A Few Uncomfortable Truths by Amanda S. Green

A Few Uncomfortable Truths by Amanda S. Green

It is no secret that I’m a Thomas Sowell fangirl. I have been for a long time. But, over the course of the last few years, I’ve read everything by him I could get my hands on. If I could, I’d make him required reading for everyone, especially for every student in public school and in college. Unfortunately, I don’t have that power. The best I can do is share my love for his work and hope you do the same.

I plan to do a series of posts about his newest book, Discrimination and Disparities, over the next few weeks. Before I do, however, I want to share with you a site I discovered this morning as well as a few of my favorite Sowell quotes (and my thoughts on them).

Before I get to the site, let me start with this: I hate Twitter with a purple passion. I do my best to avoid it, using it only to share links to blogs and books. I don’t Tweet “discussions” or get into debates over there. There are better things to do with my time.

So imagine my utter joy and disbelief to find a Twitter account that is dedicated to posting a quote every day from Professor Sowell. Part of me was stunned to find the site—and to know Twitter hasn’t yet taken it down. After all, Professor Sowell does Not fit the narrative most social media platforms are dedicated to. He tells it like it is, using facts and data to tear down the “approved” narrative.

If you haven’t discovered “Daily Quotes from Thomas Sowell” bookmark the page now. You won’t be sorry.

The pinned post has one of my favorite quotes from Sowell:

If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected—or assumed—when conditions are not nearly so comparable?

Think about that for a moment. I have no doubt we all know families where children were raised together and turned out very differently. I’m not talking merely having different personalities but different drives, moral compasses, etc.

For example, when I was born, my mother worked at the hospital in the small Oklahoma town she and my dad lived it. Dad grew up there (and I’m forever grateful they moved to TX as soon as they could). One of the women Mom knew was a sweet little lady who worked in “Housekeeping”. She and her husband didn’t have much but they made sure they provided their two sons with a safe and loving home. They worked hard to insure the boys went to school and, when the time came, had every opportunity to go to college if they wanted.

But, from early on, there were differences between the boys, no matter what their parents did to give them the same opportunities and love. One was the son every parent wants: kind, loving, dedicated, hard-working, will to step up and answer the call to serve his country. The other, well, wasn’t. He was lazy, unmotivated, wanted everything handed to him and stole from those closest to him.

One son didn’t wait for his draft number to come up (this was in the midst of the Vietnam War). He went down to the Army recruitment office and enlisted. He proved to be as dedicated and motivated in the Army as he had in school and at home.

His brother, not so much. He did everything he could to avoid the draft.

Guess which son ended up making the ultimate sacrifice?

These two were raised under the same roof, with the same values and expectations, the same love and discipline. Yet they were very definitely not equal on so many different levels.

So, as Professor Sowell asked, how can we expect equality of outcomes when circumstances between people are different?

Economics, home life, education, moral compass, intellectual ability, natural talent are all factors that will impact that so-called “equality”, something those preaching such a need for uniformity forget. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have that inequality of outcomes, warts and all, instead of the Stepford Wives sort of society the progressives seem to prefer.

Another of my favorite Sowell quotes was posted the other day:

Increasing numbers of educators and the intelligentsia seem to have devoted themselves to undermining or destroying a sense of personal responsibility and making “society” responsible instead.

Going hand-in-hand with it is this quote:

Demagogues have always aimed their messages at the unthinking and the uninformed. Unfortunately, today that includes many of our college students.

Think about those two quotes and what we’ve been seeing, especially in public education, over the last few decades. We’ve witnessed a move away from teaching our children there are consequences to their actions—or inactions. We’ve seen them being taught that “every child is special” and “every child is a winner”. While the sentiment behind those statements is good, the reality is it has turned out a generation or more of young adults and teens who believe they should be allowed to do or say whatever they want when they want. They haven’t been taught there are times when they won’t be the best at something or won’t be able to get what they want.

By failing to teach them how to fail, and how to then pick themselves up and move on, we have done them a great disservice. We are reaping the consequences now. Want an example? Just look at some of our newer members of Congress. Ocasio-Cortez wants everything to be free, forgetting that if the government funds it, we are the ones footing the bill. There are others who would have us abandon our allies and embrace those who want to see our country not just fail but be totally defeated. When those who know better push back, these special little darlings cry “foul” and accuse us of being “bullies” or prejudiced.

And why? Because we dare remind them of the reality of their desires.

