I've followed with great interest the debate raging in Florida over the new law signed by Governor Rick Scott that mandates drug testing for welfare recipients. The ACLU is, of course, challenging this law because according to the ACLU welfare babies should get anything and everything they want without strings attached! They also make several strawman arguments in opposition to the law:
* “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” This isn't the point. If even ONE person is receiving public aid and using that aid to purchase drugs, it's one person too many. Taxpayer money should not go to financing destructive and irresponsible choices. The argument isn't that welfare recipients use more or less drugs, just that the state wants to ensure NO ONE does!
* “Science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients.” So what! Science and medical experts aren't forking over the cash to pay for lazy ass freeloaders that want a free ride. This is public money and the public deserves to know that there money isn't being wasted.
* “Drug testing is expensive.” Not nearly as expensive as welfare! Florida spends over $11 billion per year on welfare alone! Nearly 2 million people receive welfare in the state, averaging $5500 per person. I think the state can afford to protect that investment with a minor $42 test (assuming that number is accurate, which I doubt). Removing just ONE druggy from the welfare roles pays for nearly 131 tests alone! So, in the end, testing will pay for itself if the ACLU is right. Using the ACLU's numbers, approximately 170,000 would pop positive for illicit drugs (citing ACLU's 10% figure). Removing those individuals from the welfare roles would save the state $935,000,000. The cost of testing EVERY recipient on welfare is $71.4 million, a total savings of over $863 million! Obviously, the ACLU flunked elementary math.
* “Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.” They go on to state that a “questionnaire” is more likely to find druggies! Seriously! I'm not making that up. Just ask them, they'll be honest with you! This is so ignorant, I don't even think it really deserves an educated response.
* “Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.” I've already gone over this, so the states can use my real numbers to see that this argument is mathematically flawed, to say the least.
* “Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions.” I can't speak for most state constitutions, but I KNOW my U.S. Constitution and nothing in mandatory drug testing violates it. This is the one I want to spend the most time on.
The ACLU doesn't mention WHERE in the U.S. Constitution mandatory drug testing is forbidden. I'm assuming that the 4th amendment would be the one most likely cited. It reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This would be a constitutional issue if the state wanted to just randomly test any American. But, we're not talking about the state just testing anyone. We're talking about people who APPLY for welfare benefits or seek government jobs. By doing so, citizens voluntarily accept certain conditions that will apply if approved.
As a Soldier, I'm required to get drug tested whenever the military wants to test me. I can't claim 4th Amendment violations because I VOLUNTEERED for this job. No one forced me into the military, just like no one forces someone to work at Blockbuster where there is also mandatory drug testing. If I don't want to be drug tested, I can refuse and just be removed from the military. It's that simple.
Welfare recipients have the same choice. If they WANT welfare checks and privileges, the state of Florida has mandated that certain conditions be met, among those a drug-free lifestyle. The ACLU claims that requiring state employees to get drug tested is an overreach of executive power.
The ACLU is errantly claiming that the governor “is willing to use the power of government to intrude upon your rights in Florida.” There is no right to work, even though Florida is a “right to work” state. The “right to work” law deals with unions, not jobs. If there was an unfettered “right to work” no business would even be allowed to require applications. They'd just hire people because they have a right to be employed.
No one's rights are being trampled when people voluntarily seek public assistance. As long as they are told that in order to qualify for that assistance they have to pass an initial drug test and random drug tests as long as they receive that assistance, individuals make a conscious decision to accept that condition. They voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for assistance, much the same way people do to get a job (like in the military).
A perfect example to sum up the difference for when mandatory drug testing is okay is the education system. I am adamantly opposed to mandatory drug testing in the school system. Why? Because my kids are basically forced to use it. If I choose not to send my kids to school, I get fined or charged. Since I'm forced to send my kids to public schools (unless I CHOOSE to pay for private school, which I can't afford), it would be a violation of my kids' civil rights to force them to be tested. The schools, however, have found a loophole. If a child wants to play extra-curricular sports or activities, they must submit to drug testing. So, naturally, my kids don't play sports at school. But, I would accept the condition of drug testing and waive those rights if I wanted my kids to play sports. It's no different with public assistance.
Phil, yes you have a legitime point,
I think that, if it would be ask in their demand of aid for money from the start and to reply after such time as 6 months lets say, they would be ask to answer the yes or no if they are taking drugs
and what kind and how many times a week and since when and when did they start taking it
like what age,
that would be enough to see the habits and in which category they can classified the potential addict
and tell them to get help to stop if they want the full help amount making it very clear that they are not paying for his drug, therefor get out of it first.
and on the other end if they are found to have lied on their first demand ,when they have to reapply 6 month later they can see their check lowered until they are willing to be tested that they are free of drugs,
that way of doing would help the addicted to get off the drug for the intent to get more money,
the best incentive you could find , because there is no other incentive to match it.
and maybe you would have less of them inprisonned that have been caught many times on their first and only taste of drug, making them a felon for his whole life not able to find decent jobs and look down by a scared society who don’t want to have them on their front lawn.
bye
GREG, IF THE POLICE KNOCK on your door, why not answer, your life could be saved if there is a killer in your back door,
so just be civil and let him in if you have noting to hide, the
police don’t knock on door for a kick, they have other thing to do.
@ilovebeeswarzone: If I have nothing to hide, why let them in? THAT is the mentality that we as citizens should have. If there is a killer in my back yard, the cop better gosh darn tell me there is! Then I will grab my gun and take care of the matter myself. The cop can call the ambulance for the guy….from the front porch.
CJ, OH CJ, no,
this is their job, they must do it themselves,
you must open the door, because we don’t want to loose our heros to civil emprisonment for
killing the killers of this AMERICA, YOU HAVE DONE ENOUGH DANGEROUS JOBS ABROAD,
when you come back to AMERICA they are suppose to protect you, and not put you in danger,
you have done that for other,
here open the door and tell the officer if you can help, but let him do it,
he will get away by killing this killer, but you wont if you do it yourself.
bye
@CJ: I gotta agree with you there brother, the police just need to let me know that there is a hazard in the area and I will take the necessary steps to recognize and render said hazard harmless.
To Ilovebees, my friend you are suffering from “rose colored glasses” syndrome. We all would like to believe that the police are there to “protect and serve” us but the reality is that they are under no such compulsion. See here and here.
In fact the law is quite different than what 99% of us think it is. Not only do the police have no affirmative duty to protect us….they are allowed by law to lie to us, to fabricate evidence against us and even withhold evidence that may exonerate us! See here.
I know many of my Republican friends out there have very little that is good to say about the ACLU but I STRONGLY urge each and everyone of you to check out “flexyourrights” and/or to watch this very informational video when you have time. it’s about an hour long and can be seen in 4 parts.
Poppa-T
WOW, THAT IS NEW to me, and like you say , probably 99 per cent of the people
I can understand what CJ was saying,
so what kind of work are they doing if not protecting the citizens,
IT would be advisable to the citizens to practice on protecting themselves in front of any attack from criminals which from what I have read have a large margin of not being punish for their crimes,
there for they can repeat it on and on, and get away, this is arrogant from the officers to get away from the foundamental task to protect the citizens when they call for help,
you don’t find the braves to help you in every corner of the USA, but it would be adviseble to all the
citizens which are helpless to get to know one brave came back from the warzone and be very generous with that brave which will respond genuenly to the call for help if he or she is in danger,
and the next thing would be to change the name of the police organisation which is not suitable to fit that
what it not doing, while carrying that badge.
thank you for the info, I removed my rosy glasses as for now on the subject.
and I take back what I said to CJ
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: A very good question bees, I know we’re getting a bit off topic here but you have brought to the surface one of my main concerns about the direction our nation is choosing to pursue. I have developed some serious reservations concerning the militarization of our police forces over time and the “us versus them” mindset I have seen displayed by some in law enforcement.
I live outside of a small college town in Louisiana and our police dept. recently acquired 25 complete sets of riot gear thanks to the DHS and FEMA, why? We have never needed this type of equipment before. I am seeing more and more cases of what I would consider to be sociopathic behavior by officers, see here, here, here, and here, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum The police ARE being taught by FEMA that our founding fathers were terrorists, see here and here. And who can forget these reports here and here which urge our law enforcement officers to keep an eye on Ron Paul supporters and people like CJ and me, and probably you as well, because we could be “domestic terrorists”.
It used to be that the purpose of the Police was to to prevent, interdict, and investigate crimes and to prosecute criminals but other priorities like revenue enhancement and maintaining the status quo seem to have usurped those fundamental goals. It seems to me that the belief in Liberty is being criminalized. I would really appreciate it if Curt (with his experience) could chime in and give his opinion.
