Cummins Family - If you dropped me from an airplane...

« Because you CAN do a thing.... ? | Main | Giving up the Ghost »
E-Mail this Article

November 22, 2004

If you dropped me from an airplane...

On Ann Althouse's blog this morning, I read:

George Carlin was on Tim Russert's CNBC show this weekend, promoting his book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops." The show ended with Russert asking Carlin "Do you vote?" Carlin answered:

No, I don't. No. I voted up to McGovern. I feel, actually, a little purer, a little more detached emotionally from it. I really have no stake. If you dropped me from an airplane, I would come down left of center, because I believe more in humans than I do in property. But in terms of the minor machinations and the way they put these things together, I've no interest.

If you dropped me from an airplane, I think I would come down slightly right of center because I believe more in humans being encouraged to stand on their own two feet than I do humans being coddled and suckled by a bloated welfare state.

I believe that I would come down fairly right of center because although I believe in letting people live their own lives as they choose, I do believe that there is a minimum morality that needs to be maintained lest we destroy ourselves as a functional society.

I believe that I come down firmly right of center because I believe that we need a strong military that takes an active interest in removing threats to our nation before they materialize.

Leaving George Carlin's single statement behind and making a broader observation about socially liberal and socially conservative arguments... it is sadly funny how the arguments between left and right never truly meet each other head on... they sort of mesh like gears, just missing each other, neither side agreeing to the other's definition of a given thing. With no such point of agreement to begin from, it ends up being more like barking dogs at the end of their leashes than people trying to come to terms with others who don't think like they do.

Posted by Michael at November 22, 2004 08:34 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.i-magery.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/65

Comment: Actually, Michael, Mr. Carlin's comment had nothing to do with being coddled and/or suckled by a bloated welfare state. It's always a stretch to hear those, as you say, "slightly right of center" take a comment like Mr. Carlin's and promote this point of view. With such minimum morality (as you put it) and ethics, one can easily see that the "left of center" method of enabling those less fortunate with the proper tools and instruction, sometimes through legislation, will get more accomplished results than the "right of center" lies and distortions of their immoral acts and unethical practices aimed at only protecting property and territory. Then, in the tiring manner of the less focused, you stray off subject by mentioning a strong military that would engage in pre-emptive acts to thwart off threats. How shameful to see how immoral and unethical one can go when going down the path that leads to paranoia. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by your last paragraph which seems like some sort of cop-out to opposing points of view. An opposing point of view is often about defining terms and meeting such differences head on. The hallmark of debate, if you will. What's sadly funny is you can't see beyond the humor of defining a word like "is" (remember that one). It sits there as a ridiculous thought to engage, but yet holds an element of truth in how debate itself is engaged. You should read Garrison Keillor's book "Homegrown Democrat" for an excellent overview of principles slightly left of center that show the emptiness of the right's immoral and unethical "promises".

Posted by: Barry at January 1, 2005 08:31 PM

Comment: My apologies for not replying sooner; I did not spot the comment. Actually, I used Mr Carlin's comment as a segue into the vague generalities of how I view both the left and right. The topic was, after all, "If you dropped me from an airplane", so how I arrive at my own conclusions seemed to beg some general descriptions. In fact, the entire post was simply three short sentences that stated quite simply why I felt I leaned to the right, followed by the sad observation that the Left and the Right seemed to talk past each other instead of to each other... not at all the debate that you referenced yourself. You missed my point. My point was that I see very little debate; only hastily flung rhetoric. Condescendingly accusing me of a tiring, unfocused manner seems amusing since I spent only one sentence en each of my three points. I'd like to expound on one point, however: labels can be as blinding as they are illuminating, but I do buy into the "Entitlement versus Ownership" argument that seems to be popular right now. I have not read Garrison Keillor's book, as you recommend, but I'll put it on my list. I *have* read Zell Miller's book I find his views on welfare (the entitlement part of the discussion here) as quite palatable. Mr Miller promotes welfare as a tool to help people out of trouble, not as an entitlement system that perpetuates a culture of failure, which is what I see a lot of here in South Florida. The methods that he implemented in Georgia seemed both fair and accountable. Your view on what welfare should be and my own don't seem so far apart if I can assess it quickly from your comments. I'm all for spending government money on helping people to "get out of the rut" - aside from the simple fact that despair is repugnant, I own two businesses; the more people that are able to procure my products and services, the better off my own family will be. Poor people don't help anyone. Pure entitlement, however, perpetuates the welfare culture, and I see that as horrible. I also see it as quite rampant in our society. Nuff said? I'll try to keep an eye on this thread in case you ever return.

Posted by: Michael Cummins at February 25, 2005 07:15 PM

Comment: Michael, Thanks for your response. You are correct, I don't disagree entirely with you. I do stick by my original post, but see, without my "hackles" raised, that we can certainly have a rational discussion. As well as helping people out of trouble, I do see good moral purpose in helping those less fortunate for any reason they are less fortunate. If welfare can be that tool, so be it. It may well have to be refined but not necessarily because it helps the majority or business, etc. But because it is the right thing to do. Government cannot legislate morality and Government shouldn't. Theoretically, Government can create the foundation of monetary support for those less fortunate with the willing support of the populace. Unfortunately, and this is quite pervasive, Government never seems to manage to make any system foolproof. There are people who take advantage of Government programs and there are plenty just as well who aren't even aware of them. I wish you nothing but success in your business endeavors. I think that can have great moral value in and of itself. I do think poor people provide us help in seeing that negative side of success in society and business when we focus on the individual narcisscism of success and ignore the population at large. In other words, aren't the poor the consequence of our own actions? The statistics related to the poor are always subject to question. I'm not even sure what constitutes rampant. And what are the reasons for the poor population at any given time? Illness, lack of work, motivation, environment (by that I mean where they live in relation to jobs and potential success for themselves), etc.? I just don't think we can blanket the poor with words like rampant and phrases like they 'don't help anyone'. No religious tract or government program is going to solve the problems of pvoerty until the populace at large accepts an active role in understanding. 'Time' magazine (March 14, 2005) had a cover story on "How To End Poverty" that contained a good overview of the problems/solutions, unfortunately, focused on world issues and not local USA issues.

Posted by: Barry at March 19, 2005 01:50 PM

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember me? YesNo