NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > Entertainment blogs > Manhattan Diary > Good News or Fox News, which is it Cardinal Dolan?

Manhattan Diary by Cahir O'Doherty

Good News or Fox News, which is it Cardinal Dolan?

Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2012 at 09:51 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

90 Comments

@BrianO, PART 2: You claim that in regards to poor inner city residents: “They have had their self reliance bought from them, their self respect, and initiative”, but fail to acknowledge that amidst their poverty and deprivation they had very little to begin with (apart from what little they gained from the (few) inner city church missions that existed), and whenever problems erupted from their crime-infested boroughs govts merely reacted with a “law and order” mentality with little or no thought to solving what caused the problems in the first place … and whenever anyone tried to publicly highlight the problems they were often shouted down by groups that were living comfortably and didn’t want the status quo to be challenged – as exemplified by the response to Elvis Presley’s 1970’s song “In the Ghetto”. Little wonder then that - just as poor Irish had done before them - inner city (and poor) blacks and Hispanics (and whites) turned to violent expression of their anger, or to “self-medication” amidst their despair and deprivation.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 02:39 AM EDT

@BrianO (I presume it was you who responded in the unnamed comment of Jun 17, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT): Did you completely read my replies to you? What examples did I "mention out of context"? I've provided you with evidence to back up my argument, so please either respond in kind, specifically challenge my evidence (as opposed to making vague dismissive comments), or accept what I've said. But addressing your claims: you said "Free market capitalism allows the lowest of the low the opportunity to achieve the highest of the highs". Tell me, what stats (and from where?) do you have to support your claim that social mobility is best in the "Free market capitalist" USA? I put it to you that this in NO WAY comes even close to counterbalancing the horrendous stats concerning (entrenched and generational) poverty in the USA. You mention the US inner city and blame present administrators, who are trying to fix a situation that was ALREADY terrible mess long before they arrived on the scene, and which was largely created in the 1950's and 60's as funding was diverted away from the largely inner urban African-American and then increasingly Hispanic communities (which were then left to rot in neglect), in order to sponsor the migration of White Americans to the new suburbs. This was reflected in the funding of social programmes also.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 01:59 AM EDT

Note: the comment of "Jun 17, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT" wasn't me (Andrew007), but instead - I presume - BrianO, with whom I was having a debate.

Report abuse

BrianO | Jun 17, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT

Andrew you need to be on the bottom to see how America is the only system that lets you get to the top. You grab examples out of context and apply as equal. Free market capitalism allows the lowest of the low the opportunity to achieve the highest of the highs. Why is the inner city(is this your racist concern?) in such shambles? Who is in charge of most inner cities, the taxers,redistributors,regulators. Lets give money to these poor saps so they can exist and get by, that is no way to live. The receivers of the redistributed money suffer most of all. When was the last time you drove through or God forbid stop into an inner city neighborhood, Why with food stamps,wic,ebt,child assistance, etc. are these peoples lives so miserable. They have had their self reliance bought from them, their self respect, and initiative. Some get out, If they are smart enough to deal drugs make money off the grid and run. Some get out by running first, learn the rules of society second and work 3 times harder than you or I.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:47 AM EDT

@BrianO: Part B3 (aargh!): You say the US has the “best system that doesn't keep generations in serfdom", but what else is it if the poor cannot rise out from their poverty, and if they try to they’re burdened with massive debts for an education which undermines future financial viability and the providing for future families, which – unless “lucky” - effectively leaves them slaving for the rest of lives in order to pay off the debt to the bank with very little chance of “getting ahead”? If this isn’t a modern form of serfdom or “slavery” I don’t know what is! For all intents and purposes, for most Americans the so-called “American Dream” is dead …

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:43 AM EDT

@BrianO: Part B2: You fail to see that US Corporations and US politics together are amongst the most corrupt in the world, with powerful corporations effectively buying politicians and distorting the legal system and thus allowed to run amok, with virtually NO accountability for the GFC THEY created (which came EXTREMELY close to repeating 1929), and little or no regulations to protect ordinary ppl, who are then forced to rely on uncertain private legal action in order to obtain some compensation (IF they can afford it!). You also fail to acknowledge the fact that the inner city high rise areas were left to rot by (often racist) elites since the 1950s and their ills left untreated – with the result that now most US inner city areas are dangerous urban ghettos infested with drug abuse and criminals preying upon the weak and needy. You ignore the fact that while the US is still the richest and most powerful country in the world, with about 26% of the world’s GDP (down from about 33% in the late 1990s), the divide between rich and poor is a deepening and almost bottomless chasm: the fact that in 2007 the top 1% owned 34.6% of the privately held wealth is contrasted with the fact that the bottom 80% owned only 15%, with some areas arguably resembling third world conditions, with 15% of Americans officially currently living below the poverty line, another 15% unable to make ends meet (according to an NPR report), and as far back as 1969 it was estimated that 60% of working class families failed to meet minimum recommended budgets (advised by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) in order to live adequately.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:34 AM EDT