Poppa-T, YOU KNOW, I’m only on the second “here”, I’m outrage to think that
was happening, It’s very disturbing to see the proof of what you said and feel strangely upset and confusing.
WHAT CAME TO MY MIND now, and even reenforced my thought when I read the name of one of the officer,
here first, a few months ago one of the regular gave us a link on a comment, I saw video of
a reporter talking to a group of MUSLIMS TELLING HIM they have their own in the
POLICE FORCE, they where bragging also in the intelligence force and in GOVERNMENT and where sure that the SHARIA WAS COMING IN THE LAW, SO PROWDLY SAID TOO, WE WILL VAINQUISH.
NEXT CAME TO MIND THE SHOOTER OF THE FORTHOOD MILITARY KNOWN TO FORCE HIS TEACHING OF HIS BELIEF TO THE VETERANS he had under his care, as a psychiatrist,
that mean full control on the vets with the psd traumatisme
and also knowing that those borders are wide open for any hater to come with false identity bossted big enough to become a police officer, those on the second “here” are scare to live in their town, and for the right reason too. I sure hope this get in the wide open public so they can defend themself .
oh and one of the 3 officer’s name is ISMAEL, NOT PROFILING BUT THE circonstances oblige you to
take one step in the profile like it or not,
bye thank you for the link here they are EYE OPENER
next to come in mind is the news at some time came of 4000 people disapeared in one year,
I grew up on welfare, and my mom and step dad both done drugs. I was subject to physical and mental abuse daily, my step dad even forced a tattoo on me. Not on my arm or chest or somewhere that I could cover up , but on my hand, and a mark of hat referred to as a Niger hating dot. I have to try and draw attention away from it every time I interview for a job. I have failed to get jobs, and been passed up for promotions because of it. I also wore rags all the time, even thought there was 300+ dollars a month to buy clothes with that money was earmarked for drugs. I support drug testing for welfare recipients, and even think they should test for alcohol, as long as the outcome is they loss there children. In my mind all welfare does is allow unfit parents to keep there kids.
Andy, how terrible, but one thing they could not destroy is you’re heart and soul,
that’s why you survive to stay on the right track,
that’s what I perceive in you’re comment,
stick with us, you’re with friends here. they are all my friends
bye
Hey CJ,
Would you kindly provide a citation for the numbers that you have produced in this article? I am especially interested in how you determined that Florida spends over 11 billion on welfare per year. In addition, I am also interested in where you found that 2 million people were on welfare in Florida. The numbers that I have found in the federal TANF reports (e.g. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/TANF.pdf) are much smaller than that. In fact, according to the administration for children and families, an estimated 107,027 were on TANF support in December of 2010. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/2011/2011_recipient_tan.htm
I believe some clarification is in order.
Thank you!
I would disagree. While I WOULD be inclined to think this is a good thing. It clearly violates the 4th ammendment in that (keys parts capitolized) “The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES and SEIZURES, shall NOT be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The problem with this would be that your pee comes off of your persons. They are seizing it with unreasonable searches and to say that all people on public assistance are drug users is profiling. In the same way that some people say all black people are thieves and murderers so you should keep an eye on them, they are insinuating that people these people are poor, they are probally doing drugs so give them a test to make sure they are not. They are not affirming to take the drug tests… they are indeed being forced, because if you don’t have a means to income, or not making enough income you have to do something to make sure your needs are met. You may not understand that notion unless you are poor yourself. This is as unconstitutional as obamacare which you have to have, and if you don’t want to get it or opt out they want you to pay a fine or go to jail. President Ronald Reagan was against such things!
As far as saying the government can say “if you want my money, you can pee in a cup”… what happens later down the road when the government says “if you want to buy food at the super market you have give us your guns”, or “you cant buy food without this microchip which is the only acceptable means of payment”. It’s coming folks. They put fluoride, a poison in all our drinking water, put high levels of mercury into our kids vaccine shots which kill their brain cells and effect their nervous system, making many autistism numbers rise dramatically….
jonathan,
you are blowing that to extreme, this is for drug user they know and they are being
view as taking a drug which is against the law, and that is the target not the regular citizens,
living according to the law.
as you know there is those not emprisoned that should be
Hi, CJ.
I’ve got to hand it to you grunts when it comes to vitriol, but being a veteran myself (1986-1992), I have to say that you’re way, way out of line with the “lazy ass freeloaders that want a free ride” bullshit. You are a recipient of welfare to a MUCH greater degree than any of the people you decry:
I feed you and your family; I clothe you and your family; I pay for your housing; I provide expertly-staffed hospitals and clinics to you and to your family; I provide you and your family with professional pastors and counselors for your mental and spiritual hygiene needs;
I pay for your physical and career training — meaning I provide you with coaches for personal development and with expert trainers to develop you as an individual person into the most effective, most nearly self-actualized creature into which you can be made;
I even pay for your basic life insurance. I pay for your transportation to and from your place of work. I pay for you to have civilian education at the college or university of your choice, and I provide you with a number of accredited colleges within the military.
I provide you and your family with recreational facilities — from golf resorts to marinas, from gymnasiums to soccer, baseball and football fields, from bowling to racquetball, from aerobic training to scuba gear (with instructors, in case you need training), from swimming pools to shooting ranges.
I provide you with leadership training and I give you preferential consideration for civilian job placement. And on top of all that, and God only knows how much more, I give ungrateful you money to spend however you see fit! I give you the best, most choice advantages available anywhere on the earth, and you don’t have the GD decency of a human being to appreciate ANY of it? WHO in the hell do you think you are?
Despite my having maintained excellent performance throughout my military career culminating with my honorable discharge, and despite every assurance by the VA that everything was in order, every attempt I made to avail myself of my GI Bill benefits failed. Did that stop me from bettering myself? No.
I scraped money together and went on my own, and even though I didn’t get any direct financial aid, I am not such a thug as to not acknowledge the fact that by attending a State-supported college, the costs of my formal education were lowered enough that, with the help of student loans, I was able to pay for a few classes and the essential items required thereby.
I saw an opportunity to provide service to an airline, so I started a trucking company which expanded to have permanent operating authority in 16 States.
That enterprise didn’t make me rich, but I hired a lot of people who were glad to have a job — and I paid well and I provided good insurance, because I appreciate that sort of gratitude; in return, I got loyal employees who performed with unparalleled excellence: my customers were happy, their customers were happy, my employees were happy, and I was happy.
Then the airline failed. It was to me an inconceivable setback — not in the sense that Condoleeza Rice said the WTC attack was inconceivable, but in the sense that I had spent nearly a year researching the regulations pertaining to starting and operating a certificated airline in the USA, and I couldn’t imagine how any airline complying with FAA regulations could go under.
I also assumed the FAA was effectively and uniformly enforcing its own rules, but there was a culture of corruption within the airline — at least concerning HR decisions respecting executive appointments and placement within my region. The fleet was grounded, various civil suits were filed by alleged victims of sexual harassment (I’m not opining either way regarding the merits of any of those suits).
I transitioned from an airfreight-only carrier under contract, to an airfreight and expedited freight model, but I simply didn’t have the sales force I needed to be competitively flexible under those circumstances, and revenue dropped sharply. Then I learned I might never get my money from the airline which was, if I correctly recall, about 110 days in arrears.
I had to lay off my employees which, as even you probably realize, reduced the overall capability of my company; meanwhile, my capital costs continued to bleed resources as my company slowly imploded. While there was yet some health left in the company, I switched to contract labor, which eased the speed of the collapse.
My mother fell ill; her condition wasn’t covered by her insurance, and for 10 days of abusing and neglecting her, the hospital charged me $15,000. My dad and I eventually got doctors who were able to treat her; I’m not certain whether they did her any great favors, but at least most of those professionals had the decency to regard her as a human being, and they seemed generally competent within their respective fields of practice. In a matter of months (which passed like just a few days), all the reserves were gone.
That may suggest that I was preoccupied by my the plight of my parents, but in truth, I was not: I knew the level of care that she needed could only be provided by experts, and my dad (also a veteran) is yet a sharp-minded man and remarkably competent at everything he attempts: I knew she could be in no better care.
My company lasted nearly 7 years past the collapse of the airline; it survived a lot of small defaults from people who genuinely wanted to pay, but who simply didn’t have the means to pay, and I gladly forgave their debts. My company also survived a default spree in which several major corporations simply refused to pay for services already provided at rates to which they had eagerly agreed, despite their having sufficient liquidity of funds.
Just before that, I got married; shortly after that, I was repositioning one of my remaining trucks in the wee hours of the morning when a guy ran a red light and hit my vehicle, spinning me about 90 degrees in the intersection and dislodging and warping the cab of my truck, warping my truck’s frame, etc.
