We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A couple of questions:
1. How long has the left been the dominant influence in the teacher's union and education policy?
2. How long have inner city (in particular) schools sucked?
3. How has the education of inner city kids compared with kids elsewhere in the world?
4. How long has that situation existed and is it getting better?
5. How many Chicago teachers send their kids to private schools?
6. Are teachers unions set up for the benefit of the kids or teachers?
None of the answers to those questions redound to the glory of teachers unions nor to the benefit of the kids.
The Times' article on pay it forward is clearly positioned as a pro-government piece. It's interesting to read, because while it praises people who make a choice, and actually engage in an act of kindness they chose to initiate, it hints around at how politicians are being 'unkind' to others who benefit from a forced 'kindness' from society as a whole.
I've often had liberals (liberals who, coincidentally don't know the Bible and usually hold it in disdain) quote the Bible to support their view that government should help people.
They point out Jesus, if alive today, would be a 'liberal' and support government assistance. Given we have absolutely no idea what Jesus' politics may or would be - that's actually quite absurd and I reject it on the basis of several parts of the Bible.
First, nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say government should help the poor. Indeed, the closest examples are Joseph in Egypt, suggesting the king save grain for seven years of famine. However, the idea behind this is less one of 'tax the people to help them live better today' and one of 'promote personal savings for time of need'. This is an idea entirely different than Social Security, which is pay as you go. Another example might be the reign of Solomon, but there still is no clear evidence that Solomon used his position to force people to be good. In fact, Solomon (as wise as he was) overtaxed his people and made them bitter, and gave towns to his enemies in order to support his spending. (Shades of Obama?)
Second, 1 Samuel 8 is the best evidence God opposes government. While He was fine with the Judges (and we'd all agree the judicial system and property rights are important), He felt the kings would enslave the people. He was right - Israel collapsed after Solomon.
Third, Jesus was very clear that you give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and give to God that which is God's - implying that giving here on earth, for any reason (good or otherwise) is meaningless, as you must give of yourself in some way to make your life and actions mean something. He was very clear government does NOT promote that, particularly when he tossed out the tax collectors and money lenders from the Temple.
There are other examples of choice which are in the Bible, making it clear that being forced to be good may not be a negative for people in general, but for the individual it brings no benefits. God is more concerned about the individual - the crafting and development of a soul - because in that a happy and well-developed society can grow.
I once pointed out to a liberal who was using the Bible that Jesus said the poor would always be with us. He is right. Jesus realized that scarcity in so many things is rampant. There will always be some who 'have' and those who 'have not' - it's a relative valuation at any given time (I'm sure many kings of the 1600's would love to live the life of a poor person in the US today! Cellphones, computers, etc.)
Pay it forward is a pleasing thing, worth doing. But it does not work in government, nor should it be used as a guide to governance. It is a choice of an individual to do God's work in small ways. For if you do something good, usually it doesn't seem like you've done anything at all.
...and the NYTs can't even write about fast food kindness without snarkiness toward those they have targeted as enemies of the statist state... This is taking place at a time when the nation’s legislators can’t speak a civil word unless reading from Dr. Seuss.
All the fish that's fit to wrap...
OK, I can see people want to try a new leader with a different program, even if that program is socialism.
But in NYC they have already tried it and within the lifetimes of most existing NYC voters. It failed, badly. Then it got worse when another Big D politician pushed the city further in that direction and held his own police up as objects of scorn and suspicion. They did it, it failed, very badly.
Then NYC got smart and elected men able to reverse the course, the City got better across the board, for everyone.
Now they want to start the cycle over again? The majority who live in that city are hopeless and deserve what they are going to get.