IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THIS exchange from the beginning, I'm replying to John J. Wall, from whom I received a forwarded email, requesting a divorce from all "American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al."
John, and what he calls "his group", would like to put an end to the United States by dividing the "landmass" between his "group", and the rest of us.
While replying to John's offer, I've been trying to discern exactly just who John's "group" is.
So far, I've discovered that they are people who would:
- Do away with Medicare and other government services,
- Raise taxes on the poor and middle class,
- Let the government tell you when you can assemble,
- Let the government ban black students from white schools,
- Let the government prosecute people without representation,
- Let the government tell married couples whether to use birth control,
- Allow any President, conservative or liberal, to ignore the law,
- Allow the government to bar clergy from public office, and
- Allow the government to spy on us, in our own homes, without a warrant.
I'm guessing the group is a small one.
But back to my response...
Your letter continues, John, with this little gem:
"You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O' Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them)."
I get it. They're all fat, right?
You see, John, it's this kind of nasty little shot at someone's personal appearance that makes it hard to like you.
If you and your "group" tried to be just a little more civil, you might make some friends and not be quite so angry all the time.
"We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street."
Let's forget about tearing the country in half for now, and just focus on our differences.
-
If by "capitalism" you mean the kind of capitalism which concentrates all the wealth that middle class and poor workers create in the hands of few people at the top, then I would be willing to give that up.
-
Also, you could certainly have those corporations that are both greedy and so big they distort the free market.
I'd keep a truly free market, which, like a free country, requires some rules. -
Some of those big corporations you want probably would be pharmaceutical companies.
But I doubt all pharmaceutical companies would qualify. -
Walmart you could definitely have, and for the same reasons.
I'd prefer all the little mom and pop businesses it replaces. -
And you can have the poorly regulated Wall Street that helped cause the recent recession.
I'll take a well-regulated, fair and transparent Wall Street in its place.
Next, you say:
"You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens."
There you go again.
It's true. I think of the homeless as people, and I think we should do what we can to get them back on their feet.
But I don't like the fact that they are homeless, and I haven't done anything to encourage homelessness.
In fact, here in California, the homeless are about equally divided between three groups:
-
The mentally ill, who are on the streets because Ronald Reagan cut funding to state mental facilities when he was governor.
-
Drug addicts, because the ongoing "war on drugs" is ineffective, and creates a perfect black market.
-
People who are temporarily out of work, because of a bad economy and the unwillingness of people like you to support the kind of welfare system which would help them get back on their feet, and contributing again.
Not one of those situations is anything I endorse.
In each case, the present situation is the result of policies put in place by people who, like you John, refuse to deal with the real world.
They don't recognize the effects of their own policies.
So if you are really trying to fix blame for the homeless, you need to look a little closer to home.
So much for the homeless.
Next?
"Hippies"?
Really?
Hippies?
And next...
As to "illegal aliens", I'd prefer that they weren't here illegally, just like you.
But once again, any solution to that problem requires contact with reality.
As long as American businesses continue to hire people who are here illegally over locals because they are easier to exploit...
...as long as our laws make those people easy to exploit...
...as long as economic conditions here and in other countries make those illegal jobs a matter of hope and survival...
...people will find a way to get here—no matter how many fences we build or Draconian laws we pass.
If the situation were reversed you'd do exactly the same thing, John, and pointing the finger and laying blame won't fix the problem.
Denying people immunizations and health care only means that they become a breeding ground for epidemics, which the rest of us have to deal with.
Denying their kids schooling only means that we have unsupervised, illegal, kids running the streets while their parents work for us, and probably being recruited by gangs.
And passing laws that require police to check the papers of anyone who looks vaguely hispanic, including bona fide citizens of the United States, has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with racism.
The solution is just not simple.
We do need to find one, but it will require grownup thinking, that deals with the realities—not just political grandstanding.
The same is true for "homeboys", by which I take you to mean gang members.
You can't seriously mean to imply that I like the idea of violent gangs, drive-by shootings, and drug dealing.
It's one of the reasons I'd like better gun control.
I'd love to see all that gone forever, but, once again John, I'm a grown-up.
We won't get rid of gangs without addressing the poverty, lack of justice, poor law enforcement, and lack of opportunity in the communities that breed gangs.
And we won't successfully address those issues without some of the resources which come from "redistributive taxes".
Political rhetoric, name-calling, sending people to jail (where they can get better gang connections) for minor infractions, and expecting a capitalistic laissez-faire market to fix the all the problems out of pure selfishness hasn't worked.
And, by the way John—guess what pays for those prisons?
Your "redistributive taxes".
It's just time to grow up, John, and realize that these are real-world problems that require more than slogans and slurs by way of a fix.
They require adults, using their intellect and technical skills, willing to try a solution, see how well it works, rethink it if necessary, and readjust until the problem is solved.
Next: John embraces "hot Alaskan hockey moms,
greedy CEO's and rednecks"...