I made sure the occupant from the other vehicle was okay, then marked the scene and flagged down motorists who were surprisingly reluctant to call the cops to report the accident. My cell had been destroyed in the crash, but there was a Waffle House nearby, and it had a phone. Anyway, someone said they’d call.
After a few hours, a cop showed up; he drove past, then realized he’d seen something unusual and he looped around and put on his lights. My ex-wife’s ex-husband was a cop, so I knew she would hear about the accident very soon; after I called my accountant, I called her to let her know what was going on.
Suddenly, I didn’t want to be around trucks. I wasn’t afraid of them, but I hated seeing them; it was a condition that persisted about 15 months. That was pretty much the last gasp of my company.
I worked a while for Delphi Automotive, as an assembly-line worker and as a Team Leader in charge of two plants; the pay was paltry but I was hopeful it would lead to gainful employment. Instead, business suffered a downturn — 100% of our products were going to GM light truck and SUV production, while gasoline was nearly $4 per gallon and GM was closing plants.
That was my first union gig, and I’ve got to say that unions aren’t the reason companies fail. People opposed to unions either don’t understand how unions work or don’t appreciate how unreasonable and frivolous corporate demands (apparently, often) are.
Similarly, most people don’t understand that unemployment insurance benefits aren’t charity: the worker through his or her labor pays the premium for that insurance, together with the employer’s accounting and compliance costs. When I laid off my employees, I told them they should not be ashamed to file a claim for their unemployment insurance benefits, and when Delphi laid off basically my entire shift, I was not ashamed to file a claim for my unemployment insurance benefits.
When I met my then-future wife, she was receiving a variety of different forms of welfare, including TANF and WIC; I can’t recall for certain, but she may also have been getting food stamps — and she was a single mother. Despite all the government aid, she was living with her mom (who worked at a local hospital in apparently some sort of administrative capacity), and her mom was helping with the costs of caring for my ex’s two sons, one of whom was already at the maximum adult dose of Ritalin for controlling ADHD.
Granted, I didn’t then personally agree with every penny of her purchase decisions — but in retrospect, I can’t think of anything she spent her funds on that I would now challenge. When I met her, she was finishing her academic training as an RDH, and was about to begin rounds; if you’re familiar with courses involving professional training, you’ll know the costs for insurance aren’t at all insignificant.
I don’t call anyone like her a “lazy ass freeloader that wants a free ride.” You bitch about the average welfare recipient in Florida getting $5500 per YEAR? Only someone who IS a lazy ass freeloader that GOT a free ride would be stupid enough to think that’s enough to cover the basic expenses of life, let alone provide the liquidity vital to personal improvement.
You should show this to your CO, along with your mindless drivel. If you’re lucky, he will kick your ass hard enough to dislodge your head from it, and when he gets done explaining to you just how much WE GIVE YOU (whether you’re the laziest SOB on the base, or the most industrious, we take care of you equally), maybe — just maybe — you’ll begin to understand what it means to be your brother’s keeper.
@jonathan: You said:
What you are presenting is a false argument. It is totally acceptable to ask someone to submit to a drug test in order for them to receive taxpayer funded public assistance. But to transcend that into the government controlling which supermarket you may shop at is quite a leap. We are, despite the Obama administration’s best efforts, a free republic and therefore the government does not control the food industry.
@Andy: That’s the same argument the babykillers use to support elective abortion.
Just like we had laws to protect the health of women in the days and decades before elective abortion was legalized; just like we had laws that protected Good Samaritans and all sorts of health care professionals (including doctors and surgeons) who made that awful choice to save the life of one by ending the life of another — long before elective abortion was legalized; just like we had — for many, many years elective abortion was legalized — laws that compelled the State to take a child from an unfit parent; just like we had laws that prohibited the State from taking a child without good cause, so also had we laws (which yet remain) prohibiting child abuse.
It is quite simple to blame on drugs the defective and destructive behaviors of evil people, and it is grievously difficult to accept that such harms would have existed regardless whether drugs were abused — but it is true. It was wrong for anyone to have abused you, and it is wrong for them to have their bad behavior excused because they also abused drugs.
No matter how closely correlated seems the abuse of drugs and the abuse of persons, each is an independent choice. Taking guns away won’t stop murders: it will simply make murders more brutal. Ending elective abortion won’t force unfit mothers into destructive relationships with their offspring and it won’t eliminate the historical protections of women in triage, but it might result in the adoption to caring parents, of babies products of unwanted or otherwise inconvenient pregnancies.
The only way to stop child abuse is to enforce anti-abuse laws either by inspecting every child every day (or at least very frequently), or by removing every child to a “safe environment.” Each option is horrific in terms of its toll on families: the former option forces values that may be inconsistent with the heritage and best practices of particular religious and ethnic groups; the latter option avoids imposing on the child a series of invasive inspections by destroying the traditional family. Neither option is today practical.
You can overcome the circumstances and experiences to which you were exposed as a child: I am living proof of that. I’ve never done illegal drugs, and I’ve never abused legal drugs, but I used to go to church with people who claimed to have once been “active addicts.” More than half referred to themselves as “recovering addicts,” even though they had been drug-free for more than a decade way back then; a few claimed that God had healed them and that they were no longer addicted.
It’s beyond the scope of this forum, but scientists working in the USA and UK have found an epigenetic switch that controls addiction; what’s more: with a single pill, modern scientists are able to change the position of the switch — they can turn “off” addiction with a single pill.
Scientists working in Russia discovered that some epigenetic changes are possible simply through a sort of ritual exercise, but I don’t recall what (if any) limits to that technology have been discovered. The fact that US scientists have discovered a chemical way to alter a specific gene for a particular effect, and the fact that Russian scientists working independently discovered genes can be altered for a particular desired effect without resorting to either chemicals or radiation strongly suggests that claims of “miraculous healing” from addiction (in which the term “former addict” is scientifically accurate) may within the bounds of reasonable understanding be true.
Havaneiss Dei,
I sympatize with all the ordeal you went through, but you cannot attack our POSTER and claim that you paid for his life, because he earned his wages that are still under the norm, by fighting a war in hell where you would not think about, and therefor keeping people in AMERICA FREE TO TRY ANY ENDEOVER
THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT AND HAVING A LIFE
while the military in hell keep dying to save your ass and everyone else’s
so if the state decide to test the one spending the free money on drug, it’s their choice
and they know who they are targeting, don’t take them as fools,
@Greg: Exactly right, all public policy in the USA is based on what the people in power and their cronies are going to get out of it. Nothing has to do with what is good for America or the American people. this is a 4th ammend. violation like all drug tests. they should have to get a search warrant give cause and say exactly what they will think they will find in each persons body. that would put a stop to it. We’ve given in and made it too easy to violate our rights tn America since 9/11.
@Tommy boy: Um Tom Tom, when they are doing drug tests, they are looking for drugs, illicit in nature.
I happened upon this site doing reaserch for my argumentation paper in my college English course, I see there hasn’t been any comments here for a while and nobody will probably read what I have to say but I still feel the need to say something. I have not been able to read every single post word for word, I read a few and skimmed a few and some of the assumptions of people on government assistance saddens me. I am 29 years old with three wonderful children ages 7-2, a divorced single mom. I have a full time school bus driving position in my county, wich enables me to avoid paying for daycare, and I attend my local community college part time. I recieve food stamps and my children are on Medicaide. I am not lazy, I pay taxes and have since I started working at the age of 16, I am a proud person and I do not enjoy going to my local social services office to recieve these benifits and I’m am embarresed to use my food stamp card in line at the grocery store. My pride takes a back seat to my children however, when my child said , “Mommy I’m hungry.” and I know my bank account is overdrawn from the grogeries I bought the week before, I wanted to lay down and die. I am randomly drug tested at work and I would not mind being drug tested at social services, to me it can’t be any worse than the feeling I got when my children were hungry and I had no money to feed them. My family is wonderful and they always help me any way they can and in return I choose to help myself by going back to school and working towards something better for me and my children and they are proud of me. I do not use drugs, I do not eat fielet migion, and I do not sit around all day watching television collecting benifits. I work everyday, I study hard, and I raise my children to be better than me and I love them. So I hope this makes a few of you feel a little better to know that at least one person you are helping, by way of paying your taxes, is using these benifits the right way. One day I will be able to go to the grocery store and not be ashamed or embaressed.
@A mother first: A very moving comment and thank you for posting. Rest assured not everyone thinks that those on public assistance are lazy, drug taking bums. Unfortunately there are those out there who fit into that category and they are the folks that make it difficult for the truly hard working people who need a hand up, not a hand out – such as yourself.
You are trying to better yourself and for that you should be applauded.
Good luck and you will be in my thoughts and prayers.
Think about this, under the pretense that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, if we’re all assumed to be innocent, then for what reason do we have to be tested, for work or welfare, if we’re innocent people? Now if someone committed a crime, that would be a just reason.