Sowell also doesn’t shy away from topics that have made him no friends in most liberal circles. Here’s another quote I wish the other side would not only read but consider with an open mind.

Dependence was seen as the key to holding the slaves down. It’s ironic that same principle comes up in the welfare state a hundred years later.

You can hear the cries of outrage now, can’t you? The liberals who continue to perpetuate the welfare state refuse to recognize that they are simply perpetuating the problem and, in many ways, making it worse. There is little to no incentive for too many “in the system” to get out. When states try to limit assistance or tie it to actively taking steps to get “off the dole”, the cries of outrage ring out loud and long. The media picks up the outrage and amplify it.

There is so much Sowell writes about that not only makes sense but points out how we have to stop the downward spiral certain parts of our political leadership has put us on. It is up to us to figure out the best way to do so. But the first hurdle is recognizing the problem. Then we need to understand the history of the problem. After that, we can start to determine the best way to undo the damage that has already been done.

Sowell isn’t afraid to speak the hard truths. I wish there were more like him, willing to step out of the shadows and face the attacks from the “right thinkers” because he refuses to walk in lock-step to their narrative.

87 thoughts on “A Few Uncomfortable Truths by Amanda S. Green

  1. My two stepsons are a great example of same inputs, different outcomes. It’s so frustrating to watch. Younger of the two is in the middle of yet another stupid life decision despite the opposite advice from his parents and every other adult in his 19 y/o life. His older brother has made some bad decisions, but learns from them and moves forward. The younger seems to have mastered getting back to square one with maddening efficiency.

  2. also, many of the dole systems are structured so that any effort to get off of them ends up being a net loss initially- see ‘VA Pension’ (what used to be called non-service-connected disability)

    1. Yes. You have that hard line where a 50¢/hr raise takes away all of your benefits—and when you’re trying to raise kids, you’re more likely to refuse the raise if it means your kids will still have healthcare.

      Those things need to be on a sliding scale, to encourage people to get the better job.

      1. When you’re trying to raise kids … the father of those kids better not try to live in the same house or you will lose all sorts of benefits.

        1. It was deliberately designed this way in order to create dependency. There is a reason LBJ boasted that the programs would keep people dependent on Democrats “forever”.

          1. Except LBJ used a far more disparaging term than people. I’m sure you know the word I’m referring to.

                1. The “other” word used by lots of rappers. 🙂 (and no, not the B variant of Hos)

      2. And this is the improved, post-reform situation.

        Many leftists whine that every job should pay enough to mean no benefits — nevermind that we tried that and found it meant they got more benefits, because they had no job.

  3. I’ve been reading Sowell for decades now (amazing that I can say that, makes me feel old).

    I too would make all of his works required reading I have too many ‘favorites’ to list

  4. “I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have that inequality of outcomes, warts and all, instead of the Stepford Wives sort of society the progressives seem to prefer.”

    I don’t think that’s *really* what they want, in most cases, rather, it’s just the advertising. As I said in a post several years ago…

    Many people in “progressive” leadership positions are graduates of the Harvard Law School. Do you think these people want to see a society in which the career, status, and income prospects for an HLS grad are no better than those for a graduate of a lesser-known, lower-status (but still very good) law school? C’mon.

    Quite a few “progressive” leaders are members of prominent families. Do you think Teddy Kennedy would have liked to see an environment in which he and certain other members of his family would have had to answer for their actions in the criminal courts in the same way that ordinary individuals would, without benefit from connections, media influence, and expensive lawyers?

    The prevalence of “progressivism” among tenured professors is quite high. How many of these professors would be eager to agree to employment conditions in which their job security and employee benefits were no better than those enjoyed by average Americans? How many of them would take a salary cut in order to provide higher incomes for the poorly-paid adjunct professors at their universities? How many would like to see PhD requirements eliminated so that a wider pool of talented and knowledgeable individuals can participate in university teaching?

    There are a lot of “progressives” among the graduates of Ivy League universities. How many of them would be in favor of legally eliminating alumni preferences and the influence of “contributions” and have their children considered for admission–or not–on the same basis as everyone else’s kids? Yet an alumni preference is an intergenerational asset in the same way that a small businessman’s store or factory is.

    …I have no doubt that there are *some* progressives who really do want Equality, even as applied to themselves and their tribe, but I think this is a distinct minority. For most, the called for ‘equality’ are really about class warfare, albeit of a horizontal rather than a vertical variety….tenured college professors vs owners of small manufacturing businesses, for example, even though their income levels may be about the same.

