I certainly will.

I wanted to bust up Yglesias for that naive little turd of an observation "it's quite true that I don't think much of populism on the merits." Well, what are those merits, Harvard? Didn't say. Oy.

But the job has been hell, I got sick again, the doctors have no idea what's wrong with me excpet to tell me to get another job, so I let it slide. Better to stay melllow and get better. I guess.

Molly Ivins is a populist. So am I. Shoot, I have to go. Good to see you back, Yuval!

Sometimes I think that the term Populism was chosen by the wonks to describe this tendency for the purpose of being able to point out the defects of the old Populists (William Jennings Bryan, et al). Populism sometimes is defined as finding out what the white working class male thinks already, and then agreeing with him. (Wonks, in fact, are willing to play this game, as long as they can call it "moving to the center". EG, being more hawkish, forgetting about gun control).

What I actually propose is doing outreach to thse people and developing a constituency by persuading. This involves persuasion, and framing some important issues to replace the ones the Republicans have succeeded in foregrounding.

But this can't be done unless the Democrats actually are solidly and obviously on the side of the working class. My reading is that for the last 20 years or so the Democrats have been solid on social issues and weak on labor / economic issues, and for this reason making an appeal to the white working class is a non-starter.

Anti-populism seems to be dominant among Democrats, even at the Prospect which was supposed to be the anti- New Republic. I've been convinced for a long time that one whole wing of the party, including a lot of the money people, would rather lose with a wonk than win with a populist.

I may post on this at STF, but let this be it for now. I'm semi-retired.

Incidentally, the state of Minnesota in the Thirties had a left-populist government which was incredibly successful and really transformed the state. Minnesota still has some momentum from that; at one time the two most liberal Senators were from there (before Wellstone died). It's losing it, though.

You really need populism-plus. Joe McCarthy was a populist too, and he came from somewhat the same culture as Floyd Olsen.

To me, Populism means the working class. It became disreputable when it turned into anti-capitalism. Everyone in America had the mistaken dream of becoming rich and no longer sided with the regular guy.The Republicans have riden these delutions into power.
Gore was close with re-invention as as metafore, but it still seemed clunky when he started into the populist retoric. Demos need a new metafore for Governance for the "rest of us".

John makes an interesting point above on the Democrats being weak on economics. I think that's probably impacted them more than they realize. We now live in an age of information, where the majority of citizens have 401(k) plans or IRAs, and over 70% own their homes. Americans' affluence is on the rise, and that tends to make folks agree with the GOP on fiscal issues.

Well, thanks, muckdog, but that wasn't my point.

Oh yeah, right muck...American affluence is on the rise...
where did you learn that? Rush Limbaugh? Mitch Daniels? Treasurer Snow?

prosperity is just around the corner, eh, muck?

I agree that for affluent Americans, affluence is on the rise...

anything else is dogma and ideology...

John B.

who is going through tremendous suffering in this country?

We are arguing about the margins. Yglesias and Marshal are brilliant, and certainly no DLC types. Look at their defenses of Social Security. They deserve much of the credit for the so-far stiff Democratic spine on this issue. Drum also very interesting, most of the time.

Frank is great, but supporting him does not mean condemning these other guys.

I think of Eliot Spitzer as someone who defines the term 'populist'. His dept. saw that SEC was not doing it's job and then stepped in. His job as AG is to represent the PEOPLE. In this case, it was the people against greedy CEOs and corporations. Pretty good model if you ask me.

I think the daily grind of being poor is "tremendous" suffering. Eighty five million Americans are poor this very second.

No vacations. Terrible pay, crummy clothes, poor food, constant worry and anxiety and bills and money.

Worst of all, a feeling of helplessness and bewilderment to be in the richest society on earth yet there is no health care, no day care, no rise in wages, no nothing.

Go ahead, big dog, sneer. Jesus would be so proud of you.

John, that was a point you made that I thought deserved some commentary. Because you were right, the democrats are weak on economic issues. It hurts them because most of America is doing quite well. It sounded ridiculous when Kerry and Edwards were saying that this was the "worst economy since Hoover." Most Americans read through that bologna. The democrats lose folks when they're saying things that obviously aren't true.

You're quite the gameplayer, muckdog.

The US is different for different people. You know the well-off ones. Populism isn't about them but the others. Many are living pretty well day by day but are at risk from debt and lack of medical insurance.

But somehow I don't think that you're going to change your mind.

Most of America is not doing quite well. Fully 25% of our people are poor. That's a terrible, terrible record for the most wealthy country on earth.

