Is anyone else sick of hearing about how fat America is compared to other countries? I am.
I guess its just my share of national pride manifesting, but I feel like every single country in the world goes off on America's weight problem. Or maybe its just that when I run into people from other countries and we talk food then invariably it comes up and irks me.
Yes, I admit, there are a lot of people living in the US who don't pay enough attention to their health, including maintaining a proper BMI. But you never hear people on the news or in other countries singing America's praises for their anti-smoking laws or decreased teen smoking numbers.
But, perhaps it would hurt a little less if it weren't true. America is fat. I'm not talking about people with hormone related disorders or actual medical issues that contribute to their weight and BMI. What I'm saying here is generally directed at people whose only issue is lack of exercise---not any other health-related issue which increases their weight.
According to this article that just came out, America's obesity numbers grew in 37 states this year. I think that this is pretty horrible, but not entirely unexpected.
On talk radio today I listened to a program talking about how some communities are having to cancel schoolbus routes due to increased cost of fuel combined with lack of budget, and kids are now being asked to walk 20 minutes to get to school. Apparently many of the kids are freaking out and don't want to do it. (cue the old grandpa voice "when I was a lad I walked 20 miles to get to school...") Now those cities are projecting more traffic congestion as parents drive their kids to school so they won't have to walk. What is wrong with walking to school if you live in a safe neighborhood community?
I think that this has something to do with it. If you click on any links I'm referencing, please: click this one.
Now, I'm not going to blame the kids for being drawn to video games, computers, or texting. I'm going to blame their parents. Why? Not only because their parents are the ones buying them access to these indoor gadgets...but because their parents are IMO pursuing an obesity-prone lifestyle themselves. Kids aren't the only ones putting on pounds. Adults are as well. Its the adults who severely impact what the kids do, for how long they do it, and whether the kids stay indoors or out. And its the adults who do the grocery shopping, fast food drive-ins, and refuse to cook regularly with lots of fiber-rich veggies. (for every gram of fiber you consume you automatically burn at least 7 calories simply by passing the fiber through the digestive system. Do you get enough fiber in your diet?) Imagine if everyone actually ate enough fiber---plus some extra.
I live in a densely populated area in California. There are many walking trails, sidewalks, and pedestrian-friendly modifications conducive to walking/biking to work. Yes, some people use them. But not enough people do. There are so many people who would rather sleep an extra 15 minutes than leave the required 15 minutes early to walk rather than drive to the office. I think this is a problem of our parents and our generation, relatively new to the history books. Before the fifties people were conserving fuel during WWII, couldn't afford it or a car during the depression, and the majority didn't own cars in the twenties or earlier 1900s. So to get around locally you had to walk, run, ride your bike, or take the horse. Not anymore. Now you can pop into the car and zip 4 blocks down the road to work. Or around the corner to church. Lazy. Ridiculous. Is it any wonder Americans are steadily gaining weight?
I was reading this posting about public adult exercise parks in China, and I was actually impressed. Here in America they are probably a lawsuit waiting to happen, which is sad, but what a great idea! How many of you would jump on playground equipment if it were sized for an adult? How about if it were gym equipment in a cute little park? I would...but then, I have no pride. And hey, if it is a free workout--sign me up! Is it possible to believe that most Americans would like a freebie over sitting on their buns? Yes, the community government would have to build these parks, but if my tax dollars are being used to create/maintain/renew parks as it is, why not throw in one of these and see what happens?
Photo I took last summer of an AsianAmerican doing tai chi at Coit TowerI wish everyone would take a walk after dinner around the block, or get up early enough to do something physical before breakfast and the workday. But I know it isn't always possible. But it is possible to limit the amount of television you watch, the amount of electronic games your children are allowed to play, and the amount of time you spend sitting on the couch. So make a goal and walk out the door to meet it!
Anyway, I just wanted to sound off on this a bit. What irks you about this subject?
92 comments:
AMEN, Amy. It is all about the parents - and not just about us as parents, but our parents before us. I think there are two major causes of the weight epidemic in America: one you mentioned. Kids sit inside and play video games or watch t.v. all day. It's easy for them. It's easy for the parents. We finally just got rid of the t.v. and cable. What a relief! This has been a wonderful week. We have no Playstation or X-box. Given the safety risks (which are real, as mentioned in the article), it takes a lot of work to be a mom of active children. It takes a lot of MY time to make sure they have the opportunity to play and explore outside. We limit structured sports and activities and give them lots of play time (with lots of friends - at our house, which means that I have to be watching them and feeding everyone). I don't like my kids going to the neighbor kids' homes because all they have to do there is play video games. We have a swing set, fort, slide, trampoline, hockey table, fuseball table, etc. And we go swimming and on bike rides. I am making it sound like we are some kind of fitness family. We are not. But, I strongly feel that video games and t.v. watching is ruining us as a nation. And I think a lot of parents let their kids do it nonstop because it is easy for the parents, or they don't know how to say no. Grow a backbone and say no.
I also think it is part of our selfish society. People have their lives and then have a kid or two and want to fit the kid into their own lifestyle. I don't think kids fit that well into grown-up lifestyles. So, one way for parents to maintain their own life is to stick kids into lots of stuff and in front of the computer. I think the better way is to approach life as a family.
The second reason I think Americans are fat is nutrition. Somewhere in the last 50 years, knowledge of basic nutrition was lost. Maybe it was the invention of the t.v. dinner. My mom made us eat whole wheat bread and natural peanut butter, but in my one health class in high school, whole grains weren't ever mentioned (we did learn a lot about how to have sex, though). Whole grains are coming back as something "new". The two biggest contributors to fat, IMO are white flour (and white rice and other refined grains) and refined sugar. And I don't think most people even know it! That's why I place partial blame on our parents (and perhaps their parents). My mom said that when she was a baby, nursing was "out". The common knowledge was that formula was preferable for babies, so my grandma didn't nurse any of her babies. This was in the 50s when more and more prepared and processed foods were becoming available. The U.S. was essentially poisoning itself.
I read the YW (Young Women) requirements from the 1930s. It had a whole section just on nutrition. Amazing stuff, like "what foods should you eat for proper elimination?" (does anyone even think about that anymore? We talk about eating special yogurt or taking a pill for "fiber" but you can just eat food that has high fiber). "What should you eat for calcium?" etc., etc. I thought when I read it, "This is brilliant! Why don't we know any of this?"
I think marketing probably has a lot to do with it.
I think the solution is education. This information has been lost, but it is in the best interest of everyone. I think health classes should focus more on proper nutrition than how to have sex.
I am thinking of two families whose sons gained a lot of weight when mom started working. I think it is a combination of eating lots of processed, convenience snacks (and soda) and playing video games and watching t.v. while waiting for mom to get home.
Our lifestyle has produced beautiful, fit children and a beautiful, fit husband. Mom is slowly coming along (but, hey, I've had four babes and messed up my thyroid along the way - cut me some slack). I really think the key is cutting out the processed foods and sugar. And getting rid of the t.v. and video games. Oh, the computer . . . perhaps that's why mom (me) is still a fatty . . .
I think portion size is another problem. Canadians are pretty much just as fat as Americans. The eat the same food, from the same companies, in the same portion sizes as Americans. They drive everywhere like Americans. So they're just as fat as Americans. My husband (Norwegian) was shocked when he came to Canada and saw the size of chip bags, not to mention how many varieties there were. And it seems like every time we go to the US, the chip bags and chocolate bars keep getting bigger. Now they can barely fit them on the shelves. :)
When I moved to Norway, I walked into a grocery store and thought, "where's the rest of it?" Everything is so small. No gallon bottles of soda, monster-sized chip bags, king-sized chocolate bars. The size of one chicken breast in the US is like half a Norwegian chicken -- no kidding! Even the vegetables are smaller! I have to say, part of me was disappointed. I didn't want a bite-sized chocolate bar, I wanted king-size! I still miss the variety, knowing that I can get that stuff when I want to, but portion size is, IMO, a factor. Don't get me wrong, there are fat Europeans. There just aren't as many as in North America. When the (literally) huge temptations aren't staring you in the face everywhere you turn, you don't feel obligated to eat them. And if you do buy a bag of chips in Europe, they're gone a lot faster than that family-sized bag you can get at Wal-Mart in the US. So, variety is nice, but they could cut down on the size of some things.
WOW!!! Lovely post. Something I think we can all agree on. My wife was a fitness and wellness major and has been driilling this stuff into me for the last 5 years. Now I get pretty excited about it. I remember back in the day she asked me if I'd become vegitarian with her and I was like, "Heck no!" Her reasoning was purely the health benifits of doing so.
Fat America really is a problem - when you've left the US for a long amount of time and come back, you can truely SEE the difference in America - everyone seems enormous - at least to me - I'm in South Korea. People aren't generally MUCh shorter here, but they are almost all thinner - they all have very similar body types, because they all eat very similar foods - except many of the younger generation - who have had more access to KFC, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Hut and Baskin Robbins while growing up. And some of them get FAT - but more importantly, unhealthy. Fat= unhealthy. Also, traveling in Europe you notice a similar phenomonon.
Part of the problem too can be traced back to the great depression - food costs rose, and the government started giving financial backing and research to develop new, cheap ways to get high calorie foods in small servings. Think about it - Post-Depression war is when alot of the big FAT foods came into existance. I don't think it was ever meant to be a permanant thing, but it has since become the bane of our society.
I'll take it further - The WOW doesn't talk about crisco or msgs or things like that simply, in my opinion, because they didn't exist at the time. But considering their unnatural nature, and their effect on the body, I'm going to bet that foods like that, if the WOW were given today, would be much more closely linked with Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs - in fact, one could make the case that many of those foods are a form of drug. They diffinately wouldn't be lumped with whole grains, fruits, herbs and vegitables - which the WOW specifically tells us should be the major portion of our diets.
