Letters 
October 15, 2009 by Letters
To the Editor,
Concerning Mr. Jarzen’s Monday article:
I’d like to offer a counter to your argument on liberalism, point by point. First off, it is dangerous business to lump so many ideologies into one category, as some are not related to others and those that are still have differences. More on this later, but by creating a loose chain between these ideologies and then throwing them into a statist category, you are doing something analogous to describing somebody’s personality based on their ancestry, and it’s a poor method of reasoning.
You claim to assault liberal ideology and not “your average liberal,” but continue to talk about liberals only seeking to achieve control and liberals not wanting to help people, which seems to make claims about the behavior of your average liberal. It’s like saying “I’m not racist, but…” Also, you say that liberals don’t want to help people, but then shortly thereafter claim that liberals want control to achieve their ends. Are these ends not to ensure a measure of justice, equal opportunity, and human decency, or in other words to help, everybody?
The creation of the United States of America did not necessarily lay the foundation for freedom and liberty. We denied those things for years to those who didn’t own land, slaves, women, and Native Americans. The spread of our concepts of liberty and freedom have often come at the subjugation and exploitation of others. Your remark on minorities forsaking their freedom for help from liberals is prejudiced and historically inaccurate.
You attack socialism, Marxism, and communism in practice, yet claim that the practice is the same as the doctrine. This is simply untrue; attack practice or philosophy, but don’t confuse the two.
I will now offer my defense of liberalism, and then challenge you to offer your vision for the country. I indeed support using government coercion to provide social security, health care, and welfare for the poor and disabled. I believe that laziness should not be supported, but I’d rather err on the side of supporting laziness than on the side of people being unable to survive. I believe that the coercive force is necessary because so far, the evidence I’ve seen shows that in deregulated capitalism, the successful continue to consolidate wealth and charities go without the resources they need to help people. I believe that the free market leads to the tyranny of the wealthy, and why is that more acceptable than government involvement? You talk about oppression through government programs, but what are your thoughts on oppression through militarism? And how would you like to see government structured instead of the current model, which you find to be too stifling?
Howard Watts III,
Political science
Note: Letters to the editor run unedited.
I was going to write a letter to the Editor in response to Matthew Jarzen, but it would not matter. You can try to explain to him until you’re blue in the face how he is not quite correct and he will just retort by calling you a socialist, communist, nazi etc etc etc. Either you are with him or you are against America, thats it. Afterall, he did not even bother to look up the history of liberalism and conservatism before debating or before writing his grossly inaccurate article.
OF COURSE “liberals” only concern is not control and power over the people but Mr. Jarzen will not be convinced otherwise. Talking to him is like trying to talk to Glenn Beck (his hero), pointless and fruitless. Like Beck, Mr Jarzen uses arrogant, grandiose behaviors and speaking/writing methods but very little of anything with substance or respect comes from his mouth or pen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
I love working on American soil!!
Destiny’s comment is a malicious attack. It must be taken down.
Dear Editor:
This is the first time I find myself commenting to you regarding an article and letter to the editor in the Yell. Specifically, this is to address the inane comments of Howard Watts III to Matthew Jarzen’s article that appeared on
Monday. If he really is a political science major it must be in the study of socialism and communism. If one carefully reads his letter it is filled with contradictory statements that are plainly stupid.
There is so much to comment on, I will only select one statement. Howard states, “…laziness should not be supported, but I ‘d rather err on the side of supporting laziness…” What a profound thought. I am a lazy person with no sense of personal responsibility; per Howard I don’t have to get off my lazy butt because the government wants me to survive. Real incentive to actually take responsibility for my situation and do something. I can simply wait for my government assistance check from Howard and his lliberal comrades.
Clark
Clark,
You cut out a portion of my sentence and pretend that the context is intact. I said, and stand by, the fact that I would rather have a small number of people taking advantage of a system while most people in need receive services to get them back on their feet, than have no possible benefit for lazy people while people who can’t find a way to recover starve and die. Tell me, do you favor differently? Do you believe that people who are taken advantage of or fall on hard times should starve and die? I hope this clarifies my statement as not being contradictory.