All I’m saying is laws shouldn’t be made to reflect society’s failures.
Also, the real problem isn’t with drugs. That’s not to say I don’t doubt that the drug users sit on their butts, but it is to say that I don’t doubt that the majority of others on welfare also sit on their butts. The REAL problem is that the poors are taking advantage of the system because they’re getting free money and have no incentive to leave it. Drug testing or not, it’s not going to change the fact that the system is too easy to take advantage of now. So maybe we should stop beating around the bush and address the real problem.
Lord Antioch
I see that you have a good point there, but I think the welfare is from the OBAMA GOVERNMENT,
and he won’t touch it, because he lead the welfare recipients to think that the money come from OBAMA’S POCKET,
the truth is that money the welfare receive come from the people who work then pay their taxes to the GOVERNMENT which suppose to make a good use of it, but being a big spender OBAMA over spend, and give the people bad economy and produce a big debt instead of taking the interest of AMERICANS,
now he want the welfare people to vote for him, because the next election is coming, but he must go, so to give
the AMERICANS a chance to have jobs with a new PRESIDENT WHO know what to do ,
to create new jobs
bye
@Skookum:
my sister lost her husband and a foster child in a terrible automobile accident. she was also badly injured and it took months before she could walk again. her business suffered from her absence and of course she no longer could rely on her husbands salary. with help from family and friends she was able to keep the surviving four foster children together in her home. she qualified and used food stamps for a period of time. (actually now a credit card which makes me not believe your story about seeing someone use food stamps) she would load those grocieries into a pretty decent (although not $45,000 SUV) toyota truck. your story is hollow and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
I’m currently in the process of writing a research initiative to submit to a state legislature on this topic and I clicked on this link hoping for some well thought out arguments in favor of allowing this type of testing to be conducted. I should be writing that paper now but after reading this article I feel like I need to give the author, CJ, some guidance. If you really want to educate yourself on this issues that this debate centers on then you need to read the following cases at a very minimum (and in this order for it them make better sense):
1) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association
2) Chandler v. Miller
3) Marchwinski v. Howard
I don’t want to sound like an ass but the arguments you make in the article undermine whatever valid points you might be trying to get across. At least if you read these you’ll have a bare bones idea of what the legal issues are that govern this area, and you will be able to evaluate your arguments against what is in fact thelaw, and better educate other people you come in contact with.
Too many people think with their gut on this issue, but as an American and a patriot you should always know and understand a citizen’s rights under the Constitution as they applied today, not simply as they were written originally.
LegalFacePalm,
hi,
do you mean that the CONSTITUTION WAS CHANGE IN PARTS?
SORRY, FROM WHAT i KNOW, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A DOCUMENT THAT SHOULD BE CHANGE
EVER, AS AN AMERICAN, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT,
and you should know the PATRIOTS ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU,
BY THE WAY, WHEN WAS THERE CHANGE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
WAS IT THESE LAST FEW YEARS, AND FROM WHO.?
I have number of reasons why this is a very bad idea. But first what is it with most of the Posters on this Board? Are you afraid that someone is getting a free ride? Are you envious? Here’s what you do, quit your Job, stop paying rent, get evicted and go on the free Welfare Ride. I doubt if anyone will do it. You know that it is no way to live. But just the thought that someone is getting away with something, even something you don’t want is just making you ill. If by some chance a magic Wand was waved and all Welfare ended do you think for one Moment that you would get a rebate on your taxes? Pay less? Maybe improve your working conditions? I know you know the Answer. Remember all the Money we got back after we lost the Viet Nam war and saved all that Money? Me either.
To the subject of Drug testing, pointing out that your Rights are violated when you are forced to submit to Drug Testing at Work is not a good augument, to violate other People’s Rights. Because you did not have the balls to stand up for you Rights does not mean other People are as Cowardly. For the small amount of Money that is saved it is not worth the loss of freedoms.
Have you asked yourselves, what becomes of the samples? What are they Testing for? How private is my Data? If they find that I have Cancer do I have to be treated? Social Disease’s? Who is to decide. maybe you don’t want anyone to know you have a condition. What kind of Drugs are they looking for? Booze, Pot, Medical Pot? Will it change over time? Save Money somewhere else, don’t be so easy about giving up your Rights, they will be gone forever but Money comes and goes.
@joe: I think the most pertinent question asked is the one you left out.
Are my ever so hard earned and even harder to hang onto fruits of my labor going to some folks who take their gubb’mint handout and purchase drugs instead of utilizing that welfare for what it was once intended to be – a hand up, not a handout?
Yessir, I think that right there is a pretty fair question. When liberals whine and complain all day about the “inequalities” in our economy, that is okay. I mean it is totally okay for liberals to be, as you put it, “envious,” or afraid someone is “getting a free ride.” Or in this case, afraid someone has a better ride to get there.
Let’s see, how does that go? Oh yeah…
Created equal, in other words everyone gets the same chance to work hard and better themselves to the best of their abilities. Not equal in outcomes so that some are elevated to a level they did not earn while others are chopped down to the lowest common denominator so that all fair in the land of milk and honey, which is the left’s Utopian dreamworld.
I am a physically disabled person waiting on a heart transplant, and I do not take the above to mean that I have just as good a chance at winning an Olympic Gold Medal in boxing as Micheal Spinks did, or to win a Gold Medal in Olympic wrestling like Kurt Angle did.
But I have every opportunity to study either one of those sports and find a way to work in that field if I so choose and maybe, just maybe I might be successful at it. I also have the opportunity to fail in said field, if I cannot perform said duties well enough to find a market for them.
Back to the question at hand, is it wrong for the taxpayers to know that their monies are going to go to where they might do some good; and not go into the pockets of drug users or pushers?
As for finding cancer and other diseases, don’t fret, when they test urine samples for drugs, they amazingly enough just look for drugs.
Hi CJ
I would like to start by saying the we shouldn’t close the park just because one person littered, just like we shouldn’t start drug testing because a small group of people MAY be using drugs. I am going to guess you are a constructive Republican, who is most likely greedy. I also bet you believe everyone should pull themselves up by their boot straps and change their lives….well it’s just not that easy. We all know that the system is no way to live. If anyone is paying attention we can also see that the government does nothing to help people get off the system……why is someone given limited services because they are going to college and not out getting a minimum wage job at a fast food joint? The government shouldn’t take benefits away from you because you are trying to better yourself with an education……I can relate to this from personal experience. During my years of working in healthcare I worked with many educated and wealthy people(doctors, nurses, pharmacists, lawyers…just name a few) that used illicit drugs and what did we do for them? First off they were never given a drug test upon starting employment and then we saved their job for them while they went to treatment, treatment that the employer paid for. I am not connecting the dots as to why that is ok but we are going to drug test those that are needy or low income. It is, in any way you look at, discrimination. You will probably never see that because you are most likely a fairly wealthy white male. I don’t know anyone that is volunteering to not have a job, be evicted, not be able to feed their kids or their animals or spend their days at the DSHS office, sounds like a load of fun to me!! But we can thank our government for supporting a 10 year war and not their own people. If the government gave us much to human rights and education in our country as we did to war we wouldn’t be in a position to have to drug test the poor. It is quite evident that our county has the highest homeless rates, 48% of Americans live at or below poverty, we have the highest teen pregnancy rates and some of the highest poor health rates…..and why might this be? I am not going to tell you, there is a little home work for you!! So before you go stereotyping those who need assistants form the government maybe you should ask……why has our county gotten to the point of having to drug test for DSHS benefits? It is very sad to me 🙁
To Andy post #116
that is to bad you grew up in that environment………but I am sorry your comment as got to be one of the most discriminator post I have read. I am appalled by the stupidity of some of the people commenting on here. Have any of you left your living rooms or turned off Fox News lately and looked at how messed up this country is? No, because if you had you wouldn’t be making the comments you are. Do some more research before you stereotype everyone!
@Cory:
I have to disagree with you. A private employer can choose to do what they want with their business. This is not a job this is government assistants where our constitutional rights should be recognized more then any where….By the way I dont necessarily agree with drug testing for employment either. What if you fail? At least as far as I know a private employer as to keep that information confidential. What does the government in tend on doing with the information? Do we get the same right to privacy as we would with a private employer? No not all jobs drug test either. When I worked in healthcare(no, I was not drug tested) I worked with many educated people(MD’s, nurses, pharmacists….just to mention a few) that did not have to under go a drug test to get their job……and why would that be? Maybe because they are educated and wealthy? Or maybe their private employer did not want to do drug testing. Might I add that several of these employees ended up in drug treatment, at the companies expense and their job was saved for them upon returning from treatment. Does drug testing the poor sound like discrimination yet?
