In the current government shutdown, and the campaign to defund Obamacare, it certainly sounds that way to me.
I’m angry. I don’t usually talk this way. But for better or worse, for the moment, I will.
I don’t know the numbers, and I’d welcome if someone would tell me. I also don’t understand how the numbers work here, and I’d also welcome if someone would tell me.
How is it that the Tea Party has not just hamstrung the Republican Party, but also the House as a whole?
Let’s say the President proposed that “tomorrow” be defined as “the day after today.” Let’s also suppose there are 100 Tea Partiers in the House; of 235 Republicans; and that the remaining 200 House members are, you know, Them.
Obviously, the 100 Tea Partiers will oppose the President here, just as they do as to anything else. But how can the remaining 135 Republicans, along with the 200 Them, fail to pass such a thing?
Call it kairotic, call it synchronicity, call it whatever. I am working on the “substantial response” mentioned here, specifically just now on a passage about how the emotionally needy, the infantile, those who stomp their feet and throw tantrums like two-year olds, lack the wherewithal to learn problem-solving skills, being intransigent and unwilling and unable to compromise or negotiate. I’m speaking there of what may be called the “underclass,” but the equal pertinence to the Tea Party leaves me speechless.
Don’t let that odd title put you off. I think this op-ed by Robert J. Samuelson is pretty important.
The question is whether we direct the economy so as to increase wealth for everyone, or instead merely give poorer or richer people larger pieces of the “pie.”
In my conversations with other homeless folk and poor people generally, I hope to emphasize the desirability of creating wealth as opposed to merely taking it away from others.
On that point, I’m certainly prone to agree with Andy Kessler, though I have uneasiness as to whether or not he would support corresponding policies.
Other recent articles on similar questions:
An Obituary for the American Middle Class
Race, income, education increasingly polarize U.S. families since recession
Higher education’s biggest challenge is income inequality
As to Catharine Hill’s piece, I really have to question what “special services” rich families are “demanding” that are bidding up tuition costs.
I participate on a certain online discussion board. My premiere antagonist is a man who got trounced by a playground bully in fifth grade. He never fails to seek to re-enact that battle with me (or any of certain others), hoping for a different outcome this time. He casts his opponent by turns as the bully he wants to be or the chump he fears he was; and interacts with those projections. It has nothing to do with me. He might as well be playing with his G.I. Joe dolls.
Andy Kessler’s 07/08/13 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Summer Jobs for the Guilty Generation,” is little different. In his quotations of others’ expressions, I hear compassion; he hears guilt. I hear gratitude; he hears guilt. I hear hope; he hears guilt. What’s up with this?
Kessler projects his own guilt feelings onto his son’s generation. That’s easier than owning them, but solves nothing.
One may need to take the term “intelligence” here with a large grain of salt.
At any rate, the reader has provided me with the actual text of the op-ed piece.
There is more to this than other commentators have indicated. I will have my own response here within a few days.
A reader just brought to my attention a recent “controversial article” by Andy Kessler that appeared in the July 8, 2013 Wall Street Journal, suggesting that I might respond to it here.
We’ll see. Thus there may be a “Round 2.”
One response to Kessler’s editorial: “Andy Kessler, Former Hedge Fund Manager, Says Shelter Volunteers Cause Homelessness”
The big obstacle is that the original is available online only to WSJ subscribers.
Quoting from my e-mail reply to the reader:
If you’re not familiar with the October 17, 2012 post, I commend it to your attention now.