My little op-ed piece on Bush's victory -- published locally, and republished below -- struck a nerve with a reader. The gentlemen wrote a rather lengthy denouncement of my assertion that RED biblical morality based politics carried with it some obligations which are normally associated with blue voters.
There is clear hypocrisy – and international recognition of red stupidity. This individual seems to have taken it personally and retaliated by raising various points – including the idea that as a blue voter, I must naturally be a supporter of Arafat and Bin Laden. The following was my response – for publication.
Not knowing exactly who my audience is here, I’ve deleted the gentleman’s name – which was, naturally and properly, referenced in the response.
_____________________________________________________________________________
POINTS MISSED points taken
One of the great joys in writing is hitting a nerve with a reader – especially when they use your writing to inject things not mentioned, or disagreed with. Just such a case happened with the (recent) letter, "Opposing Points of View". Now I can’t address the contents of Ms Toland’s Op-ed piece – I didn’t save it for reference. However, as to the content of my Op-Ed piece – It would have been nice for (letter writer) to have read it. Had he done so, he would have seen that I made no reference to either The Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Declaration of Independents; but I did make specific reference to Matthew 25:40-45. For (letter writer) edification, that is not a part of either of the documents he cited – it comes from the New Testament and specifically cites the words of Jesus as regards the moral obligation of one person to another.
Moral obligation – not Constitutional Right. Though, it could justifiably be argued that, from both societal and economical viewpoint, the care for the least of the people – those at the lower end of access to the resources necessary for survival – benefits everyone. It is true that many were fooled by Bush and that, as quoted in my piece, Europeans were quite open and direct in calling all those who voted for Bush "dumb." If (letter writer) has a problem with that – let him address it to the European media, not to the American messenger.
As one who has written for many years – had multiple op-ed pieces published throughout this and other states – I am solidly on record as being conservative ... not liberal. It is possible that (letter writer) believes all those who cite, and accept, New Testament mandates are liberal – if so, then it is clear that Bush, in denouncing liberal policies, has specifically and emphatically attacked all those who accept Jesus as Savior, or adhere to the Old Testament precepts His teaching were based upon. As it happens, I fall into the latter category. Obviously family and friends cited in the letter missed the biblical reference because they consider it the words of an arrogant group of people with arguments easily countered and dismissed. Personally, I believe scripture holds wisdom which is easily affirmed and supported by in secular practice, or through objective observation; but (letter writer) is entitled to his expressed opinion.
I do thank him for placing me in the "intelligentsia" – to be among those recognized as possessing culture and political influence, to be considered intelligent and highly educated, is a great compliment. As readers of these pages know, my children are also of the "intelligentsia", and I am very proud of them for it. Those of us who act from intelligence – hopefully invoking wisdom and understanding to accompany our knowledge – receive emotional gratification when logical conclusion is accompanied by what (letter writer) described as "‘feely-good’ thought"; I much prefer that to the depression which he obviously endures.
Still, it must be granted that the letter – while ignorant of the article it denounced – did make some very good points. That I have been making the same ones for more than twenty years just allows me to revisit familiar territory.
The point was raised that there are individuals who utilize EBT cards – "debit card" replacement for food stamps – than use cash to purchase cigarettes, beer and lottery tickets. Given that the lottery money goes back to the State, I’m not going to take specific argument with that. However, given that the food stamp allotment for one person is about $1,700 a year, I have long held that an individual has sufficient disposable income to burn or urinate away $2,000 to $4,000 a year, they should not be eligible for public assistance. There is no rational reason why someone who literally "has money to burn" should seek assistance.
To answer (letter writer) question: That is not "social justice", nor is it a wise use of public money. I would add to that misuse of funds the purchase of unhealthy foods; referring back to scripture the writer so detests, Leviticus sets down numerous health related statutes – in our current period of rampant obesity, every medical professional should agree to the wisdom of 3:17 which states as a "perpetual statute ... you shall NOT eat any fat". Those who have unsuccessfully attempted the Atkins diet might now have some idea why it failed. They continued to consume fatty red meats – probably red voters too (Couldn’t help myself). Fat clogs the arteries, and carbohydrates convert dietary fat into body fat and waste products. Cut the carbs, the dietary fat simply waits for carbs consumption to resume and you blowup like the proverbial balloon. Candy is a carb – utilizing food assistance to purchase candy and fatty meats ensures an obese child, or adult. Obesity is a social health problem; encouraging it is an improper utilization of public funds.
As for the assertion that "socialism is a failed idea" – I would take argument with that. Socialism as interpreted by the Soviet Government failed dismally. Socialism in Scandianian countries has, for centuries, been a resounding success. Socialism as practiced in Red China – well, despite being socialist, as a capitalist nation they are a resounding success. They are so successful that they are funding the Bush deficit – one red supporting another, seems poetic justice.
It would take several columns to address Tennessee’s successes and failures. But aren’t they a red state – voting for Bush by a 10% plurality when he only had 1% nationally? I expect they used their red mindset to influence policies – this is the same mindset that has Bush 43 spending $4 for every $1 of reduced revenues, which logically would lead to funding shortfalls. I would point out that, a decade or more ago, as a blue state, Tennessee did implement some preschool educational reforms which should soon be yielding measurable results under NCLB testing. When I have the opportunity to gather the data, I might well do a column on it.
As for Governor Baldacci having inherited the budget mess. He has so stated, and I believe him. One reason I believe him is the little $213 million dollar budget debacle at DHS – I had that little accounting problem on his desk almost as soon as he took office. The audit was a direct result of my screaming – and as a result, the State ended up $75 million to the good. For those who want the math: that more than $285 million dollars back in the public pocket because of my oh so arrogant belief that government should be run efficiently while providing services to the needy.
The Governor, and Democratic leadership, have declared we would see tax relief by the end of January. If they fail to deliver, I will be at the forefront of those pounding them. The slim margin of Democratic control doesn’t mean they have the votes to achieve what must be achieved – the reds still have the power to block a balanced budget, or contaminate attempts at fiscal responsibility without imposing suffering on the least among us.
As for the writers desire to interject Bin Laden, Arafat, et al – anti-Semites all – into the discussion of an op-ed written by a Jew; I’ll just ignore it for now and consider it an example of bad taste consistent with those who scorn scripture and its rational applications.
