This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.

« New Poll Indicates Evangelical Shift on Climate Change, Environmental Concerns | Main | Global Warming "Connect the Dots" Game »

February 28, 2006

Tolerance and Multiculturalism Meet Reality

The "Cartoon Jihad" has given Europe a chance to reevaluate its values. To what degree should immigrants be assimilated? Newsweek has an article on this topic, but it has an odd title, "The End of Tolerance". The subheading goes further: "Farewell, multiculturalism. A cartoon backlash is pushing Europe to insist upon its values." Is this what "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" means, that countries should allow the killings and burnings to continue? Does "tolerance" mean that no set of values is better than another, or that a country can't insist that people follow its values as expressed in its laws?

It's this mindset that has turned schools into values-free war zones. The Dutch have seen what kind of war zones have been imported, and how it has been exported to the world. But Newsweek doesn't want anyone to make value judgements. Instead we get writing like this:

What's going on here? Weren't the Dutch supposed to be the nicest people on earth, the most tolerant nation in Europe, a melting pot for minorities and immigrants since the Renaissance? No longer, and in this the Dutch are once again at the forefront of changes in Europe. This time, the Dutch model for Europe is one of multiculturalism besieged, if not plain defunct.

"Be nice and let 'em in, but be tolerant and don't judge them when they burn down your towns and kill you over cartoons." Remember that America was, and still is, a melting pot, and we still generally ask that immigrants accept our shared values, including freedom of the press and religious freedom.

Multiculturalism isn't being besieged so much as it's coming in contact with reality. As the saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Posted by Doug at February 28, 2006 12:39 PM

Trackback Pings

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tolerance and Multiculturalism Meet Reality:

» Trippin' 'Round the 'Sphere - 2/28/06 Edition from Northern 'burbs blog
Conservatives are happier than liberals? Sounds about right. Perhaps it's because conservatives are more likely to recognize that reality means a disconnect between two of liberalism's favored icons... [Read More]

Tracked on February 28, 2006 11:30 PM


Why did you post this?

Posted by: s9 at February 28, 2006 01:45 PM

Good thoughts Doug. Multiculturalism just will not work , unless all rights to believe in absolutes [whether true or not}} are thrown out. The idea will collapse in on itself as evidenced by this cartoon controversy. Do Muslims have a right to their absolutive thinking and Westerners do not? This is the issue. If we give in to their absolutes , we must deny ours and by denying ours we are accepting theirs. There is no way around it, unless everyone denies everything as true. This is anarchy , nihilism, and incoherency all mixed into one. It is impossible to have a society in this way.

Posted by: Fred at February 28, 2006 04:30 PM

You asked:
"Is this what "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" means, that countries should allow the killings and burnings to continue?"

And the answer is an obvious no. You don't really think many people think thusly, do you?

Tolerance is not really that difficult a concept: We can accept the decisions of others as long as they aren't interfering with our rights. You can swing your fist all the way you want up to about my nose and I can tolerate that.

It does become a bit more difficult when we have a conflict of liberties (as in, you have a religious right to not be oppressed and I have a right to do satire as part of freedom of expression and if my satire causes you to feel oppressed, well we have a conflict of liberties).

In those cases, it seems to me we ought to have some sort of hierarchy (and generally folk can do this automatically, but not always) of liberties. The liberty to health and life ought to be right up at the top - if my freedom of speech conflicts with your freedom from oppression, you don't have the right to interfere with my freedom to live.

Obvious, huh?

No, this is a violence problem, not a multiculturalism problem.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at February 28, 2006 05:41 PM

How would you design such a hierarchy?

I think mine would be:

1. Freedom of life trumps most things...
2. Freedom of health (under which clean air and water would fall)
3. Self-determination
4. speech (although, I may be cautious about how much "expression" I would include under free speech - I DON'T think giving money to political candidates falls under free speech - or at best it's a lesser form of free speech)
5. religion (and not because I think religion is less important than the above, but because I don't think most world religions endorse taking away life, health or speech)
6. Property...?