It's funny that you should mention the Asian outdoor exercize equipments, Amy. In my city, We have outdoor exercize equipment open for the public, walking/running/biking trails, mountian hiking, and LOTS of steps all for free public use - also, there are always free city-sponsored outdoor tai-chi, kick-boxing and aerobics classes every evening. Very cool - and people use them - and people are generally healthy. It's cool - some pictures here - www.rickandaileena.blogspot.com
So here are some things we all agree we should stop doing - We, as parents, should not engender a video-game/tv based progeny. We should teach our children to walk and exercize more. We should cut back (or out) packaged foods and highly processed foods. way to go us.
WOW!!! Lovely post. Something I think we can all agree on. My wife was a fitness and wellness major and has been driilling this stuff into me for the last 5 years. Now I get pretty excited about it. I remember back in the day she asked me if I'd become vegitarian with her and I was like, "Heck no!" Her reasoning was purely the health benifits of doing so.
Fat America really is a problem - when you've left the US for a long amount of time and come back, you can truely SEE the difference in America - everyone seems enormous - at least to me - I'm in South Korea. People aren't generally MUCh shorter here, but they are almost all thinner - they all have very similar body types, because they all eat very similar foods - except many of the younger generation - who have had more access to KFC, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Hut and Baskin Robbins while growing up. And some of them get FAT - but more importantly, unhealthy. Fat= unhealthy. Also, traveling in Europe you notice a similar phenomonon.
Part of the problem too can be traced back to the great depression - food costs rose, and the government started giving financial backing and research to develop new, cheap ways to get high calorie foods in small servings. Think about it - Post-Depression war is when alot of the big FAT foods came into existance. I don't think it was ever meant to be a permanant thing, but it has since become the bane of our society.
I'll take it further - The WOW doesn't talk about crisco or msgs or things like that simply, in my opinion, because they didn't exist at the time. But considering their unnatural nature, and their effect on the body, I'm going to bet that foods like that, if the WOW were given today, would be much more closely linked with Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs - in fact, one could make the case that many of those foods are a form of drug. They diffinately wouldn't be lumped with whole grains, fruits, herbs and vegitables - which the WOW specifically tells us should be the major portion of our diets.
It's funny that you should mention the Asian outdoor exercize equipments, Amy. In my city, We have outdoor exercize equipment open for the public, walking/running/biking trails, mountian hiking, and LOTS of steps all for free public use - also, there are always free city-sponsored outdoor tai-chi, kick-boxing and aerobics classes every evening. Very cool - and people use them - and people are generally healthy. It's cool - some pictures here - www.rickandaileena.blogspot.com
So here are some things we all agree we should stop doing - We, as parents, should not engender a video-game/tv based progeny. We should teach our children to walk and exercize more. We should cut back (or out) packaged foods and highly processed foods. way to go us.
I completely agree. THis is Aileena by the way. America is fatter than many countries, who would have thought the american dream of owning some land, a couple of cars, a TV, would cost us our health and long lives. And in addition, we have excellent medicines that keep us alive longer in these overweight, poor quality of life bodies. The benefits of exercise and eating healthily are unprecendented. You feel better, you look better, and chances are you act more confident. And if you are using your body to get you places and exercise (as opposed to a gym) Then you are getting fresh air, saving gas money and mileage, and probably saving money on the grocery bag. Its interesting, I was reading an article about how many calories an average korean woman eats, I was surprised to find that it was the same amount as the recomeded US caloric intake for women(about 1500-1600 calories) But the sad part is that American women consume an average of 300 calories more than that. Its something to consider
I guess I just get disgusted by how no one ever refutes the evidence, but not many are willing to change their lifestyle to be healthier. By no one I mean the majority of the country, not people who have commented on this post.
This post reminded me of perhaps my all-time favorite t-shirt (click on the link to see it). I used to wear that all the time, in all of its XXL glory.
I am certainly fed up with us fat Americans, enough to stop being one myself anyway. In the last year I have lost about 65 pounds, and I'm about 3 pounds away from having a normal BMI value for the first time in, oh, 15 years. For those interested in how I did it, check out this post from my personal blog and read this article.
With my perspective from both sides of this debate, I have determined this about Americans and our appetites: it's all about the portions. When I reach my goal of 185 pounds, I will be able to eat 2600 calories a day and maintain my weight with no exercise. 2600 calories is a ridiculous number; now that I've been dieting for so long, the thought of eating that much food every day makes me want to throw up. Of course, I still do it once in a while, but that's the thing - once in a while is not the issue. I used to eat 3000+ calories EVERY SINGLE DAY.
One of the most ironic things about my weight loss is that I have done it eating perhaps more fast food than I ever have in my life. Honestly, a Big Mac ain't all that bad. Neither is a Krispy Kreme donut. Neither are In-N-Out's delectable Cheeseburgers.
Those links bring me right to my point - I am able to make those decisions because those businesses decided to make their nutrition information available to consumers. McDonald's certainly did so under significant duress, but I'm willing to give them a substantial amount of credit for at least attempting to offer more sensible choices and getting the information out there.
In my opinion, it should be absolutely mandatory for restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus, just as producers of packaged food have had to do since 1990. New York City recently became the first major US city (at least that I am aware of) to require chain restaurants to do this, and I am very hopeful that more will follow suit. As I have been ranting in Stephanie's health care thread, this is all about consumers having the right information and making informed decisions.
BTW, another fabulous t-shirt on the subject is here, courtesy my favorite news publication.
I would think you were a conservative with that last t-shirt. :)
BBD, great shirts. I wish I could buy some for some certain family members but alas I fear their sense of humor may not match up to yours when it comes to a larger person wearing a fat shirt that calls it as it sees it.
There have been some great points made in this thread, and the level of agreement is great. Unfortunately, I am about to bring politics into the discussion, and probably shatter the good feelings. :(
I just wanted to add something that seems to be missing. The cost of food. In this country foods that are high in fats, oils, sodium, and carbohydrates are cheaper than their healthier counterparts. Just as an example, next time you are in the grocery store, look at the prices of white bread compared to wheat. Families that are struggling to pay the bills often cut their grocery bills first, since it's rather easy to eat cheaply (although it's rather unhealthy). A bag of rice can last a whole month yet costs about the same price as two oranges. Canned fruits and vegetables (as compared to fresh) are also extremely cheap and don't go bad, but they are often high in sodium or have added sugar.
There is also the stagnation of wages in comparison with the costs of living. This atmosphere makes it extremely difficult for American families to get by without two incomes. With both parents working, home made meals are becoming more and more of a rarity. There is the simple fact that no one is home to prepare the meal, but when there is time, grabbing a quick meal (usually an unhealthy one) is much easier to do after a day of work.
This means that both the parents and the kids are missing out on a nutritional meal made at home, as well as the social benefits that gathering at dinner used to create.
Now comes the politics part:
Unions have always been, and continue to be, one of the major forces in making sure working people have job security, a living wage, and benefits such as healthcare and workers comp. In fact study after study shows that Union workers are paid more, and are more likely to have benefits than their non-Union counterparts. This being the case, I strongly disagree with conservative policies that have been fighting Unions since time immemorial.
I also disagree with the conservative position of fighting an increase in the minimum wage whenever they get a chance (although even a minimum wage is ridiculous in my opinion, establishing a living wage seems much better to me).
Then there is the cutting of funding to public services, therefore laying the cost on working families (ie. cutting pubic transportation, raising tuition for parents sending their kids to college, cutting MediCare, etc.). Not to mention cutting funding to schools, who often cut Physical Education programs first.
Now, it would be great if all parents could afford to own a "swing set, fort, slide, trampoline, hockey table, fuseball table," as well as have time to go swimming or biking as a family, but unfortunately that is just not the case. It's much more affordable to buy a video game, or to pop in a DVD or turn on Nickelodean, so I can't wholeheartedly endorce the idea that "it is all about the parents."
The reality of what I'm saying can be seen in any city or town. Study after study continues to find that the lower your income, or the income of the neighborhood you live in, the greater your chances of having diabetes or obesity.
Here's a link which speaks about what I'm going about here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207163807.htm
If you have 7 minutes to spare, here is a link to an NPR story about an attempt at limiting the opening of fast food restaraunts in part of LA. Check it out, I'm interested to read some of your insights.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93057252
Oh, please. I was just waiting for some liberal to bring up "We should subsidize food and toys".
You know what Michael Savage says about liberals, right? The only difference between a liberal and a communist is that a communist admits it.
Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage for a family. It is meant to be a wage for the "minimum" - the high school student starting out at his first job. Want to earn more? Go to school, get some training, or continue to work up in the company.
Of course healthy food is more expensive right now: its part of the fad. Combined with a series of hail storms, floods, and famines around various parts of the worlds this has definitely impacted the cost of food.
However John, I find it interesting that the whole first part of your comment focused on how its too hard for 2 working parents to make a dinner at home when they're already tired but then you swung into the "they're poor so they're overweight and have diabetes" thing. I know you're talking about 2 different groups here....but it really goes to show that AMERICA as a whole is affected, whether because both parents are working so they don't have time/energy to cook nutritiously or because there is a lack of income to purchase organic produce.
And for the record, I was mostly talking about middle and upper classes who DO have resources in my post. Afterall, those are also the class distinctions with the funds to purchase computers, dvds, cell phones, Xbox, wii, etc...
Stephanie, Stephanie, Stephanie.... all I can say is "raaeeoouuuwwww."
Commies, eh? Alright, you've "outted" me. I have a hammer and sickle tatooed on my back. Admit it, John, you got one too. Rick, it's time to "come out of the closet." Let's all quit hiding under this innocent liberal disguise. LOL.
Whoever started this blog should maybe change the caption to, "Mormons who are Commies and Mormons who are Right... er, from the Right."
:)
"Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage for a family."
