Years ago before I was married, a good friend of mine who was married at the time had two beautiful little girls. I remember the occasions when I would find at least one of them crying uncontrollably either at their house or in the lobby at church. Like any good “uncle” I would pick them up and do all I can to make them feel that everything was going to be alright. When I approached their parents with one of these pitiful little girls, in many cases they did not share the same level of concern that I did. In fact, they would just politely ask me to put her down. Come to find out, anytime these little girls would get in trouble they would systematically look for those that would sympathize with their “pain”. Unfortunately, I was one of the highest ranked suckers of that time—that is, until I was married and had my own kids 
.
I bring up this simple story because like my initial response to these kids above, I am seeing way too much sympathy being poured out to the self-proclaimed victims in our society WITHOUT A WILLINGNESS TO KNOW THE FULL STORY! Below, I will outline a few well-know instances of this blind sympathy.
The alleged rape victim at Duke University
The moment allegations came to light that a young Blacka claim—facts meant NOTHING to them, just a claim. woman was possibly raped by the mostly White lacrosse team of Duke University, within hours the town of Durham, North Carolina became ground zero for women’s rights, racism and injustice in America. Mainstream media, bloggers, radio and TV commentators were quick to put the little pieces they had together to “convict” these young men of wrongdoing. For many Black Americans at this initial stage, this case served as a reminder to the days of slavery and how Black women were treated by white slave masters. Jesse Jackson caught the first thing smoking to Durham to assure this young lady that she had his support. In fact, he even offered to pay for her college education. For many, this case was a confirmation that our nation was a hairsbreadth away from turning back to the early 1800s. Mind you, all this took place with a vast majority of critics not reading one line of the 2,000+ pages of related case documents. For the critics against these Duke lacrosse players, all they needed was
When fair minded people began to question the accusation of this young woman, they were automatically labeled as racists, Black turncoats, and anti-woman. “How dare you question this young woman after what she has experienced!”, or “If she was white, you wouldn’t be asking all of those questions”, or “How can you defend the rights of these privileged White boys (vernacular that tells you the conversation is headed towards class-ism)? “ became some of the usual lines that were used during that whole ordeal. Little did these folks who have bought into the never question the victim (NQTV) mindset know that months later, Kim Roberts (the other stripper) would admit that most of the rape allegation was false. Another well-under-reported fact by this crowd was that according to a former manager of a strip club were the alleged victim worked acknowledged that TWO WEEKS after the “rape” incident, this victim was back at work—stripping. And finally, just recently Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong admitted in court that he has yet to interview the victim over the facts of her story. And what has been the response to these revelations by the NQTV crowd?
Just back away silently as if nothing happened.
Illegal immigration
If there is a ground zero for NQTV, then California is part of it. For years this state has witnessed a growing population of illegals coming from our border with Mexico. Each year, thousands of South Americans willingly cross our borders illegally. For many of them, they are in search of employment that can provide them better life–something that has evaded them in their own country of origin. While their reason may be a noble one, the truth is that their increasing presence has been putting a strain on taxpayers whose dollars go to things like hospitals, schools, police protection. While it may be true that some of these illegals do pay taxes, a majority do not. Couple this with the significant crime rate they import into this country and you have a state budget that has gone out of control largely because of this issue.
Just recently a report was released that reveals both the amount of money that is being sent by immigrants to South America and how that money is being spent:
Immigrant workers are sending more money than ever to their families in Latin America, but two new studies show that only a small portion of the billions of dollars directed there has gone to economic development.
A report released yesterday by the Inter-American Development Bank estimates that immigrants living in the United States will send $45 billion to family members this year, representing a steady increase from about $2 billion in 1980. (more…)
To put that amount in perspective, the state budget for the state of California back in 2002 was $79.2 billion. The total state budget for the state of Louisiana back in 2001 was $13.9 billion. Wanna talk about how Mexico treats their illegals?
(MSNBC) As tough as the United States can be for workers who slip in from south of the border, Mexico is in a poor position to criticize. The problem goes far beyond the predatory gantlet of thugs and crooked cops facing defenseless transients like Moisés. There’s ample precedent in Mexico for just about everything the United States isâ€â€Âor isn’tâ€â€Âdoing. Calling out the military? Mexicans may hate the new U.S. plan to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops on the border, but five years ago they cheered President Vicente Fox for sending thousands of Mexican soldiers to crack down on their southern frontier. Tougher laws? Hispanic-rights groups are enraged over U.S. efforts to criminalize undocumented aliensâ€â€Âyet since 1974, sneaking into Mexico has been punishable by up to two years in prison. Foot-dragging on amnesty? Fox has spent the past five years urging the United States to upgrade the status of millions of illegals from Mexico. Meanwhile, his own government has given legal status to only 15,000 foreigners without papers.
Some of the worst abuses take place on the coffee plantations of Chiapas state, where some 40,000 Guatemalan field hands endure backbreaking jobs and squalid living conditions to earn roughly $3.50 a day. Some growers even deduct the cost of room and board from that amount. “If you ask them, ‘Why are you bringing in Guatemalans to work?’ they say, ‘You can’t depend on Mexicans. They don’t work hard; they’re irresponsible’,” says George Grayson, a political scientist specializing in Mexico at the College of William & Mary. “The truth is, you can pay [the guest workers] a pittance. And if they cause the slightest disturbance, you can send them back to Guatemala.” (more…)
On the other hand, illegals in this country are given the opportunity to get free education, free medical care, free police protection and all other tax-payer benefits. Yet to many, simply bringing up these other facts will classify you as a bigot or a racist. Never mind referring to them as illegals.
