The Changing Definition of Equality in the U.S.
Welcome back, everyone! I hope 2005 is a turning point for all of us and for the nation as a whole. I sense change in the air, or at least in the air circulating above the Beltway.
A funny thing happened over break. Jimmy Van, a new friend I’ve made in the Libertarian parallel universe, engaged me in a long-running, impassioned and enlightening debate by e-mail. It now stands at 43 pages and we had to convert the file to Word because of the problem with messages getting truncated. It’s frustrating having only a megabyte in which to express yourself.
I don’t think Jimmy will ever convince me that unregulated commerce, the abolishment of social spending and the repeal of civil rights will lead to anything other than national disaster. But he did nail me on another point, leaving me no other option than to show my Democratic spirit and concede defeat.
In addition to being a UCI student and former Marine, Jimmy is active in local charity and volunteer programs. His coup-de-gras, delivered with both courtesy and tact, was this: How can you say you’re an advocate for poor people when you’ve never actually helped one of them?
Well it’s a new year, isn’t it? I resolve to do better in 2005.
Thank you, Jimmy, for that reality check. But helping people now as opposed to helping them at some theoretical point in the future requires a major shift in thinking.
No one denies that most of the discretionary income in this country belongs to hypercompetitives