Redefining Rockel

You know I never discuss female thermodynamics - Lou; Rescue Me
Poll
Rockel Recipes
Peeps
Politics
News
Fake News
Stuff
The Film of the Week
The WORD of the Week

Matthew 3:7-10

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Stupid Fact of the Week
There was only one civilian casualty during the three-day Battle of Gettysburg
03 April, 2009
On Poverty and Socialism, with a foreword on Iowa and a post script on Marijuana
Before I get into the main thrust of this post, a quick word on the news out of Iowa.

I haven't been terribly vocal on anything here lately, but I made no effort to hide my support of Prop 8 out here in California. I continue to support the "equality" argument of this divisive issue, and therefore applaud Iowa's supreme court, for the following reasons:

1. If I had to name one issue on which I most disagree with current American Christians and/or churches and church leaders, it is with the almost obsessive insistence of legislating morality. If we are to look to Christ as the example of how to live a Christian life (which I think goes without saying), then we ought to spend a bit less time erecting rules that make it easier to pick up stones, and a lot more time focusing on the plank in our own eyes so that we may reach out to those in need.

2. I believe in the separation of church and state. Not because of anything written or implied in the U.S. Constitution, but because of the distraction from real, meaningful work it offers Christians (see above comment), and because of the (real or perceived) wedge that it offers non-believers. I've spoken to the former, allow me to expound on the latter. We are called to love our neighbor. If our love for our neighbor is manifested in placing legislation within a man-made institution that allows this secular organization to treat one group of citizens one way and another group another, then what has this accomplished if not putting a sour taste in our neighbors mouth, driving a wedge between us. Christ did not seek to divide and then selectively apply his love, but rather loved and forgave - even those whom his followers (themselves unworthy of such love) may have considered unworthy (an adulterer springs to mind, though I choose to believe Christ's words and actions in that situation were not mutually exclusive to marital infidelity). Christ also did not seek to stamp His laws into the books of man because He knew that His Kingdom would last and those of man will change (depending on who's in control) and fall.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Poverty and Socialism...

The other day I was driving around town and, while stopped at a stoplight, I witnessed an event that got me thinking. A man, who looked every bit the part of a homeless man, stepped onto a bus. He stood at the front of the bus, as it remained stopped at the bus stop, for several seconds before the driver stood up from his seat and the man turned around and exited the bus.

Now, one can draw several conclusions from the above scenario, and I don't presume to know everything about what transpired, but it definitely made me reflect on the all-to-present - in this city and this world - poverty/homeless problem and the all-too-common story of the "unfortunate fellow" who steps outside the bounds of the law (to varying degrees) for the sole purpose of acquiring the essentials of life for themself (shelter, food/water, and perhaps even clothing). And this brought me to a realization that probably shouldn't have shocked me as much as it did:

I do not mind programs that many would label "socialist" (those that redistribute wealth) at a local/state level; in fact, I may even welcome them.

While there may be some disagreement over accommodations provided for prisoners in this country (cable television and etc.), I don't know of anyone who thinks that the basic essentials of life ought not be provided for these people (the terms "cruel and unusual" and "human rights" come to mind). If our society is one that is built on law & order, which is upheld and enforced by our governments, then there is no getting around that some (if not all) of the burden of maintaining these detention facilities and providing for these prisoners will fall to the citizens/taxpayers.

Then, if we are expected (and willing) to allow our tax dollars to go toward providing the basic essentials (and oftentimes more) for criminals, why should we not be willing to provide the same basic essentials, and perhaps go a bit further to provide some basic health services or, I don't know, a free ride on public transportation (again, I am only going off of an assumption, but it is a fact that - at least here in LA - public transportation, funded in great part by taxpayer dollars, charges by the ride), to those unfortunate few who's only crime is being too unhealthy or too unwise to currently fit within the societal norm.

(I will take a moment here to acknowledge the fact that I am taking great license here by perhaps implying that no homeless person has ever committed a crime. It is not my intent to paint the entire homeless community as blameless, but rather to suggest that while there may be those in the homeless community that belong in prison [as well as those in prison who ought be free], I think the difference is great enough to exploit for this arguments sake)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Post script:

I'll see if I can try to tie this whole thing together, pulling together the "legislating a perceived morality" and "those who ought not be in prison" arguments, by introducing a video I recently saw with the following:

If it's California politics, and it's not gay marriage, it's marijuana reform. Medical marijuana is currently legal in California, but illegal under federal law.

While the libertarian in me thinks that the war on drugs is absurd and the federal government should have little to say regarding private recreational use of any drug - be it caffeine, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, etc. etc. - (the "little to say" being safety factors such as operating moving vehicles and such) I fear that relaxing or abolishing current drug laws would only exacerbate the problems inherent with the main section of this post. However, the fact remains that the current battle in California is over medicinal marijuana and the following video is one that highlights the absurdity of the current situation quite well, albeit with a few moments of sympathetic indulgence.