Only the super-rich have done well the last 20 years. The rest of us have treaded water or fell back significantly--again, lost wage growth and inflation has hammered the poor the hardest.

Oh yeah we're all doing quite well, borrowing our future with trillions of dollars of debt. Jesus, what a crock the American Dream can be.

Everyone in America had the mistaken dream of becoming rich and no longer sided with the regular guy.The Republicans have riden these delutions into power.

e have seen the illusion of the 'mass elete' before, namely in the 1920's. 10% margins on stocks were truly leading to an ownership society with " a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage." Then reality hit, it will hit again just give it time.

The first word in my post is 'we'. For those wondering my quote was from Hoover's 1928 campaign literature.

Yes there are people in this country who work hard, play by the rules and get screwed. Many of them voted for Bush last year and I call some of them neighbors. Many of them are starting to doubt the honesty of the game. Leftist populism
isn't dead, its just been hibernating through a winter of conservative illusions.

But John, the Democrats ran a populist campaign in 2004. "Tax the rich!" Remember that?

"The rich" should pay for your health care.

"The rich" should pay to close the budget deficit.

"The rich" should pay more to resolve social security and medicare underfunding.

And now, from this site and others, "Paris Hilton doesn't need a tax cut! Raise her taxes!"

The problem the Democrats have, is that most folks are doing fine. So they're writing off the middle class at the voting booth. That's why the only income demographic the democrats won in 2004 was the $30,000 and under crowd.

Populism wins elections -- wonkery loses elections.

What was the populist message of the last successful Democrat?

"I'm fighting for all the Americans who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules."

It was populism lite, but since there was a third party candidate that drew the fire breathers, it worked well enough.

So Muck, are you saying that we should keep giving Paris Hilton more tax cuts? Does that truly seem like a better use of the money then fixing Social Security? Or investing in renewable energy? Or fixing our educational system? I think Paris Hilton is a fine example of why the estate tax is a good idea. You want to see people lining up for a handout? Look at the children of the succesful. Just because your parents worked hard doesn't mean that you shouldn't get a real job and be a productive member of society.

You're not serious about fixing social security, though. You just want to "raise taxes on the rich." That's the only trick up your sleeve. Nevermind that this is the approach we've been taking since the 1930's to fix the social security crisis time and time again; and it has failed. The crisis comes back. That's because there is no private ownership and growth investments in the social security system.

Paris Hilton is an entertainer. It's not like she's not contributing anything. I don't watch her shows, but many people do. She's pretty. She's funny. And the networks and media folks are making a ton off her. So to say that she doesn't contribute anything to society is bogus.

Renewable energy... We do have lots of renewable energy. It's just not feasible on a larger scale at this point. We need nuclear now. And until we have more nukes, keep drilling for oil; since nobody in American seems interested in conservation.

The problems in education having nothing to do with underfunding. It's just a societal issue where those in lower socio-economic groups aren't motivated to learn and excel. They choose other paths. No matter how fancy the soccer fields and air conditioning systems are in inner city schools, those kids will probably still prefer joining gangs to doing algebra.

Just because your parents worked hard doesn't mean that you shouldn't get a real job and be a productive member of society.

Isn't that every parents dream to be able to make enough money so their kids don't have to work? To give their kids the things they didn't or couldn't have? Can a person not have a "real job", (whatever that means), and still be a "productive" member of society? Just curious...

most of America is doing quite well.
most folks are doing fine.

I may have missed it, but where is Muckdog getting this from? Is this like saying "most" people voted for George Bush(51%)? Again, just curious...

To begin with once again, there is no CRISIS concerning SS. There maybe be the possibility that benefits might only be funded at 70% 40 years from now if nothing is done. Instead of framing it as taxing the rich, why not try thinking of it as giving the lower and middle classes a break. Exempt the first few thousand of salary from SS taxes and then tax all the rest that everyone makes. It's far more fair than making those who earn the least pay on all of their income and those who make the most only pay on a small fraction. And don't bring in that "small business" argument. If small business didn't have to match those first few thousand dollars of their employees income, it might actually put a little more money in their pockets. And as far as ownership and growth, those two can be had outside of the SS system. The SS system must be stable to work and not exposed to the whims of the market. One reason to have SS the way it is is to protect it from losing value. There are no guarantees in the market, but SS is backed by the full faith of the government. The stock market can fall and we still have a government. Put SS money in the market and sooner or later you risk losing some if not all of it.

But don't mind me. I'm just middle class and slipping.