Yes, I can deny this as logical and fair…
@J V Hoffman:
you have got to be kidding me!!!…..did you really say: “so that all of the welfare recipients can sit at home and watch cable all day!” I take great offense to that! I live on government assistants right now. I am a full-time mother of 3 and take over 14 credits a quarter. My husband as been unemployment for almost 2 years, he is also a full-time student. We live on unemployment, Pell grants, student loans and food stamps. We have actually been denied some DSHS services because we are students. Does that make sense? I spend no time sitting on the couch watching cable t.v. I dont even have cable t.v., that is luxury and I am poor. I spend even less time consuming drugs and alcohol. I am actually on this website doing research for an English paper and was disgusted by what I read on your post!
you are right though, the government is the problem…..not less privileged!
@monica:
Can I give another Amen!!
But that gives me another question…..what happens to those that fail a DSHS drug test? Is that private information and kept confidential? does it become a legal issue?…..as far as I know it is kept confidential when you fail a drug test for a private employer.
Alcohol is the most commonly abused substains and does the most damage to families and people physically. This issue needs to be addressed before we start drug testing people.
@Nan G: i’ve found this topic to be interesting. i’m curious…would people be opposed to having to take a drug test when they apply for a driver’s license? or for a mortgage? or student loans?
in theory…if it is decided to test welfare recipients, then anyone receiving anything from the state could be subject as well.
if the ultimate goal is to rid the state of drugs…why not simply test every resident?
@C Andrew Scott:
I understand where you are going with that and that makes sense, do it for one do it for all……
but that sounds a little Communist to me……
definition: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
definition of totalitarian: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
I believe drug testing for welfare or for any government ran public service is a volition of our constitutional rights. Isn’t Governor Scott paid out tax dollars as well? When is he going to receive his drug test?…..oh that is right, I believe he was approached about that but refused to comply with his rights being violated…………google it!!
Anyway you spin it, it is a violation of our constitutional rights as well as discrimination of the poor
Rachel
hi,
your doing good, and your full of smart arguments, I bet CJ like you,
he doesn’t have the free time to answer like you,
you see, he is busy getting rid of enemies of AMERICA, SO TO KEEP ALL THE PEOPLE FREE,
AND HE’S IN AFGHANISTAN AT THIS TIMES, BUT HE MIGHT GLANCE AT HIS COMMENTERS AT TIME WHICH ARE FEWER FOR HIM THAN FOR US HERE,
STICK AROUND YOUR DOING GOOD,
JUST TO SAY TAKE IT EASY Y’ALL WE HAVE A HERO ON OUR POST, TAKE GOOD CARE OF HIM, WE LIKE HIM
@A mother first: First, thanks for being a person who tries to do right by your children. I know: isn’t it horrible that mankind has fallen so far that such ideology is praiseworthy?
Anyway, here’s the rub: Neither that you are subject to the humiliation and degradation of random drug testing, that you are embarrassed by your present reliance on SNAP or similar benefits, nor both is a defense of the policy or practice of forcing you and others to submit as a class of people to random or routine drug testing.
Such measures cast an overly-broad net, and everyone captured thereby is funneled through the process without any regard for whether he or she had committed any illegal act. That’s prima facie unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment; it doesn’t matter if you’ve got the cleanest blood on the planet and you and everyone else in your family and in your circle of friends is anti-drug.
In fact, it doesn’t matter that none of you has ever committed any crime, anywhere at any time: the harm is to the Constitution, to our highest civil law, and consequently, to everyone in our country — and it is for that reason that every true patriot opposes such frivolous laws.
Just because you don’t understand or appreciate the importance of your rights doesn’t mean that you ought to be able through suffrage or other means either to deprive others of equal protection under the laws or to deny to others the historic legal protections found in law.
But to transcend that into the government controlling which supermarket you may shop at is quite a leap. We are … a free republic and therefore the government does not control the food industry.
Are you nuts? Consider the following text (which, if I remember correctly, is from Lawrence W. Reed):
“[Former US President Franklin Delano] Roosevelt secured passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which levied a new tax on agricultural processors and used the revenue to supervise the wholesale destruction of valuable crops and cattle.
Federal agents oversaw the ugly spectacle of perfectly good fields of cotton, wheat and corn being plowed under (the mules had to be convinced to trample the crops; they had been trained, of course, to walk between the rows). Healthy cattle, sheep and pigs were slaughtered and buried in mass graves. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace personally gave the order to slaughter 6 million baby pigs before they grew to full size.
The administration also paid farmers for the first time for not working at all. Even if the AAA had helped farmers by curtailing supplies and raising prices, it could have done so only by hurting millions of others who had to pay those prices or make do with less to eat.”
Apparently, you don’t know anything about how milk is priced throughout the country: the US government artificially inflates the price in some areas and subsidizes the price in other areas — and no, I’m not talking about food stamps or other end-user welfare programs: I’m talking about a system that effects every legal purchase of milk, regardless whether it’s bought by Bill Gates or by Peter Poorman.
In democracies and democratic republics, the communist notion of egalitarianism prevails in matters of public policy, so that idiots unfit to govern themselves and incompetent to recognize right from wrong elect representatives from among themselves to determine such weighty issues as arise, and then they lament the fact that no one saved them from their stupidity. But are they willing to relinquish the power requisite to the correction of such problem? No!
I think that it won’t discriminate any one if everyone get the test shot,, that is probably why they want to test the first time , every one, and then knowing the drug users they will only concentrate on them, and some will get out of it, so the next will get again the checkup, it would send a message and it would be a deterrent also,
so what’s wrong with that,
Indeed: if it “stays confidential” (yeah, right) — even if only as a matter of official policy — then you can bet the only change will be an increase in the number of coded informants and people working as sex slaves and pushers for corrupt cops, and widespread clamor for the information to be officially shared with cops. If the information is shared, then “enforcement” will be random, so that the cops can celebrate spectacular “sweeps” in which multiple offenders are taken down (usually in association with either a political campaign or appeals for donations, etc.)
RE: Corrupt Appeals To Patriotism Wrongly Placed
Oh, and while I’m on the subtopic of appeals for donations: when I served in the US military, I was equipped with all the gear I needed to safely do my job and to protect the allied others around me doing theirs. The idea that I, or that anyone or any group acting on my behalf, would beg civilians — for clothing or armor, for weapons or ammunition, for anything not already by taxpayers legitimately provided — was utterly foreign: we were a professional fighting force, not beggars. And yet for nearly 2 decades since I got out, the US military has persistently if only somewhat randomly begged civilians for exactly those things, and for food stamps, and for mortgage assistance, and for countless other forms of handouts.
Police do likewise, but they are strongarm thugs empowered by the State with the ability to ruin the lives of the civilians on whom they prey. Recent telemarketing calls to my residence by, and on behalf of, the Policeman’s Benevolence Association and the the State Troopers’ Benevolence Association (or names to such effect:
I don’t recall the exact term, but recognized the organizations) to solicit “money for bulletproof vests” for cops were supported by the reminder that something like 400 cops in my state had in the previous 12 months died from gunshot wounds suffered while they were performing their duty to protect me, the private citizen.
I reminded the caller that the duty of the police was not to individuals, but to the entire society; therefore, even if I benefited personally from police protection, it could not legally be because the police were protecting private-citizen me. It’s an important distinction, but one trogs can’t be reasonably expected to appreciate.
I began with that argument because I wanted to be clear: I don’t want the police habitually doing illegal things, regardless whether such things are ultimately beneficial. As to the remainder, I expect the “reasonable man” standard should suffice, with the greater burden of professional responsibility (etc.) applying.
I could write at length about that, but my point would likely be lost to my audience, so I will forego further elaboration respecting the duty of cops; I didn’t belabor that point on the phone, but I used the short delay (with the expected, “Yes, but …” response) to contemplate the totality of what had in a matter of seconds been told to me by a person representing himself as a police officer acting on behalf of other police officers.
I did not believe a competent cop would have made such a mistake, especially when operating from a call center and presumably working from a script. <swish> STRIKE ONE.
Body armor — even the really good stuff — is not terribly expensive (not gonna say how I know this, but it isn’t): any trainee cop who wanted extra body armor could with his or her first paycheck easily pick up some for cheap without suffering a major blow to his or her lifestyle: it’s all about priorities and budgeting. Hey, if I’m expected to be careful how I spend my money, then so should they.
The price quoted for a “bulletproof vest” was between 3 and 3.5 times the street price for a top-shelf equivalent, which raises the issue of stewardship: if you’re going to be giving money to beggars, you have a duty to make sure not only that it is used as the beggar claims it will be used, but also to make sure the beggar isn’t gouged by a profiteer; else, you’re not throwing away your money to the beggar, but to the profiteer who already has a surplus.
