idea.
LikeLike
By Joe on September 9, 2017 at 1:03 pm
When I was in Houston a few years ago when gas prices were between $3 and $4 a gallon, I recall seeing a number of separatist bumper stickers. Some people were proposing secession. After all Texas had been its own republic before. I imagine a lot of the bumper stickers are under water now, and they’ll be more than happy to get their federal help.
I can’t even imagine what a privatized FEMA would look like! Lots of people pounce on federal agencies for their inefficiency with good reason. Like public schools we need to improve them,k not replace them. A privatized FEMA would be full of graft and partiality. It is hard enough to have to deal with private insurance companies. When Sandy hit, a lot of companies were guilty of changing engineer reports to avoid paying expensive claims. The same can be said for people with cancer or other expensive conditions. Before the ACA insurance companies were dropping people when they got a serious, expensive disease. We should never to back to this!
LikeLike
By retired teacher on September 9, 2017 at 1:41 pm
The so-called “fiscal conservatives” who always scream and rant about spending on social welfare issues never met a war-making budget they opposed. These colossal hypocrites, along with “liberal” Democrats, all support the U.S. empire and vote for the annual national security budget of more than one TRILLION dollars a year, which includes not only the Pentagon, but 16 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons in the Energy Dept. budget, military parts of NASA’s budget, payments on past war debts, veterans’ affairs, and all the wars now being waged (at least seven).
Then these hypocrites scream about raising the debt ceiling while our infrastructure continues to crumble and our unnecessary, avoidable wars of aggression murder hundreds of thousands of people, terrorize and maim millions more, and devastate the planet.
The hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the more than 800 military bases in more than 70 foreign countries, costing hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain this anti-democratic empire, should be brought home to help with the increasing disasters which certainly will befall us due to the New Normal of extreme weather caused by anthropogenic (capitalogenic) climate chaos
But, as long as Wall St. and War St. continue to reap their blood-drenched profits and legally bribe members of Congress, this immoral insanity will continue.
LikeLike
By Ed Ciaccio on September 9, 2017 at 2:36 pm
Ed, maybe Trump will outsource Afghanistan to Betsy DeVos’s brother Erik Prince and his mercenary army.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 9, 2017 at 2:48 pm
Good one, Diane.
LikeLike
By Yvonne Siu-Runyan on September 11, 2017 at 1:09 pm
Love this quote from Garrison:
“I’m all in favor of pouring money into Texas, but I am a bleeding-heart liberal who favors single-payer health care. How is being struck by a hurricane so different from being hit by cancer? I’m only asking.”
As they say, everyone is a socialist when disaster strikes.
The sad thing is, after the clean-up in Houston, et al, is finally over with (and this is going to take a long, long time and a whole lot of money), Ted Cruz, et al, will be right back to espousing their selfish beliefs. As long as it doesn’t affect them or their voters, it’s obviously a waste of money and people need to “help themselves.”
{{Sigh.}} Hypocrites. Damned hypocrites.
LikeLike
By Zorba on September 9, 2017 at 2:37 pm
See this information from the Liberal Institute:
http://www.liberalinstitute.com/CharityNotProperGovernmentFunction.html
I am in agreement with this sentiment.
If all politicians were in conformance, with the true meaning of the US Constitution, it would mean political suicide.
LikeLike
By Charles on September 9, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Right, Charles. The damage done by hurricanes in Texas and Florida should be the responsibility of private charities, not taxpayers like us. We don’t live there. Not our problem. Let the Kiwanis and Masons and churches pay for it.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 9, 2017 at 3:58 pm
It is easy to be charitable with other people’s money. I maintain, and I still maintain, that there is no mandate for charity in the US Constitution. James Madison could not find it, Neither could Franklin Pierce nor Grover Cleveland.
Of course human suffering and misery, is “our problem”.
I believe sincerely, you will see private charities and churches, pouring millions into the affected areas.
In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, “If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?”