And yet it is...
fd, what makes you think that minimum wages is meant to be a living wage to support a family?
fd, I admit it. My claws are out. I am so sick of people like john telling me that somehow my husband and I are so "privileged" because we went from NOTHING (making minimum wage when we married) to having "trampoline, swingset, bikerides, healthy food" when we worked to our fingernails through the equivalent of 7 college degrees and 15.5 years of college to get here. When I make the sacrifice to be a SAHM even though it means going without lots of "fun" stuff so I can feed my kids healthy, home-cooked meals. We make about average for a person with an advanced college degree. That is entirely FAIR. Somene who has no education makes about what a person with no education makes. That is entirely FAIR. I am sick of being told otherwise - like I am some kind of evil person for making choices to take care of my family and expecting others to do so as well.
It's not that I think that it's supposed to be, it's just that, in reality, it is for many families. Heck, I'm all for kids going to school and getting all the education they can so that they aren't raising families on minimum wage. But many families are and it's not always because they didn't finish school or aren't working hard enough. It could be because of health or emotional problems, perhaps they just emigrated and they either have no education or their education isn't recognized in the US. So, minimum wage is, in reality, what many people are raising their families on. It's the sad truth. That's what I meant.
Okay, fd, I agree to disagree. I don't think that minimum wage should be a living wage to support a family. If it is, what incentive do high school kids have to go to college? If you can make enough to support a family when you are 16, why sacrifice and work hard for anything else?
Stephanie, you're NOT evil but you ARE privileged. Just the fact that you were born as a citizen of a country that wants you, that you were able to go to school, as hard work as it is, get an education, make an average living and support and raise 4 kids comfortably (I'm not saying you're living like Donald Trump)... all that alone makes you much more privileged than the majority of people on this earth, and yes, even in the US.
I have a friend from Afghanistan whose entire family was wiped out in a bomb attack when he was around 5 years old. He doesn't even know exactly how old he was because he has no birth certificate, no ID, no papers, nothing. He made the dangerous trip on foot and then finally on a boat to Norway, where he applied for asylum 5 years ago. He has since become a Mormon and has made a pretty decent life for himself working his way up from scratch, knowing that it could all be in vain if he's deported back to Afghanistan. When no country wants you, not even your own, and you have no place or possibilities to exercise all the potential that you have as a human being, that's when my claws would come out. Now THAT is a situation that is not fair and every time I get tempted to think that my life sucks, I just think of him. I have 2 countries that will take me and he has none.
So, don't think that I'm accusing you of feeling sorry for yourself. That's NOT what I'm saying here because goodness knows I've had plenty self-pity episodes. I'm just trying to put things into perspective here.
Of course it would be foolish to have 16 year-olds making 30 grand a year. I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea. I agree that you can't be paying people big bucks to do unskilled labour. Perhaps having minimum wage up until a certain age, then make it a bit better. However, I think there are other ways to help such families instead of directly increasing hourly wage. But, once again, this is where social benefits come into play. If families don't have to pay so much out of pocket for health care, dental care, daycare, maternity leave, college tuition, etc, then it can take a load off. Some of my relatives struggled in low-paying jobs for some years after emigrating to the US, but what really sunk them was the medical bills. My cousin got an ovarian tumour and had to have surgery. Then she got pregnant and it was a difficult pregnancy that resulted in a c-section, which wasn't cheap. Plus now she's had kidney problems. Last I heard they still owed something like 40 grand to the hospital. Not easy when you have 3 little kids, can't work yourself, hubby is an immigrant himself and has to support them all single-handedly.
fd, so pay two different people different amounts of money for doing the exact same job because of their age? Why in the world would McDonalds hire a father with two kids if he knew he had to pay him a "living wage" when he could hire a 16 year old kid for a small fraction of that?
fd, I support things like federal grants and subsidized student loans so that people who want to earn more have a way to do so. I am happy to spend tax dollars on these types of programs that ensure equal opportunity.
I already proposed a health care plan that I feel would make health care affordable without reducing the system to socialism. So, yes, the system we have is broken, and yes, people like your family are struggling under medical debt. I am not advocating for that.
I support maternity leaves (what does that have to do with minimum wage?).
I don't support income redistribution. Actually, I think that in the name of trying to help the "poor", liberals do the poor a disservice by creating disincentives for increasing their skills and making more money. Why go to the extra effort if you don't have to? Why should A over here go get an education to make more if he knows that B over there will do it and pay half of it back to subsidize A's lifestyle? It doesn't make sense.
Because people who are older usually have more experience, even if it's just at unskilled labour, I think that should be taken into account. I know that most employers would not, but some do, even if it's just a small amount. Older people are often more reliable workers than young people and tend to stick around longer.
By maternity leave, I mean that if you have it, it's not such a burden on your family if you get pregnant. Perhaps you can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, maternity leave in the US consists of about 3 months of your job being guaranteed and that's about it. No salary and no guarantee of even having a job beyond those 3 months. Am I wrong? If I am, please tell me. So, if two parents are working at low-paying jobs and the mother gets pregnant, that's a huge financial burden. Not just because of the child once it's born, but because just being pregnant and the possible health effects and complications of pregnancy can make it difficult to work. But, if women have paid maternity leave, it puts less of a strain on the family. Even if the woman only made minimum wage, the family is still dependent on it. It can even encourage women to have children, which is something that makes you happy, right? :) Norway and Sweden have the best maternity leave packages in the world, which include the father as well as the mother, and their birthrates reflect that. They have more children than their European sisters.
Because people who are older usually have more experience, even if it's just at unskilled labour, I think that should be taken into account. I know that most employers would not, but some do, even if it's just a small amount. Older people are often more reliable workers than young people and tend to stick around longer.
Then, fd, you are arguing for the point of paying people for their contribution to the company. Sure, if someone is more responsible or reliable or experienced, and that is valuable to the company, pay them more. That is different than paying someone for their age. What if the older person isn't more responsible or reliable? Should they still be paid more?
fd, I am actually for extended maternity leave and paid maternity leave.
I'm totally with you. I think our mentality about has gotten really warped. For example - I attended a baby shower last weekend, less than a half-mile from my house. Within my ward boundaries (which, in Mesa, a ward is a pretty small geographic area!) When I arrived on my bicycle, you would have thought I had sprouted wings and FLOWN into this lady's living room. I was really embarrassed by the reactions of the other attendees - I just said that since the distance was so short and I didn't have my kids with me, it seemed silly to drive.
Same thing happened yesterday when I went to Enrichment Night. I just said that I felt ridiculous driving a huge empty minivan 1/2 mile down the road to a church activity. Lots of blank stares, or nervous giggles and "well, that's what I did!" comments.
It's just a whole mindset problem. I am *far* from hardcore about this - I'm huge pregnant and it's really frickin' hot here so I cut myself a lot of slack, but it's like people do not even think for one moment that there might be a good transportation option besides a car.
And Portion size is definitely another problem. This is a land of plenty, apparently, and people seem to think that because plenty is available, plenty is what should be consumed! This is a problem in a lot of areas - healthcare, technology, consumerism in general: just because something is *available* doesn't mean it's necessary or beneficial.
The other crux of the issue, it seems to me, is just the pace of people's lifestyles in general here. When you have your entire day stuffed to the gills with activities and deadlines, you *have* to drive everywhere because there simply isn't time to get there any other way. We eat huge steaming piles of processed crap because it's faster than chopping vegetables. We're just in a big damn hurry all the time, and what downtime we do have we spend parked in front of some electronic device (says the admitted internet junkie...:))
Steph, I think you are sincere and you and your husband have done alot and come a long way and are to be applauded. Anything else, I won't comment on, because it's not my business.
I will however say that Mike Savage is a psycho and you probably shouldn't ever ever ever quote him if you want to ever be taken seriously ever. (that's way worse than a liberal quoting Moore, cause Moore, albeit out spoken and obnoxious is not psycho.) I honestly think Mike Savage is a closet lefty who is posing as a conservative christian to make them look bad. And he makes everyone who listens to him look bad too - just a crusty dude. Just a bit of advice on that front - he's racist, white supremist and mysogonistic, just to name three of his outstanding qualities. Kay, bye.
Oh, I don't really take Savage that seriously myself. I just like that one quote. (And the one where he said liberalism is a mental disorder). LOL (sorry for the offense)
sorry but Michael Moore is just as extreme as Savage. Don't bring him up as an example or rebuttal against quoting Savage. At least Savage hasn't made completely anti-national films. Moore does nothing to construct or bring together: he just tears things down and creates chaos.
And he's fat.
---Joe
yes, Joe, which is why I brought him up - he is despised by so many - simply saying, he's not psycho. :)
Stephanie said:
Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage for a family. It is meant to be a wage for the "minimum" - the high school student starting out at his first job.
I say:
Too bad it's not.
Stephanie said:
Want to earn more? Go to school, get some training, or continue to work up in the company.
I say:
Wish it were that easy for people.
The reality is that not everyone has the resources to go to school. It can financial, or geographical, or because of circumstances, or simply because of mentality.
It's easy to judge others for not making the same choices you (or I) have made, but life is more complex than that. For instance, I'm sure you worked hard to get where you are, but my guess is that you didn't grow up in an impoverished community, your parents had jobs, and for that matter were together, and I would go as far as to guess they did not have alcohol or drug addictions. Perhaps your classrooms were not overly filled, or teachers who taught at your school gave their students enough attention and assistance. I'm guessing you didn't have to worry about getting beat up or robbed at or on the way to school. Perhaps you were taught the virtues that help you achieve your goals. I could go on here, but I'll wrap this up with a quote from Brigham Young:
"Understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."
Nice try, john. My dad walked out on us when I was 14, and I am the oldest of 6. Yeah, I know about being poor. I am not going to detail my struggles, just share a quote from Brigham Young:
"Understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."
I believe that the opportunities are (still) there in the U.S. if you want to make something of yourself. I also believe that we need to invest more in education. We need to put resources into providing equal opportunity, not just pay someone more for doing the same job because they are old or because they have a family. We need to focus on doing more to reduce the costs (like drill offshore to bring down the cost of oil, repeal this stupid ethanol stuff to bring down the cost of grain and corn, fix the healthcare crisis, focus on renewable energy to bring down the cost of electricity, etc.), not focus on income redistribution. All that will do is make everyone poorer.
