Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Liberalism Kills

Rather than talk about last night (though you’re free to discuss that in the comments), let’s talk about another real life example of the dangers of liberalism. Liberalism kills because it eliminates personal responsibility. This was highlighted with tragic results in Britain last March when Mr. Simon Burgess, 41, experienced a seizure while feeding the ducks at a “model boat pond” at Walpole Park in Gosport, Hampshire. Mr. Burgess fell face first into the pond. Then this happened. . .

A 53 year old woman saw Burgess have the seizure and fall into the water. She called the emergency response people and the police arrived within two minutes. But as one officer began removing his shoes to wade into the pond, he was ordered to wait for “trained” specialists. This had been declared a water rescue and the police are not equipped for that.

Then a paramedic arrived. He was told he could not enter the water because he lacked the right “protective” clothing. If he tried to enter the water, he would violate workplace regulations and presumably could lose his job.

Then the fire department arrived, but they lacked the “proper training” for a water rescue. Specifically, they cited a regulation which prevents them from wading into water that is more than ankle-deep without special training. Thus, they called for additional specialists. They also decided that Burgess had to be dead as he had been in the water for 10 minutes, even though people who have been submerged up to 60 minutes have been saved.

At that point, a police officer decided to go into the water. But he was told he would be criminally prosecuted if he proceeded. He was told that the fire department was on scene and engaged in a “body retrieval situation” and that he was not to interfere. The fire department also refused to loan him a lifejacket.

Thirty minutes later, the specialists arrive. By this point, twenty-five rescue personnel were on scene. They finally retrieved the body forty minutes after Burgess first fell into the pond. Mr. Burgess was dead.

Here’s a critical fact: the pond is only 2-3 feet deep. Indeed, the image above shows a Daily Mail reporter who has waded out into the pond.

Think about this entire shameful event and ask yourself where things went wrong? The answer is: generations of liberalism.

Liberalism formalizes human relationships by law and regulation. This is the very nature of liberalism, that the government will protect you from all dangers by establishing rules and regulations which tell everyone precisely how they should act. In so doing, it absolves people of their sense of personal responsibility by replacing the duties we all owe each other as human beings with specific regulations which dictate acceptable and unacceptable. That was what was on display in Gosport.
● The 53 year old woman did exactly what liberals tell you to do when faced with criminals, bullies or emergencies: call the authorities and make no attempt to solve the problem yourself. She made no attempt to pull this man from the water or turn him over even though she saw him pass out and knew the water was shallow.

● The first police officer decided specialists were needed to wade out 25 feet in knee-deep water because that is what he was told.

● The paramedic chose his job over saving a man’s life and he hid behind the excuse that he lacked the protective clothing needed to wade into a pond.

● The fire department was worse. They let a bogus regulation stop them from saving a man in an obviously harmless situation. Then they declared him dead even though others have been saved who were submerged for up to six times longer and even though they didn’t really know if he had been face down for ten minutes. They did this because it soothed their consciences for choosing to follow the regulations rather than their moral obligations as human beings. Interestingly, they have been criticized because it turns out the regulation only applies to floods. But that misses the point of what went wrong here. The problem wasn’t that the regulation was wrong, the problem was the reliance on regulations over human judgement in the first place.

● Finally, consider the officer who wanted to save the man when he saw the shameful conduct of the others but stopped when he was threatened with criminal prosecution. Would that have stopped you?
Twenty-five trained “rescue personnel” stood around threatening each other with regulations and criminal prosecution while they let a man die because they were unwilling to wade out into a knee-deep pond. That’s shameful.

It’s also the same behavior you see when a DMV clerk won’t correct a typo, when an IRS agent won’t admit a mistake, when social workers won’t save an abused child because they don’t have all the right forms filled out, etc. This is the result of liberalism: bureaucratic form over human substance.

Now compare this with Ben Patrick, a former tight end for the Arizona Cardinals. He was driving along in Arizona when he came upon a van that had flipped onto its side. The van apparently was leaking gasoline. Yet, a GROUP of people, including Patrick, stopped and helped pull people out of the van even though it could have exploded. Said Patrick:
“My first thought was just to help the people on the inside.”
Patrick did what, in my experience, most Americans would do. He saw people in an emergency situation and he went to help. He did this at great personal risk as the van could have exploded or caught fire. He didn’t wait for the trained professionals or worry about protective clothing or consulting regulations. He did what humans are meant to do.