Paradox,

Yah there so poor that 95% of the population has at least 1 color TV. You would at least be semi-correct if you said that are population (at least 25%) are unsound at controlling their money. Come on...get real, no way in hell is 25% of the population poor.

I still can't believe there are people posting on this site that don't know the difference between there and their, nor between our and are.
I do believe I'll discontinue visiting this site in search of intelligent debate. It was a little fun for awhile though...Good Luck.

Jeez, you're dumb, muckdog. No one said any of that. Start over from the beginning.

Yeah, bigdog. Supposing your facts are right and you aren't just making them up, if someone has no job and no health insurance, they're doing fine because they have a color TV. Sure. Used color TVs are easy to get -- just hang out at the landfill.

Most people realize that there's more to life than TV, but the ones who don't vote for Bush, like you did.

I love it.

Having a color tv in your place of residence means you're not poor.

That's a hoot.

Who knew it was so easy to eliminate poverty. Shit what's a little 13" color tv go for these days? $100 bucks. Order up a few thousand. And all those homeless people we put up in hotel rooms are already well off and they probably don't even know it!

What a country.

I still can't believe there are people posting on this site that don't know the difference between there and their, nor between our and are.
I do believe I'll discontinue visiting this site in search of intelligent debate. It was a little fun for awhile though...Good Luck.

Anyone truly interested in intelligent debate would not be so terribly uptight and anal about grammar. Get over it.

The 2004 campaign was decided by perceptions about national security. A 20+ point lead in any category, especially when everything else except gay marriage points to a Democratic victory, means something. Democrats have to defend themselves before those prosperous 'security mom/dad' types will vote for them. Educated upper middle class professionals didn't lean to Bush over estate taxes, 911 swayed them. No matter how good the field looks in '06 and especially '08 the Democrats MUST address that.
That's why Clark is the perfect running mate for Edwards, he took populist positions last year, WON Oklahoma and well, he's got the stars. More military experence than frats got at Yale er, Alabama.

Ok, I am on a roll tonight. As to the ANON poo pooer about typing -- yah I had that hang-up too until I started typing long posts. I check and check and I still --AHHHHH --- have typos. I do agree that there are limits, though. But don't leave because of that. . . leave for a good reason -- like you can't bear to type in an anonymous name, or you are too good for this discussion -- but not because of typing.

rlprather,

I think I am with you on Edwards, although I will still wait for the outsider gov. I am very focused on the 2006 situation here in Texas and . . . one step at a time I guess. Edwards was my choice for the same reasons as yours -- same background, same sensibilities, same -- dare I say -- morals. Edwards is a stand up guy. I played with going into PI law, but opted for teaching instead. Guess that shows I'm an idiot . . . otherwise I could be rich now . . . oh and paying less in taxes.

I'll crawl back under my rock now.

M

The 2004 campaign was decided by perceptions about national security. A 20+ point lead in any category, especially when everything else except gay marriage points to a Democratic victory, means something.

If this were true, why did the Democrats only win the income demographic of folks making less than $30K?

Must be something else.

The more I read some of these ignorant posts, the more I understand how a group of idiots are leading the U.S. back to the 1920's. When these clowns detroy the middleclass, no one will like what they see.

anon,

I'll tell you what, if you did not have a job, or insurance, would you be watching T.V.? Or would you be busting your ass to better yourself someway? What percentage of those T.V.'s are hooked up to cable? I'm tired of the victim mentality in this country. Anybody, can have a damn good life if they choose to spend their money wisely and take their education seriously.

muckcat,

is that not 100 bucks that should be spent on something else? Or perhaps...god forbid, they actually save that money?

bigdog,

The point is the absolute ridiculousness of suggesting that people can't be poor because they have....a tv. Gasp!

And a color tv no less!

Who says they bought the tv? Maybe they got it second hand from someone? It's a stupid argument. Having a tv in your residence is not a sign of anything in 2005.

Give me a break.

Anon,

You want facts? Read "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America" by Larry Elder. There is an outstanding chapter on poverty or lack there of, in America. Now I'm sure you will never agree with any of them, because they come from a Libertarian viewpoint, and Elder is a black Libertarian which I'm sure simply makes him an Uncle Tom in you eyes.

I'm tired of the victim mentality in this country. Anybody, can have a damn good life if they choose to spend their money wisely and take their education seriously.

We're back to people choosing to live in poverty again I see.

Muckcat,

Call it that if you want...you won't get complaints from me, or the others that worked their asses off to get the things we have.

bigdog,

And nobody had it worse than you right? You dragged yourself up from the worst of the worst right? If you could do it anyone can right?