@BrianO: Part B1: You claim that I "may be right in theory, but [that you] live In reality. [Really?!] Tyrants have murdered thousands in the name of equity or utopia ...". Did you not read what I said about the Irish Famine? Are you not aware of the stealing of land from the poor and the native ppls &c (incl. in my Part 2)? Are you not aware of the exploitation of the poor in appalling labour conditions, which STILL CONTINUES? Are you not aware of the white and then black slave trades, which was done according to the then new capitalist principles (despite it coming before Adam Smith's treatise), and that sex slavery STILL CONTINUES even in the US? Are you not aware of the conquest and pillaging of non-Western states and tribal areas - including in the Americas? You say "We have the American model that worked best, perfect no, but the best system that doesn't keep generations in serfdom." I have seen a wall mural, which showed an American Indian chief with the caption "The first casualty of liberty". You say the American system "worked best", but then ignore the fact that while the USA has some of the best medical facilities in the world, 30% of the people are so impoverished that they cannot afford even basic medical care, that medicines cost 3-4 times what they cost in Canada and often up to *12 TIMES* what they cost in Australia, and that medical staff even demand surety of payment BEFORE treatment!!!

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:23 AM EDT

@BrianO: Part 2: Extending upon what eiriamach has said, if redistribution of property is theft, as you claim, then what about the initial seizing of property in the first place? Where do you think the property of the industrial tycoons first came from, if not from the lands seized from poor peasants in the British Isles (or native peoples elsewhere, like the American-Indians), and which had been sanctioned by the very same MPs (in the case of England), who as the gentry seized the land and enforced the unjust laws as the local judges (or during Empire used military power to enforce expansion)? This was the seizing of the Commons in England during the forcible Enclosures in the 18thC (which effectively stole the land which had been held as the Commonwealth of villagers throughout England for at least 1100years), the seized clan lands in Scotland during the Highland Clearances in the late 18th and 19thC (which had been held by the whole clan by right according to ancient law), and the 19thC Evictions in Ireland, in which (English) landowners expelled native Irish from their homes who were too poor to pay increasingly exorbitant rents and too weak to resist during the Irish Famine and afterwards. What about the exploitation of labour since the late 18thC, in which corporations profited from conditions that have often been so appalling that even untold numbers of CHILDREN died in hellish circumstances in England and as elsewhere (and which formed the foundation of Marx’ critique of capitalism)? What about the profits made from the kidnapping, enslaving and genocidal ethnic cleansing of even whole populations, of Gaels of Ireland and Scotland (the Irish of whom were even disgustingly called “white N------” by English overlords), of Indians from the Americas, of Africans and others, and the usurping of their lands and the massacring of their peoples and often total destruction of their societies?

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:21 AM EDT

@BrianO: apologies, but my Part2 wasn't published, & I've requested that it be published. It may be controversial (it refers to the disgusting attitudes in the past concerning race), but it answers your accusation that redistribution is "theft".

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 10:49 PM EDT

@BrianO: Part 2: Extending upon what eiriamach has said, if redistribution of property is theft, as you claim, then what about the initial seizing of property in the first place? Where do you think the property of the industrial tycoons first came from, if not from the lands seized from poor peasants in the British Isles (or native peoples elsewhere, like the American-Indians), and which had been sanctioned by the very same MPs (in the case of England), who as the gentry seized the land and enforced the unjust laws as the local judges (or during Empire used military power to enforce expansion)? This was the seizing of the Commons in England during the forcible Enclosures in the 18thC (which effectively stole the land which had been held as the Commonwealth of villagers throughout England for at least 1100years), the seized clan lands in Scotland during the Highland Clearances in the late 18th and 19thC (which had been held by the whole clan by right according to ancient law), and the 19thC Evictions in Ireland, in which (English) landowners expelled native Irish from their homes who were too poor to pay increasingly exorbitant rents and too weak to resist during the Irish Famine and afterwards. What about the exploitation of labour since the late 18thC, in which corporations profited from conditions that have often been so appalling that even untold numbers of CHILDREN died in hellish circumstances in England and as elsewhere (and which formed the foundation of Marx’ critique of capitalism)? What about the profits made from the kidnapping, enslaving and genocidal ethnic cleansing of even whole populations, of Gaels of Ireland and Scotland (the Irish of whom were called “white niggers” by English overlords), of Indians from the Americas, of Africans and others, and the usurping of their lands and the massacring of their peoples and often total destruction of their societies?