The comparison here is truly apt. When people live in a nanny (i.e. liberal/socialist) state, they lose their sense of right and wrong and their sense of personal responsibility. It happens in small and large ways. And in Gosport you see it writ large. These people let this man die because none of them felt it was their obligation to save him. They felt their obligations were to the system and the rules it put into place. Patrick, on the other hand, showed what happens when people are accountable to themselves and cannot hide behind the excuse, “I was just following orders.”

This is not hyperbole: America is the greatest nation on Earth precisely because its people are free to make their own choices and bear the economic, reputational, and moral consequences of their own actions.

Kudos to Mr. Patrick, you are an honorable and decent human being. Shame on Gosport. And shame on anyone who wants to make America more like Gosport.

68 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Great Headline!

Nanny Staters would have you believe that it would have been too dangerous to help Burgess. I wonder if his spirit was standing around watching these clowns? After so long, he probably got disgusted and left.

Tennessee Jed said...

Whether it be government or business, bureaucrats are an absolute product of size. That said . . . . Romneeeeeeeeeey! I was particularly happy to see where an analyst felt like their was blowback against the robocalls to Democrats to mess with our process. Trust me, the Michael Moore's of the world were NOT trying to support him, only to wound Mitt.

T-Rav said...

Go and read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." A "soft" Western totalitarianism would not be deliberately murderous like those in Germany and Russia, but it would inevitably degrade our morals and lead to such inhuman behavior as this.

TJ said...

Unbelievable - words just escape me.

rlaWTX said...

I second TJ...

my uncle is a fireman/paramedic in E NM. he complains every fire season about the BLM guys that come in and try to tell the locals how to deal with grass fires, between their training and regulations it generally doesn't go as well as the BLM thinks it should...

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: This incident describes the difference between a society created to facilitate the proper relationship between human beings of an independent, moral character, and societies where citizens believe their obligations are to the government. It also demonstrates why I fear that America is becoming another bureaucratic nanny state where citizens are no longer permitted to do what their morality impels them to do.

There's an old Anglo-American legal principle which says "danger invites rescue." Apparently that's no longer true in Great Britain, and I suspect in several of our own "liberal" states.

tryanmax said...

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers...

tryanmax said...

I fear that America is becoming another bureaucratic nanny state where citizens are no longer permitted to do what their morality impels them to do.

I'm running up against a minor version of this in my personal life. I've recently had to turn my house over to the bank and am searching for an apartment. Obviously, my credit is a shambles and I do not expect the rental process to be easy or even necessarily fair. However, I did make the mistake of expecting it to be human. A lot has changed in the rental market since I was last an apartment dweller. Try as I might, there is no one--not any one--to plead my case to. I find myself at the mercy of some faceless background check agency that spits out "yeas" or "nays" on potential renters, and I am starting to get nervous about my prospects.

T-Rav said...

On a somewhat related note: As you may have heard, a lot of tornadoes hit the area around where I live last night; my place is A-OK except for some minor damage, but at least ten people were killed in that general region and one town looks like a war zone. I got on AOLHuffPo a few minutes ago to look at their article, scrolled down to the comments section, and got this. "The good thing is that the government won't have to pay for it, because all those conservabaggers in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma believe in "small government" and "not relying on the government" and so on." It's official: Liberals have no idea of charity.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, glad to hear you're okay. It must've been a huge system because I hear there were fatalities in Kansas and Illinois, too. Plus, we had pretty severe storms this far north.

Interesting how the HuffPoster didn't mention Illinois in his rant.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's exactly the point! These people are trained professionals who should have known just from human experience that there was no danger here. Yet, they went with the regulations which told them "technically, this is dangerous so wait." And Burgess died because of it. It's shocking to me.

And I'll tell you, if I (or any American tourist) was there, I'll bet you we would have saved this guy. There is no way I would stand by and let this guy die just because the regulations told me to.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, my new BH article apparently posted.

LINK

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, Same here. I read this an it just made my blood boil. I can't imagine just standing there watching the guy float a few feet away and not doing anything about it. It really made me angry just reading about this.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Last night decided the election. It's not over yet, but it decided it. Each of the ABR candidates has now shown a cap in terms of how high their support will go.

I wonder what his backers on talk radio will say today? I'll bet they start with "Santorum did much better than anyone could have hoped in Michigan" after spending the week crowing that he would win.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's exactly what happened here. It's not that these people wanted him to die, they just never took any personal responsibility as human beings. They felt that their obligations were to follow the regulations to the letter rather than having a moral obligation to save Burgess.