Actually, john, I find your comments very revealing. Based only on the fact that I am successful and have enough to support my family (possibly you also factored in that we are white based on the picture), you made the assumptions that it must have been "easy" for me - that I came from a background of "privilege". Therefore, you have discounted any success I have had by basing it solely on my circumstance in life and completely discounted any effort on my part.
What does that mean about people who grow up in "challenging" situations like some you outlined (assuming that I was not "poor" enough for you)? That because of their circumstances, they will never make anything of themselves? And, if they do, will you discount their achievements as well? And, since they can never make anything of themselves (in your view, not mine), you think that we should redistribute the income of the "rich" and "privileged" of our society to pay for all of their needs?
This is a fundamental flaw I see in liberalism. It keeps the poor man down. It assumes that he can't make anything of himself, so he needs to be "taken care of". What hope does he have of escaping poverty if that is the way you view him?
Michael Moore is totally a psycho. I know a lot of (liberal) people don't think so, but I will never believe anything that comes out of his mouth as unslanted. If he says a bunch of things that are corroborated by too many sources then I'll believe the sources (as will Savage) but other than that I just can't accept anyone who is too extreme in either direction at face value.
And yes, I believe Michael Moore is a psycho. Anyone who speaks of his fellow so poorly "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet..." is a complete psycho. And can't expect to be taken seriously.
The interesting thing about being on this site is that, on the one hand, I am much more moderate. I see that ignorantly defending all things "Republican" is a mistake, and Democrats have some good points. On the other hand, I am much more conservative because the underlying conservative philosophy makes much more sense. I think that in terms of policy, hashing it out between the two sides is the best way to come up with practical solutions.
Stephanie, you're probably going to hate what I'm going to say now, but I'm going to say it anyways. I think you're twisting what John is saying here. He said, "wish it were that easy" (referring to the process of going to school or working one's way up in a company). He didn't say that YOU had it easy.
I'm going to take it a step further, Stephanie. I'm going to come right out and say it. Yes, you've had it easy and you're privileged. Now, before you try to cut my head off over cyber space, let me add myself and everyone else in this forum to that list. So your dad walked out on you when you were 14 and you grew up poor by American standards. Maybe John's or Amy's parents split up too, or maybe they put themselves through school as well. I don't know, they can answer for themselves. I know very little about any of you here and I can still say with confidence that all of you, and me, compared with most people in this world, have had it EASY and have been PRIVILEGED. Have you had it worse than other Americans? I'm sure you probably have, and yet there are those who have had it even worse than you in America and especially abroad. I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that you didn't grow up in the projects of Philly or 8 Mile Road in Detroit. I'm going to assume you're white and that you or your parents are not immigrants. Honestly, I can empathize with what you've been through, the suffering of family break-up and hard work it took to work your way up, but I have to say that based on some of your comments, I sense both bitterness and difficulty empathizing with those who haven't been as successful as you have been. John tries to make a point about the different circumstances that contribute to poverty in America and your claws are out again.
I think the reason why you react so strongly to John's comments is because you take everything he says so personally and interpret his assumptions (which he knows he could be wrong on) as accusations. Let's go through what he said, my comments are in brackets:
"For instance, I'm sure you worked hard to get where you are, but my guess is that you didn't grow up in an impoverished community (he's guessing), your parents had jobs (he's guessing again), and for that matter were together (once again, guessing, we know now he was mistaken), and I would go as far as to guess they did not have alcohol or drug addictions (he's assuming this, but if they did, you have my symptathies). Perhaps your classrooms were not overly filled, or teachers who taught at your school gave their students enough attention and assistance (just a guess). I'm guessing you didn't have to worry about getting beat up or robbed at or on the way to school (guess, guess, guess). Perhaps you were taught the virtues that help you achieve your goals (educated guess since you're obviously a member of the Church. Perhaps you were born into it, perhaps you're a convert. Who knows?)
I hear you say that you had it tough growing up, that your family was poor, that you had to put yourself through school, that you and your husband had minimum wage jobs, etc, etc. That's tough and I applaud you for getting through all that via hard work. But I'm GUESSING the Lord blessed you with a sound mind and a healthy, able body, as well as citizenship in a country that made it all possible, so that you could have the life that you have today, as average as it might be. I bet if all of us here put all of our hardships together into one person, people in places like Darfur or Zimbabwe would trade places with that person in a heartbeat. So please, everyone, let's all put our "hardships" and "poverty" into perspective and let's remember that none of us have really "earned" anything ourselves. God made it all possible for us to earn it, even if it was just minimum wage.
Stephanie, you said:
"This is a fundamental flaw I see in liberalism. It keeps the poor man down. It assumes that he can't make anything of himself, so he needs to be "taken care of". What hope does he have of escaping poverty if that is the way you view him?"
John and I aren't keeping the poor man down, we're asking why he's poor in the first place and once the reasons are established, we want to do something about it. You know that old saying, "teach a man to fish?" Well, we want to find out whether he's even capable of fishing in the first place. He might want to fish more than anything, but dang it, some people are just lousy fishers for whatever reason, and John wants to make sure the guy has fish no matter what, even if it means he has to reel in a few extras himself. He seems to think that the Christlike thing to do would be to just give him the needed fish, instead of saying, "Hey man, I catch mine and you catch yours."
Someone said once:
"When I give the food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the people are poor, they call me a Communist."
John, maybe you're both. :)
ok, so in reading my last comment I found a couple errors: I wanted to type "as with Savage" and also the quote should have said 'speaking of his fellow AMERICANS'. Just wanted to put that in for my own peace of mind..
FD, what you're basically saying is that the difference between a conservative and liberal is how they react to someone needing a fish?
:D
My two cents: I think that we need to function on the assumption that people will step up and try to work hard to provide for themselves, on any level, whether they are educated or not. Then, if they can't make it or are simply incapable of making it (mentally or physically or whatever) we have programs[charities or government, does it really matter?] step in. But not until that point. Obviously this is pretty broad and generalized. But, it is my starting point. I like to think that people are indeed smart enough and hardworking enough to make it on their own. The ones who aren't are an exception, not the majority.
whoops, this is Amy commenting. I guess my husband is signed in--sorry!
FD, I'd like to take your definition of what makes someone "privileged" one step further: I think that what you're describing isn't just Americans. I think that anyone who has grown up in any westernized country would fit your definition, including Germany, Finland, Italy, Canada, Australia, Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, Taiwan, parts of Mainland China, parts of Africa, and North Ireland. So unless you can say that you grew up in a hut in the desert or jungle of Africa or South America or in a shack within the confines of Asian mountains, or in a rural village in the Middle East overrun by tribal territorial raids every few years...then you're privileged! So too bad that you've had trials and hardships and real temptation in various forms throughout your life: you still managed to get to adulthood with your life. Therefore, you're privileged. Suck it up and start thinking about those who are less fortunate than yourself.
Amy,
That's EXACTLY what I was saying! Read it again! All of us in this forum are privileged!!!! Americans, Canadians, Europeans, whatever! Read it again and you will see that I lumped us all into the PRIVILEGED category, myself included. Why did you think that I was somehow exempting myself?
"Suck it up and start thinking about those who are less fortunate than yourself."
I thought that was the point I was making! Did you miss the Darfur and Zimbabwe bit? Guess I didn't make myself clear enough. LOL.
I guess you missed the sarcasm in my response. Quite honestly, I think that privilege and home address (along with color of skin, interest in schooling, gender, and parents' choices) have nothing to do with one another.
Therefore I think that saying someone's opinion doesn't amount to much, or is invalidated, because they are "privileged" is an ignorant observation. Ignorant and narrow minded.
"Therefore I think that saying someone's opinion doesn't amount to much, or is invalidated, because they are "privileged" is an ignorant observation. Ignorant and narrow minded."
When did I say that opinions here were invalid or didn't count? The point I was making was that I felt that Stephanie was totally misinterpreting John's comments as personal accusations towards her.
You know, when I started commenting on this blog, it was fun. I realize that being an LDS lefty is a bit of a rarity in a conservative-dominated church, so I was under no illusions about changing anyone's mind here in regards to being on the left or right. What I hoped to accomplish was give a deeper insight and understanding into what it means to be an LDS Liberal, and to defend and justify our standpoint. I thought perhaps that some would also find it interesting to hear how the world works under different political systems outside of the US, since Mormons live virtually everywhere now. However, lately I've been getting the feeling that some people on this blog aren't so much interested in hearing different perspectives and debating them as they are about proving they are right, and it's feeling more like a job than just fun. Yesterday Stephanie made a comment comparing Liberals to Communists and I took it in stride, but I realized that if people really think that people like John, Rick, and I are really just closet Communists, then we're just fooling ourselves if we think that anyone here is taking us seriously. To be honest, I was surprised that no one else reacted to the Communist remark, even amongst you guys on the right. She admitted that her "claws were out" and I know that everyone can make flippant remarks, but she didn't retract the statement. Therefore, it's hard not to assume that she and others really believe that.
I read a lot of different blogs and this has been one of my favourites, but I'm starting to think that I'm wasting my time by posting here because it just leads to misunderstandings and accusations. Instead of making the left side better understood, we've regressed to liberalism being equated with communism. To Stephanie, I apologize if you feel offended by my "privileged" comments. I was not attempting to insult you or your ideas, which is why I included myself in that "privileged" category, but rather I was trying to put into perspective what real suffering is in this world. Amy, you may think that there is no link, but I do believe that the circumstances that we are born into (i.e. skin colour, what neighbourhood you grew up in) are a factor in how "privileged" one is in this world. In some places, it can mean the difference between whether you get to go to school or not, whether you're a master or a servant, and in some cases even life or death.
Guys, I feel like I'm going around in circles here, so I appreciate all the insight I've gotten from your sharing opinions and ideas. I've learned lots and I'm sure I'll be back from time to time, but I think I've been spending waaaaaay too much time here lately. :)
Thanks, FD - I'm with you there.