Pardon me while I retrieve my fiddle case.

I loved my childhood, I had a great family, but we never had money. I chose, just like my brother and best friends that I was not going to short-change myself by working a crappy job for the rest of my life in a crappy little town. I joined the service, went to college, became a teacher, and have a wonderful family. I don't have a lot of things, but I have all I need to be happy. I chose to make something of myself. So pardon me for telling you to FUCK OFF. I don't feel sorry for the poor, and never will.

I will never understand why you and people like you think it is everybody elses responsibility to take care of those that will not take care of themselves.

It's amazing how easy it is to provoke you into a fit of profanity bigdog. I can't help but wonder how affective a teacher you must be.

The fact that you had a great childhood and a great family puts you a leg up on a lot of people in this country regardless of how much money you had or didn't have.

I will never understand why you and people like you think it is everybody elses responsibility to take care of those that will not take care of themselves.

Well part of it's my Catholic upbringing. Part of it's the fact that my parents made me aware that not everyone has access to all the things that our family had access to so it should be a worthy endeavor to do what one can to help spread those benefits to others.

I have to say bigdog. I have a hard time believing that you're a teacher. You show such open disdain for the poor and an unwillingness to accept the fact that many in this country are hindered by factors largely outside their control from improving their lives sufficiently to break the cycle of poverty. I wouldn't want my child to be in your class.

Like I said, you can get a used color TV free. They have little or no cash value. I've been offered several. Someone above, an apparent teacher, can't think straight because of his self-centered obsessions, and he talks in stupid cliches. He knows all about every single poor person in the US, because he was poor once himself.

One of the things that populists would deal with is the way that it's becoming more difficult for kids from poor families to get educations. And even with the bad example of bigdog before me, I think we are right on that. Because not every poor person who gets an education turns out to be a self-centered jerk.

Thank God my kid is out of school.

muckcat,

believe whatever you want about my teaching ability, oh, and I too was raised and still am a Catholic. I'm sure you assume that I teach at a wealthy suburban district. But you might find it interesting that I teach at an inner-city school (98% black, 55% on free or reduced lunches). You might also find it funny that their is not one young man/women in my school that wears clothes less expensive than mine, I see the kids with their 100 dollar Nikes one day and their Alan Iverson shoes the next, and their Timberlands the next. I see Escalades and Navigators by the dozens dropping their kids off to school. I see children recieve their free government paid for lunch (which is a joke because it is quite possibly the worlds most unhealthy lunch), and then I see them walk to the snack line to buy ice cream (usually with nothing smaller than a 20). I hear kids on a daily basis talking about how they can't wait until they turn 18 so they can get section 8 housing. I see more pregnant freshman (14 yrs old) in a year, than anybody should see in a lifetime. I recently had a student (freshman) give bith to twins, her mother gave birth 3 months earlier and her 8th grade sister is 7 months pregnant. Now thats a cycle of poverty, and you're tell me that they are unable to break that. B.S. because I work with 87 other teachers that would give anything to help these kids...and we tell them this on a daily basis.

You can continue to tell me and others that I'm an awful person because I don't buy into the victim mentality that runs rampant throughout the liberal U.S., and thats fine. But I hate when people make assumptions about how I must be or that person must be at their job because of the way they think. I would love for you to honestly come spend a day at school with me...or go to the largest city near you, and ask if you can walk around at one of the "struggling" schools. Go see for yourself how the "poor" actually live.

Now this does not mean that there are not some out there that don't need extra help, because there are and if I were not to admit that, then I would agree you should question my sanity. However, this Boo Hoo this or that for people that refuse to better themselves, does not fly with me.

You can continue to tell me and others that I'm an awful person because I don't buy into the victim mentality that runs rampant throughout the liberal U.S., and thats fine. But I hate when people make assumptions about how I must be or that person must be at their job because of the way they think.

It's easy to make assumptions isn't it?

Muck,

its easy to talk the talk is it not? Now, go to an inner-city school for a day, come back later and then tell me i'm wrong. You won't be able to, and thus you will be crushed because you will be confused on exactly who is to blame. Academia and the real world are two different things, i figured that as smart as you were you would know that, but i guess i'm wrong. Try living in the real world for a while.

Now, go to an inner-city school for a day, come back later and then tell me i'm wrong.

You assume that I have no familiarity with inner-city schools.

You won't be able to, and thus you will be crushed because you will be confused on exactly who is to blame.