    1. Underlying most Progressive leaders is the conviction that the Anointed are needed to lead the Benighted and protect them from the Deplorables.

      That they deplore Tea Partiers and praises “the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of” MS-13 members says pretty much all you need to know about them.

      1. “Underlying most Progressive leaders is the conviction that the Anointed are needed to lead the Benighted and protect them from the Deplorables.”

        Years ago, I was at a company management training class, at which we had several interesting outside speakers. One of them was a Marxist professor, who informed us that our political opinions were merely the reflection of our class interests.

        I raised my hand and asked if he had ever considered that *his* opinions might be merely a reflection of *his* class position…after all, members of the intelligentsia do tend to (think that they will) do well under Communism.

        1. They usually do quite well under Communism… They go straight to the head of the lines for the gulags and firing squads. Preferential treatment, donchaknow?

          It has never ceased to amaze me how many of these sorts think that they’re going to be either respected or necessary to the new regime that they want to midwife into existence. The reality is, they’re going to be eliminated first, because they’ve already proven that they’re untrustworthy in the most certain way imaginable, and the new regime isn’t going to risk having them reconsider and perhaps turn on them.

          No, you want to survive and prosper in a Communist takeover, keep your head down, find work in the security apparatus (it’s always better to be a guard on the wall than a kulak in the pens beneath said walls…), and volunteer for the firing squads with enthusiasm.

            1. Look what doing that got Curt Schilling. Stalinist expectations of “enthusiasm for the party line” are well entrenched in those who control media and tech.

          1. There is no way to prosper in a Communist takeover, unless you’re one of the ‘anointed’ already, and what they consider their ‘superior’ (snort) replacement for nobility.

            And unless you are one of those, only serfdom awaits.

            1. The Bolshevist Old Guard was massacred in the Moscow Show Trials. Nope, no escape there.

              Even if you do stay on top — they couldn’t get a working car for Castro’s funeral. His day-to-day life must have been worse, because not so televised.

            2. No, on the contrary… They always need professional thugs.

              If you can hold your nose metaphorically and all that, there’s always good work in the new regime for the sociopathic criminal, and those who can reliably mimic that mentality. The early days of the Cheka were full of former Tsarist officers, suitably ideologically laundered.

              The trick is, you have to stay balanced just *so*, so that you’re seen as indispensable and reliable.

              It’s nasty work, but if all you’re concerned with is your own survival…?

      2. Just think of “Progressives” as aspiring feudal nobles who see the masses as serfs to be controlled “for their own good” while they themselves live like, well modern barons and dukes, and they are very readily understood.

        1. Forgot to add-that is the best case scenario. The worst case is that they are aspiring members of Oceania’s Inner Party, and their leaders aspiring Stalins and Maos.

          1. I don’t think that the majority of the rank-and-file have thought it through that far, or really recognize the inevitable effect that their preferred programs would end in.

            Look at all the various luvvies, theorists, and activists who “called on Chavez” to fix the things that were going wrong in Venezuela. Those credulous morons actually believed the party line… I loved watching the interviews that the international media did with them, where they were described as “former Chavez supporters”.

            Have to wonder how many are still alive, TBH.

            1. There is a reason why so many people from Eastern European countries have the “are you kidding, what your trying to do sucks, we know, we lived it already” attitude towards the EU and the leftists in the USA. They actually had to deal with the horrors of the system that people like Comrade Bernie want to impose and are terrified that the people who want to do so will get their way.

    2. Basically, it’s like being a union boss, but without the nuisance and tedium of dealing with actual workers.

  5. About that pinned post, the obvious answer is that Birth Order differences explain the disparities.

    Recent research indicating the Birth Order Thesis has no basis and no evidentiary support is a clear fraud, an attempt by the Pro Disparity Mafia (aka, Big Dis) to obscure the underlying facts that all humans are interchangeable and any disparities MUST be the result of injustice, injustice which can ONLY be addressed by the Woke.

    1. I’m the youngest of three sons. Eldest is fiscally responsible and has been at the same job* since he left the Army in 1970. (One change in employer, then he bought the practice when his second boss retired.) The middle brother has had more jobs and employers than I can count, with a fiscal attitude that might embarrass a drunken sailor. AFAIK, he’s heading for a financial trainwreck and opening the throttle. Sigh.

      Me, average number of employers (4 since BS, last one taken after 22 years on previous job (Dot-bomb layoff)), and *eventually* learned fiscal responsibility. (Thanks $SPOUSE for the attitude adjustment.)