Faithful Dissident,
I apologize for being so harsh. It just drives me nuts when people start saying words like "privilege" (among others) because I feel like it demeans someone's ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. To me, being privileged is a mindset, nothing more. You'll find just as many snots in a village of grass huts as you will in NY's Hamptons. I know you were saying something different, the wording just made me upset. So sorry for jumping into your conversation with Steph about anon. John's remarks.
For what it is worth, I don't think that anyone thinks you guys are really communists. And, to be perfectly honest, I think that communism has a lot of redeeming qualities. Not enough to make me one, but I can appreciate why Marx thought it was a good idea.
Hmmm. Where to begin? First, fd, I appreciate your comments. I am learning a lot from you, and I appreciate you sticking around. Second, I think you misread my comments when you said this The point I was making was that I felt that Stephanie was totally misinterpreting John's comments as personal accusations towards her.
I am not "bitter" or taking it personally. I am not interested in discussing my life experiences. I am trying to point out that john is discounting anyone who achieves anything as being "privileged". (A lot of the time I use myself as an example when trying to illustrate an "individual".) While knowing very little about me, he made assumptions and concluded that my success came from my circumstances. Based on that, I am guessing that he would assume anyone who has any success came from good circumstances. Therefore, someone who comes from "poor" circumstances must not be able to achieve anything. It's a logical conclusion.
Just to be clear, I do understand that people in developed countries are more privileged than people in underdeveloped countries. I am not disputing that at all, and I appreciate you pointing it out (it is, after all, why I feel so strongly about giving money to the Perpetual Education Fund - to give people in other countries opportunities to obtain education who might not otherwise be able to). But, john was not addressing people in other countries. He was talking about people in the U.S. when he said This atmosphere makes it extremely difficult for American families to get by without two incomes, etc.
And, I think we actually have a lot more in common than we think. We both believe in teaching a man to fish. You said, we want to find out whether he's even capable of fishing in the first place. I want to give him an opportunity to fish first. I want him to try. Of course I am not going to let him starve to death. Of course I'll give a fish if he needs a fish. But, I think we need to start with the assumption that every man (and woman) can and should fish. That the expectation is that everyone is a fisher. If everyone is a fisher, then when someone can't fish, there will be lots of other fishers to give them a fish or show them how. If we start with the assumption that we need to find out who the good fishers are first, then we will have very few fishers.
And, I am sorry if my communist quote offended you, fd. I was saying it tonge-in-cheek (not so much anger) and aimed it at john. I am not going to retract it for a few reasons: 1. It was hyperbole. I don't really think john is a communist (although I do think his comments - and a lot of your's and Rick's - sound very socialist) 2. I am not using communist OR socialist as a "dirty" word or name-calling. Here are the definitions according to wikipedia:
Communism = a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general. It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, although socialist historians say they are older. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.
Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services . . . In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community . . .
fd, when you say that people who are older should be paid more, that is a socialist view. It is the "unequal distribution of goods and pay according to the work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which the property and distribution of wealth is controlled by the community".
Yes, communism is a step too far. That was a bit of sarcasm using a Michael Savage hyperbole, so I apologize. But, a lot of the views expressed by you, Rick and John ARE socialist views.
*tongue-in-cheek*
Okay, I think I have pinpointed exactly what it is about john's initial comment that irked me. He said this:
It's much more affordable to buy a video game, or to pop in a DVD or turn on Nickelodean, so I can't wholeheartedly endorce the idea that "it is all about the parents."
That video game cost $50 and is being played on a $200 gaming machine - or a computer that cost more than that. Nickelodeon can only be watched through EXPANDED cable, which costs at least $40, upwards to over $100/month. These are the kinds of things that don't fit into the budget of the average "poor" family who can't afford "healthy" food.
john, I've looked into the fast food issue in South L.A. I think it is a good idea because it doesn't sound like people in L.A. are necessarily eating fast food because they want to. On the surface, I would have said, "Well, businesses go into places where they think they can make money, so restaurants with healthier fare might not think they can make it". But, I am not so sure that the dynamics are that simple. I admit I am wary of big companies like McDonalds that have a lot of power and/or money and can go where they want and put other businesses out of business. Businesses who can afford to lose money for a few years to drive out the competition. I think city planners are smart to keep that in check. So, considering how many fast food restaurants are already in South L.A., putting a moratorium on new ones opening for a year or two to give other businesses a chance to give it a try sounds like a good idea. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the city should give incentives (like tax breaks) to certain restaurants to get them to come in and give it a try.
Certain areas of Dallas have a hard time keeping grocery stores. This article talks about the only grocery store in Downtown Dallas. It has lost money for two years, so the city has been subsidizing. On the one hand, businesses ought to be able to stand alone. On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the community to subsidize it a bit longer until it does break even and become profitable because it is part of bringing the downtown back. I definitely would not be for long-term subsidies, but in the short term, it makes sense. Really, it's all about what is in the best interest of the community, and in the case of L.A., it sounds like the city planners are doing what is in the best interest of their community.
Since I am just sitting here talking to myself . . . here is another article on the fast food in L.A. moratorium. It has lots of random, good quotes that relate to this discussion:
The yearlong moratorium raises questions about when eating one style of food stops being a personal choice and becomes a public health concern.
“Anybody who believes fast food is the source of all dietary evil is, of course, being naïve,” she said. Other facets of modern life contribute to obesity. People drive more than they walk. Children play video games more often than stickball. And daily life has become saturated with opportunities to eat.
Almost three-fourths of the advertising aimed at children is for candy, snacks, sugary cereals or fast food. Portions at restaurants have been steadily growing since the 1970s. During that period, people have been eating at home less and at restaurants more. And the majority of those restaurants are chains.
“What we’re beginning to see is almost the monopolization of our dietary intake by a handful of corporations,” said David Zinczenko.
I have to admit that the corporations quote is the scariest to me. john, I agree with your assessment that healthy food is one of the first things to get cut when families encounter financial difficulty. I also agree that it is increasingly hard for families to have only one working parent, and that when two parents are working, it is harder to eat dinner as a family. I disagree with some of your solutions (unions, raising minimum wage) and do agree with others (not cutting essential public services that ensure equal opportunity).
Overall, I do think we can find solutions that both sides agree on if we keep talking about it (this is my attempt to be conciliatory).
OK guys, I accept your apologies and hope you'll accept mine. No harm done, we're all adults here and can agree to disagree. I have no problem admitting that some of my political ideas are very socialist, just like you guys on the right have no problem admitting what you stand for. So I do not feel offended by that. I realize that "socialism" is a scary word to many and no doubt it has to do with the assumption that it's just another word for communism.
Stephanie:
Honestly, I don't understand the hostility with me here. Since I posted my first comment all you have really done is discount my comments as "typically liberal," communist, or accused me of somehow attacking you personally by saying that I felt it safe to ASSUME (emphasis on assume, since if you read my post that is exactly how I layed it out... an assumption) that you did not grow up in abject poverty.
I did not feel that my comment was an attack on anyone on here, or inflamatory, I just posted under the assumption that this blog was in place in order to express our personal opinions in regards to politics, and those were my opinions. If there was some hidden offense in my post, I apologize, but I am honestly at a loss as to where the offense was made.
Perhaps you were offended by my comments in regards to using our own standards to judge others by. Yes, I used my assumptions of your background to illustrate what I was trying to convey, but I never meant it as a personal attack.
well i for one am a communist, so no offense...no. really. More than anything in life, I want to live in a commune of a couple of hundred people in the mountians somewhere and have it be totally self sufficient. Not worrying about government or politics or anything else. The hippies had the right idea - if they could have not ruined it with LSD, then It could have changed the world. Imagine....
Stephanie said:
I am trying to point out that john is discounting anyone who achieves anything as being "privileged".
My response:
First of all, I am certainly not a communist, but I am proud to admit that I am a socialist (calling a socialist a communist is like calling a capitalist a fascist. Just because two ideologies fall on the same side of the political spectrum -left or right- doesn't make them interchangable). Since socialism is simply an umbrella term used to categorize a whole array of political ideologies, I would like to point out that I am a Social Democrat (which has nothing to do with the Democratic Party, which I do not belong to by the way). Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both accused of being communists due to their economic teachings as well however, so I find myself in good company with that accusation. =)
Now, I am not "discounting anyone who achieves anything as being privileged". In fact the word "privilege" never appeared in my post. What I am saying is that we cannot judge others based on our personal standards, but should instead have enough empathy to see that they may not have had the advantages we enjoyed, even if you were poor and had divorced parents. As an example, a member of the Church that is raised poor has a whole ward or branch that teaches them about self worth, potential, the value of achievement, the dangers of immorality, etc. Not only are they taught these things in Church, Sunday School, Seminary, Institute, etc, but they also interact with others who are trying to live the same way and can give mutual support. Being the average poor American is different in my opinion than being a poor American that is a member of the Church (and being that I was raised in EXTREME poverty in the U.S. and not within the Church, I feel confident in making that statement).
It's not just members of our Church either, but being surrounded by the support and teachings of any community (Muslim, Buddhist, Evangelical, etc.) gives people an added advantage.
I think this is why it's so easy for Christians, LDS or otherwise to say things like "If you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex." But let's examine that; Most Christians, LDS or otherwise, are taught their whole life the importance of chastity, and not just by their parents, but by their sunday school teachers, their Church leaders, their friends from Church, the parents of those friends, the conversations they hear at home, etc. And that is just one example that I am using to convey my meaning. The same principle can apply to so many other situations, including the value of education or hard work, etc. The question is, what do we do if they weren't taught those values or don't appreciate them fully. Do we just say give up on them, or do we provide the resources necessary for them to both learn those things through social programs, as well as get on their feet again?
This principle of not judging others by the same standards we have embraced personally appears all over the scriptures. Christ speaks of it in Matthew Chapter 7 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
King Benjamin speaks of it in his address in Mosiah 4 "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent...For behold, are we not all beggars?"