What am I missing? How would you cast the order? What would you add?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at February 28, 2006 05:52 PM

Dan, if this was a general violence problem, why don't we see the same level of it here over the cartoons? I think it's because the Muslims that have grown up here have generally been assimilated into the American culture and shared values. Multiculturalism deemphasizes the corporate and "ghetto-izes" (for want of a better word) external, and sometimes conflicting, cultures and value systems. Within those unassimilated groups, then, values contrary to the corporate ones feed on themselves until something sets them off to be expressed in the corporate context.

The definition of tolerance you propose is far better than the tolerance being currently practiced by the Left, where homosexuality is taught as no different than heterosexuality, but Christian groups still have to fight for rights to meet on campus that most have thought were long settled. I remember a few years ago, when the Meet You At The Pole idea was getting going (kids meeting once a school year to pray around the school flagpole). Kids were being arrested; no faculty were involved. Yes, the kids ultimately got off with no record, but the whole idea of "tolerance" was being turned on its head, especially with regards to Christians. They'll tolerate a shirt that expresses the desire to legalize pot, but not a praying student.

Tolerance and multiculturalism, again, as practiced by the Left, is values-free (except against those who do, in fact, have values they practice). And when you don't accept any over-arching values, and when you don't assimilate people into shared values, you get what we're seeing over cartoons.

Some Muslims are not accepting of the decisions of others and not respecting their rights precisely because multiculturalism did not cause them to take on any of the values of the country in which they lived. I'm thankful that such multiculturalism hasn't (yet) taken quite that hold here.

I do like your hierarchy idea. It would be interesting to see how someone for, say, abortion would rank freedom of life with respect to self-determination.

Here's an interesting question: Would food rank in there with your health freedom? That is, should food be a basic right that the constitution protects? If health care should be paid for by the state, certainly food should be, right?

Posted by: Doug Payton at March 1, 2006 07:56 AM

We disagree on how bad a "problem" multiculturalism is (actually, I think it's a good thing and I think you're saying it's not) with the main area of difference being how bad things are for christians.

I'm all for students being allowed to pray around a pole (and similar freedom of speech issues) if they want and think the few cases where it was a problem were isolated and a poor interpretation of the law. So the difference between us in that regard is, I think, a matter of degree (as to how widespread and bad the problem is).

So we disagree and that's okay.

Interesting question you pose there at the end - how does food and health care factor in to our right to health?

I'll admit to thinking of a Right to Health in terms of folk ought not have the right to act in such a way as to take away healthy living conditions (ie, pollute the air, streams in a given neighborhood) but it is a good question to consider how much of a "right" to not starve or not receive adequate health care do we have?

My initial thinking is as I said with the Right to Health - that folk can't actively take away others' basic health needs by their actions (Colombia poisoning all crops in an effort to stop coca production, for instance). In other words, I certainly believe that a Right to Health ought to preclude actions against health. But not providing food is not an "action," but rather an "inaction." Would a right to health also preclude sins of ommission?

I think of St Basil's quote:
"When someone steals another's clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor."

Hmmm...what say you?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 08:54 AM

If muslims do not appreciate our values while they live in our country the door swings both ways and they can leave. We don't force our values down their throats in Saudi Arabia or Iran so why don't they respect our values? Why can they build mosques in our nation and Christianity is outlawed in their countries? Maybe we should think of doing the same here in the western world as a precautionary method. We can not allow a religion to flourish in the US while they deny the same rights to others in the islamic world becasue we will be on the road to commiting national suicide.

Posted by: Julius V. at March 1, 2006 09:53 AM

"We can not allow a religion to flourish in the US while they deny the same rights to others in the islamic world..."

Are you truly prepared to start placing limitations on our freedom of religion?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 11:22 AM

First of all, why are people putting the words tolerance and multiculturalism in quotes?

Second, tolerance IS a difficult concept because CONTEXT matters. People can tolerant many things. I can tolerance the fact that there are Nazis and Marxist and communists and socialists--but I do NOT approved of them, and will NOT tolerant them teaching anything to my children. So, tolerance is complicated.

Third, multiculturalism functions under the premise that all the member cultures wish to co-exist. Of course, when it comes to multiculturalism a basic concept is always overlooked and that is that cultures don’t just bring in different clothes, foods, and hats. Politics and religions--and philosophies hitch a ride also.

It’s a “violence problem” . . . what does that even mean? Violence does not occur in vacuum--even though some people actually feel it does--but violence like any other action has MOTIVE.