Yes. I'll be crushed and confused! See part of your problem is a hang up on 'blame'.

Academia and the real world are two different things, i figured that as smart as you were you would know that, but i guess i'm wrong.

You're in academia. Not me. Again. You assume that people who hold "liberal" beliefs are divorced from 'the real world'.

Try living in the real world for a while.

LOL! You are full of cliches.

why did the Democrats only win the income demographic of folks making less than $30K?

muckdog,

I think you know the difference between correlation and causation. Republicans ALWAYS fare better at the higher income levels. This is true even when the Democrats win. Polling data always shows this. Go back to the 1936 Landon won-high income precincts.

National security fears made a lot of people who were without immeadate economic concerns hold their figerative nose and vote for Bush. Kerry ignored the swift boat ads. and apperaed unwilling to fight. Weakness won't win any election, especially one after 911. If you look at the 'wrong track' numbers for last year, especially the ones where they broke down the data for economics you'll hardly find a ringing endorsement for 'Bushonomics.'

muckcat,

Congratulations for causing bigmouthdog to show his true colors.

michelle,

Keep us up to date on the TX scene. I too sometimes feel that my aptitude in academics should have channeled into law, at least then I could be rich enough to be a contrarian to muckdog's favorite 'income-partisanship' statistic. Also, thanks for the data on Latvia,
you've made me want to visit too, at least I could afford one of the local brews while I was there. : )

believe whatever you want about my teaching ability, oh, and I too was raised and still am a Catholic.

No way! You're Catholic IN Name only, I assume you don't practice your faith? You're always coming across as so self centered, self righteous and uncaring for others especially poor people or those who are the least among us. You're often times so judgemental and intolerant in your writings here. You're so focused on your own personal well being at the full expense of others in our society. You never appear grateful for what you have, but more worried that you might have to give more or are giving more than "your fair share"...that isn't a Christian value. What Catholic doctrine did you get taught because so far most everything I have read of yours here espouses exactly the opposite of the Catholic teachings on which I was raised /

Please I urge you to reflect on the doctrines of the faith of your religion. REad Jim Wallis The Politics of God...then reflect on it. Unfortunatley from your writings and comments you don't appear to represent or possess any of the values that this Catholic was raised with....I am thoroughly amazed you're a Catholic....unbelievable.

I don't feel sorry for the poor, and never will.

So very "Catholic" of you....not

Quit feeling sorry for yourself and telling everyone here how "tough" you had it. God I can't stand people who feel they are somehow "owed" in this society because they actually had to work to get where they are and not born with a silver spoon in their mouth Like the people Junior and the gang represent. I bet if you took a survey of commenters here, the majority of people had to work from a very young age and work their way through college...several jobs at the same time...God how pathetic you are..."poor me I had a tough upbringing because, gasp, I had to work! OH the humanity. The difference between people like muck and big dogs is that we aren't complaining about it. Get a life, grab some reality, and then get over yourself. God what a whiner.

Oh the retard,

Go back and read the actual posts. I don't feel sorry for myself for anything that I have or have not done. I also don't feel sorry for those that refuse to help themselves. You go around and continue to figure out how to save the world, and when you come up with a better plan than tax everything...let me know.

Attack my religion and personality all you want. The bottom line is that none of you can counter what I wrote. Go to a school look around, and then tell me why those people are poor.

Its people like you that keep the poor poor. Because you constantly tell them they are poor and it ain't their fault. I can only hope that the bleeding in your hearts, stops long enough to notice that everyone of you are hurting them and not helping them.

anon,

I'll check that book out this summer and get back to you. Unlike the majority of people on this site (with exceptions) they are way to narrow to take a look at anything I'd suggests because they already know it all...I however, will purchase that book and read, I'm always interested in an opposing view.

Muckcat,

I see you still cannont respond to the meat of my argument.

I see you still cannont respond to the meat of my argument.

Would that be the part about all your students wearing expensive sneakers and being driven to school in Escalades therefore poverty in the United States does not exist except for in the minds of liberals who are dead set on keeping the great unwashed masses down so we have something to complain about?

Is that the part of your argument that I'm supposed to respond to?

Or was it the bit about color tv's?

Or subsidized lunches?

I have plenty of experience with innercity youth bigdog. And my experiences lead me nowhere near a reaction like yours. Are there people who have learned that it's easier to game the system? Of course there are. Do you think that's exclusive to minority communities (your 98% black school with 55% on free lunch)? Ken Lay and his ilk have been doing the same thing. Does that mean that every poor kid or every CEO, or even a majority, is that way? No way.