This is what happens with bureaucracy and it infects all aspects of human life once it begins to take over. And soon morality and human dignity are gone, replaced by a set of contradictory and useless rules.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, The problem with experts is that they don't always know how reality works. They know how the theory works, but it's a far cry from theory to reality. Moreover, you just can't account for everything when you make regulations. So what happens is that regulations start as general guidelines. But then people get punished for not following them. So they more into restrictions. Soon, they become "the way it must be done," and all creative thought is lost.

What your uncle is running into is a bureaucracy which is already out of touch with reality and pushing it's version of reality rather than letting the regulations be advice. In a NannyState system it would get worse because they would force these rules upon people.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, the ironic thing there is that the people in southern Illinois where this damage occurred are about as right-wing as us "conservabaggers" west of the Mississippi. But knowing that would require a more-than-superficial mind, so I'm sure it escapes him entirely.

I posted a very barbed reply to his comment, but I doubt it made it past the HuffPo moderators.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's absolutely right. This is what happens when the government says, "forget morality, conscience and personal responsibility, just do what we ask and it will all be ok." And it drives me nuts when liberals keep pushing us in this direction. This is the end result of liberalism -- people dying as others stand by watching.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I believe you are quoting the Bible, but that's just the law. You missed the 18,000 page regulation to go with that section which outlines exactly how to love your neighbor and defines neighbor more clearly based on various demographic and geographic points. In fact, what you are talking about, the man being robbed, is considered a "Class II Neighbor" and duties to him are delineated under Section 4082.

BevfromNYC said...

At first I thought this had to be a joke. Well, it was, but not a funny one. At least the guy wasn't on a county border, then there would have been 50 firt responders standing around actively doing nothing.

I blame these rules on unions too. They are the entities that set up the work rules that you can't go in 1 foot of water without the proper equipment and training. But it's the Government that trained the woman who called not to at least go into the water and keep the guy's head above water.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Sorry to hear that. I understand the rental market has gotten that way. And unfortunately, it's for a good reason because so many others have abused rental housing. I've known many landlords and the stories they tell are amazing of people ripping out copper wiring from walls, selling the appliances, turning apartments into pot growing labs, etc. This is another instance where the bad people have made life really bad for the good.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Wow! First, let me say that I'm glad to hear you're safe!!!! :)

Secondly, what a bunch of assholes. But it's exactly what you would expect from a bunch of nasty liberals. They don't care about human life or human dignity, they only care about certain human life.

And the idea of charity escapes them.

Stay safe! :)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's because they happily separate the world into good people and bad people. It's a disgusting behavior I've seen many times from liberals.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Sadly, there's no point in talking to people like that. Their lives are premised on hate and you can't get through to people who thrive on hate.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I have to admit, it sounded like a joke to me too at first. It sounds like a Monty Python skit. But it's not.

Unions are the classic collaborators here. They are the arm of the bureaucratic spirit in the business world. They want everything regulated so that individuals don't matter. And without individuals, there is no personal responsibility.

The 53 year old woman is hardest to blame in a way because in the abstract, asking a 53 year old woman to save a drowning man seems a little unfair. BUT then you realize all she had to do is walk over to him -- she was close enough when he fell in that she could have seen his face, so he still must have been right there at the shore. So she could have just pulled him in or rolled him over. And I suspect that 9/10 American 53 year old women would have saved him.

I find the whole thing just shocking.

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav - sadly I have read much worse from the "libtards" on HuffPo and I don't like to even use that term. But that's exactly what they are. You should read what they say when something bad happens in Texas! They delight in the destruction and are sorry that more people were not maimed and killed.

However, sadly too I have read similar comments on the Bigs too.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the quote there is the lead in to the parable of the Good Samaritan, but the real highlight is that it was an expert in the law that was challenging Jesus. So what you say about the 18,000 pages of regulation is as true now as it ever was.

Yeah, I know there are some good reasons why the rental market has changed. But the fact that I can't even have a sit-down with a person is what tears me.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Sadly, this is what happens when you combine the anonymity of the internet with the ability of extremists to find each other and whip each other up. Soon you've got a situation where all pretense of manners and decency disappear and what's left are people just spitting out their vilest thoughts and being praised for it by other similar people.

Personally, I would delete those comments if I ran the place, but I don't run those places.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, For the record, I did recognize the story. LOL! I should have written (//sarc on).