If you can find specific Constitutional authority for the US Government to become involved in charitable activity, please point me to the specific clause.
Where do you draw the line, on what the Government can spend money on?
LikeLike
By Charles on September 9, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Like you, Charles, I believe that life is nasty, brutish, and short and we are all on our own, unless a charity gives us a handout. Why draw the line? It is every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Note that all the foregoing was written tongue in cheek, lest anyone take me seriously. I believe that I am my brother’s keeper, and my sisters too. Government is responsible to see that not one of us dies for inability to pay for food, shelter, and medical care. When faced with catastrophes like natural disasters, only government has the resources to fend off great tragedy.
Although I am Jewish, I agree with many of Jesus’ sayings. We will be judged in the end by what we have done for the least of us, not by how many things we possess.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 9, 2017 at 5:08 pm
“Where do you draw the line, on what the Government can spend money on?”
Well, in a government by the people, for the people and of the people, I’d think that would be up to, well, the people.
BTW, can you find me the specific provision of the Constitution that authorizes the government to spend money on private contractors to perform U.S. military functions?
LikeLike
By dienne77 on September 9, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Q can you find me the specific provision of the Constitution that authorizes the government to spend money on private contractors to perform U.S. military functions? END Q
The US Constitution does not specifically authorize the US Army to hire outside contractors to perform military functions. I stipulate this.
BUT- The US Constitution does specifically authorize the government to set up an Army and a Navy.
“The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
The federal government (and its departments) have procurement powers. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_procurement_in_the_United_States
The US Army was created on June 14, 1775, fourteen years before the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. see
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-congress-officially-creates-the-u-s-army
The Department of Defense (keep in mind, that I work in the Pentagon, as a civilian contractor), has wide latitude in how and where it obtains military equipment and services. The Army does not make its own rifles and tanks, and radios. The Army BUYS these things from civilian manufacturers.
The federal government (and its departments) have implied powers, which are not specifically set down in the verbiage of the Constitution. For example, the words “Air Force” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. But the government has created the Air Force, implied in the government’s war/defense powers.
LikeLike
By Charles on September 9, 2017 at 7:23 pm
@Joe/Dienne: Do not guess what I am against nor what I am for. The government has a legitimate purpose in providing law enforcement, fire protection, etc. The 2d amendment specifically authorizes a “well-ordered militia” (National Guard).
You can look to history, and see time after time, where Presidents have vetoed legislation, that the congress has passed to provide relief to foreign refugees, drought relief, flood relief, etc. Just see this link:
http://www.liberalinstitute.com/CharityNotProperGovernmentFunction.html
and this is from the LIBERAL institute! Even some liberals, find fault in the federal government providing charitable relief.
Of course, the preamble states the US Constitution was drafted to “promote the general welfare”, I stipulate this.
My problem is the same as Senator William Drayton’s. If the Congress can decide for itself, what is the “general welfare”, and appropriate money for its advancement, then where does it end? Is there no limit to the “promotion”? Where do you draw the line?
LikeLike
By Charles on September 9, 2017 at 7:40 pm
The line is drawn by Congress and the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 9, 2017 at 9:28 pm
Maybe Charles is Polish, and believes in the old Polish saying “Nie mój cyrk, nie moje malpy.”
Which means, “Not my circus, not my monkeys.”
LikeLike
By Zorba on September 9, 2017 at 8:12 pm
Charles,
Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should provide a fire department?
Where does it say the government should provide Medicare and social security?
Are you really angry that old people get social security and medicare? I think you should take a stand and refuse yours.
LikeLike
By NYC public school parent on September 11, 2017 at 1:08 am
The federal government has three categories of power:
-Enumerated
-Inherent
-Implied
The Enumerated powers are set forth in Article 1 Section 8. (and elsewhere in the Constitution). The federal government can coin money, raise armies and navies, set up a national capital city, etc.
