Saturday, December 8, 2007

Hitchhiking to Pearl Harbor

Item One: Today is December 7th, and while the date of 9/11 has been emblazoned in the minds of our young generation as a day of infamy, those of us of an older generation will remember today’s date as the original “Day of Infamy.”

It’s hard to believe that it has been 66 years since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, pulling the U.S. into WWII. While neither were at Pearl Harbor, both my father and my mother served during World War II, my dad in the Army and my Mom in the Coast Guard. Not too many Iowans served in the Coast Guard, but we have my Mom and her fellow comrades to thank for making sure the Nazi’s never stormed Dubuque.

We don’t have too many of our World War II vets with us anymore. I lost my own father in 2002, although my mother is still with us, as well as her sister Harriet who served in the WAVE’s as a nurse. Today’s column is dedicated to them, as well as the rest of the fine men and women who served this country over 60 years ago.

Item Two: If you want to travel up and down California, you basically have two options: Highway 5 which travels up the center of the state from L.A. to Sacramento, or Highway 101, which winds up the coast from San Diego through San Francisco and above. I live about 5 blocks from the 101.

Anyhow, I was traveling North on the 101 the other day from San Luis Obispo to my home town of Templeton, when I passed a hitchhiker sitting on a backpack on the side of the road, holding up a sign that read “San Francisco”. I didn’t give it much thought, hitchhikers are common on the 101. About 5 miles later I passed a second hitchhiker, also holding a sign that read “San Francisco”, although this guy was doing the classic backwards walk, with his thumb sticking out. Again, I didn’t give him much thought (I don’t pick up hitchhikers), but for some reason on the remainder of the drive the image of these two men stuck in my brain. Why? It’s not like seeing a hitchhiker on the 101 is a rarity.

A little while after I got home, it hit me. What I was seeing was not two hitchhikers, but rather two individuals that represent the two political spectrums I write about so much in this blog: conservatives and liberals.

Both of these men had a huge journey ahead of them. San Francisco is about 220 miles North of San Luis Obispo. And it occurred to me that if no one stopped and picked up either of these guys, the first gentleman could conceivably be sitting in that same spot next time I return to San Luis. However, the second hiker, the one that was actually walking towards San Francisco, would eventually arrive in San Francisco, even if he had to walk all the way.

I once heard Bob Dole state that “Liberalism is defined by how many people it helps, while conservatism is defined by how many people no longer need help.” I imagine the individual sitting on the side of the road as someone who does not have health insurance, and he’s sitting there waiting for the automobile that is government to stop and give him insurance. And then we have the second gentleman, who is actually working towards his goal, rather than waiting for someone to stop and hand him a solution. If somewhere along the way something happens that moves him closer to his goal more quickly, then great. BUT if that doesn’t happen he will still ultimately reach that goal. His “but I’m entitled” friend may not be so lucky.

Look, I’m lucky, because my employer offers me health insurance. But if they dropped that as an option tomorrow and I decided that health insurance was important to me (and considering I have a family, it’s very important to me), then there is nothing stopping me from finding a different job that does offer insurance.

My friend Jody has a banner at the top of her blog that reads “The State Is Not A Substitute For Personal Responsibility”, and I believe there is nothing truer than that statement. Jesus himself said “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” Huh, I guess Jesus was a conservative after all.

5 comments:

cwilcox said...

Bob, this post was the biggest piece of... You have got to be kidding me. This is the same kind of crap that you rant about if a liberal says that conservatives are racist, or selfish, or greedy or hateful. Liberals are lazy? Liberals feel entititled? I don't feel entititled to a damn thing but I sure as hell don't mind sharing my good fortune with others. I believe that in a land so blessed as ours it is noble to lift up those less fortuante. You guys kill me. It's all about not wanting anybody to get anything that might be coming to you. I got news for you Bob. Jesus Christ would be about as far away from the current conservative agenda as you can imagine. If it weren't for abortion you guys wouldn't have a single moral issue to stand on.

Iowa Bob said...