But it's true in any event, as that's how the government works. They take a rule like "thou shalt not kill," and they begin to define it. What does "thou" mean? What about "shalt"? What about "kill"? What if you kill by accident? Should it be worse if you kill with malice? We need a "safe harbor" to protect those who didn't mean it. We need to define when someone dies before the kill shot actually gets them.... etc. Soon it's 18,000 pages long and no one can understand it.

Then the lobbyists arrive.

I know what you mean about the not being able to sit down with anyone. I've seen that many times with clients in many different forms. The people who need the most help are often the people stuck in the cracks because they can't get anyone to look at their case individually for one reason or another. It's very frustrating and you have my sympathies.

DUQ said...

T-Rav, I'm glad you're ok!

DUQ said...

Andrew, You've found a very classic example of what goes wrong when liberalism takes root. This is disgusting, but sadly not unexpected.

Hurray for Patrick!

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's true. And definitely hurray for Patrick! I thought that was an excellent comparison.

Tennessee Jed said...

Ever since your post about Rush, Santorum, and Paul, I actually have tried harder to ,listen to him, since as previously mentioned, I have never been a habitual listener. Sure enough, he is still talking about the Paul thing, and still carrying water for Rick. He talked about how Santorum might get more delegates, how Romney seems to have trouble verbalizing the conservative message, etc. Ricky is his guy; he just will not admit (probably for multiple reasons.)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I would have been shocked if talk radio didn't spend the day trying to explain why Rick really did win:

1. He might get more delegates. That's irrelevant because it's the momentum that counts, as evidenced by the fact they never mentioned the delegate count before this. And if that's the case, then Romney killed him when you add in Arizona.

2. Rick did better than we could have hoped. Uh, no. Last week and right up through the polls, they were sure Romney would lose. That means Rick came in far below expectations. Take away the Democrats who supported him en mass and it gets even worse.

3. Romney can't connect. That's both a distortion and an evasion. He connected enough to win and did so overwhelming in Arizona.

4. Romney can't connect with conservatives. He got 36% of people calling themselves conservatives. Rick only got 40%.

5. Rick's the real conservative. Evasion. Winning and losing is what counts, not who talk radio thinks should win or lose.

6. This was all about money. Wrong. Rick's superpac spent $2 million, Romney spent $3 million. If you think $1 million can change voters minds, then we might as well all give up because Obama will have more money.


They will ignore certain facts. In Michigan, Romney won with people opposed to unions, Tea Party members, Catholics, and overwhelmingly with women. Rick won only with union members, the poor, and evangelicals. And in Arizona, the margins were even bigger. They will ignore these things because it doesn't fit their meme that Romney is the RINO establishment.

Doc Whoa said...

Jed, I've stopped listening precisely for that reason. I think they have stepped over the line into trying to stir things up for their own purposes rather than trying to win the race and I don't want to participate in that.

Doc Whoa said...

T-Rav, I'm glad you weren't hurt!


tryanmax, Best wishes! I wish there was something I could do.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Glad you came out OK. After yesterday, I have a much greater appreciation of "close calls."

CrispyRice said...

I am absolutely speechless and sickened by this, Andrew. Easily 99% of Americans would have had that guy out of the water long before any rescue people showed up.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I soured on most of them a while ago, but Rush has only begun to annoy me recently. And it's not just the Santorum issue. What really started to annoy me was the knee-jerkism regarding the Republicans in Congress. When all you do is attack people, there comes a point where they give up trying to please you.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, "close call"?

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Same here. It's shocking to think about this. And I agree that Americans would not have let this man die. It's just not the American way to stand there quoting regulations as someone needs help.

StanH said...

Wow! What a story, and perfectly illustrates the mind of a liberal. This reminds me of the stories told about the Germans and the D-Day invasion. The Panzer divisions didn’t roll because Adolf was sleeping, if they had, they probably could have repelled the Allied invasion. The American Airborne divisions were scattered everywhere, and as opposed to sitting down and waiting for orders, the Americans took the initiative and took the day and eventually the war in the European theater. This as you say is also a good analogy defining American exceptionalism, any person that I know, would be in the pond within seconds.

Side note: Did you all hear that Davey Jones died from the Monkees 66.

tryanmax said...

Rush is spinning like a top today. He's just going on and on feigning that he doesn't understand how perception affects voters. Poor guy, he's a mess of contradictions. First he says its stupid to combat false perceptions, then he says that's just what he'd do if he were running.