Aggravating this problem was the fact that something like 300 vests were going to be purchased all at once; as a businessman, I know that bulk purchases are reasonably subject to price breaks, which should have lowered the unit price well below the street price for a single unit.
The officer on the other end of the line wouldn’t competently answer either my questions regarding the source of the vests or my other due diligence questions concerning the propriety of the purchase, meaning basically that he wasn’t going to give me the information I needed to investigate, confirm and expose Fraud, Waste and Abuse associated with state and local law enforcement. <Swish> STRIKE TWO.
But there was something much, much more bothersome about the picture the cop on the other end of the connection painted: he claimed that in my state, on average, more than 1 cop per day had in the previous 12 months died from gunshot wounds suffered while they were performing their duty — and his such claim was, and is, complete and utter bullshit.
Every local cop death is locally reported; every cop death in the line of duty is reported statewide, even if it’s just the result of a crash. The news media obsesses over gun violence, and any story in which a cop is killed by gunshot is featured prominently in broadcast news for at least a few days.
And both print and broadcast media sources maintain statistics, in addition to the anti-gun crowd’s statistics: if in Mississippi (my resident state) deaths to cops from gunshot wounds suffered in the line of duty had averaged one per week, each broadcast channel would have devoted at least 5 hours of programming during the week of such story’s first publication to the coverage of that story alone, and at least 10 hours during that month.
During the week of such story’s first publication, daily newspaper coverage would have included at least 1 lead-headline story and 2 major front-page articles, and no fewer than 8 additional major articles; during the month of such story’s first publication, weekly newspaper coverage would have included at least 1 lead-headline story and 2 major front-page articles, at least 1 special section devoted exclusively to gun violence, and at least 4 additional headline stories in other sections throughout the paper.
Internet news outlets would have buzzed with such news: it would have been everywhere, it would have saturated the environment so that no one could go anywhere without being either confronted directly by such news or by people who were talking about such news. The news coverage itself would have been both newsworthy and, more importantly, unforgettable. And that’s for a cop a week: ratchet that up to a cop a day, and the whole world would go haywire.
Bottom line: it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen in Mississippi, it didn’t happen in Southern states, it didn’t even happen in the entire Union. And, I explained to the cop exactly that, and how I knew that he was lying to me. <SWISH> STRIKE THREE. HE’S OUT!
I’ve personally gotten solicitations from cops for radios and other equipment (including radar for speed enforcement, which is a for-profit racket run by the State); I’m confident that in such regard I’m not alone. These things are ordinarily budgeted, and when the budget isn’t sufficient, they’re properly supported through the issuance of bonds and other securities upon the consent of the public — and not through private contributions or donations.
So, before you get all weepy about imaginary “fallen cops” and “heroes in Afghanistan and Iraq,” take a minute to consider what are the facts, and what is being asked of you.
Cops have way too much money already, and they already have way too much authority and other power. When all the cops were white, they didn’t mooch and cops wore pastels and khakis — and those on wheels rode in vehicles very conspicuously marked; that’s nowhere close to saying that they weren’t corrupt or that they didn’t already have too much power, but today’s enforcers are low-brow thugs in stealthy vehicles, BDUs and black combat gear.
And, really, if our government doesn’t have the armor for the troops before it hires them, then private citizens providing it ad hoc to the troops only encourages and rewards the sort of malfeasance and other corruption that resulted in their being so jeopardized in the first place.
The solution is therefore not to provide money or armor, but to hold accountable those who caused the problem and, in the event troops are deployed without such armor, to hold accountable those who caused or effected their such deployment, and to demand the recall of such troops until such time as the deficiency is cured. Anything else is culpably negligent: you’re simply feeding profiteers who gouge the military and the taxpayers on whom the military depends.
Agreed concerning the greater threat and problem of alcohol abuse, but how does that get enforced? The Eighteenth Amendment was a disaster, as were (and yet are) the laws and agencies surviving its repeal.
Havaneiss Dei
hi,
yes you must be always aware of the multiple scams done by imposter s
using the names of law officers which are a decent group of the society , although the one
who corrupt their groups are just a few nuts and they loose their jobs quite fast being exposed by their own groups,
as you know you will find the imposter in all groups, so let’s not point finger at the one who are the real
HERO trying to protect you.
@ilovebeeswarzone
It wasn’t imposters posing as cops; early-on, I thought I’d get ahead of the crooks and report what I thought was a scam. That is, after all, what people do for each other in a real society.
When I used published phone numbers to contact the agency for which charity had been solicited, I was referred up the chain of command until I spoke with a person claiming to have authority in such areas; in every instance, the agency through that person claimed awareness of the scheme and the patter being used, and on more than one occasion, the officer with whom I then spoke challenged why I would have a problem donating to his agency.
Granted, I haven’t examined every single such request but over a period of time, a pattern of practice emerges, such that further investigation is unnecessary because new examples are exactly consistent with previous observations. I don’t question whether the sun will rise in the morning: it’s been setting each evening and rising each morning for many more years than I can remember.
In the same way that we can be confident the setting and rising of the sun won’t meaningfully change in our respective lifetimes (seasonal variation of time, planetary drift and other generally inconsequential details notwithstanding), we can be certain that the habits of incorrigible thugs are permanently fixed: they can’t change from bad to good any more than the earth can become the sun and the sun can become earth’s moon.
I understand that you are fanatic in your devotion to the broken system and its agents and actors; nevertheless, I don’t understand why you seem willfully so enchanted.
Even if it were possible for sane people to believe in the delusion you have described — a world in which thugs do not dominate the branches of government to which you are ultimately subject, and in which all the members of the military are of good character — surely such imagination could persist only as long as that person was amused by such an idea: the instant he or she was reminded of reality, the fantasy would disappear.
The people who visit the theater to watch the latest Star Wars movie may be wildly enthusiastic during the show, but as soon as the show is over — or as soon as they get interrupted by a need to go to the restroom, or as soon as the bozo sitting behind them spills down their backs the beverage from his extra-large wax-paper cup — they aren’t anymore “in” a Star Fighter zooming across the galaxy at trans-warp speeds.
Alderaan and Dagobah, the Empire and the Jedi, Wookies and Ewoks — are all remembered fondly as elements of a fictional portrayal, but only crazy people think those things are genuinely real.
I think the world you have imagined is probably a pretty happy place — it’s got clean streets and even cleaner people; hospitals exist in order to provide doctors and nurses with places of employment, and people occasionally stop by and feign illness in order to make medical professionals feel useful, but there’s not any real injury or illness.
Similarly, people patronize the insurance and consumer credit industries, but nobody actually needs anything for which they can’t at the moment of purchase pay in full using the funds from their respective wallets or purses. Even the weather conspires to keep people in a state of apparent bliss.
And I’ve got to hand it to you for your imagination: that place is far more fantastic than the world imagined by George Lucas; perhaps you should make a movie about it: that might inspire a following sort of like the Star Trek series did — and Trekkies are known to be fanatics, so that would be playing to your base.
Alas, as much as I liked Yvonne Craig and Elinor Donahue, I didn’t believe the worlds of Batman or of James T. Kirk were real. In each case, I enjoyed some of the story, but I didn’t allow such ridiculous spectacles to form my world-view. It is doubtful you will ever find anyone who so greatly appreciates loyalty as I; however, blind allegiance is neither patriotism nor patriotic.
Wave your flag if you must; be insanely passionate for the things in which you believe — but don’t let that enthusiasm be your master: know what the score really is, and don’t be afraid to admit when your team screws up.
The football coach who tells his players that everything is just fine and they’re doing a great job, when the scoreboard reflects the fact that they’re down by 40 points at halftime, is probably not going to have a job when the next game is played. Similarly, you don’t want the team’s cheerleaders celebrating the team’s loss: they shouldn’t be utterly despondent, but they should show an appropriate level of concern for the fact that the outcome was undesirable.
Getting back to the issue: popular will is not a determinant of good policy. As I recently observed to another:
Democracy in a land practicing universal suffrage is the manifest application of the egalitarian lie of universal communism. The diversity of nations is both natural and healthy; disunity is essential to life as those among us wishing to live struggle each and all for competitiveness against entropy.
The human organism is vastly more complex in its expression than is any of its subsystems, let alone their constituent parts; nevertheless, proponents of national singularity mindlessly and tirelessly labor towards the reduction of our heterogeneity to that of a single cell, molecule or atom.
Not everyone is competent to decide matters of law or policy; in fact, for such determinations most have neither aptitude nor expertise, and yet it is on masses incompetent to govern themselves that democracy places its greatest burden: else, law and policy would by consensus (i.e.: unanimity) be established.
The Union may be likened to a garment fashioned hundreds of years ago and hung in a closet; in time (now long ago), moths arrived to eat the fabric. In defiance of reason, rather than exterminating the pest, the owners of the garment took pity on the moths and cultivated the hostile species. Today, little remains of the garment beyond its label.