The Inherent powers, are powers that the government has, simply because it is the government. The federal government can issue legislation dealing with certain items, example: Marriage and Divorce laws, see Williams v. North Carolina 1940, and Obergefell v. Hodges 2017
The Implied powers, are powers that are drawn from the enumerated powers, like setting up an Air Force is implied from the War/Defense powers.
Other than these three categories, the remainder of the powers and rights are reserved to the states, or the people. (See Amendment 10)
LikeLike
By Charles on September 11, 2017 at 10:24 am
Charles, if you have your way, not a penny for Texas or Florida. Not even Trump agrees with you
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 11, 2017 at 10:54 am
Pray tell, O Charles, what exactly is the “true meaning of the US Constitution”?
Hang on, though, let me go pop my popcorn. This ought to be good.
LikeLike
By Dienne on September 9, 2017 at 4:28 pm
@Dienne: I am an engineer, not a constitutional scholar. If you are truly interested in the meaning of the US Constitution, then go read it for yourself.
If you can find the authority for the federal government, to become involved in charitable activity (James Madison, Franklin Pierce, etc. could not), then please enlighten me.
LikeLike
By Charles on September 9, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Charles, like you, I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I find authority for the federal government to promote the general welfare of its citizens in the first sentence:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 9, 2017 at 5:38 pm
How do you expect politicians to know “the true meaning of the US Constitution” if you don’t? Don’t think I missed your little trick there. You can’t make a claim and then expect other people to do your homework for you. If you think the Constitution has one and only “true meaning”, it’s on you to explain and defend that. It’s not up to me to go and “read it for [my]self”.
As Diane points out, promoting the general welfare is right there in the first sentence of the Constitution. If you think that that somehow doesn’t give the government a mandate to, well, promote the general welfare, make your case.
LikeLike
By dienne77 on September 9, 2017 at 6:09 pm
I guess Charles is against publicly funded police, fire departments, EMTs, the National Guard, the Coast Guard and other first responders who help in natural disasters. According to Charles, they should all be privatized, no charity for you. You will only be rescued if you have paid your monthly fees to all these services. And you will have to depend on volunteers and charity for just about EVERYTHING. Good luck with that. How the hell is the federal government helping out in a natural disaster considered charity? It’s the duty and obligation of the state and federal governments to help out in these gigantic disasters involving more than one state.
LikeLike
By Joe on September 9, 2017 at 6:17 pm
The Constitution says nothing about most government services that we rely on. He wants to go back to the good old days, the 1770s and 1780s.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 9, 2017 at 6:26 pm
This is a little off topic but concerns the ‘altruistic’ attitude of our great Orange leader and his offspring. [Remember Borowitz is a comedian.]
……..
Researchers Identify Gene for Awfulness
By Andy Borowitz
The study of an adult male and three of his adult children persuasively argues that a “powerful dominant gene”makes people heinous.
LEEDS (The Borowitz Report)—In a finding that has wide-ranging implications for society, British researchers at the University of Leeds announced on Saturday that they have identified the gene for awfulness.
The study, which focussed on one adult male and three of his adult children, makes a persuasive argument that there is a “powerful dominant gene” that makes people heinous.
“When we began our research, we wanted to find an adult male with pronounced characteristics of horribleness,” Alistair Dorrinson, the scientist who led the study, said. “In studying three of his adult offspring, we found that they were all carriers of the gene that makes one smug, tone-deaf, and oblivious to the fate of others.”
Additionally, certain subtraits of awfulness, such as an inability to tell the truth, appear to be genetically mediated, Dorrinson said.
“If the father is unable to explain honestly why a meeting took place, for example, the son who carries the same gene will also tell crazy lies about that meeting,” he said.
Hopes that the gene for horribleness might eventually become diluted as its carriers mate with the general population were dashed when the scientists studied the mating history of the adult daughter in the sample group.