But I've learned something very important about conservatism. In order to be conservative, one must demonstrate proper fealty to NASCAR, but not to NASCAR owners. Pthzzz!

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, The words "American exceptionalism" came to mind to me as well. I can't think of anyone I know who wouldn't have jumped in to help this guy. It's just the way we are raised, with a sense of humanity and a willingness to do what needs to be done without waiting.

Great point about D-Day. That's true. If the Germans had felt free enough to use their own minds rather than wait for orders, D-Day would have been very different.

I did hear that about Davey Jones. That makes me sad. He was my favorite Monkee and he seemed like a really nice guy!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm not surprised. Rush (and others) put a lot of eggs in the Ricky basket in the last two weeks because they made the cardinal mistake of believing Rick had already won. So they jumped on the bandwagon (rather smugly) and expected to take credit for helping conservatives win the day.

It was front-running of the worst kind because they were trying to set up a scenario where they could claim credit for creating a bandwagon they thought was already rolling. But they got out a little too far ahead. So when the bandwagon stopped, they were exposed.

Now they need to spin and spin and spin to explain how they really never predicted a win and how they weren't on the bandwagon, all while trying to find the next bandwagon. It's a tricky balancing act.

And the real problem for them is that there is no new bandwagon. They've scorched everything except Ricky and Ricky simply can't win. So now they have a hard choice to make. I would expect them to start looking for a "white knight" to jump into the race. That's the safest bandwagon because it can never be discredited.

ScyFyterry said...

This is just shocking! How can these people live with themsleves?

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav, glad you are safe! scary stuff!!!
T, sorry to hear about your situation. life has a way sucking sometimes. Prayers for a quick and useful resolution!

I now know where the nanny state got their inspiration - Old Testament era Jewish Law. God's version in the Torah was pretty darn specific, then the leaders added all their details & interpretations into tradition. Which tied the Jews into knots as they tried to follow it all, and also put anyone who wasn't prosperous under the assumption of unrighteousness (original prosperity doctrine). Which brings us to the New Testament and Jesus having to fix the letter of the law through His teachings about intent of the heart. (and of course the spirit of the Law through His sacrifice).

RE Santorum - I have seen that they are splitting the MI delegates down the middle.
Considering all of the Dem "get out the vote" stuff, doesn't this vote really mean that Ricky did WORSE than expected among R's???

rlaWTX said...

[way *of* sucking]

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, That's what the system allows. It allows people to unload their personal responsibility onto the system.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's a fascinating take on religion and politics, particularly seeing Jesus as the guy who demanded a return to substance over procedure. Interesting take! :)


On Santorum, that's absolutely what it means. If you take out the Democrats and their "Operation Mischief" the margin would be a lot bigger across the board for Romney. CNN estimated Santorum got 16,000 extra votes from the Democrats.

I think the biggest issue for Santorum was that he lost among Tea Party people, tied among conservatives, and got blasted by women -- and that's just conservative women. Those number show a lot of flaws in the idea that Santorum is electable or has broad support among conservatives.

Ed said...

This is incredible. I can't believe Americans would let something like that happen. Some people probably wouldn't but no many and certain not 25 cops and firemen.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, watch as the notion of a brokered convention gets less and less crazy to these guys. I'd say watch closely, but even the blind will be able to see. Sure, they've all talked about it before, but only to pooh-pooh the idea. Suddenly, they'll all have been for it since before dirt got put on the ground.

Santorum’s Tea Party loss is the real takeaway if you ask me. If he’s so darn conservative, he shoulda walked away with that demo. Instead, the focus has been on the loss of women and how “it’s the media’s fault!” In other words...

*a tryanmax original

rlaWTX said...

honestly, until the confluence of your article and tryanmax's comment, I hadn't thought of it either. But there it was. It probably was helped along by Sunday's sermon being over the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and the preacher's lead-in discussion of the state of Jewish religious thought at the time of Christ's ministry.

But the more I thought about it the more the parallel makes sense. God gave rules to make His people different in their behavior, and He included loving God and your fellow man as the basis for them. Then man conflated them with their own stuff that made it a "follow the rules" thing instead of a loving thing. Which pretty much defines the problem you were describing - "as long as the gov't is helping by using my taxes, I don't have to do anything personally". Jesus came along and reminded them of "Do unto others..." and that their intentions matter even more than their actions. There's some other theology about the Law being there to prove that people couldn't do it on our own... But overall we (the US) seem to be on the verge of taking on the minutia letter of the law instead of serving the spirit. While Europe is apparently full-bore Sadducean...