The meat of your argument is based on your observations of a single group of people and how they present themselves in a public school setting. How am I supposed to respond to that? My observations show me something different. When you claim that people aren't poor because they have a color tv you make it very hard to try to seriously communicate with you.

No no Mcat- it's not that they aren't poor because they have a color TV, it's that they CHOOSE to be poor, remember? They just LOVE that shit; can't get enough of cat food and nasty, bug-ridden places to live. Oh, but there's an escalade parked outside that was, ummmmmmmmmm, uhhhhhhhhhh, I dunno, GIVEN to them by the welfare system along with the $100 Nikes (that they didn't STEAL or anything...) according to his outlandishly absurd notion of causality. Oh and don't forget that the main thing we need to do is to determine WHO IS TO BLAME!!! Can't forget to expend lots of resources on THAT little research project.

LOL!! What a gas this guy is. There was a poster arguing with him a few weeks ago that began his response something to the effect of: "The depth and breadth of your ignorance appear to be limitless."

I was dieing over that one. It comes to me like a voice in my head nearly every time I read something he writes.

big log, I will admit that you make SOME kind of rationally motivated, well-thought-out statement, once in a great while; but unfortunately for you, it only tops out at about 3% of the time.

Oh, and I've said it to you before, and I'll continue to say it: for a "teacher", your spelling and grammar are atrocious- SPELLCHECK IS FREE JACKASS!! *scoff*

Oh the " I don't feel sorry for the poor, and never will" (un)Catholic bigdog,

God you're still whining and feeling sorry for yourself even in your response to me, how pathetic.

You are a cynical person. I suggest you should get out of teaching(in your district) because with your overall poor, extremely negative attitude and unhealthy opinions about the children/population you work with on a daily basis espoused here they must carry over into your work and classroom. You aren't doing any of those kids a favor if you lack any sense of compassion/respect for the majority of them as you have voiced here. Do everyone (especially those kids you work with) a favor and get away from it. I bet the kids sense your cynicism, disrepect, and condescension. It reeks, even through the internet. You're in the wrong district with that attitude...too judgemental and intolerant.

ps. I also work for a few school district(s)some that are also quite similar to the one you described and work. That is just one of my jobs.

I don't feel sorry for them, I don't know why that is so reprehensible to all of you. However, I never said that people should not be helpfull to those in need. Donate all the money and time that you can if that makes you feel better about yourself. By giving people things with no strings, you are hurting them. You say I can't be catholic because I don't believe in this, or that. Do you believe in abortion? That is the number one no no of catholocism. I believe in my heart that it is much better to teach someone to fish, rather than giving them a fish to eat.

If you guys can't understand that, then there is nothing I am able to do to change your opinions, and I won't try to. Go into the "poor" areas, and see how they live, and they money they spend, and you will never again be able to lump the "poor" into one group. Maybe I was a little quick to assume that your definition of poor is the same as mine, and that was a mistake on my part.

bigdog,
Jesus was a liberal. Nuff said. He would not look kindly on the fact that you see your Catholicism as only a sense of duty (see I teach "poor" kids aren't I good Catholic) yet lack any sense of actual compassion, caring, or love for them. That is what reeks from you. You do it as a sense of duty, not a sense of true love, faith,commitment, or true internalized moral calling. You aren't helping them with your lack of compassion or commitment. Kids can sense the hypocrisy a mile a way. They can sense the lack of true concern or caring. In your eyes because you teach poor kids then that makes you a good Catholic. But your attitude about it sucks...The kids won't be fooled and God won't be fooled, but apparently you are.

Did you support the War because that was a big no no to the Pope.

Do you support capitol punishment, because that is a big no no to the Pope.

Do you support tolerance and equality for all in our society including homosexuals because that is a big no no to the Pope...ooops so much for following the teachings of Jesus.

And for the record, I personally don't support abortion, but realize not everyone is Catholic and has the right under the law to decide what faith/religion they choose to practice and whether or not they choose to have an abortion. Also, I never said I was a perfect Catholic and/or a currently practicing Catholic. Just that I was raised as one and practiced it for many years.