If it were easy to lift oneself out of poverty, than we would see more evidence of that. Of course this does happen, but it is the exception and not the rule. In fact, for all our talk of being the "land of opportunity" in the U.S. we fall far behind modern nations in terms of social mobility (in fact we were the lowest). This means you have a greater chance of moving up from lower to middle class or middle to upper class in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. than you do in the here in the U.S.
I'll quote from an article which discusses studies on social mobility and why America's social mobility is declining:
"It (the study) found that this decline in social mobility was accounted for in part by the positive and increasing correlation between family income and educational attainment. The children from more affluent families do better at school.
Poorer children born in the late 1970s and early 1980s were more likely to stay on at school after 16 than those born earlier, but less likely to go to university. During that time, the proportion of people from the poorest fifth of society getting a degree rose by just 3 percentage points—from 6 percent to 9 percent. For the wealthiest fifth, it rose by 27 percentage points, from an already much higher 20 percent to almost half of all wealthy children—47 percent."
In regards to the quote I just posted from the study on social mobility, I couldn't help but be reminded of this scripture:
3 Nephi 6:10-12,14,15
"there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boastings because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions;
For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.
And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their
riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant
because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning
because of their great riches.
And thus there became a great inequality in all the land"
john, I apologize for being so defensive. I have had a hard time with your comments because it doesn't seem that you are trying to hear what I am saying. It seems to me like you are just trying to make your point (perhaps I am perceived the same way sometimes).
Let's just take the whole "privilege" thing out of it because it has been a distraction.
This is my point: individual responsibilty. Individuals have a responsibility to make something of themselves. I believe that they can. I believe that people WANT to better their circumstances. Parents need to be responsible for taking care of their children.
When you made your comment about how parents can't buy healthy food because unhealthy food is cheaper, and they can't afford to be at home to make home-cooked meals, and "have" to sit their kids in front of an X-box because it is more "affordable", I took this as you excusing all parents of responsibility. That only "wealthy" parents can afford to make healthy choices. I disagree. It is about priorities. I know lots of parents (myself included) who made healthy food and exercise a priority when their resources are small.
On the other hand, I hear what you are saying that parents with low-income have a harder time affording healthy options. I agree. I think a huge part of that is lack of education on what IS healthy. I have a friend who told me, "I buy fruit snacks for my kids because they are cheaper than apples". What? I really like that quote above that said What we’re beginning to see is almost the monopolization of our dietary intake by a handful of corporations. That is where our information is coming from. General Mills is trying to tell us that their cereals are "healthy" because they have whole grain (just ignore all the sugar and food color and preservatives).
Anyways, I agree that we have some responsibility as a society (although I don't necessarily agree with your solutions). Do you agree that parents (even in dire circumstances) have some kind of responsibility to do the best they can? That is what I am asking for. A recognition that individuals have responsibilities, too. We can't blame all poor choices on circumstance.
Ha ha - the irony in accusing john of just trying to make his point and then saying, "This is my point . . . " Sigh.
John, King Benjamin's address and 3rd Nephi were, for me, the primary motivators a few years back when I went from being conservative to social democrat (which I am, by the way - not communist - that was a joke) So way to bring them here - they fit perfectly.
Stephanie - I get your point - many people can and will do whats best - to raise themselves out of the mire, but MANY people who come from an absolutely different life than us (what John is talking about) simply cannot find their way out, becuase they don't understand that it is possible, or that it exists - I served in the Philly Projects for part of my mission, and I can tell you first hand that it is a self perpetuating cycle that is nigh to impossible to break out of the poverty there is so extreme, the drug use so rampant from such an early age, that they don't get that it is possible or even desireable to break out -that is just how life is to them. Many people in that situation will never travel more than a couple of miles from their home - their world is the projects and they don't get that there is life beyond it. Kind of foreign to us, but it truely is how it is.
Rick, I totally get that. So, what do you think is the solution? I don't think the solution is unions or raising the minimum wage because I don't think that mere money is the answer. As you said, "MANY people who come from an absolutely different life than us (what John is talking about) simply cannot find their way out, becuase they don't understand that it is possible, or that it exists". I don't think that just paying people more would solve the kinds of problems that you outlined: drug use, etc. I am really not that "clueless" about the world around me. I just don't think the answer to all the world's problems is to give everyone more money.
Also, I do read the BofM and am familiar with King Benjamin's address. This part of the scriptures john quoted is what has always stood out to me:
And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their
riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant
because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning
because of their great riches.
And thus there became a great inequality in all the land.
I read it as the inequality coming because the poor could not obtain education. The people were ranked by their "riches and chances for learning". If everyone has the same opportunity for learning, then everyone has the same opportunity to become "rich". That is one of the reasons why I am such a supporter of expanding federal grants and subsidized student loans. Why I support vouchers for public school. Our responsibility as a society is to ensure everyone has the same opportunity.
Beyond that, I really don't think we will achieve equality while Satan is loose. Alma 28:13 And thus we see how great the inequality of man is because of sin and transgression, and the power of the devil, which comes by the cunning plans which he hath devised to ensnare the hearts of men. People have their free agency, so even given an opportunity to escape, some people will choose drugs and alcohol. These kinds of problems expand beyond poor communities. Some people will choose to play video games all day rather than get a job. I just don't feel that society is responsible to ensure an equal standard of living for everyone - just an equal opportunity.
Given that some drug addicts, etc. have children, I support programs that give the children an equal opportunity to succeed: good schools, school lunches, health care. The opportunities so that a child can decide, "Yes, I want out of this poverty. If I work hard, I can do it". Each of these are out of the control of the parent. I just don't believe in throwing money at problems and expecting them to go away.
A couple more thoughts. Let's look at someone like a drunk homeless man. Sure, he is likely there because of his alcohol problem. The scripture john quoted tells me that if I stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer [because] his punishments are just, then I have need to repent.
I agree. I don't want to deny him food and shelter and necessities. I am FOR safety net programs. I also don't want to deny him the opportunity to get training classes in the unemployment office or AA help. I want to provide every program that teaches self-reliance that I can. I want to give him every opportunity to succeed.
In the event that he chooses to reject all of that, I still don't want him to starve in the street. I support homeless shelters and food kitchens. But, I also don't think it is appropriate to buy him a house identical to mine and pay all his bills so that he has the same lifestyle as me. I don't think that is what the Lord is asking when he says that he may not suffer.
In fact, I would go a step further and say that is NOT what the Lord wants because the Lord wants us to each be self-reliant. The Lord wants each of us to do our very best to cover our needs and then impart of our surplus.
I think we have more in common than not. We both want to help people, and we both want equality. We just differ in how to provide the help and what defines equality.
And actually (not to be offensive - this is really how I feel), I do think that a lot of Democrat programs hurt more than help because they just give people money (or food, etc) without the knowledge or incentive to break out of poverty. I think that they keep people in poverty.
Sorry for all the comments. One last thing. I am using personal examples (like me and the drunk man), but I am really talking more policies and politics here. On a personal level, I might feel inspired to buy the drunk man a house like mine (which really is not that great - I live in a big box, but I am grateful for it). I don't know. I am happy to give liberally with all of my surplus.
But, on a policy level, I think we need to be careful about the policies we put into place and the effect they have on the people we help. If we create disincentives to self-reliance, then we hurt those we are trying to help. I am a broken record, so I will stop now.
D&C 49: 20
"it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."
Hmm, anonymous. I am trying to figure out how to take your scripture. It is a good one and causes reflection. Seeing as I appear to have a tendency to take things personally, if you are implying that because I am okay with having a house when someone else does not, I am "sinful", well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion. I feel that I am practical with the ways of the "sinful" world.
This reminds me of something. I heard someone (a temple recommend holder) say that "if the Lord commands the law of consecration, I will obey the law in a second". I was taken aback. In the temple, we covenant to obey the law of consecration, so even if it is not commanded to the whole church yet, those of us who have been to the temple have covenanted to live this law. I live this law and am comfortable with my standing before the Lord.
If you are refering to policy (as I am), then while I agree that the world (and the U.S.) is sinful in this regard because we have gross inequalities, I still don't believe the solution is to legislate equality with regard to income. I don't think we can legislate away inequality because of sin.
McCain and Obama both spoke about this. I was mulling over a post about it, but I'll just give my thoughts now. In the religious forum hosted by evangelical pastor Rick Warren, McCain and Obama each gave what they thought is the biggest moral failing of America.
Obama said America's greatest moral failure is its insufficient help to the disadvantaged. He noted that the Bible quotes Jesus as saying "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." He said the maxim should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism.
I agree. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that if we neglect the poor, we are nothing. (Alma 34:29 Therefore, if ye do not remember to be charitable, ye are as dross, which the refiners do cast out, (it being of no worth) and is trodden under foot of men. However, I think that McCain nailed it on the head:
McCain said the nation's greatest moral shortcoming is its failure to "devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests."
We are selfish. On an individual level, we have a lot of selfishness, and this leads to neglect of the poor, widowed, fatherless, etc.
I honestly don't feel that Obama's (Democrat's) solutions to poverty will overcome that or will bring equality. As long as there is sin and selfishness in the world, there will be inequality. I guess I am just practical in accepting that. Let me point out that it does not mean I think we should just leave it a dog-eat-dog world. It means that I support other solutions. (And I really think that sharing the gospel is the best way to help the world overcome inequality).
No, Steph - I don't think throwing more money at them would fix the problems either- completely - however, I think raising prices on non-necessities would help alot - as would lowering the prices on healthy foods - I am all about governmental price fixing. But I'm communist.
I don't know. I also think giving ALOT of money to public education is one of the biggest answers - to educate children so that they see that there is, indeed, a bigger world out there - also education reform - making public schools stricter (dress codes, no cell phones, etc) - making education serious again - REALLY TEACHING children would change alot of it, IMO. As it is, alot of students are only there because they have to be and don't learn anything - and then perpetuate the cycle - If public schools had the funding, teacher saleries, and educational standards that Japan and Korea have, the problems would be solved to a great deal, I think.
wow---give money to our children and our schools. What a novel idea.
