Constructive gadfly
Published on March 9, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Those of us blest with creature comfort tend to look down on those who are a generation or two behind struggling to reach the same comforts, such as moving into their own homes, having decent personal transportation, not beleaguered by collection agencies, a successful neighborhood school for the kids. We of the comfort class tend to think that we are ensconced in these relative comforts because we are, well, better than others. Thus, we construe their misfortune as incompetence and ignorance.


We seldom make any attempt to identify with their intolerable conditions because it is their nature to reside in squalor; otherwise they would not themselves tolerate being without. They are what they are and nothing can be done about it; after all, the Dummocrats for decades threw good money after bad, and these awful creatures still have not improved their lot. They still let their little girls get knocked up, let their sons join street gangs to engage in drug peddling and violence, their babies are still bitten by rats, they have no incentive to fix up their shabby apartments as if the absentee landlord will eventually get around to it.


Why bother to save for a better car? The ‘69 Chevy still runs once in a while — so what if the little woman has to take the bus at before midnight to get to her job at the hospital? —besides the husband gets to work by climbing onto the boss’s work-gang truck. Janet Jackson and gangster rappers’ DVDs are top priority in entertainment expenditures — forget about inspiring books for the kids. As for neighborhood-watch, that’s for those old foolish grandmothers who still care about child safety. Cops make three times more than the average breadwinner, let them patrol but they better not vent brutality.


Such is the bias of us who are free from such sordid existence. Quite simply, we know it is an inborn trait to make it in the world; so what if low-life is eternal? — that’s the Darwinian way.


 


        


Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: March 9, 2004.


Comments
on Mar 09, 2004
Those of us blest with creature comfort tend to look down on those who are a generation or two behind struggling to reach the same comforts, such as moving into their own homes, having decent personal transportation, not beleaguered by collection agencies, a successful neighborhood school for the kids. We of the comfort class tend to think that we are ensconced in these relative comforts because we are, well, better than others. Thus, we construe their misfortune as incompetence and ignorance.


Even some of those people born a generation or two behind struggling to reach the same comforts tend to look down on those who are a generation or two behind struggling to reach the same comforts as they were able to reach with perseverence.

Janet Jackson and gangster rappers’ DVDs are top priority in entertainment expenditures — forget about inspiring books for the kids.


It's not people's fault that books are boring, which they are, since Harry Potter proves that books can still be entertaining and insanely popular.
on Mar 09, 2004
You've got an interesting perspective there, Stevendedalus. Nice article.
on Mar 09, 2004
it can be difficult to handle subjects like this in a non-sensationalist way, but you have managed to do it here. thanks for the read. i found it very enjoyable and it provoked some thought.
on Mar 09, 2004
You have such a wonderful way of expressing things! I hope everyone reads this.
on Mar 10, 2004
This is unfortunately true.
on Mar 11, 2004
With the exception of Super Baby, I am gratified that you feel the spirit of it.
on Mar 11, 2004

Well written article.

Though there is some truth in the position that some people are just born losers and no matter what will always live in squalor regardless of how much we try to help them.

Intelligence is the key. You can be intelligent and not be rich. But odds are, if you're reasonably intelligent you won't be poor. There are exceptions of course, but there have been studies showing that IQ and income level in the United States have some correspondence. Or more accurately, having a low IQ (<90) vastly increases the odds of being poor.

What we consider acceptable living conditions changes over time. A hundred years ago a large percentage of "the west" lived in their own filth. I suspect 100 years hence people will look back and be disgusted how we live today.

on Mar 11, 2004
I think we have to avoid the temptation to impose our values on everyone else. The fact is everyone who doesn't aspire to something better than a ‘69 Chevy isn't necessarily on government aid, and everyone who lives in what you might call 'squalor' might not see it the same way you do. I don't subscribe to the idea that the norm should somehow be 'standard'. You have to allow for people who want to lead simple lives, be left alone, and would rather not have anyone's help or "sympathy".

I agree that people who drag down society need to learn how live independently, but not everyone we consider 'poor' or 'out of step' drags society down. As a matter of fact I think that there will always be people who are happy living simply, cleaning your toilets or washing your car, and if we look at those people as if they are somehow less than ourselves, we are the worst kind of hypocrites. They do jobs you don't want to do, that doesn't make them lesser people.

The key is to differentiate between people 'living off society' and those who contribute to it without aspirations.
on Mar 11, 2004
No doubt, there are people that the ability to be content, no matter what. And no doubt, there are people that have a hopeless acceptance. Hope can sometimes be a hard thing to find. There are people that want to be left alone in all walks of life. I like your line, BakerStreet, about being the worse kinds of hypocrits. But there are actually few people "living off society".

Are we to assume, then, that all rich people are intelligent?

on Mar 11, 2004
Are we to assume, then, that all rich people are intelligent?


Of course not, but that wasn't Brad's point. He made his point explicitly: stupid people are more likely to be poor.
on Mar 11, 2004
It's the definitive Sprite commercial. Image is everything. Who needs three bedrooms and air conditioning if we can have the black Lexus? "Who da baby daddy be" is the new lexicon of your Darwinian hypothesis. With handouts like welfare, a daddy can't be in the house to get the full benefit of my money. Without a family unit, children fall through society's cracks and become the victims of selfishness and greed and sloth. So, in a cruel sort of way, it's a thinning of the gene pool. Paid for by your local government.
on Mar 12, 2004
Brad, surprisingly thanks. If old Earth last another 100 years, I just hope humans don't get so techie that life will be sterile and boring.
on Mar 13, 2004
Oh I predict that virtual reality will muck things up pretty good in the next 100 years.