Finally what part of "I work in poor school districts similar to yours" don't you understand. I also (in a previous job) worked in the inner city for 9 years having security guards from my employment take me into the homes of poor for young children. Let me tell you it was extremely challenging and not always fun, but I never became so cynical about it like you and in many ways it was probably one of the most positive influential life experiences that shaped my belief system and sense of moral values, compassion for poor kids, and liberal ideals. I am a much better person because of it and am grateful to have had the experience. It was not a sense of duty or superficial obligation. It was a true love and sense of purpose for working with these people who weren't as lucky as myself.

oh I know everything,

Explain to me why I've been voted as teacher of the year twice, by the student population...shoots that theory to hell, but it was a good try. Lack of commitment, thats your assumption; and you know what they say about assumptions.

No, I did not think the war in Iraq was a good thing, but I do support it now that we are there. Most notably I support the troops by doing whatever I can...usually in the form of care packages, the little things soldiers miss from back home.

No I don't support Capital Punishment. I'd much rather the government create a facility in Alaska for nothing but Death Row inmates, that is incredibly tough and involves them doing hard labor. What exactly is that saying about assumptions?

Gay marriage...Nope, I don't support it, but I will support a civil union. Assumptions?

True love is 9 years? How many times have you been married? 9 years is devotion huh.

So you quit working with the "poor", no longer practice catholicism, but you continue to make assumptions about my beliefs, my work ethic, and my ability as a teacher. A good person of any faith should help those less fortunate, but it should not be mandated by the government. So from what I understand, I should not do what I do, because I tell the kids everyday that they can do better? While others tell them, oh you poor thing, you need these people to do this for you? So please, now tell me how i'm being so awful towards them by instilling pride in themselves, trying to instill a good work ethic, and telling them that they don't need other people to better themselves.

Oh the self righteous teacher of the year bigdog,

Continue to justify your own righteous indignation for the poor because you were nominated as teacher of the year 2 times. If that makes you feel better by all means do it. I think Jesus also practiced humility too didn't he or did you forget that lesson too. This isn't about you and your awards, this is about your attitude and your excuse of your attitude and comments by saying you are a Catholic, and because "I teach poor kids see I'm good catholic." Faith and practice of it is much deeper than that, that is what I am getting at. But your too hung up on the superficial sense of obligation and don't internalize the true meaning of it (faith, love, empathy, compassion, tolerance etc)

As for me, what does job longevity have to do with anything? I left my other job due to family committments as well as a job promotion but I still work in my capacity with poor people. Not that any of this really even matters here. That is not the issue. I am not competing with you or saying I am a better person or "catholic" because of that. No, I am just questioning your comments and justification of your comments by using your faith here. I believe a person doesn't have to work with the poor to be considered a good catholic which is what you are saying here.

But go ahead and keep justifying your attitude and "I'm a good Catholic" because your overgeneralization and cynicism as noted here with this comment, "I don't feel sorry for the poor, and never will." just reeks of hypocrisy. Go ahead and justify your faith without any sense of true empathy or concern because that is just what a disdainful "catholic" does. Wow you would be a great motivator for all poor with that "tough love" attitude woo hoo! I think that is what Jesus said too to instill pride in the poor and destitute. Yes he told those poor lepers to work harder and to get over themselves. Oh yes let us not forget your famous quote of yours on this site, "poor people choose to be poor". I know Jesus preached and believed that too...not.

And what in God's name does the number of times I have been married (or anyone for that matter)have to do with anything. God once again you are extremely judgemental about people who may have been married more than once (not my circumstance by the way). But why does that even matter. I believe statistics show that 50% of marriages end in divorce, you must feel disdain for many people you meet in our society.

Lastly, I did not say anything about homosexual marriages, I said intolerance toward homosexuals, which the church heirarchy is. Despite the fact how many priest in power (hello Cardinal Law)covered up child molestors and pedophiles running rampant in their ranks, the moral hypocrisy/intolerance is just amazing,both yours and the Church's. But I digress big time.

I know I am not going to change your attitude. No I mainly posted because I was challenging the contradiction here of the attitude you possess about poor people and the teachings of your religion. I was trying to get you to think about it deeper. I obviously failed and will leave it at that.

Sorry to strike a nerve. Hypocrisy you say; look in the mirror.

LOL! God forbid you actually take a challenge to better yourself and to reflect upon or do some introspection on your contradictory thought processes,actions, words, and beliefs. You're a teacher who can't stand being "challenged" to think or work harder,yet expect your students to do so, another hypocrisy exposed.

If anything keep talking and commenting. I never thought it was possible after the already outrageous comments you have made, but you continue to expose yourself as a shallow, intolerant, unthinking hypocrit.Thanks for the laugh.

Wow big nerve that time. Holy shit asshat, can you come up with anything else to call me...how about an Uncle Tom? Because I not only think what I think, but that I actually carry it out, that makes me all those things? I practice what I preach...yet I'm a hypocrit?