Viewed from a slightly different perspective, humans may be likened to butterflies and moths: the former being generally diurnal are welcomed for their positive contribution to agriculture; the latter being generally nocturnal and crepuscular are throughout most of the world commonly acknowledged as a major agricultural pest.
It is important to note that moths are dominant within their order, there being about 10 times as many species of moth as there are species of butterfly. Based on these common facts, were we to anthropomorphise moths and butterflies, who could imagine the laws and policies they might through democracy invent would be helpful to either?
Each would legislate to the interests of its constituency; nocturnal moths would want daytime curfews and butterflies would want nighttime curfews. There would likely be a period of “separate, but equal” governance, but the predatory nature of moths would not be satisfied, and a unified crepuscular policy would emerge as a compromise.
The butterflies would not all die at once, but they being so suppressed would eventually disappear; with their diminution would fester the perception that their behavior is radical, outrageous, evil — and with such perception would increase the austerity of their circumstance.
Meanwhile, some butterflies attracted to the political dominance of the moths would betray their fellows by seeking relief among the moths, by cohabiting and by comingling with the moths;
The dominant offspring of such unions being generally crepuscular, habitually mothish (i.e.: predisposed towards moth behavior) and superficially hybrid would almost universally lean politically towards the moths.
The economy of political expedience demands, of course, that ostensible concessions to butterfly welfare be occasionally made in order to guarantee the efficient eradication of all butterflies: without such artifice, battle is risked and the outcome is for the individual actors sufficiently uncertain as to disfavor such outright contest.
Already the most primitive, moth genes and traits eventually dominate because they were not rightly regulated from the beginning. Despite their having most recently evolved, butterfly genes and traits will eventually disappear from a moth-and-butterfly world governed by an egalitarian political system.
Moreover, if only for the numbers involved, moth-butterfly hybrids would eventually disappear for the same reason butterflies disappeared; though the former are more evolved than their moth cousins, policy in the democratic system will increasingly shift to favor the nocturnal mass.
Both moths and moth-butterfly hybrids will thrive for as long as there is a world for them to ravage. It may come as some consolation to maudlin memories of butterflies that their oppressors eventually destroyed themselves; however, such boasting is of benefit neither to the dead nor to the world they might have created.
Without exception, every democracy will fail because of the inclusion of the morally inferior in the political process by a mechanism designed to dilute the representation of the morally superior; however, democracy doesn’t merely end freedom and liberty: democracy ends life and destroys worlds.
For the sake of my conscience, for the reasons herein described and perhaps for other reasons as well, for at least as long as I am by circumstance forced to remain in this country, I cannot support the goal of a popular vote deciding the President of the United States of America: I will not surrender the fate of wisdom to the will of a rabid mob.
The National Popular Vote movement IS the final nail in our Republics coffin.
Benjamin Rush
“A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils”
John Adams
“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide”
James Madison
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Alexander Hamilton
“We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
Havaneiss Dei
you brought many words to accuse me of fanatic or insanely passionate,,
just because I give my opinion and decide to take side in it, that is who I am, and because you are on the opposit side, doesn’t mean it is the right one because of your comment,
I do respect comments from other, but don’t respect other who choose to insult me or my friends,
you where serving in the MILITARY, AS YOU MENTIONED, and that is one group which I continue to be on their side with passion,, and I will choose to protect them with my comments if the civilians come here to find faults on them, instead of praising their courage and resilience in the war, they are not allowed to win and come back after, with the admiration of the civilians so confuse they are being unable to admire valor and courage from the bravest which AMERICA FORGE FROM HER BEGINNING TO BECOME THE PROTECTORS OF FREEDOM IN THE WORLD AND DESERVE THE RECONNAISSANCE OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY, AND YOU ARE ONE OF THEM TO BE PROUD OF DESERVING MY ADMIRATION FOR YOUR YEARS OF COURAGE,, WHERE EVER YOU SERVE,,
PASSIONATE? YES, AND i WON’T CHANGE , BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.
BYE
@Skookum:
Your post is anecdotal, which means, it’s just one story. It does nothing to prove nor disprove the state of assistance in the US. It merely says that a well-dressed woman bought a lot of food with food stamps—most of which you did not approve b/c of the sugar content. Then because she got into a big ticket SUV and you drive a heap, she does not deserve assistance. You do not know her situation at all and you’ve made a sweeping judgement not only on her, but on all so-called “welfare mothers.” How do you know where the vehicle came from and who paid for it? Maybe she’s worked hard and bought it. Maybe her parents got it for her. Maybe she has a big family and needs a big vehicle. (I’m sure you’d rather have the govt tell her which vehicle to drive, though.) Maybe it’s her husband’s, her ex husband’s vehicle. Maybe it’s her neighbor’s vehicle. What business is it of yours to look over someone’s shopping cart, check their items, look at how much they spent and with what money, then judge them for it. Then further judge her on her clothing and vehicle. If she’d been dressed poorly, I’m sure you would have called her a “crack-mother.” F You and your uniformed judgement on others.
@anticsrocks: There is a big difference in arrogance and common sense. Common sense doesn’t say that I should be “REQUIRED” to pay for drugs for welfare druggies. It’s not, “What do we do with those who….bla, bla, bla?” They have made that individual choice themselves. Nobody made them take drugs. It was THEIR CHOICE. So THEY should pay the conquences….not the taxpayers.
@Tommy Whitley: Without going through the entire thread again, let me address your necroposting from memory.
The arrogance I was referring to was, I believe Greg’s insistence that drug testing would be cost prohibitive to the state. I pointed out that despite datat to the contrary rom others, his arrogance would not let him concede that.
Try to be a bit more timely in your postings, huh?
@anticsrocks and @Tommy Whitley:
We’re all familiar with the concepts of the metaphor and of the parable, aren’t we? In such tales, a make-believe story is fabricated to communicate a greater truth. Current broadcast television provides a useful fabric for such metaphor in the series “House” (aka: “House, M.D.”):
The main story line goes something like this: Greg House is numbered among the most brilliant diagnostic minds in the modern world: in terms of competence, within (and occasionally without) his field of practice, he is greatly superior to “ordinary” experts, even when those ordinary experts have much greater experience and/or more specialized training in the area of needed expertise.
It is worth noting that all these “ordinary” experts are at the top of the medical profession’s food chain; the least competent among them is more competent than the doctors and surgeons of common experience. However, the plot reinforces the notion that all doctors are by contrast against the riffraff they treat gods among insects.
What differentiates “House” (the TV series) from the standard patter is that House (the namesake character) is a junkie addicted to anti-pain medication, which he routinely steals or otherwise obtains through illicit means — all the while maintaining the show’s contempt towards those abusers of drugs who aren’t high-functioning addicts. It’s wonderfully hypocritical!
The premise — indeed, the series — works mainly because House ordinarily evinces the morality of a true sociopath: he has no sense of self-condemnation (his prejudice favoring each of his opinions is absolute, even when he changes his mind). Perhaps despite or because of this, House is driven by his own professional and ethical calculus; he demonstrates knowledge of laws and rules (and often refers to such in his manipulation of others), but those standards neither inform or define his own beliefs nor to any persistent degree interfere with his thoughts or actions.
House is socially abrasive and often rude, even when dealing with other doctors (the latter point differentiating him from regular doctors, whose contempt is commonly reserved for patients and the hoi polloi); the message is that House is more genuine in his affections, and (as proved by his unfiltered honesty) more respectful towards others than they.
Importantly, House’s morality is a function of convenience and expedience rather than of some absolute Standard (whether in faith, religion or law, or otherwise in the opinions of others) to which he holds himself accountable; in that sense, he is a sociopath. However, House is good in the sense that he is predisposed to apply his competence towards an objective (saving lives) with which we usually agree.
By contrast, “Dexter” (a Showtime original series) glorifies the serial killer behavior of a cop (technically, a “bloodstain pattern analyst for the Miami Metro Police Department”). Dexter, of course, is “judge, jury and executioner” — but more than that, he is the modern-day face of popular law-enforcement terrorism.
As such, Dexter is the hero of vigilantes and cops and judges who imagine their ideas of “justice” somehow inconveniently thwarted by circumstance or by law — (and) by those whose sense of justice requires the kidnapping, torture and killing of the person they believe is guilty of some “heinous” offense.
We could argue until we’re all blue in the face as to whether all cops are sociopathic serial killers, but suffice it to say that argument in opposition to such premise has as much credibility with me as the statement that all cops are always absolutely honest. The simple, sad fact is that there are bad — very, very bad — cops who give law enforcers a bad reputation; however, they’re not the problem nearly so much as the “good cops” who tolerate the existence of “bad cops.” And so, if some who are bad succeed, then all are by the company they keep rightly judged equally as bad as the worst among them.