      (*) He’s still working a bit.

  6. Every so often you really do need to review thinkers and authors you respect if only to get the bad taste out of your brain after those righteous fisks you do of so many other types.

    1. If you stare into the abyss of ignorance that constitutes most modern “thought” you risk falling in unless you maintain a firm anchoring line to reality. Authors such as Sowell, Chesterton and others provide that vital lifeline.

      1. Truer words.

        There’s a reason that most of the folks who hold the line have a reputation for being … aggressively opinionated … donkeys.

        It takes a certain kind of personality to be embedded in our Marxism-saturated culture and not be eroded by one’s own conservative instinct* for courtesy. As Mr. John Derbyshire once wrote. The intellectual “sell-out” is a broad, gentle sloping road.

        Sometimes expressed simply by silence.

        *writing very generally here

      2. I know it looks bad, but really, the ignorance of today is closely matched by the ignorance of any yesterday you might choose to investigate.

        Seriously; the Woke SJWs and the rest of the Left aren’t anything new. They’re just another bunch of destructive political idiots in a line that doubtless runs all the way back to whatever society built Stonehenge.

        Although if they ever find the ‘Prehistoric Practical Jokers Chowder and Marching Society label on one of the Menhirs, I might have to retract that.

    2. Which is why, every four years when the Party Circuses – I (don’t) mean conventions – are going, I re-read Mencken’s accounts of the Nominating circuses of his day.

  7. The Sowell quotes n the center of this post brought to mind this Herbert Meyer quote I came across yesterday:

    We’ve gone from being a culture that values hard thinking to a culture that tolerates and even celebrates soft thinking. Hard thinking means that when you are faced with a new problem or issue, you look squarely at it. You get the facts, sort through them, and decide how best to move forward based on what makes the most sense and what is actually likely to work . . . Soft thinking means that your emotions matter more than your intellect; you decide how to move forward based on your feelings rather than on the facts. And when your plan collides with reality — as it always will — instead of making adjustments, or just admitting you were wrong, you find someone else to blame and you keep on going down the same mistaken path. . . . The same kind of soft thinking that’s infected our domestic policies has spread to our foreign policies.

    It is a corruption of Judeo-Christian principle to teach the contemporary twaddle about every child being “special” — even though, in His Sight every child is. This perversion of meaning tends to disparage the actual underlying principle that every life has value to Him, and must be dedicated to serving His ends. Like the serpent’s questioning in The Garden, the intent is destruction, not elevation, of the individual.

  8. Freedom is a choice we relinquish at our peril. Dostoevsky was unfortunately right that most are willing to relinquish freedom for security even of the most meager kind: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/261212.

    Unfortunately the freedom sold by our cultural overlords is of the Pelagian variety sold by Anthony Kennedy: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/june-web-only/age-of-pelagius-joshua-hawley.html. All the old heresies always reemerge. They are the weeds of the soul.

    Do not relinquish the proper words. Capitalism is a slur. Freedom and private property are the values that make progress.

    1. I dislike the use of the enemy’s terms–Which is why I prefer the construct “traditional economic activity” to Capitalist. Marx’s construct was a projection, a straw man, and a slur, all at the same time. The way he envisioned everything, that was not how capitalism actually worked.

      In any event, it’s also inaccurate; capital isn’t the primary feature of that whole thing–Freedom of action is.

      1. I try to use “free-market economy” and “free-market system” when I teach. In part just because it is different enough that the kids are more likely to pay attention.

  9. We are each here for a different purpose. An invisible structural element hidden within, will be more important than a visible fake column that only appears to support. The person cleaning a hospital room well, may save more lives than many doctors. The world’s view of “success” is vastly different than God’s. The parable of the widow’s mite is an example. The world values appearance. God values fearless, joyful, obedience.

  10. This very afternoon, while on my way back home, I saw a black guy* wearing a Sowell shirt done in the style of the Fairey Obama poster.

    *No, I’m not calling a (possible) Canadian an African-American.

    1. I understand your reluctance. Alternative terms include but are not limited to:
      Person of color (NOT to be confused with colored person)
      Melanin endowed person
      Victim of white oppression (although, to be fair, this applies to pretty much everybody, including white people.)

        1. I’d think the word tanned would be anathema to you Orvan lest someone try to turn you into a jacket (there is precedent…).
          And although I am rather melanin deficient, when I misbehaving my grandfather would make sure that certain parts of my fundament were ancestrally tanned.