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, you put a whopping nine years in...way to go saint humanity. Go back into your little shell with you little theories that never work. Stay in your little vacum and refuse to see the world as it really is. Make sure you continue to tell people that their poor...and that its the rich people fault, and the governments fault for not doing more for them. You are the king of Hypocrits. You rip on my catholic belief structure...and your not even a catholic anymore. You say I'm intolerant, yet I'm the one that continues to work everyday in the areas that you say need so much help from everyone else...you quit. You say I don't work "harder"...You quit. You say I cant stand to be challenged...You quit.

So I ask again...please look in the mirror tommorrow when you brush your teath and ask...who is the real hypocrit. You know the answer has got to be you. You can talk a good game, but when it came time to play, who was the quitter?

bigdog,

So again what do you continue to do instead of answering the contradictions I have made about your faith, words, and actions....call me names and tell me I am not qualified to challenge you. You have failed to answer my comments in any coherent manner except to keep saying..."I teach poor children(that I have no sympathy for and have disdain for)and have for a long time therefore I am a good Catholic and a good person. Also because I do that I am better than you so how dare you question me about my disdainful opinions about poor people."

All you have done here is to continue to bring up straw men such as length of time I worked in the inner city and why I don't do it anymore,and then make lame comments about the length of someone's marriage as an answer to my main question. I am not the one here claiming to be the morally righteous and upstanding catholic here while also making unchristian hateful, hurtful comments such as "poor people choose to be poor" and "I don't feel sorry for them". I am questioning and challenging you, who thinks you are morally righteous good catholic because of what you do for a living, to think about the disconnect between what you practice, what your faith teaches about love, compassion, tolerance, respect, and what you preach, "poor people choose to be poor, I don't feel sorry for poor people". I don't think the government should mandate helping the poor. Jesus did not believe that at all. He felt a ruling society had an moral obligation to help the least among us. But you won't answer that. Oh yeah, I know the answer, how dare I "challenge" these contradictions. How very catholic of you. Open your mind a bit, spend some time reflecting on this disconnect. Isn't that what you would tell your "poor" students to do.

ps. (this is irrelevant to the main point, but what part of, I still work with the poor and destitute don't you understand). And what I do for a living certainly doesn't disqualify me from challenging your disconnect.

You two still goin' at it?

Just for the record bigdog, Oh the humanity is not me.

I called it quits on this one yesterday. :)

muckcat,

I know it's a lost cause (paging St. Jude) trying to get a straight answer from bigdog. But God forbid I "quit" because then it will disqualify me from having any opinion or challenging anyone ever again! ;~P

I'd like to call a truce and peace here, but for some reason I don't think bigdog likes truces or peace, especially coming from someone like me.

oh,

Go back and take a look. I never brought catholocism into the discussion. Once I made the point that I was Catholic, you brought all types of assumptions into the conversation, and said that I contradict catholocism, because I don't have pity for the poor that refuse to better themselves.

You assumed from the begining that I am some awful person because I have a different outlook than the majority of people on this site, on how to deal with poverty issues. Rather than confront those differences, you bring in silly ass questions about how I can't be a good catholic.

The comment about marriage was the fact that you brought 9 years of devotion into the equation. I simply asked how many times you've been married, becaue I don't consider 9 years to be devotion to anything.

I never once claimed to be morally anything...you did. You claim that you are the rightous one because of the way you think the poor should be dealt with. You made me out to look like Hitler because I have an opposing view.

You obviously feel the best way to correc the problem is to throw money at it. You feel that that is the way to be compassionate, and caring. I don't, I believe that I do more for these individuals be getting them to better themselves through hard work, education, and extracurricular activities. That is my idea of caring, and compassion.

You continue to take care of them everyday, that is fine...apparently it makes you a much better person then me. I'll continue to educate them, and tell them they can always do better, and in the end, when my students make it and they don't need peoples help to live, I'll believe that I have done more than you ever will by feeding them for a day, because I've pushed them and taught them how to feed themselves and their family for the rest of their lives.

Bigdog, Truce pal...but for some reason,sadly introspection and self reflection are something you as a teacher obviously don't understand and God forbid someone challenge you on it to make you a better person (although you already think you are the better person don't you). We all can strive to improve as human beings. I still stand by my challenge to your disconnect. You still fail to see or answer it. Your bitterness toward people who call you on it is just as poor as your disparaging opinion about poor people, too bad.
Peace out....if that is something you understand.