Um, not to get off on another thread here, but why did we start cheaping the public school system? (not talking about the last 10 years...I'm talking like the last 50 years)
The U.S. is actually ranked third in the U.S for spending per student (behind Switzerland and Australia). Japan ranks 9. Korea isn't even in the top 21.
This is another area where I agree we need to do "more", but I don't agree that means more money. I do agree with educational reforms and higher educational standards. Our district has a dress code and it makes a difference.
I meant third in the *world*
Oh, and obviously I am very against artificially adjusting prices because that goes against every fiber of "free market" in my body. I agree to disagree, Rick. :)
I found this excellent article on the law of consecration (I admit - you guys have me thinking about my ideologies and how they line up). A few key quotes:
Designated the law of consecration and aimed at the total elimination of poverty, the law is to “remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.” (D&C 42:30)
The Lord’s economic system differs in significant ways from other methods of relieving poverty. These other methods include philanthropy—an outright gift to the poor by an agency or benefactor; government-sponsored programs—attempts to redistribute the wealth among citizens by taxing the more affluent to provide for the less affluent; and communalism—the pooling of private property and money to community ownership so that each member holds equal ownership in community goods. These are the distinctive features of the Lord’s “own way”:
1. Entrance into the united order is wholly voluntary, as evidenced by a consecration of all one’s property to the Church.
2. The united order is not a supplemental assistance program; it is the economic system in Zion. It provides a standard of living commensurate to one’s needs, wants, circumstances, and ability to expand one’s stewardship.
3. The united order operates under the principle of private ownership and individual management. It is neither communal nor communistic. Each man owns his own property with an absolute title. The individual family is preserved. There is no common table.
The Prophet rejected communalism. When he arrived in Kirtland in 1831, he found some of the Saints organized into a communal society called “the family.” He soon had them abandon that for the “more perfect law of the Lord.” (History of the Church, 1:146–47) When asked later, “Do Mormons believe in having all things in common?” he answered no. (History of the Church, 3:28) In Nauvoo, he recorded this entry in his journal: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo, everyone is steward over his own.” (History of the Church, 6:37–38)
The united order, according to Elder Harold B. Lee, is “more capitalistic … than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1941, p. 113)
4. The united order should not be confused with various “united orders” that were practiced in Utah. President J. Reuben Clark observed, “In practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up … in Utah after the Saints came to the valleys.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55)
5. The united order is not socialism. The “equality” spoken of in the united order is based on (1) family size, (2) family circumstances, (3) family wants (these are to be “just”), and (4) family needs. (See D&C 51:31.) As President J. Reuben Clark observed, “Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality.” (The United Order and the Law of Consecration, Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1945, p. 25)
6. The united order will only be implemented by revelation to the prophet of the Church, not by legislation or some political program.
Anyways, just thought that was interesting.
Here's another good one about the United Order.
The united order is nonpolitical. It is therefore totally unlike the various forms of socialism, which are political, both in theory and in practice. They are thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man’s agency.
The united order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.) In this way they qualify to “become the sons of God.” (Moro. 7:48.)
Acts 2: 44
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common
Acts 4: 32
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
compare with
3 Ne. 26: 19
19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.
4 Ne. 1: 3
3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.
From the above mentioned scriptures in the BOM, I'm going to go ahead and assume that Joseph Smith was either, A) misquoted in your article or B) saying something to a particular audience at a time when he had to be careful of what he fessed up to so as not to get shot (ala his denial of polygamy.)
The United Order is always tied in with political discussions with members I noticed.
Although the United Order influences my views on economics, I would never call upon the United Order to be implemented as a government program. There are several reasons for this:
1) The United Order is rather seperatist to me. It's one thing to be united in Zion, where every man sees eye to eye, as the scriptures say, and quite another to have a group of Mormons consecrating their property to a Church leader and working towards creating eqaulity among themselves, while the world still struggles to alleviate their own problems. It may have been realistic in frontier Utah, or in Far West (which was the frontier at the time also) but I don't see that being very Christlike today, especially since our neighbors and communities are usually not LDS.
2) As Stephanie pointed out, no matter how hard we try, human error will always creep in to any political system, which means corruption, intrigue, etc. The United Order can only be done by revelation, or with Christ as the literal head of government as he will be in the millennium. This is the only way a perfect order can be established.
I do not feel, however, that this relieves us of the obligation of seeking a more perfect order until that time comes. All throughout the scriptures the Church has tried to live closer to this ideal without actually implementing the United Order. The Book of Mormon has numerous examples, but so does the Old Testament (especially the law of Moses, which required fields to not be overly harvested in order to leave food for the poor, had labor laws such as safety requirements for workers, and commanded the people to "open thine hand wide" to those who were in need).
Even in the New Testament, once the early Saints failed in establishing the United Order, Paul continues to counsel them to live closer to that ideal, as in 2 Corinthians when he advocates for what sounds very much like a progressive tax:
"For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack."
(As an interesting side note, Paul could have pointed out that he who gathered little was lazy and should have worked harder to gather more, but he doesn't. I always found that telling.)
Even in modern Church history, once implementing the United Order was abandoned, the Church still continued to try and establish other forms of economic equality, such as cooperatives, and even going so far as to publish the "Proclamation On The Economy" (which I will post at the bottom of my entry if some of you haven't heard of it) trying to persuade members to strive towards limiting the accumulation of wealth by individuals as well as a establishing more equal economic model, complete with the abolishment of interest on loans and property.
I wouldn't go as far as calling someone who lives in ease while their fellow citizens go without housing or healthcare sinful, that is not my call, but what I can say is that I personally would not be able to sleep at night, especially because of my own background.
Last of all, from the what I've read as well as from what Stephanie posted, the United Order sounds very similar to Libertarian-Socialism, or more commonly referred to as Anarchism (the political theory, not the descriptive word for chaos).
Proclamation on the Economy, 1875
"The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained, there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.
One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both state and national, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.
Years ago, it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us, which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the Church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one.
A union of interests was sought to be attained. At the time cooperation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions to which the possession and lack of wealth give rise were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of cooperation among us.
Cooperation has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But now it is time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain cooperation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local cooperative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is in not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.
Your Brethren,
Brigham Young
George A. Smith
Daniel H. Wells
John Taylor
Wilford Woodruff
Orson Hyde
Orson Pratt
Charles C. Rich
Lorenzo Snow
Erastus Snow
Frankling D. Richards
George Q. Cannon
Brigham Young, Jr.
Albert Carrington
Just had to quickly add my two cents before I go to work. :)
Like Rick and John, if I had to classify myself as something, then "Social Democrat" is probably most fitting.
Stephanie, I totally agree with your example of the drunk man and how even if you had the desire and means to give him a big, beautiful house, it wouldn't necessarily be the right thing to do. I also agree that simply throwing cash or material goods at such people isn't really a good solution. Lastly, I agree that education needs to be a priority, whether we're talking about kids in the Philly projects or mothers who give their kids fruit roll-ups instead of apples (I loved that example, by the way, LOL).
My husband has an uncle who is 59 but looks more like he's 79. He's had a tough life of problems with his nerves and has resorted to a lot of drinking in his days. As well, he is a chain smoker and we estimate that he smokes for almost $15 USD per day. He owns a home with a big piece of land around the corner from us and recently his health has deteriorated to the point that he can't cut the lawn or do anything. He has held down a job all these years, but is going to have to go on disability now because of his back problems. His house is literally falling apart and it's a mess, inside and out. The smoking alone has made the house pretty much uninhabitable (except for him) and unsellable without a big renovation. My husband and I have helped him with his lawn and driving him around to doctor appts when he hasn't been able to drive himself. So, this guy is one of those people whom I think that probably all the money in the world couldn't help to have the type of life that we would want for ourselves. He is utterly and completely addicted to smoking, which I am sure will eventually take his life, and in regards to drinking, he scoffed at rehab because "once the alcohol is out of your system, it's not a problem." So, would I dip into my pockets to fix up this guy's house or do something to improve his life? No, because he himself as chosen to let it fall apart even though he had to resources to fix it up. I really feel bad for him and wish I could do more, but it would be a waste. He is perhaps in a way content in his cloud of smoke and, as miserable and lonely as it sounds to me, I realize that there's nothing any of us can really do for him except small things like cutting the lawn, driving him places, and when it all comes down to it, paying his medical care and disability pension via taxes. I feel it's both the minimum and maximum I can do for such a person. Minimum because I feel that every person should be entitled to medical care when he/she needs it, even when most of the medical problems are self-inflicted such as in the case of this uncle of ours. Maximum because when someone has decided that that is the kind of life he wants for himself, there's nothing really more I can do for him except the small things. I could throw cash his way endlessly in order to fix up his house and his life, but in all honesty, I think the money would be better spent on AIDS orphans in Africa or something of that sort.
I also agree with you, Stephanie, that we need to be careful with the policies we put in place so that we don't destroy the need for self-reliance. I guess the problem is that sometimes it's hard to distinguish where that line of self-reliance begins and ends. Like in the example of the drunk man, could he do more to get out of his predicament? Probably yes, but in a way no. His life circumstances and choices were probably what led him down that path in the first place (so that's where his personal responsibility lies), but now he has become enslaved to the bottle and with something like drugs or alcoholism, willpower just isn't enough. He now has a life-long disease and his power over it is limited. So, in a socialist setting, simply throwing cash and material goods at such a person isn't really a good solution. Though a person can't be forced into rehab, there can definitely be more integrity in such a system to ensure that everything possible is being done to coax him into going to rehab, following up with him to monitor his situation, and hopefully getting him to the point where he is rehabilitated enough to re-enter the working world and become a responsible citizen. I think that when such quality control systems are in place, it can benefit a lot of people. However, there will always be a few who don't want to be helped and then they are absolutely a liability to the tax payer. But, when a human being becomes a liability, he's still a human being.
