Anonymous comment

I received a comment today on my posting "The times they are a changin'" that I chose not to publish because it was submitted anonymously. I won't give stage or audience to writers unwilling to have the readers know their identity.
This unknown author believed I painted the poor of this country with too broad a brush. The posting is still there and you can decide that for yourselves. (I do sort of wish the comment could be seen, as it went on to make some logical leaps and accuse me of apparently wishing to simply rid our nation, by force, of all poor people.)
I would however like to give a limited response because, if the accusation were true, it would be a valid point.
The majority of 'poor' people in this country, I think we all know many, are hard-working people doing the best they can to support themselves. Many work multiple jobs and go about living their lives, minding their business, and probably wishing others would do the same. They are not out demanding anything. They can hold their heads high and I respect them.
My posting referred specifically to a different mindset. Those individuals at the Occupy Wall Street rallies do not represent the majority and have no such honor. (The 99% is a complete misnomer.) There is no honor, however cleverly described as "fairness", to demanding that the government take from others in order to have it for yourself. Take a look at the protesters, listen to what they demand, observe how they are behaving. THOSE individuals, if given their way, will eventually destroy the economic, AND THE MORAL fabric of this nation.
And I stand by that!

The times they are a changin'

I'm not THAT old, but it seems I remember a time when welfare was meant as a safety net for those that had fallen on hard times. Even the truly deserving and needful were hesitant to accept it. It was always considered a temporary last resort.
Now we have masses of people taking to the streets to publicly demand that they be supported by dollars forcibly taken from others. These are almost entirely people that are physically capable of working, when they're sober, but somehow feel it is more moral to legally steal from others for their support than to expect them to take a job that is beneath them. Yet they think the rich are the prima donnas.
Think of this shift in attitudes. Even if you don't believe our country is on the brink of bankruptcy now, how long do you think we can continue this trend before it is?

Top Ten things you WON'T see among the Wall Street protestors

10. Callused hands
9. Unique thoughts
8. Ronald Reagan T-shirt
7. Moral compass
6. Gratitude
5. Deodorant
4. Prayer circles
3. Natural leaders
2. Personal discipline
1. The American Dream

Ohio escape renews calls for exotic pet ban

This was the first headline I saw today regarding the story of the man that released all his exotic animals before killing himself.
Without debating the appropriateness of keeping exotic animals or not, what leaped out at me was the attitude that every unfortunate event that makes the news means we need more laws.
This is how freedoms get eroded. Some pinhead does something stupid, then activists and legislators begin yelling "Something has to be done". The next thing you know they write and pass new one-size-fits-all laws that are written so broadly as to prevent perfectly responsible people from doing perfectly responsible things. (This describes 99% of all gun laws.)
In the name of liberty leaders in this nation once tried to avoid violating the principle of 'prior restraint'. That principle demands that we punish bad apples rather than create laws that presume everyone is a bad apple.
Sadly we don't use that standard much anymore.

If only....

If the ne'er do wells would just put 1/10th as much effort into making themselves employable as they do complaining and making trouble they........ oh wait, they DO.

And there's the trouble, isn't it?

Didn't anyone learn from the goose that layed the golden egg?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
There is much dispute concerning the author of this aged quotation. But there can certainly be no disputing its accuracy.
Take as example the disgusting Occupy Wall Street demonstrations happening now. Take a close look at the individuals involved. With few exceptions they fall into two categories: 1)Those that have chosen lives of sloth, degradation, and rebellion, yet believe they are entitled to the wealth acquired by the accursed "rich". 2)Those that exploit them for personal gain.
The desire of the slothful to steal from the productive is as old as time. Doing so through the workings of democratic government may make it legal, but it doesn't make it any more moral.
But alas the slothful will always outnumber the productive, and professional politicians (another concept against which our founders warned us) more concerned with power than with sustainable governance, will always be willing to pander to this majority. Ironically it will be the producers that are labeled "greedy" in this scheme.
I defy anyone to intelligently explain how this scenario can survive long term.

A glimmer of hope.

I have no idea who the student behind this is. But I know they're going to be successful.
By success I don't just mean income, although that will likely be the case. I also mean that I suspect they will find good employment, will do well there and find satisfaction in doing their job well. I suppose they will be well liked by their co-workers because they work hard and are cheerful doing so, which will likely lead to recognition and upward mobility. Or perhaps, if they're more independent minded they will start their own business which will succeed because they put the same work ethic into it they did their education. I believe they will be satisfied living within their means, staying out of debt, and likely save for the future. This will of course mean having fewer 'toys', and being moderate in their leisure spending. These traits of sacrifice and resisting indulgence will probably help enable them to be a good spouse and have wonderful, happy relationships. They will most likely find happiness in what they have, rather than wallowing in covetousness. After passing these traits on they will probably be blessed with happy, good-natured children.
Many years down the road I see this person as a happy, hard working, generous, self sufficient, person. After a lifetime of sacrifice, hard work, moderate spending, and squirreling away their earnings, they will undoubtedly be reviled as "the rich" by pampered, self-indulgent, ill-tempered, slothful, short-sighted, seldom washed ingrates, that will demand the government strip them of their wealth to be used to prop up these same slovenly ne'er do wells, all in the name of fairness.
For examples of the latter, please refer to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.