Ted Rall, Idiot
With his latest nutty criticism of those who give to charities, Ted Rall has once again placed himself in the unenviable position of being the biggest idiot in the world of commentary. That is a place of dishonor hard to fathom, what with the level of Democratic idiocy in contention, but Rall makes it seem effortless.
Rall writes that charities, and those who contribute to them, are simply enabling the federal government to abdicate its responsibilities in providing services to those in need, most recently the foolish and hopelessly dependent "victims" of flooding in New Orleans. He labels the givers "suckers", and calls for the end to charities. In his twisted little world of petty criticisms and grandiose conspiracy theories, every dollar spent by private organizations is a dollar that allows the federal government to drop another bomb on an innocent Iraqi, or stuff the pockets of Halliburton executives. Only the federal government should pay for disaster relief, says Rall, because after all, the government has more than enough money to take care of everybody.
His argument is so riddled with fallacies and ignorance, it is hard to know where to start. Rall must be the product of public school education, because he has neither the intellectual capacity nor the historical perspective to recognize the staggering stupidity of his own words and beliefs, and it is hard to believe that anyone could take him seriously. But to Rall and other fever-swamp liberals, the government is both nanny and daddy to us all, and should take from the citizens all the money it needs to fulfill that role. There is no such thing as personal accountability or responsibility, or free will. Bad life decisions and poor personal planning should be mitigated by the tax-payer, and no one should ever have to suffer the consequences of their actions. The Red Cross and Catholic Charities, which provide billions to the needy through private funding, are simply impediments to the social state.
Of course Rall would have no objections to non-profits that collect money to promote and defend abortion, save an insect, prevent Walmart construction, or protest the war against Islamic terrorism. Nor would he have ever criticized charitable giving during the golden years of the Clinton administration, when social spending was less than it is today, because everyone knows Bill Clinton cared more than George Bush. And that, after all, is what really counts.
But if Rall had any interest in the truth, he would soon discover that for most of our nation's long and glorious history, people were expected to take care of themselves, and that private organizations were most often expected to help those who temporarily needed help. Although a few instances of tax-payer largesse can be found prior to the 20th century, only after the debacle of Roosevelt's New Deal did Americans begin expecting monetary help from Washington. Before that churches, private charities, and local governments were rightly expected to provide assistance to individuals, and were most often in the position to identify those who truly needed, and deserved, such help.
Rall is like most other liberals: incapable of recognizing America's greatness and goodness. To Rall, the benevolence of millions of Americans willing to part with hard-earned cash to help those who they will never meet, and who may not even be deserving, is a foolish waste.
Rall writes that charities, and those who contribute to them, are simply enabling the federal government to abdicate its responsibilities in providing services to those in need, most recently the foolish and hopelessly dependent "victims" of flooding in New Orleans. He labels the givers "suckers", and calls for the end to charities. In his twisted little world of petty criticisms and grandiose conspiracy theories, every dollar spent by private organizations is a dollar that allows the federal government to drop another bomb on an innocent Iraqi, or stuff the pockets of Halliburton executives. Only the federal government should pay for disaster relief, says Rall, because after all, the government has more than enough money to take care of everybody.
His argument is so riddled with fallacies and ignorance, it is hard to know where to start. Rall must be the product of public school education, because he has neither the intellectual capacity nor the historical perspective to recognize the staggering stupidity of his own words and beliefs, and it is hard to believe that anyone could take him seriously. But to Rall and other fever-swamp liberals, the government is both nanny and daddy to us all, and should take from the citizens all the money it needs to fulfill that role. There is no such thing as personal accountability or responsibility, or free will. Bad life decisions and poor personal planning should be mitigated by the tax-payer, and no one should ever have to suffer the consequences of their actions. The Red Cross and Catholic Charities, which provide billions to the needy through private funding, are simply impediments to the social state.
Of course Rall would have no objections to non-profits that collect money to promote and defend abortion, save an insect, prevent Walmart construction, or protest the war against Islamic terrorism. Nor would he have ever criticized charitable giving during the golden years of the Clinton administration, when social spending was less than it is today, because everyone knows Bill Clinton cared more than George Bush. And that, after all, is what really counts.
But if Rall had any interest in the truth, he would soon discover that for most of our nation's long and glorious history, people were expected to take care of themselves, and that private organizations were most often expected to help those who temporarily needed help. Although a few instances of tax-payer largesse can be found prior to the 20th century, only after the debacle of Roosevelt's New Deal did Americans begin expecting monetary help from Washington. Before that churches, private charities, and local governments were rightly expected to provide assistance to individuals, and were most often in the position to identify those who truly needed, and deserved, such help.
Rall is like most other liberals: incapable of recognizing America's greatness and goodness. To Rall, the benevolence of millions of Americans willing to part with hard-earned cash to help those who they will never meet, and who may not even be deserving, is a foolish waste.
posted by Mark Outland at 11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home