No where did I say that liberals are lazy, although I can see where that was implied as my first hitcher, the liberal, definitely was lazy. And maybe it’s good that you took it that way, because now you know how Keith, myself and others of our ilk feel when you write the “All conservatives are racist, greedy, hateful, etc…..

The thing that some liberals, not necessarily you, need to understand is there is a big difference between a handout and a hand. I have no problem with the latter, and a big problem with the first. I remember way back in my college days when they were remodeling the Lynn County Courthouse, and the mayor brought in welfare recipiants to do some of the demolition. His reasoning was “we’re paying them, they need to do something to earn that payment.” Of course you know what happened – The ACLU jumped in and shut them down. How dare they make these people work for their welfare – just give them the damn check.

Giving someone a handout is NOT “noble to lift up those less fortunate”. If you really want to lift up those less fortunate, give them the tools and the opportunity, not a handout. Look at Welform Reform. Look at the millions of people that got off of welfare because welfare was no longer an option. Give them a handout, they’ll take it. Remove that handout or replace it with a welfare to work program, surprise, they are all of the sudden able to take care of themselves. Sure, that’s simplistic, but the reality is that most people, short of those with mental issues, are 100% capable of taking care of themselves, and the reason that they do or they don’t is based on the choices they make. We are rewarding people for making poor choices.

Not that we should ignore them or kick them to the curb, we need to give them that second chance, but ultimately it is up to them to take it or not. I remember reading a quote from someone in the Clinton Cabinet, and I’m sorry that I don’t remember his name, but when asked about the cycle of poverty, he stated that if you are poor and you A) Graduate from high school and B) refrain from having children until you are married and in your twenties you are 92% likely to move out of the poverty class. Why isn’t this news – if true – being trumpeted in the mainstream press. Hell, all you have to do is not get knocked up and graduate, and there is only an 8% chance that you’ll remain poor. That’s huge. But God forbid this news should hurt the feelings of some teenage moms without diplomas, so be careful where you say it. Besides, we all know it’s the mans fault anyhow.

I’ll say it again – The state is not a substitute for personal responsibility.

cwilcox said...

I have NEVER even come close to saying "all conservatives" or even "most conservatives" behave one way or another and you know it. The blog and the archives are open if you think you can pull a quote to support your point.

And I don't know many liberals who believe in hand-outs in the way you present them. Bill Clinton coined the phrase, "hand up" and that is the heart of liberal thought. I also know of no liberal who would say the state is a substitute for personal responsibility. You would do us all a favorf if you would speak for conservatives and stop speaking for liberals. You lack the ability to speak for liberals with anything but a conservative voice. Feel free to tell us what pisses you off about liberals but I don't think you have a clue about what we think.

Iowa Bob said...

The thing is, whenever we say “Conservatives” or “Liberals” in place of “SOME Conservatives” or “SOME Liberals”, we are implying that the rest of the sentence is contributed to most of that ilk. If I were to say something like “Liberals support sacrificing newborn babies to pay homage to the Sun God”, I am basically assigning that belief to most, if not all Liberals, even though I may only be reporting the action of a few liberals (of course I made that up).

By saying “You lack the ability to speak for liberals with anything but a conservative voice” you are correct, BUT you also must than admit that you lack the ability to speak for (or about) conservatives with anything but a liberal voice. While I do from time to time express an opinion about liberal thought, I am generally merely repeating what the liberals themselves have said, and the hypocrisy in their speech. Merely the same that you do when you expose conservative hypocrisy.

There is one other thing that you have to take into account: I live in California, and you in Iowa. Why is that important? Because an “average” Californian liberal is extremely to the left of an “average” Iowan liberal. So different are the philosophies that your opinions would be considered “right wing” by many on the left in this state.

cwilcox said...

Damn, I hate that I can't argue that to another level... I do think I am very careful to qualify my attacks on conservatives witih "some" or "extreme" or "wing-nut" or adjectives so some sort. LOL, well maybe wing-nut isn't so limiting in nature.