- Dec 13, 2004
- 1,641
- 2
- 38
this is actually taken from a Neil Boortz segment. my ENG 111 instructor gave us this to read and write a response paper on. i thought it was interesting enough to pass on.
******************************
If we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But, if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provides the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels our economy and drives industry? The rich or the poor?
Now if all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, '...You're going to have to make a choice. We're goin to move you to another country. And you're just going to have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In one country, people achieve a lot, and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this other country, people dont achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they cant afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers or the country of sheep, the country of followers?'
You know what you're going to do. I dont see what the big problem is. I honestly dont. Who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first? Then, when everything's over, where are you going to go for a job? OK, hey, if I get a tin cup, can I sit next to you and sell pencils too?
OK. I have actually crossed the bounds of political correctness and stated the obvious, that the achievers contribute more to this country than the non-achievers; that given a choice, most people would choose to live with those who achieve rather than those who sit around waiting to be taken care of.
This statement crossed one of the most inviolable lines of political correctness, the idea that some people are more valuable to our culture and society than others. The same leftist crowd that brought us multiculturalism - the idea that no one culture is better than any other culture - seek to extend that absurdity to the individual. The idea is that in the long-run all of the work that one individual might put into becoming a successful and valued member of society means nothing. The individual who is responsible for the employment, and thus the livelihood, of 250 people is no 'better' than the individual who has dedicated his or her life to ignoring education and the development of job skills and is content to live his or her life as a ward of the state in some welfare housing complex.
My statement last Friday can be best understood if you narrow it down to a simple situation involving two individuals. There's been a disaster of some type... let's say a crash. Two people are involved. Neither is a friend, but you know who both people are and what role they play in your local society. In our imaginary scenario you only have time to save one person - one, that's it. The other will die. We'll make them both black so that we can remove the racial element from this. They're also the same age. Now, one of the people involved in the crash is a local businessman. His business employs 50 people. If he dies the business dies with him, and those 50 people will be out of a job. The other person is well known in the community. He has never worked a steady job in his life. He has been content to spend his time living off the taxpayers in the local welfare housing project. Every once in a while he will work for a few days or two to earn some extra cash... only to spend that cash on booze, drugs, or some lottery tickets.
So, who do you save? All other things being equal, which one are you going to save? Dont give me nonsense about, 'I would save the one in the most peril,' or 'I would save the one nearest to where I stand.' I said, 'All other things being equal.' No fudging. Which one would you save?
Point made.
********************************
******************************
If we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But, if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provides the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels our economy and drives industry? The rich or the poor?
Now if all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, '...You're going to have to make a choice. We're goin to move you to another country. And you're just going to have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In one country, people achieve a lot, and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this other country, people dont achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they cant afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers or the country of sheep, the country of followers?'
You know what you're going to do. I dont see what the big problem is. I honestly dont. Who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first? Then, when everything's over, where are you going to go for a job? OK, hey, if I get a tin cup, can I sit next to you and sell pencils too?
OK. I have actually crossed the bounds of political correctness and stated the obvious, that the achievers contribute more to this country than the non-achievers; that given a choice, most people would choose to live with those who achieve rather than those who sit around waiting to be taken care of.
This statement crossed one of the most inviolable lines of political correctness, the idea that some people are more valuable to our culture and society than others. The same leftist crowd that brought us multiculturalism - the idea that no one culture is better than any other culture - seek to extend that absurdity to the individual. The idea is that in the long-run all of the work that one individual might put into becoming a successful and valued member of society means nothing. The individual who is responsible for the employment, and thus the livelihood, of 250 people is no 'better' than the individual who has dedicated his or her life to ignoring education and the development of job skills and is content to live his or her life as a ward of the state in some welfare housing complex.
My statement last Friday can be best understood if you narrow it down to a simple situation involving two individuals. There's been a disaster of some type... let's say a crash. Two people are involved. Neither is a friend, but you know who both people are and what role they play in your local society. In our imaginary scenario you only have time to save one person - one, that's it. The other will die. We'll make them both black so that we can remove the racial element from this. They're also the same age. Now, one of the people involved in the crash is a local businessman. His business employs 50 people. If he dies the business dies with him, and those 50 people will be out of a job. The other person is well known in the community. He has never worked a steady job in his life. He has been content to spend his time living off the taxpayers in the local welfare housing project. Every once in a while he will work for a few days or two to earn some extra cash... only to spend that cash on booze, drugs, or some lottery tickets.
So, who do you save? All other things being equal, which one are you going to save? Dont give me nonsense about, 'I would save the one in the most peril,' or 'I would save the one nearest to where I stand.' I said, 'All other things being equal.' No fudging. Which one would you save?
Point made.
********************************