“Multiculturalism” (now putting it in quotes) does require a certain degree of cultural-melding or it doesn’t work, because different cultures clash and that is a historical fact. But if multiculturalism requires a certain about of melding to work, ironically it’s not multiculturalism--is now assimilation--so multiculturalism is, as a word, a theory and a practice, a fallacy. So, get rid of it.

Posted by: William at March 1, 2006 11:34 AM

Dan, was just testing how far your rights extended. I know people who are all for fully-funded, "free" heath care for all, but they stumble when I ask them, "Is food more important, more basic, than health care?"

Julius, I don't think too much liberty here is the problem, and hence I don't think limiting it here is a solution. Dan's question is well put. I think that the good example of Muslim assimilation into American culture and their marked lack of overreacting to the cartoon situation will become a shinging example of how such immigration issue should be rightly handled elsewhere.

Posted by: Doug Payton at March 1, 2006 11:37 AM

My short answer is Yes and only in the case of islam as it has shown itself to be grossly intolerant of every other religion on our planet. Did you forget what they just did to all of suburban Paris? The reason you mistakenly think US muslims are reacting tolerantly is because they are at present too small of a group. Watch over the years as they grow in number and we will become another Paris or London where muslims will start an insurgency everytime they believe they were "insulted." Last night at U of C-Irvine there was a near brawl with a muslim student and another dissenting student over the mohammed cartoons. Whether you accept it or not TOO MUCH liberty is slowly destroying our great nation as those under the banner of islam daily use and abuse our great freedoms to eventually undermine our own. Again, why do we grant religious liberty and other freedoms to these insurgents who have the nerve to deny the same in their own countries? It always starts slow but as their numbers grow so do their demands. I have observed Western Europe for years and now they are reaping the whirlwind. You will NEVER see 1 muslim turn in another muslim on behalf of an infidel nation. If you press them on this name they will readily admit that every non-muslim has no value in their koran...the same goes for our very lives. Beware of this religion and people. You have to watch their deeds and actions NOT their words.

Posted by: Julius V at March 1, 2006 12:13 PM

"TOO MUCH liberty is slowly destroying our great nation..."

And who shall decide which liberties to restrict, which religions to ban?

If I'm offered a vote, maybe I'd ban fundamentalists of all stripes. Maybe I'd restrict auto licenses. Would these be a good thing?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 12:32 PM

"Dan, I was just testing how far your rights extended."

And so, does my answer that we don't have the right to take actions that take away from people's quality of health seem agreeable?

I'm genuinely asking your opinion, as I haven't qualified the answer in my own mind (although I know what my inclination is).

Of course, if we don't even get in to the sins of ommission (NOT feeding people) and deal only with actions, there's still plenty of room for controversy and confusion. If we say that we ought not take actions that will likely harm someone's health, then we have to question driving, factories that pollute the air, ground or water, etc. Where do you fall?

I'm guessing you and most folk think would agree that the rule ought to be that we ought not take actions that we know has the potential to harm folk, but that we'd make exceptions to the rule.

If that is the case, what are the ground rules for the exceptions?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 12:44 PM

Heh, I think that's a whole new topic that I don't want to get into unless I've thought it through a bit more. If only exception-driven, you'd have to ban cars, the manufacturing of plastic, the mining and smelting of metals, and human testing of chemicals, all for heath reasons. Unfortunately, the health care industry needs ambulances, plastics, metals and drug testing to function.

Besides, banning but for exceptions as a foundation of governing doesn't sound very much like liberty to me. (Although I'll admit that's how I come at the abortion issue. Though without life, all the rest of the rights don't matter much.) There are folks who want to ban wood fires but for exceptions (ask ski resorts in Colorado). This kind of governing makes more likely a ruling class that permits its citizens the things they can do like some sort of benevolent dictatorship (which, as we're human, inevitably degenerates into a not-so-benevolent one, and on down from there). Not sure I want to go down that road.