So what does all this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, it’s all about perception: Greg House is an acceptable addict because he’s a high-functioning person who contributes a net benefit to society — which makes it possible for (most) people to overlook the fact that he is a junkie and a criminal.
Cops, of course, are blind to such distinction: they’re all too eager to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Here we see the prejudice arise. Let’s imagine that House came from a nice, middle-class home from parents who were gainfully and legally employed and who worked hard to provide for themselves — there’s nothing at all objectionable about that, right?
If House ever attended public primary (i.e.: K-12) school, then he’s a welfare recipient. If House ever used a public library, then House has received public welfare benefits. Let’s say that House didn’t do any of that: he attended only private primary schools, and never used a public library.
Where did House get his undergrad degree or degrees? If he attended a State-supported college or university, then he’s a beneficiary of welfare tax dollars. However, it doesn’t stop there: if House attended only private colleges, but ever borrowed money under the terms of a government-backed student loan, even if he repays that loan, he’s benefited personally from welfare.
When should the government demand House’s blood or urine? In the story, House became addicted to pain medications after an injury to his leg. Let’s say, just for giggles, that he got that injury when he was playing some sport in elementary school (football, basketball, skiing, hockey — those details really don’t matter); should House be denied the education and credential that enabled him to rise to the top of the medical profession and save lives?
If you believe that qualification to receive welfare benefits should be determined on the basis of whether a person passes or fails a test for the illicit use of drugs, then you would deny to House the ability to reach his potential in terms of contributing to the welfare of society.
In fact, the OP (“CJ”) would have denied to him all credential and most educational opportunity, so that House would have from the beginning been forced to be exactly the sort of parasitic leech this thread has condemned. This message is not confined to television fantasy:
I used to attend church with a woman that sometimes delivered freight with me; I trained her on certain routes and as we passed the miles of Interstate between exits, we had several conversations. She was married and had 3 children; her husband occasionally went dumpster-diving for things for his family, and for a short while, he worked for me. Anyway, this woman had a remarkably good knowledge of chemistry – not just the basic stuff, but serious chemistry.
She’s the only person with whom I can independently recall having had a discussion of theoretical chemistry, and one of the very few with whom I’ve had a discussion of practical chemistry. Suffice it to say that she was among the smartest people I’ve ever met, and that’s a pretty high standard. It’s hard here to relate with specificity – those conversations happened many years ago – but she and I spoke for hours at a time about both chemistry and chemical engineering, and her knowledge was not merely confined to the mundane recitation of the material to which one gets exposed in college.
I knew that she and her family were struggling to survive, and for her to not explore a career path that would reflect her aptitude for chemistry seemed to me awfully tragic. I asked, and she admitted that she had attended college. I then suggested that she pursue a career in pharmacy: she had the undergrad background and she had an absolutely splendid ability to describe blood and cellular chemistries and the interaction of molecular and radical (“charged particle”) forms.
We will never know for certain, of course, but in my opinion, she could probably have developed a vaccine against cancer; at the very least, she could have greatly advanced biomedical research towards that end. We discussed various diseases, and she was on the right path concerning the development of a vaccine against HIV (commonly, “the AIDS virus”): she had identified the cholesterol bonding as the principal problem and had ideas that just months ago were by others proven successful in destroying HIV in infected animals.
Of course, for those who believe that HIV is “God’s righteous judgment against druggies and queers,” who have no compassion for infants or for those heterosexuals who never used drugs but who were infected by transfusion following an automotive accident in which they weren’t at fault, HIV isn’t a problem: it’s a solution! Alas, to them it’s all part of their inscrutable God’s plan.
Anyway, that woman once got busted for drugs – as I recall, she was holding for her then-boyfriend (who went to the pen before she met her husband), and that single mistake made it impossible for her to get into either the school of medicine or the school of pharmacy. Besides the policies of the schools, she couldn’t get the required insurance (a cost of education not mentioned in most advertisements).
It may be worth mentioning that the consequence of her mistake seems to have triggered her making of additional mistakes as – hopeless and depressed – she stumbled forward and down the staircase of circumstance. It may seem like something that could never happen in your life, but that’s exactly what she thought; in fact, it’s what everyone caught in that funnel believes.
She was blinded – by love or by lust, or by both – to her boyfriend’s failures; regardless, the forces blinding her were beyond her volition to control: one does not choose to fall in love or lust, but upon the experience thereof, merely attempts to manage his or her reaction to such overwhelming phenomenon. After all, if it isn’t overwhelming, then it isn’t either love or lust: it’s something cold and calculated, something dispassionately rational and therefore, inhuman.
She felt that she was being unfairly punished, that the authorities had meddled where they didn’t belong, that – because no one had been hurt by either her or her boyfriend, there had been no crime. According to the law, she was wrong. Unlike those convicted of lesser offenses, she had no remaining good options going forward.
I mentioned earlier that my (now ex-) wife was attending college when I met her; she was then a recipient of various forms of welfare not limited to the fact that the college was (and is) a state-sponsored institution: she got TANF and WIC and other forms of assistance — and she was the salutatorian of her graduating class. Her first job after college was working for a dentist; her salary was $45 per hour — which isn’t bad at all for central Mississippi.
As far as I know, she didn’t use illicit drugs while she and I were together, but she once intimated to me that she had previously chosen to ingest some illicit substance (I don’t recall any of the details: we were simply confessing our flaws to each other, and promising each other the sins of the past wouldn’t by either of us so confessing be repeated in the present or the future — basically, it was “forgive and forget” the offense, but remember the general-principle “life lesson”).
But let’s imagine what would have happened if she had failed an unscheduled urinalysis during her education — presto: she’s out of college, permanently, and she can’t ever get the insurance required by any professional school — so she’s basically stuck flipping burgers for minimum wage. That doesn’t just hurt her, it doesn’t just hurt her kids: it hurts society because it denies to society the benefits of someone predisposed despite arbitrary and legally-defined personal shortcomings to contribute a net benefit to society.
It’s a different country, but nevertheless worth mentioning that JK Rowling was over 2 years entirely on the public dole in England. Never heard of her? She invented and wrote the wildly successful Harry Potter series, which has through taxes repaid the coffers of England many thousands of times the cost spent on Rowling’s welfare.
To her credit, Rowling has not shunned mention of the fact she was entirely dependent on public support, and for the fact that she never once during that entire time had to worry about utility bills or food or rent or transportation or medical expenses or any of the myriad other things that the US welfare system effectively denies in an effort to stop losses.
The idiocy reflected in US austerity measures stems from the fundamentally bad character of the electorate mass, which is averse to risk; however, every honest person successful in business will admit not only that reward is proportional to risk, but also that every worthwhile investment is at first all risk and no reward.
Rowling didn’t turn around her finances in a few weeks or months; for at least those two years, she was a “dead expense” to the system supporting her, but she wasn’t pestered by constant demands that she look for a job (for which she had no aptitude). Instead, she was literally free to explore her creativity, to visit libraries and museums, to invent the vehicle that propelled her from public support (which in the USA is a condition of poverty, but in England is something at least minimally respectful of the dignity of the human creature). So, for England’s greater investment, England got a much greater reward.
I have already shown that not every investment returns equal reward, so I won’t belabor that point: some will be net recipients, others will be neutral, and a few — given sufficient resources — will excel to become net contributors. No individual or class individually makes or breaks the system: ideally, it benefits all because (regardless its actuarial basis) it can’t predict either individual merit or the merit of individual contributions. To declare otherwise is to argue that man is — or at least that the inventions and institutions of government affecting popular welfare are — omniscient.
The prejudices and other opinions of contributors cannot rightly be allowed to regulate contributions; else, nothing novel is produced: the system grinds to a halt as productivity stagnates behind the administrative bottleneck, which cuts contributions, which further constricts the opening.
CLARIFICATION:
The prejudices and other opinions of contributors cannot rightly be allowed to regulate
contributionsbenefits and disbursements; else, nothing novel is produced: the system grinds to a halt as productivity stagnates behind the administrative bottleneck, which cuts contributions, which further constricts the opening.PEDRO
WHERE ARE YOU?
you said most people on welfare are good people, and you are right,
they want to target the one on drugs which they are right to target,
because ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS is not suppose to be paid by the other people who work hard and pay taxes which are use to pay welfare but not drugs, which prevent a person to try to gain learning to better their life with a job they don’t bother to search anymore while they are brainstruck by their drugs, they have lost the pride which AMERICA IS DEMANDING TO BECOME AMERICAN PURSUING THE DREAM
OF A BETTER LIFE which welfare is not one of it,
welfare is just for temporary help while the dream is
to be activated.
bye