    2. *No, I’m not calling a (possible) Canadian an African-American.

      But but… Canada is part of North America so of course he’d be an African-American! :crazy:

            1. Whales, being sea-mammals, have tons of blubber, causing them to excessively chewy.

              1. Since the blubber is on the outside of whales, it’s easy to strip off to get to the good stuff.

                Now wallabies are a different matter. 😈

    3. This is… really impressively subversive, in the best kind of way. And the likely delayed-fuze effect (hey, wait, is that *really*..?) only helps.

      Surprisingly, Inspiration has chosen to gift me with a variation which might be an improvement…

      Center: portraits of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams
      Caption below, large block type: BLACK LIVES MATTER
      Sub-caption below,smaller type: (especially lived as well as these)
      [or, alternate caption above, This Mind Protected By S & W]

      Some people make you think things you’d never have without them. Others (and I’d have to add Jerry Pournelle in his “Step Farther Out” columns) also immunize you against falling into thinking things that do *not* help (even if popular). The second is a particular service to humanity.

      (2nd try, sorely word-pressed here.)

    4. Black people prefer BLACK. It’s the “allies” who enforce “African American”, probably because they’re so racist they think “black” is an insult. Same with “Indian.” A friend who has more than his share says he’s descended from “Indian bad men” and makes me giggle. Eh.

      1. Sarah, you nailed it. This tendency to let the loudest and most obnoxious define the terms polite people use is very destructive. I have not conducted a survey, but understand that many Indians are fans of the Washington Redskins, and why not?

        Oh and BTW I have seen some hapless journalist refer to a South African black man as an African American. Sounds like cultural imperialism of the worst sort to me. One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

  11. Sowell is remarkable and thought provoking – at least for those who can be provoked into thinking. You would think his being black would innocculate him against the opposition, but they have no trouble attacking those who escape the plantation, especially those who try to unshackle others.
    Thanx Amanda!

    1. You would think his being black would innocculate him against the opposition

      Not so. Slave masters frequently have fond thoughts about their “loyal servants” – and reserve their most vitriolic hatred for the “disloyal.”

  12. Almost everyone knows a family with a bad apple. My experience has been that the bad apple was identified before ever reaching elementary school, and the school experience simply allowed everyone else who came in contact with the bad apple to identify him- or her. If you meet a fifth grader with a police record, in all likelihood you’ve met someone who’s going to spend most of his adult life as a guest in penal institutions.

    Family does matter to a point. Family can certainly drag a person down, and I’ve seen many examples of that. Pulling a person up is another story. As pointed out in stories above in the comments- some people don’t seem to want to learn or listen to advice.

    1. In the grand scheme of things, the question is always going to be “nature or nurture”, in those situations. I’ve seen enough that I think there are three groups along these lines–The inherently good, the warpable, and the inherently evil. Most of us fall into that “warpable” category, but there are those few who would be saints were they raised by SS instructors, and those who would be evil were they raised by Mother Theresa and her nuns. What the actual ratios are for each category, I have no idea, but I suspect it’s about 90% for the warpable who can be “influenced” off that middle course. Could be wrong…

    2. This parenting thing is really a lousy gig. There are a thousand ways that you can screw up and damage your child for life, but there doesn’t really seem to be anything you can do to insure that they turn out right.

        1. That’s the rub – we’re predestined to have free will. *ducks from incoming mix of theology texts and carp*

          1. Free Will may be a Pain but it’s better than the alternative. 😈

            1. I don’t know; I want to believe in Free Will but I just can’t bring myself to do it.

    3. OTOH occasionally you do get the person who started down the wrong road, learned the lesson of what it is like to be under someone’s thumb 24/7/365, even after, in theory, provided freedom (not under big sis’s watch). Then years later when looked like step-daughter was making inadvisable choices, despite her mother’s protests, came down on “Been there. Done That. Not. My. Daughter.” End of conversation. End of inadvisable choices.

      They can be pulled back, pulled up. But, either rare, or invisible. After all That is not news worthy.

      1. Well, I do have one friend– let’s just say she’s now seeing a therapist who told her her family life growing up sounds like a TV show, a BAD TV show. Father was a small time dealer, never married her mother after leaving wife #3 for her- the 17 year old babysitter.. She smoked, both tobacco and wacky weed, lived with a guy sans marriage, had a kid, allowed herself to get overweight. Looked at her life one day and thought- “This has to stop.” She moved back in with mom (Dad died when she was 15. . quit smoking cold turkey, and commenced losing weight. Decided to go back to school to become a physical therapist- and did. That’s the only aid she accepted- there’s scholarship and grant money for single moms to go to school. She’s 35 now, doing well. One of the few I know who has turned themselves around.