Posted by: Doug Payton at March 1, 2006 01:04 PM

Currently, auto licenses, and non-muslims, are not threatening the US or chopping off heads of non-believers at this time so lets stay on topic. Reinforcing my opinion, islam is the only one killing and enslaving women-Sudan-, Catholics are being killed in Turkey,Coptic Christian churches have been attacked than burned, and it is llegeal to be non-muslim in the islamic world. Check their laws-don't believe me-and it might seem wise to start duplicating some of our enemies tactics. If they can ban Christianity can not we ban islam? I think muslims have already voted and decided that their actions, agendas, and attacks have clearly stated that islam does not belong anywhere outside the middle east. Did you conveniently forget the butchering of Van Gogh in Holland recently? This islamic terrorist was on welfare in Holland AND Germany and thanked the European taxpayers with murder! This is the true face of islam and as I watch and read everyday it is undeniable that islam and democracy are incompatable.

Posted by: Julius V. at March 1, 2006 01:54 PM

I want to say, I am a Christian and I beleive in our US Motto "One nation under God Indivisible for liberty and justice for all." America love it or leave it. Speak English or get out. We do not expect to go to another country and assume that they speak english, I suppose some do but that is not the norm. You expect to act in a manner that the country you are visiting is accustomed to.

This Muslim thing is like poision ivy in the garden. It starts out small but can still cause an itch. If you don't pull it out by the root and kill it, it grows and grows and will envelop whatever it is next to or can grow on. Left untended it is very hard to destroy and will spread. Do you relish becoming or want to become an Islamic member? Intolerant? Of the basic freedoms we Westerners hold so dear found in the name of some imam or whatever? This tolerance thing is so out of hand it is sickening our whole country against the very foundation to which it was built. Was this country not founded for these same principals of religious freedom against persecution? The basic of that was we wanted to be free to worship GOD and the Holy Scripture and you could come from any country in the world to do this but you can not impose any other religion above that of the God in our God Fearing nation. However, since TOLERANCE has become the great equalizer of right and wrong the people are force to accept whatever the majority has to offer in a Democratic fashion as the prevailing wave of the future no matter what the consequence shall be. Since we can not see into the future, we rely on history to repeat itself and this again has all been said and done before just in another time.
How will it all end, hopefully very soon

Have a good day!!

Posted by: Tolerated at March 1, 2006 02:08 PM

A couple of responses:
"This Muslim thing is like poision ivy in the garden. It starts out small but can still cause an itch."

So is this limiting of religious liberty thing. It can start small and grow, too, ya know? ("They came for the Jews and I said nothing, for I wasn't a Jew...")

"Currently, auto licenses, and non-muslims, are not threatening the US..."

Actually, motorists ARE threatening the US (40,000 deaths a year in the US, hundreds of thousands of injuries), just not intentionally, but that's another topic.

The facts are, on Muslims, that 90% of them are not threatening us, not harming us. Shall we start limiting our freedoms based upon those few who might be a threat who claim to be Muslim? What if it were shown that fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc) tend to be more of a threat to the citizenry than those who are not fundamentalists...shall we ban fundamentalism?

I dunno. Maybe not a bad idea...

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 02:39 PM

Doug said:
“There are folks who want to ban wood fires but for exceptions... This kind of governing makes more likely a ruling class that permits its citizens the things they can do like some sort of benevolent dictatorship…”

I’m fine with saving this for another day as it is off topic a bit (although not much – I mean, after all, you’re basically asking for tolerance for auto drivers even though they are hurting folk in greater numbers than any terrorists), but I do think it an intriguing question and one worth considering.

One comment on your response though: I’m having a hard time grasping why it seems like to you and many others that I’m talking about a ruling class imposing a loss of liberty when that’s exactly my point: That we have already had an imposed loss of liberty – our rulers have declared that some (factories and drivers, for instance) have the right to take away my clean air, her clean water.

There is already a loss of liberty imposed from the state!

I realize that I, too, am asking the state to impose a loss of liberty – a loss of totally unhindered driving privileges, a loss of liberty to pollute streams. What I’m asking for is some reasoned arbitration on what liberties trump what other liberties and rational ways of dealing with this conflict.

I don’t think it unreasonable to ask that the right to clean air used by us all ought to trump the right of motorists to drive unhindered or factories to pollute unhindered. Do you?