“Unfortunately, those who carry the gene for awfulness are more likely to reproduce with other carriers of the same gene,” the scientist said.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/researchers-identify-gene-for-awfulness
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 9, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Well, except that this study doesn’t prove an awfulness gene because it doesn’t untangle the effects of genetics vs. environment. If this awful father’s children are just as awful, is it because they inherited his awful gene, or because they learned their awfulness from him? I suppose we’d have to put these children in a non-awful environment and see if they continue to be awful….
😉
LikeLike
By dienne77 on September 9, 2017 at 6:13 pm
It’s a satire. Don’t take it seriously.
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 9, 2017 at 6:23 pm
Exactly what I have been thinking. I was in Houston for 4 months in 2010. It is known that TX has the attitude that planning and zoning are not important and that oil/gas rule.
My heart goes out to all the innocent people that have suffered through this, but the buck most stop with the planners, zoning enforcers and all elected officials.
Enough!
LikeLike
By Marian Cruz on September 9, 2017 at 7:30 pm
How are all the conservative politicians going to face their constituents? Are they still planning to have charity fix all the destruction because asking for a federal handout is only indulging the greedy, lazy people. Definitely isn’t for those with rugged individualism.
The Constitution says the federal government exists to care for the general welfare. Hope that sinks in. What about the general welfare of people who need healthcare? That is just as important as fixing damaged infrastructure, businesses and homes. What is to happen to the poor who don’t have the means to help themselves? Are you still going to call them greedy?
Shame on all the conservatism that only works to save on taxes. It is taxes that keep the common good available.
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 10, 2017 at 6:34 am
Calvin Coolidge is one of my favorite presidents. Here is why:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2006/09/help_call_the_white_house.html
“The Government is not the insurer of its citizens against the hazards of the elements. We shall always have flood and drought, heat and cold, earthquake and wind, lightning and tidal wave, which are all too constant in their afflictions. The Government does not undertake to reimburse citizens for loss and damage incurred under such circumstances. It is chargeable, however, with the rebuilding of public works and the humanitarian duty of relieving its citizens of distress.” (Calvin Coolidge, 1927 Annual Message to Congress)
LikeLike
By Charles on September 10, 2017 at 6:51 am
Tell that to the people of Houston and Florida.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 10, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Charles, there are countries in which the government lets the citizens fend for themselves after natural disasters. They tend to me the ones that people go to great lengths to leave. Why are you living in one with a long tradition of caring for its citizens’ needs if you dislike it so much?
LikeLike
By NYC public school parent on September 11, 2017 at 1:12 am
I am a US Citizen by birth. The USA does not have a long tradition of caring for its citizens needs. In 1827, Davy Crockett, a member of Congress opposed such beneficence.
Q In 1827, Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his term of office a $10,000 relief measure was proposed to assist the widow of a naval officer. Davy Crockett eloquently opposed the measure saying, “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”
END Q
see
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/constitution.html
I agree with James Madison, Franklin Pierce, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and many others, that the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare, not to provide charity.
Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on the “objects of benevolence.” That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, ad nauseam.
We are $20 Trillion dollars in debt, due to our benevolence.
LikeLike
By Charles on September 11, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Charles, let your senators know that you oppose any federal aid for Texas and Florida. Deadbeats!!
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on September 11, 2017 at 1:59 pm
Charles, if we hadn’t spent so much money on endless war, we would be far more than $20 trillion to the good.
LikeLike
By Christine Langhoff on September 11, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I’m with you Christine. We have been bombing and destroying civilians and their livelihoods for 16 years. How can we justify that? How can we continue with no end in sight?
My feeling is, “Stop the killing.” We cannot kill our way to peace but we can help others to make peace. Then we’d be respected once again in the world.
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 11, 2017 at 4:24 pm
I am in agreement with Davy Crockett: Q . I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. END Q
You and everyone know, that Congress does not have the power to appropriate money as charity. Rebuilding public works, yes. Providing assistance to citizens in genuine distress, yes.
Charity, no.
LikeLike
By Charles on September 11, 2017 at 2:44 pm
Q I’m with you Christine. We have been bombing and destroying civilians and their livelihoods for 16 years. How can we justify that? How can we continue with no end in sight?