The Poor
One of the most overplayed game pieces in the game of politics is discussion regarding the plight of the poor in this country. Just listening to some of the discussion out there on this topic and you would think that there are huge swaths in this country that resemble Rwanda. Actually, the word “poor” here in America has a much different meaning when you compare it to true poverty in third-world countries. Below are some stats taken from the U.S. Census Bureau:
*In 1995, 41 percent of all “poor” households owned their own homes.
*The average home owned by a person classified as “poor” has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
*Over three-quarters of a million “poor” persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 “poor” persons own homes worth over $300,000.
*Only 7.5 percent of “poor” households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
*The average “poor” American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
*Seventy percent of “poor” households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
*Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
*Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
*Two-thirds of “poor” households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
*Sixty-four percent of the “poor” own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
*As a group, the “poor” are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
*Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the “poor” report their families have “enough” food to eat; 13 percent state they “sometimes” do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.
*The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
*Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
*Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. (more…)
There’s more…
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture periodically surveys the food and nutriment consumption of American households. These surveys provide little evidence of widespread under-nutrition among the poor; in fact, they show that the average nutriment consumption among the poor closely resembles that of the upper middle class. Example: Children in families with incomes below the poverty level actually consume more meat than do children in families with incomes at 350 percent of poverty or higher (roughly $57,000 for a family of four in today’s dollars).”
Now please do not get me wrong here. There are numbers of legitimate cases of poverty in this country. But if the self-proclaimed champions for the poor were the slow down long enough to look at the data (like what was provided above), they will quickly realize that true poverty in this country is not as widespread as they would like to have you believe.
Make any suggestion that requires those classified as poor to do something to pull themselves out of poverty and you will hear some of the same criticisms hurled at former President Bill Clinton when he signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act:
“At the time, most American liberals predicted disaster. As Katha Pollitt wrote in The New Republic, “wages will go down, families will fracture, millions of children will be made more miserable than ever.†One frequently cited study predicted that more than a million children would be thrown into poverty. Welfare advocates painted vivid pictures of families sleeping on sidewalks, widespread starvation, and worse. The New York Times opined, “the effect on our cities will be devastating.†Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat of New Jersey, predicted “hungry and homeless children†would be walking our streets “begging for money, begging for food, even…engaging in prostitution.†The Nation prophesied that “people will die, businesses will close, infant mortality will soar.†You would have expected to step over bodies in the streets.” (more…)
While I have met and known poor people in my life that are hard working and are doing everything they can to make ends meet, I have also met my share of poor people who are very lazy and can give a (blank) about what you think. So in order to prevent offense and the impression that you are insensitive to the “poor”, many folks find it easier to treat ALL those who consider themselves as poor as a bunch of helpless and ignorant simpletons who are unable to think straight unless the government is spoon feeding them with program after program. Many of these individuals are just too afraid to call a spade a “spade” because they do not want to appear as the “uppity” American that “beats up” on the poor. Little do they realize that their silence on this issue is fuel needed by those who blatantly abuse the welfare system. And there are many that do in this country.
Homelessness
This is actually closely related to the last topic on the poor.
Back in my younger days when I was feeling my way through the political spectrum, I had always admired Liberal Democrats for being so adamant when it came to addressing the homeless situation in this country. They always seemed to know how to get to the heart of the issue–when they were talking about it.
Living out here in California (the Left coast), you will quickly see that “talk” and “walk” on this issue are two very different things. Some of the most wealthy cities out here have some of the worst homeless problems in the country. What has always puzzled me is how can many of these limousine Liberals lecture Americans on how bad we treat our poor and homeless when their very backyards are filled with the same issue? Seems to me that if they believe that homelessness is caused by an unfair distribution of wealth that they would lead by example in their own communities. Why do these individuals find it easier to jump in their private planes and fly to another country to address their poverty and homeless problems when the same problem (although on a much lighter scale) exists in their own backyards? Because it is easier dealing with these problems “over there” than to seriously deal with these issues here without being considered “too hard” on the underclass or an elitist. At some point you have to play the heavy by giving folks who do not want help an ultimatum.
Like with poverty, I have met and known homeless people who are doing everything in their power to secure permanent housing. I have also met many homeless people who have very little interest in getting off the streets. While numbers of these individuals suffer from mental illness, there is also a significant number that are comfortable with living with very little responsibilities attached to their lives. In other words, it is possible that a homeless person can be lazy. For the politically correct crowd, simply acknowledging this fact is considered not only not false, but an insult to the underclass everywhere.
There have been many times in my life where I have offered a to walk a homeless person to the nearest restaurant and pay for their meal. In most of those cases, my offer was turned down and replaced with a request for cash. At that point I just say “no” and move on. Many of these individuals will faithfully hold up cardboard signs telling you that they are hungry. But when you offer to actually help these individuals instead of tossing them pocket change (something that will never get them off of the street by itself), many of them will refuse your offer and walk the other way.
While it is important to remain sensitive these important issues, we also cannot allow ourselves to become stupefied by political correctiveness.
Sphere: Related Content