(And again, feel free to save this debate for another day. I’m just asking if anyone is interested in taking up the topic…)

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 02:57 PM

this Tony Snow column from just before the last election points to this report that shows we have cleaner air than we've had in a long, long time. This came about not by government regulation and governing by the exception, but by liberty and the free market. I'll admit to not having read the rather lengthy report (and it deals with much more than air pollution), but Snow summarizes.

The record indicates that we have cleaner air and water than ever before, although there was a slight upward tick last year in sulfur dioxides. In ever other category, overall pollution has fallen, even though more Americans are working than ever before, driving than ever before, breathing than ever before, making and disposing of waste than ever before. You get the idea.

We're back to the conservative free market vs. liberal government control debate. The free market is working without a governing elite micromanaging our every move.

Posted by: Doug Payton at March 1, 2006 03:18 PM

"We're back to the conservative free market vs. liberal government control debate."

I don't think we are. I'd advocate using free market forces to make for a more just system that balances in favor of life over a perceived freedom of convenience or a freedom to pollute.

Specifically, what I'm talking about (in the case of cars) is that motorists pay their own way instead of passing their/our (since I am sometimes a motorist) costs on to others. Once motorists are paying actual costs, then there will be a reduction in driving thanks to market forces.

For instance, suppose I managed to write laws that reduced the costs of bicycles to half their current price. But the cost of bicycles has remained the same, I've just got others to pay for it with tax money.

But that wouldn't be right (although one could make a case that it's beneficial to have more folk cycling and therefore worthwhile to society, but I digress). It wouldn't be right to force folk to pay for half of my bicycle.

That's what our current policies are doing for motorists. Sounds a bit socialist and anti-free market to me.

I'm curious: Is it the case that you don't agree with my suggestion that motorists are subsidized, or that you understand motorists are subsidized but you think it's a good thing to do so?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 1, 2006 05:30 PM

Boy - are you guys drifting. From Islam to polution from auto exhaust. I did have one thing to say. I've heard over and over how much more progressive Europe is than America in the area of multiculturalism. I've always disagreed, believing that the good ol' US handles it as good or better than anyone. Indeed, we have more cultures here than most countries. And most do better here than in their 'native' countries. Now I think the jury is back, and the answer is ... Yes, US of A does handle this issue as well or better than anyone. Sure, we need to keep getting better, but we don't have to put up with those Europeans looking down thier noses at us anymore. They need to consider emulating us, not expecting us to follow them.

Posted by: bruce at March 1, 2006 06:36 PM

Dan, if you're talking about propping up car manufacturers, I agree that is subsidizing and that we should let the free market deal with them. (Although, if one actually went under, I have no doubt Democrats and unions would continue to demand socialism in that industry.) What I see happening because of that is a disincentive to create more efficient oil-based fuel systems or alternate ones. I recall a news stories in (I believe) the 70s about a guy who drove a car with his own engine design from Florida to Washington DC and got something upwards of 60 miles per gallon. Big hurrah for him, big purchase of his idea by a car company, never to be heard of again.

If you're talking about corporate subsidies, yes, I'm willing to do away with them. Politically, however, it could be suicide since Democrats would never allow it or would use it to prove how heartless Republicans supposedly are. The end result would be the removal of this (conservative) idea and a reinstatement of socialistic and anti-free-market ideas.

Bruce, sorry about the drift. But I agree with your conclusion.

Posted by: Doug Payton at March 2, 2006 10:34 AM

No. I'm not speaking of either of those types of subsidies (although I agree with you on them). Not at all.

I'm talking about the fact that the roads and infrastructure costs are not borne by motorists fully. That especially locally, there are all sorts of hidden costs to driving that are being paid for by us all and that, if those costs were factored in to the cost of gas, it would raise that cost to $5 - $15/gallon.

May I quote from another source?


This fella points out:
To illustrate, let's follow a car owner to work. She first goes out to her car. If it is in a garage, she either has to pay rent or she had to purchase the garage. If the garage is part of her house, the cost is even greater. If she parks in or uses a driveway, she had to pay that cost plus maintenance, or if she parks in the street, the city must bear the cost, which increases property or sales taxes.

As she begins her drive to work, she travels on local streets and roads which are not paid out of her gasoline taxes but from sales or property taxes. The land set aside for public transportation many years ago has value and therefore a cost, but this cost has probably never been calculated. Nonetheless, it must show up somewhere, probably through higher property costs...