If you have 10 minutes to sit and watch, please do.
posted by Rockel @ 9:37 PM  
2 Comments:

  • At 15/4/09 5:12 PM, Blogger Chuck Wade said…

    I wonder if perhaps the problem is not what we expect (or are willing) for our taxes to go to, but what the government has the constitutional responsibility to carry out. Government is supposed to punish law-breakers, I'm not however sure (though I have my suspicions) where the idea came that the government is supposed to feed people, clothe people, give them places to live, educate them, send them to college, help them find a job, help them keep the job, help them get paid enough for the job, make sure they have digital television, healthcare, a ride to work, a long enough lunch break... the list could go on. At what point do people decide that enough is enough and maybe it's time to start taking the government out of things rather than finding new places that it can fit. I fear that those who feel really bad for all the poor starving people in America won't be satisfied that we've done enough until the country is quite literally bankrupt, then there'll be lots more poor starving Americans and no one left to pay for them.

    I think that also perhaps the flaw in your argument is that everyone who would be against the socialist principles of the current administration are perfectly happy with the idea of giving prisoners cable television.

     

  • At 16/4/09 1:12 AM, Blogger Rockel said…

    Chuck... thanks as always for your thoughts. Allow me to respond, beginning with your second paragraph...

    "I think... the flaw in your argument"I may have overstepped myself a bit as it was not necessarily my intention to put forth an argument in favor of the government shifting up a gear on their socialist transmission, but rather to express the disconnect (and my moderate outrage) that tax dollars can be used to provide life essentials to one group of society with no one so much as batting an eye, but the mere suggestion of doing the same for another (less criminal) group is strongly contested as "socialist" and harmful to society.

    "everyone who would be against... socialist principles... are perfectly happy with... giving prisoners cable television."Forgive me for translating, but if I am reading you correctly, I believe you meant to say the opposite, as your current comment suggests that die-hard capitalists and/or social conservatives (who would oppose "socialist" measures redistributing wealth to the poorer member of society) would favor providing more luxurious accommodations for prisoners. Either way, I cannot comment for an entire group of people (especially since I don't necessarily agree with any particular side in a broad sense), but as for myself I don't see any disconnect between not offering free cable television to prisoners and also not offering free cable television to homeless/poor people (or, for that matter, home-ful/rich people).

    As for your first paragraph:

    "Government is supposed to punish law-breakers"I most certainly recognize this, however, my outrage stems from the fact that "government punishment" seems to entail (albeit it at the cost of confinement; loss of freedom) free food, shelter, clothing, television, work-out rooms, and etc., none of which is provided free of charge to poorer members of society who are not being "punished."

    "maybe it's time to start taking the government out of things..."In principle I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I do not see a need for the federal government to ask me if I am married; to care about the gender of the person I spend my life with; to allow one type of medication that a doctor prescribes but not another. Where this falls apart for me on the issue of incarceration is that the government seems to be subsidizing (or, perhaps, "encouraging") crime by providing free care for criminals. You cannot refuse to feed, clothe, or shelter someone just because he/she is a criminal, because the law forbids it, but many who have committed no crime routinely go without food or shelter (and possibly even clothing) for prolonged periods of time. Perhaps, since we cannot remove the essentials from prisoners, if they were forced to labor for their accommodations (and I realize some programs are already in place for this) it would look a little less like we treat the criminals within society better than the poor in society, however, what leverage is there for this? Extend the sentences of those who refuse to labor? Then, for those who refuse, we are doing nothing more than extending the time during which they receive free "socialist" benefits.

     
Post a Comment
<< Home
 
About Me

Name: Rockel
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
Recent Comments
News Ticker
Search the Rockel
Previous Posts
Archives
Lyrics of the Week

ON THE NICKEL
by Tom Waits

("I'd like to do a new song here. This is eh, it's about downtown Los Angeles on 5th Street. And eh all the winos affectionately refer to it as The Nickel. So this is kind of a hobo's lullaby.")

sticks and stones will break my bones,
but i always will be true, and when
your mama is dead and gone,
i'll sing this lullabye just for you,
and what becomes of all the little boys,
who never comb their hair,
well they're lined up all around the block,
on the nickel over there.

so you better bring a bucket,
there is a hole in the pail,
and if you don't get my letter,
then you'll know that i'm in jail,
and what becomes of all the little boys,
who never say their prayers,
well they're sleepin' like a baby,
on the nickel over there.

and if you chew tobacco, and wish upon a star,
well you'll find out where the scarecrows sit,
just like punchlines between the cars,
and i know a place where a royal flush,
can never beat a pair, and even thomas jefferson,
is on the nickel over there.

so ring around the rosie, you're sleepin' in the rain,
and you're always late for supper,
and man you let me down again,
i thought i heard a mockingbird, roosevelt knows where,
you can skip the light, with grady tuck,
on the nickel over there.

so what becomes of all the little boys,
who run away from home,
well the world just keeps gettin' bigger,
once you get out on your own,
so here's to all the little boys,
the sandman takes you where,
you'll be sleepin' with a pillowman,
on the nickel over there.

so let's climb up through that button hole,
and we'll fall right up the stairs,
and i'll show you where the short dogs grow,
on the nickel over there.
45113638_202b79dc11
"We draw people to Christ not by loudly discrediting what they believe,
by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are,
but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it."
 -- Madeleine L'Engle, "Walking on Water"