Report abuse

BrianO | Jun 16, 2012, 03:34 PM EDT

Andrew007, in the effort to restrain the rich the middle class is ensnared. I neither wish to punish or steal from any of my fellow citizens, I do not want to steal Al Gores money to help a homeless person in some modern day robin hood fairy tale. Instead I wish the impedements that prevent upward mobility of the poor to not exist. You may be right in theory, but I live In reality. Tyrants have murdered thousands in the name of equity or utopia, We have the American model that worked best, perfect no, but the best system that doesn't keep generations in serfdom. This system is barely alive in America and it is time to stop restraining it.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:44 PM EDT

@ BrianO: Part 4 (arrgh!): You no doubt are proud of the many achievements of modern Western civilisation, and our art, science, medicine, technology, military power, the accumulation of astronomical amounts of wealth, &c, but when I see the skyscrapers of Western (and now Eastern) cities, I see little but towers built to Man’s greed, ambition and selfishness built upon the ruin of countless millions of voiceless people; and I truly believe – as I said to a homeless man just recently – that many if not almost all who inhabit such spires in the temple of Greed will, sadly (but deservedly), go to hell. The fact that homeless children live and die unloved, uncared for and often unnoticed in the shadow of these towers shows the façade for what it truly is … Apologies for the length of my reply.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:43 PM EDT

@BrianO: Part 3: You see BrianO, you claim that the mere redistribution of property is theft, but the people who control most of the property are very often themselves guilty of the worst kinds of theft, for it is they (or their ancestors) who very often committed atrocities to gain their property in the first place, and who then deepen their guilt before God by continuing to mistreat the poor, weak and vulnerable by exploiting their voicelessness in order to extract as much profit from their labour as possible … preferably avoiding as much as possible any responsibility to their fellow citizens (who have some protections at least) – let alone their fellow Man in other countries. Little wonder then that Jesus Christ declared that “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eyes of the needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven”; and this is probably why God through the Bible often condemns the rich and the powerful (not just their pride) … and it is abundantly clear by their actions that these men (and women) were virtually all “whitewashed walls that hid corruption”, speaking Christian words and seeming fair but whose hearts were foul that knew not God and which were darkened with dreams of power and wealth and callousness towards their fellow Man.

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:13 PM EDT

@BrianO: Part 1: So many things to say and so little space! You claimed that the “good works you hope for are bastardized when it is done by force, look at who are the most and least charitable. the believers of redistribution tend to be the least charitable and vice versa”. BUT, this very often is NOT supported by historical evidence. So called “laissez faire capitalism” (in which the govt plays as little a role as possible – preferably none – in the economy and therefore in socio-economic regulation) was to a very large extent responsible for very many disasters in the modern world, or at the very least exacerbated and greatly worsened crises already happening. This proves that privileged people mostly do NOT act to help their fellow citizens/humans unless forced to (or unless there’s something to be gained), and 20thC studies have shown that economic elites are much more prepared to lie, cheat, steal and mistreat others if it suits their interests. Examples of these crises are MANY. The Great Irish Famine in the 1840’s was of course sparked by the Potato Blight, and was coupled with what’s called British “Providentialism” (that God must’ve wanted the famine because the Irish must’ve been unworthy (“obviously to drive the unworthy Irish out”), otherwise it wouldn’t have happened) and British anti-Irish racism (even to the point of important leaders actually desiring the native Irish would simply die out in the more fertile areas); BUT the relevant fact here is the actions of the Whig govt of the day were largely determined by capitalist fanatics who didn’t want to interfere in the “market”, which would’ve meant unprofitably acting in the interests of millions of unproductive but starving poor people as opposed to the “market” (i.e. the comparatively tiny number of land-owning elites who controlled the market).

Report abuse

Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 12:59 PM EDT

@eiriamach: no need to apologise ... besides, you were already involved in the discussion anyway, so you weren't jumping in! :) I almost totally agree with your rebuttal of BrianO's points, and I do like MLK's quote you provided. Also, I do have to commend you on your knowledge of political theory. For me, my interest is focussed on the pragmatic application of the theories (or more accurately, what is termed "Realism", or 'real politik'), not so much on what I generally regard as being the pontifications of self-important elitists from a bygone era - unless of course the theories were devised in response to great need and genuine injustice at the time ... I would suggest that many theorists were in any case trying to create worldviews that while clear-sighted in some areas, were very often obtuse in others, and either ignorant of or indifferent to the less kind consequences of their theories ... and most certainly open to many severe criticisms ... examples of this are many, of which I'm sure you know ...

Report abuse