On her way to work, she stops for gasoline. If her gas was produced in the US, the producer received federal subsides, oil depreciation allowances, and tax breaks. If it was produced overseas, the company probably still received some tax benefits and subsidies plus there were great costs involved in the use of military power and in the military hardware sent to foreign powers to ensure stability in the Middle East....

He goes on and on and on, pointing out how many hidden costs there are for driving that don't get paid by the motorists but rather by us all.

Another source for stats on this is:

Which points out:
1. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads--the ones most often used by cyclists--come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.

2. FWHA calculates that, in a typical year (2000), 94.4% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But that means that 5.6% of highway dollars come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.

You getting my drift?

So, should motorists be paying something that more closely reflects actual costs or should they be subsidized (or do you think that, my sources notwithstanding, we ARE paying actual costs)?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 2, 2006 11:27 AM

One thing to keep in mind in the gas tax vs. other tax debate ... a gas tax is proportionate to use, not income. Paying for something with a higher gas tax rather than a property or income tax will shift tax burden from rich to poor given that poor and rich often have similar use. Or, one might say, a gas tax is dis-proportionate against the poor relative to income or property tax. Many who advocate higher gas taxes also cry out that the current tax structure benefits the rich. A good example is Clinton, whose first act as President was a gas tax, dis-proportionate against the poor.

Posted by: bruce at March 2, 2006 12:13 PM

Tis something to keep in mind, to be sure. But if current auto policy disproportionately hurts the poor already (higher mortality rates for pollution and auto deaths and injuries), then it may be pricing folk out of a habit that's not going to be to their advantage anyway - like the kind of effect a tobacco tax might have.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 2, 2006 01:17 PM

Resolved: There is no fundamental right to NOT be offended.

Posted by: eLarson at March 2, 2006 03:58 PM

A tax to alter behavior (a sin tax) is a totally different arguement. We probably disagree here. I don't think we are ready for that with gas. For most, it's not a 'habit' (such as the other 'sins' that have been successfully taxed into reduction), but a necessity for living. The alternatives just aren't readily available. All you will do is punish the poor and damage the economy (punishment for all). It will hunt everybody economically and not significantly curb use. This is too high a price to make environmentalists feel good about themselves.

Even though the health benefits of the tobacco tax are more clear, to me the results are still mixed. For those unable to quit, the economic impact combines with the health impact, which is again disproportionate against the poor.

The 'win' probably still outweighs the 'loss' with tobacco. However, the 'loss' is much higher than the 'win' with a 'sin' tax against gas.

Posted by: bruce at March 4, 2006 10:09 AM

I think we'll have to disagree, then.

Did you know that auto accidents alone in Kentucky alone cost our economy some billions of dollars a year (I forget the amount that I read, from a state police report, but it was in the billions of dollars).

And again, that was just from accidents, not time lost from pollution-related illness, tourist dollars lost from pollution (not being able to safely fish in some of our streams, for instance), etc. Nor is it counting all the money that is being poured in to infrastructure as pointed out above.

And while I compared it to a sin tax (cigarettes), this is not a sin tax it's a tax to recoup losses. My main point, which I don't think you're addressing Bruce, is that prices ought to reflect actual costs as much as possible. Unless we have some reason for subsidizing behavior (which conservatives are generally opposed to).

The "necessity" of cars is a self-chosen necessity for the most part. The alternatives ARE there. One can choose to live within walking/biking distance of most things they do and reduce the need for a car (indeed, that is what most of the poor do already, I'd reckon). It is, in fact, an addiction, not a true necessity.

When my wife, a social worker, is trying to help people out of poverty, she tries to help them realize the addictions and habits they have that are keeping them stuck in poverty. They don't have enough money to pay rent, for instance, but they're smoking a pack of cigarettes a week and have cable TV. These are not necessities and ought to be cut from their lives.

If gas prices reflected actual costs, we'd all have to face that same reality. Living 20 miles from work which is 15 miles from school and 30 miles from church are all choices we make. Not necessities.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at March 4, 2006 02:11 PM

Going back to the topic...

what it comes down to is this: does the present population of a country owe it to anyone to bend over backward to accommodate the newcomers?

Posted by: eLarson at March 7, 2006 09:01 AM