Boortz: save the rich people first

Ah, yes. Now I understand it.

It was just about two black people, and only one could be safed.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ah, yes. Now I understand it.

It was just about two black people, and only one could be safed.

Obviously you don't understand it.

Side note. If, somehow, I learn that there is going to be a terrorist attack and that my family or people that I love are in harms way, you can bet your last dollar that I am going to get word to my family so that they can skedaddle before a public announcement is made.

OK ... now you can see where those emails came from. I actually crossed the bounds of political correctness and stated the obvious, that the achievers contribute more to this country than the non-achievers; that given a choice, most people would chose to live with those who achieve rather than those who sit around waiting to be taken care of.

This statement crossed one of the most inviolable lines of political correctness .. the idea that some people are more valuable to our culture and society than others. The same leftist crowd that brought us multiculturalism -- the idea that no one culture is better than any other culture -- seek to extend that absurdity to the individual. The idea is that in the long-run all of the work that one individual might put into becoming a successful and valued member of society means nothing. The individual who is responsible for the employment, and thus the livelihood, of 250 people is no "better" than the individual who has dedicated their life to ignoring education and the development of job skills and is content to live their life as a ward of the state in some welfare housing complex.

My statement last Friday can be best understood if you narrow it down to a simple situation involving two individuals. There's been a disaster of some type ... let's say a crash. Two people are involved. Neither is a friend, but you know who both people are, and what role they play in your local society. In our imaginary scenario you only have time to save one person. One --- that's it. The other will die. We'll make them both black so that we can remove the racial element from this. They're also the same age. Now, one of the people involved in the crash is a local businessman. His business employs 50 people. If he dies the business dies with him, and those 50 people will be out of a job. The other person is well known in the community. He has never worked a steady job in his life. He has been content to spend his time living off the taxpayers in the local welfare housing project. Every once in a while he will work for a few days or two to earn some extra cash ... only to spend that cash on booze, drugs or some lottery tickets.

So ... who do you save! All other things being equal, which one are you going to save? Don't give me that nonsense about "I would save the one in the most peril", or "I would save the one nearest to where I stand." I said "all other things being equal." No fudging. Which one would you save?

Point made.

Is that what that was? sarcasm? Seems to be a lot of that going around.

Neal Boortz wrote:

Side note. If, somehow, I learn that there is going to be a terrorist attack and that my family or people that I love are in harms way, you can bet your last dollar that I am going to get word to my family so that they can skedaddle before a public announcement is made.

It is rare indeed that one gets such a quick and ingenuous admission of hypocrisy. Boortz initially said that we should save the rich first, because they're ... well, because they're better than us.

You're poor Joe? How terrible. It would explain some of your politics though.

Now, however, Boortz modifies his principled "plutocrats first" position by announcing that family and loved ones get privileged places in the lifeboats too. Is Boortz saying that his family and loved ones are all rich? Are they all entrepreneurs, providing jobs to thousands of workers? Maybe that's the case, although it would have helped for him to have explained that first. Or is he saying that there is an exception to the "rich folks are our superiors" rule that permits FOBs (friends of Boortz) to jump to the head of the line?

Are you really trying to press this as an advantage to your argument? Rich or poor, one would expect and hope that the first people someone in the know thinks about is his or her family...then the Rich.

Neal Boortz wrote:

OK ... now you can see where those emails came from. I actually crossed the bounds of political correctness and stated the obvious, that the achievers contribute more to this country than the non-achievers; that given a choice, most people would chose to live with those who achieve rather than those who sit around waiting to be taken care of.

No, that's not what he said. He said that the rich should be saved before the poor. His only mention of "achievers" and "non-achievers" was when he identified the first group with the rich and the second with the poor. But that's laughably simplistic. The ranks of the rich are filled with non-achievers: kids who inherited their wealth, lottery millionaires, conservative radio talk show hosts, etc. Think of Paris Hilton as their poster child. On the other hand, there are plenty of achievers among the ranks of the poor. The entire Horatio Alger myth is built on just such strivers. Boortz is, therefore, engaging in some revisionist history here when he claims that he was only talking about achievers and non-achievers. He wasn't: he was talking about rich and poor.