        Odd fact. Her family life as a really young person is somewhat similar to my daughter-in-law’s, who managed to grow up without making the same life mistakes- and is now also seeing a therapist who has similar things to say about her family. I traced my friend’s family tree- on her mother’s side she’s my 10th cousin 2X removed from an obscure couple in England in the early 1600s. My daughter in law is my 10th 3X from the same couple on her mother’s side……..

        And she turned around her life without being under someone’s thumb. It can be done, but it’s not common.

  13. There are 4 men responsible for me going into education when my IT job went away: Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, Neil Boortz (America;s Rude Awakening) and Dr. Robert Moses (Radical Equations).

  14. I realize this is completely off-topic, but I saw this at the NY Sun:

    Joking With Putin: A Sampler
    What is one supposed to make of the “new furor,” as the New York Times put it, that has erupted over President Trump’s joke about Russia’s meddling in our presidential election? This thighslapper happened when the American leader he sat down with the Russ strongman, Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit at Osaka and a reporter piped up to ask whether Mr. Trump would tell Russia not to meddle in American elections.

    “Yes, of course I will,” Mr. Trump retorted. Then, as the Times related, the American president turned to the Russ leader and, “with a half-grin on his face and mock seriousness in his voice,” told him “Don’t meddle in the election, President.” Mr. Putin “smiled and tittered,” as the Times put it. At which point Mr. Trump pointed at another Russian “in a playful way” and said again, “Don’t meddle in the election.”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    And I got to wondering if anyone knows the over/under on how many days prior to our 2020 election it will be when Trump tweets out a message to “Tell Vlad ‘This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.'”?

    I’m feeling flush and want to get some action down.

  15. This important reminder:
    In spite of the absence of a tip jar, According to Hoyt DOES accept PayPal donations. The start of a new month is a convenient time for making such contributions to help keep the lights on in this dive.

  16. Democrats proving that their idea of pay “fairness” throws out the window economic reality and the income produced by any enterprise and their role in determining wages that are paid: Sen. Harris’ complaint re women’s soccer players getting paid less than men ignores reality. The simple fact is that men’s regional tournaments right now, such as the Africa Confederations Cup, South America’s Copa America, Euro under 21 tourn, etc., are all generating for much more revenue than the Women’s World Cup, as does men’s soccer in general. Thus, Harris once again proving that Democrats simply ignore reality.


    1. Irrelevant; the question is whether the US men’s soccer team generates more revenue than the US women’s soccer team. IIRC, this is not the case.

      1. Not even that, actually. The determinant is how much it costs to attract quality players. Male players, having more markets for their performances, can command a higher premium.

  17. One thing I’ve come to consider in matters of inequality is the importance of *interest* and *dedication*, from as early as schoolwork, to full-time employment, and even recreational hobbies. (A term like “hard work” can be a misnomer, since it can be viewed as simply hitting the grindstone harder, without ever thinking creatively about the job – dedication without interest, in short.)

    Basically, take two people, give them ten bucks each. One buys ten textbooks, or maybe nine textbooks and a bottle of beer to pass the time. The other buys ten beers. One is gonna end up educated, the other – drunk. One will have objectively better job opportunities and performance. It’ll all be a matter of interest and dedication. A matter of *choice*… a concept liberals for some reason only use when it comes to killing the unborn, but otherwise try and deny at every opportunity.

    Consequently, in order to equalize the outcome above, they’d most likely suggest: a) an alcohol ban (which mostly penalizes the studious guy from buying the occasional brewski, while the drunkard will resort to whatever moonshine is available regardless of legal restrictions), or b) an affirmative action program for the “alcohol dependent” (which penalizes not only the studious guy, but every employer within that jurisdiction). All because they fail to grasp the notion that with freedom of choice, comes inequality of outcome.

    Ironically, the one method that can work, without penalizing anyone – striving to instill social values that promote diligence and education – is one no liberal would consider. If only as the kind of counter-culture knee-jerk reaction against prudence and foresight, that’s been the basis of their mentality for the past sixty years. All in all. they advocate for playing stupid games, and then act baffled and indignant when it nets them stupid prizes.

Comments are closed.