You also made a good point in the article about the dangers of communal thinking vs individual thinking. Collectivists tend to emphasize the negative of "doing it on your own without thinking about the effect on the group". But an upside of Individualism is the feeling that we are individually responsible for our actions AND our interactions with others. We are not dependent on the group to allow us to act in humane ways.

T-Rav said...

Aw, I didn't know you all cared! Thanks for the well-wishes; I was actually down here in Mississippi for school and didn't know a thing until I turned on the TV this morning. But we have some nasty weather of our own forecast for Friday, so it'll get me one way or the other. :-/

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I agree. I honestly don't know anyone who wouldn't have jumped right in and pulled the guy out without even a second thought. That's why included the quote from Patrick -- he really epitomizes how I think Americans would handle this: jump in, save the guy, and deal with the rest later.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's funny. Nice work!

I think you're right. Once they decide that Santorum has peaked too low and Newt can't come back, they will declare that it's hopeless and no one can win and they'll start pushing the brokered convention. In the biggest bit of irony, they will actually start talking about "establishment unease" with Romney, as if the establishment should save us all. But that will give them cover to slide to Romney once they make the conversion that he's no longer the establishment guy.

On the Newt point, it's interesting that Gallup already started beating the drums today that Newt was on a sudden upsurge and could soon become the anti-Romney guy again. He's at 18% up from 15% and Santorum is at 25% down from 28%. That's hardly a Newt surge.

They're also already pushing the idea that yesterday was "meaningless" and the "real" contest will be in Ohio. Uh huh. So the only "real" contests are the ones where your guy has a chance huh?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, We care about all of the Commentarama family! :)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Excellent! That is truly incitement and I have to admit it had never occurred to me. You really do make a solid case about the problem of "the formalities" of church, just as with the problems of the formalities of law -- it gives people a substitute for substance by letting them think that they have done enough by just following the procedures.

And you're absolutely right that Jesus's message was "it's the substance that matters people!" In effect, he was the conservative telling the liberal system that procedures were not enough in the eyes of God. What an interesting parallel to modern government!

And not to inject too much politics into religion, but this really shows why conservatism and Christianity go hand in hand -- because they are both premised on the idea that it is our own responsibility to act correctly in accordance with right and wrong. Whereas liberalism is so thickly bound up in procedures and disdains right and wrong for "procedurally correct." That's probably why liberalism and Christianity don't go so well together, because they are fundamentally different in their view of human nature.

That's a truly fascinating thought! Thanks! :)

tryanmax said...

Great news, I got approval on an apartment! It's not as large as I'd hoped, but it's a jumping off point as I rebuild my credit.

AndrewPrice said...

Excellent news!

rlaWTX said...

congrats, t!
I live with my grandparents because our economy is so crazy good that there aren't decent apts/houses for an affordable price available... and my credit sucks.

rlaWTX said...

Andrew - thanks! I have my moments... I'm gonna have to think on this one further too...

AndrewPrice said...

It's an interesting thought rlaWTX and if you come up with any new aspect on it, please let us know! :)

SQT said...

This is just chilling-- and something I fear could happen here. I sometimes roam the UK websites and their reactions to rescue stories in the U.S. are really interesting-- mostly it's along the lines of they wouldn't allow rescuers to do that HERE. I also get a very strong sense that many people there are not impressed with the health care system or nanny-state mentality. But there's also a fatalism-- as if it's too far gone to change.

AndrewPrice said...

SQT, It is absolutely chilling. Reading the story, I just feel sick that no one tried to help this man.

I also fear it could happen here. I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet, but you do see hints of it now and then -- particularly in very bureaucratic areas. But by and large, this still would be highly unusual in America. Unfortunately there are many people who would happily push us in the directions that lead to this kind of mentality.

I see that too in Britain that many of them seem to know what is going wrong, but they just accept it as inevitable.

Anonymous said...

Very disturbing post. Something has gone really wrong in Britain and I agree with you entirely.

AndrewPrice said...

Thank Anon. It is disturbing and there is definitely something wrong going on over there.

AndrewPrice said...

BTW, I'm seeing this issue covered at other places now, but they've kind of misses the point of what really happened. They tend to write this off to people just being "immoral". They miss the bigger issue of what is driving this.

Post a Comment