If, in a pinch, we had to rather quickly identify the achievers from the non-achievers how might we do so? Now let's stipulate that we can't employ some bloated group of academic windbags who might take five years to produce a result, we have to make the decision with 24 hours.

Choosing the rich will, admittedly, allow parasites like Paris Hilton to slip in, and excluding the poor will, admittedly, miss any number of future tycoons in their formative years, but, overall, which class of people better represents achievers?

Neal Boortz wrote:

This statement crossed one of the most inviolable lines of political correctness .. the idea that some people are more valuable to our culture and society than others. The same leftist crowd that brought us multiculturalism -- the idea that no one culture is better than any other culture -- seek to extend that absurdity to the individual. The idea is that in the long-run all of the work that one individual might put into becoming a successful and valued member of society means nothing. The individual who is responsible for the employment, and thus the livelihood, of 250 people is no "better" than the individual who has dedicated their life to ignoring education and the development of job skills and is content to live their life as a ward of the state in some welfare housing complex.

Yeah, I have problems with the whole notion of "democracy" too.

But Boortz doesn't, necessarily, have a problem with democracy. He isn't suggesting, as far as I can tell, that poor people be denied the right to vote. Our democracy means equality under the law. It's entirely possible that given enough time, a quite considered opinion might be rendered that it is in the best interest of civilization that a proportional share of the poor be save along with the rich. After all, it might, indeed, be difficult to find people to mow post-apocalyptic lawns if all the survivors were formerly millionaires. However Boortz seems to be suggesting that the poor are an inexhaustible resource. Earth Two may, by his approach, be populated by the rich, but in no time the poor will reveal themselves (Paris Hilton probably).

Neal Boortz wrote:

My statement last Friday can be best understood if you narrow it down to a simple situation involving two individuals. There's been a disaster of some type ... let's say a crash. Two people are involved. Neither is a friend, but you know who both people are, and what role they play in your local society. In our imaginary scenario you only have time to save one person. One --- that's it. The other will die. We'll make them both black so that we can remove the racial element from this. They're also the same age. Now, one of the people involved in the crash is a local businessman. His business employs 50 people. If he dies the business dies with him, and those 50 people will be out of a job. The other person is well known in the community. He has never worked a steady job in his life. He has been content to spend his time living off the taxpayers in the local welfare housing project. Every once in a while he will work for a few days or two to earn some extra cash ... only to spend that cash on booze, drugs or some lottery tickets.

So ... who do you save! All other things being equal, which one are you going to save? Don't give me that nonsense about "I would save the one in the most peril", or "I would save the one nearest to where I stand." I said "all other things being equal." No fudging. Which one would you save?

Point made.

It's nice to see that Boortz can construct an elaborate hypothetical scenario just so that he can imagine seeing a poor black man die. I suppose it's better than doing it in real life.

And that is precisely why he created the hypothetical! How insightful of you to unearth the fact that Boortz is merely a cruel son-of-a bitch who would like to see poor black men die!

You're poor Joe? How terrible. It would explain some of your politics though.

Are you really trying to press this as an advantage to your argument? Rich or poor, one would expect and hope that the first people someone in the know thinks about is his or her family...then the Rich.

]Choosing the rich will, admittedly, allow parasites like Paris Hilton to slip in, and excluding the poor will, admittedly, miss any number of future tycoons in their formative years, but, overall, which class of people better represents achievers?

But Boortz doesn't, necessarily, have a problem with democracy. He isn't suggesting, as far as I can tell, that poor people be denied the right to vote. Our democracy means equality under the law.

It's entirely possible that given enough time, a quite considered opinion might be rendered that it is in the best interest of civilization that a proportional share of the poor be save along with the rich. After all, it might, indeed, be difficult to find people to mow post-apocalyptic lawns if all the survivors were formerly millionaires. However Boortz seems to be suggesting that the poor are an inexhaustible resource. Earth Two may, by his approach, be populated by the rich, but in no time the poor will reveal themselves (Paris Hilton probably).

And that is precisely why he created the hypothetical! How insightful of you to unearth the fact that Boortz is merely a cruel son-of-a bitch who would like to see poor black men die!

Indeed it does, which is a problem for Boortz. Remember, he is talking about a government informing wealthy citizens of impending disaster before it gets around to telling the rest of us.