Bottom line is, a socialist system will always cause disincentives to self-reliance for a few people, whether it's an alcoholic, or someone who just simply doesn't want to work. However, a responsible socialist system will take necessary steps to keep that number to a minimum by educating the people so that they see that living the life of a "social client," which is what we call such people in Norway, is really not the type of life they want for themselves.
Wow, that must have been 5 cents worth. :) Off to work now...
fd, I agree exactly (except for the socialist part :))
Hurra! We agreed on something!! Break out the non-alcoholic champagne!! :)
If this keeps up, we should try brokering peace in the Middle East. :)
John - I really like that proclaimation - thanks for posting it - I've never read it. I wonder how many proclaimations are out there as "the word of God" but no one bothers to read them because they aren't planned into the sunday school lessons every quarter.
This
is the kind of story that makes my blood boil. Don't tell me this mother did this because she was "poor". There are other options besides selling your 5 year old's sex for a car and apartment. Too many parents are just too selfish.
Stephanie said:
Don't tell me this mother did this because she was "poor". There are other options besides selling your 5 year old's sex for a car and apartment. Too many parents are just too selfish.
My response:
That story is certainly disturbing, but I don't think anyone on here would try to defend the mother due to her economic situation. Unfortunately there are some sick people in the world, but I wouldn't lump a sadistic couple like this in with other parents. No matter how selfish you may feel many parents are, it is not common practice to prostitute a child, whether your rich or poor.
Thanks Rick, I'm sure you're already aware, but there is a long history of left leaning ideology in our Church (as well as right leaning). Unfortunately, with the majority of members now on the right, that history is hard to find unless you know where to find it.
If you have time to check them out, there are a couple of great books for lefties like you and I that I would recommend:
"Approaching Zion" by Hugh Nibley is a great resource for economic teachings from the left and his book "Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints" is also great for economic and environmental issues. Both books are have some great chapters about war as well.
There is also a great talk given by BYU professor Richard E. Johnson called "Wealth & Poverty" which might interest you.
Another one is by a man named Todd Compton called "The Spiritual Roots of the Democratic Party". He's LDS and does a great job of communicating just why he feels the Democratic platform fits in with the gospel.
If you're interested in either of the two essays and have a hard time locating them online, I have them on my hard drive and can email them to you if you'd like. Just message me and let me know.
The talk by Richard E. Johnson is one of my favorites, so I thought I'd post a tidbit from that as well:
"It seems to me that if we are serious about contemplating the moral state of contemporary American society, we must begin by broadening or revising the usual measures of morality. It is possible that the traditional sins of sex, drugs, crime, and violence may not even be the most appropriate markers as we search for signs of "unprecedented evil." While such behaviors are certainly proscribed in the scriptures, the most powerful and consistent scriptural warnings given to those who live in the "last days" (particularly as found in the Book of Mormon) center around a single set of interwoven evils--the sins of materialism, consumerism, worldly vanity or pride, and socioeconomic inequality. These traits and conditions are unequivocally condemned throughout LDS scriptures. Moreover, they are generally described as the root from which the more "traditional sins" take nourishment, and as the ultimate cause of both personal and social destruction.
In view of these repeated scriptural pronouncements, it seems that the most appropriate measure of any group's moral climate may be the extent to which that group is characterized by selfish, prideful striving for the "lifestyles of the rich and famous." The consequences of that individualistic and hedonistic materialism--inequality, suffering, and neglect--then become additional indicators of evil in their own right."
cool, man - actually, FD turned me onto that Todd Compton Talk - I read it a few days ago, and it is rad. Approaching Zion is splendid - I have to admit that in all my reading, I haven't completed this one yet (though I've read parts) But its number 1 on my list - in fact I'd surely have read it by now if it wasn't so heavy (I could only bring light books on the plane with me to korea) I love Nibley, and Have read most of his stuff - but this one, which I feel is most important, I haven't been able to get all the way done. (sad face). Thanks for the reccomendations - I think I will do a post on lefty-leanings this weekend.
Hear hear, John! One of the problems with our society's political discourse is the way it emphasizes hot-button issues (gay marriage, the war in Iraq) which, however important they might be, are actually less important in shaping most people's lives than more mundane events that do their dirty work under the media radar. And many of these things fall under the rubric of "materialism and consumerism." Sure, 9-11 was important. But perhaps more important in the long run has been the development of the fast-food and junk-food industries--more important in the sense that they will ultimately make more of a difference in the lives of more people than a piker like Osama bin Laden ever will. Yet many of us seem to have lost the idea of the importance of the way the little things add up.
This is particularly true if you think of it in terms of the individual and of agency. How has Al Qaeda affected the choices I confront in my everyday life? I'm many decades too old to have to confront the agonizing choice of whether to enlist in the military, so not much. AQ presents most of us with one or two major choices whose outlines are quite clear--as opposed to the zillions of small (but cumulatively very important) choices presented to us constantly by our consumerist system. And the persuasive powers of OBL are nothing compared to the sophisticated duplicity of modern advertising.... It's much easier to respond rightly to the challenge posed by terrorism than to the constant blandishments of advertising and marketing, with the result that cheeseburgers and Twinkies wind up killing more of us than terrorists, albeit more slowly and less spectacularly. With its (now declining?) antimaterialism and its stress on agency, the Church has historically been very good at helping people face these lesser battles.
--David
I was thinking about something. It would be interesting to have a separate discussion in this blog where everyone could tell a bit about themselves, their background, interests, etc, and how they came to have the views that they do, whether because of life experiences, spiritual revelations, or whatever. Since we're all LDS here, I find it interesting that we can all believe the same thing and yet have such different points of view. Some people have been either liberal or conservatives all their lives, but some have flip-flopped (including myself, to an extent) later in life. It would be interesting to know more about each other, particularly for those of us who are new to the blog. Perhaps you guys have already done more of a formal intro about yourselves and the rest of us have just missed out on it. :)
Excellent idea, FD - I'll put a post together today.
HA! That's funny you mention that FD because I was thinking the same thing. In fact, since I'm relatively new to the whole blogging thing, my first blog under my profile is really just an introduction of myself in terms of my history and how I became a Mormon lefty.
I think it would be great to learn more about the rest of you too.
it is not common practice to prostitute a child, whether your rich or poor
It is actually becoming increasingly common (or it is being reported more often on the news). I have heard at least 5 stories like this in the last year.
With its (now declining?) antimaterialism and its stress on agency, the Church has historically been very good at helping people face these lesser battles.
See, here is the thing. Are you guys talking about individuals or society?
While such behaviors are certainly proscribed in the scriptures, the most powerful and consistent scriptural warnings given to those who live in the "last days" (particularly as found in the Book of Mormon) center around a single set of interwoven evils--the sins of materialism, consumerism, worldly vanity or pride, and socioeconomic inequality. These traits and conditions are unequivocally condemned throughout LDS scriptures. Moreover, they are generally described as the root from which the more "traditional sins" take nourishment, and as the ultimate cause of both personal and social destruction.
Yes, I totally get this, and I agree - the sin of selfishness is the root evil that leads to social destruction like neglecting the poor (see my comment above about McCain).
In view of these repeated scriptural pronouncements, it seems that the most appropriate measure of any group's moral climate may be the extent to which that group is characterized by selfish, prideful striving for the "lifestyles of the rich and famous."
I agree again. ALL of the wickedness cycles started with pride and wearing costly apparel and looking down on ones neighbor in the BofM. I agree that our society as a whole is doing very poorly in this area. We are a materialistic, selfish society.
The consequences of that individualistic and hedonistic materialism--inequality, suffering, and neglect--then become additional indicators of evil in their own right."
True, true, true. But my question is this: what are you going to do about it? If people are selfish, can you legislate selflessness into them? Can you use the government to change our society around? I don't think so. You might be able to legislate more social programs, but this will not resolve the social ills because the social ills are the result of selfishness - people treating one another poorly on an individual basis.
The times in the BofM when the people had all things in common were when all of the people were converted and had "one heard and one mind". When they had a change of heart and gave freely. I just don't think that a political system can accomplish that.
Also, to what extent are we responsible for each others' sins? The article of faith tells us that "man will be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions". This also tells me that I am not responsible for my parents' sins or my neighbors' or anyone else but me.
On the other hand, I am partly responsible for my children's if I don't teach them correctly or my YW if I don't teach them correctly. How far into society does my responsibility extend?
I have a question. If sins like sex and drugs (alcohol) shouldn't be legislated against, then why should sins like materialism or consumerism?
Hey, Steph. I don't think it's a question of "do we legislate sin" - it's a question of "is the legilsation of a certian act going to be benifical for society in the long run" - dang, this blog is taking too much of my times.
I know what you mean.
I'm sure we are all seeking the same goals, we just differ on how to get there.
I do believe legislating economic equality prevents the rise of that selfishness, and a completely free market encourages it. As the proclomation on the economy that I posted previously states:
"The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice."
Emphasis on the part about luxurious habits which beget vice.
Economic equality is the long lost principle in Church teachings in my opinion. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
"...early LDS economic goals can be summarized under 4 headings (1) ecclesiastical sponsorship of economic growth and development; (2) ecclesiastical sponsorship of group economic independence and self-suffiency; (3) cooperation and organized group activity for attaining these goals; (4) achievement and maintainance of economic equality."
-quoted from Encyclopedia or Mormonism under heading "Economic History of the Church"
"From a broader view of politics...Latter-Day Saints have much greater expectations for collective action. Their theology includes a strong commitment to achieve a unified, cooperative society, characterized by spiritual convictions, strong social bonds, collective responsibility, and material equality."
-quoted from Encyclopedia or Mormonism under heading "Economic History of the Church
These things definately influence my views in regards to Social Democracy, which combines socialism and capitalism in what I believe is a more humane and Christlike way.
Post a Comment