My feeling is, “Stop the killing.” We cannot kill our way to peace but we can help others to make peace. Then we’d be respected once again in the world.
END Q
@ Christine/Carol: I worked in Iraq/Afghanistan from 2005-2015. (Civilian contractor). Our armed forces were killing terrorists, and eliminating the Saddam Hussein regime. I was there.
Today is Sept 11, I cannot believe anyone would ask how we can justify the destruction of the terrorists. How soon we forget.
We destroyed Nazism and the Japanese war machines, by military force. The end of terrorism, will be found in force.
Peace is the goal, of course. There is nothing more peaceful than a dead terrorist.
LikeLike
By Charles on September 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm
We cannot kill our way to peace. Use that money to help people. People do desperate things when they have nothing. The more the bombing the more the extremism.
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 11, 2017 at 7:25 pm
At least one state department person gets what I’m saying.
………..
State Dept. Spox on ISIS: “We CANNOT win this war by killing them”
Feb. 16, 2015
State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf told Chris Matthews tonight that we cannot win this war with ISIS by killing them. She said we have to get to the root cause of why people are attracted to Jihad — you know like poverty, jobs, etc…
“We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…”
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm
It isn’t just the wars since our 9/11. There was the 9/11/73 in Chile, which we funded. There were the several wars in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 80’s which we funded in our hunt for godless Communists. We destabilized and destroyed entire communities of people guilty of doing no more than trying to live, work and raise their children. Many of them fled north to the US as refugees and now are vilified and hunted down by ICE for deportations without any representation. They are held in inhumane conditions in for profit prisons.
We have a lot to atone for.
LikeLike
By Christine Langhoff on September 12, 2017 at 12:17 am
Christine Langhoff: I agree totally with you. The CIA has interfered in countries so that they will become more acceptable to US businesses. It is especially sad when we have taken down democratically elected leaders.
Too much destruction has been caused by the US and many of our citizens do not realize this. They still hang on to the 5th grade version of patriotism combined with belief in our exceptionality, placing the US way above other countries.
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 12, 2017 at 7:38 am
“We cannot kill our way to peace.’ It is destructive in both the short and long run. People need stability in their lives and are willing to go a long distance to get it. There is no stability after years and years of wars and killings. The desperation level increases and desperate people do harmful things. They turn into the destructive forces that started the downslide.
The only way earth is going to change is to have a large number of people who can see that peace is achieved by caring about those who are different. We need to get off of our contemporary false beliefs that killing is going to make things become better for a segment of the population. Have you ever seen photos of the destruction that bombs and advanced killing machines do to a country? It isn’t pretty.
Live in one of those countries and find out just how horrible the continuous bombing and flashes of destruction can be. Years after years after years of this and it is totally demoralizing to the whole population. The US has been doing this for 16 years now. What has actually been accomplished? Are there jobs? Are there opportunities for children to go to school? Are there food and the necessities to produce a decent lifestyle? If not, then people become desperate and turn to desperate means to survive.
The extremism that exists on the planet is due to the desperation of this type of extremism. It will never return to people what they need to exist.
It is a long term goal but it is the only realistic thing to do when whole societies have been destroyed.
As I said at the beginning, “We cannot kill our way to peace.” Peace and prosperity have to become goals. They do not exist in a war machine’s atmosphere of more and more killing.
It is sad that the generals and the populace of the US agree that we need to keep fighting and fighting and fighting. When will it ever become enough? It never will.
It is pure destruction and it will never bring to people the peace that will prosper.
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 11, 2017 at 8:31 pm
Quote for the day from Don Miguel Ruiz, MD. [It is meant to be uplifting. Sounds like something tRump should read. It isn’t very long so his attention span should be able to handle it.]
“When we believe in truth, we feel good, and our life is good. When believe in things that are not true, things that encourage fear and hatred in us, the result is fanaticism.”
LikeLike
By carolmalaysia on September 10, 2017 at 11:23 am