I study political science and that covers a range of political ideologies; I am a progressive who believes first and foremost in creating protections for consumers and the little guy, that the unrestrained free market kicks hard-working people in the ass, and that capitalism needs controls on it and a safety net to protect hard working people from falling through the cracks. To equate my philosophy to socialism, which calls for a nationalized economy, or to communism, which urges the end of individual property and the end of government (something which many people are unaware of; communist governments have always fallen off track into totalitarianism contrary to their ideals), is inane.
Destiny: We can’t let people we disagree with control the discourse. If he wants to reply with ad hominem attacks and misinformation, that’s fine. I will continue to correct him and to frame the message of the left in the way it should be, appealing to values of human decency and fairness.
Stephen, Destiny’s comment is free speech. I support the right of teabaggers and conservatives to engage in debate and criticism, I hope you’ll respect everybody’s first amendment rights as well.
If I remember correctly, and my memory usually does not fail me, Destiny is the president of the UNLV Young Democrats. She was the the one who broke the debate structure in order to open her mouth-and put her foot in it- during the debate, a debate in which she was not a debater. A gentleman asked a question of the democrat side which was along the lines of how doctors would be paid under Obamacare, and that many of them were worried they will lose income. She took control of this question, since her father is a physician, and claimed that her father was already not being paid–by MEDICARE. I believe Ms. Destiny needs to learn her facts and realize that Medicare comes from the government. So I ask, your answer is to rely even more on the government? I was a little upset you were not called out on this comment at the debate, but oh well.
Howard,
I’d like to thank you for defending your op-ed piece, it shows that you care a great deal about your position. I do think most people agree that “the little guy” as you define them, someone who works hard, should not be unfairly treated or in less intelligent terms screwed by those with more power and influence. But I think it’s equally important that the little guy does not make dumb decisions, such as taking out a mortgage that they have no chance of repaying. And we can debate the effects of predatory lending until we’re blue in the face, but the reality is that the mortgage crisis only sped up the problem. Most Americans were living beyond their means and this includes everyone, not just the little guy. What I worry about is that those who make good decisions will be forced to bail out those who make bad ones (we’ve already observed this). And this system cannot work because eventually the people who make smart decisions will realize their is no incentive to do so. Obviously this is overly simplified, but I think it sums up the general fear nicely.
Howard,
Let me respond point by point. Lumping groups together when they share a distinct similarity is not dangerous. As it would not be dangerous to say that progressives and liberals are similar. Or that conservatives and tea partiers are similar. It is a valid way of saying that the groups share an idea which is control over the public.
I was waiting for you to imply that the author was racist, it seems to be the fad these days. (It’s like saying “I’m not racist, but…”) I think the point he is making about liberals is that they want control but don’t really want to help people. (Ex. Liberals have been helping poor people for years and yet we still have many poor) The point he is making is that like your desire to err on the side of benefiting laziness you are not helping the poor come off the public (taxpayer’s) payroll. If you were given a “job” that gave you money for doing nothing, would you take it? Would you ever leave that for another job where you actually had to work? Most people wouldn’t and that is one of the problems.
The creation did lay the foundation for freedom and liberty. Our nation is the most free in the world and it all started with its creation. Yes, it did not start our perfect but it started out with many good ideas and the ability to change the bad ones which have been changed over the years. The fact that non land owners, slaves, women and Native Americans didn’t have the right to vote (or be a citizen is certain circumstances) does not mean that the foundation was not laid with the creation of this country. We have just built on that foundation to create our current nation.
I think you can challenge ideologies on both their practical and philosophical effects but in the end they are very similar. There is no country that has established communism as their governmental system and not leaned or embrace totalitarianism. So you can argue that communism leads to totalitarianism which would show that its practical and philosophical natures are the same.
I think that a safety net like social security is a nice idea. I don’t like it though as I am expected to pay for someone else to retire while I will never see a dime from it. Why not allow people to prepare for their own retirement and then let people choose to join social security? I plan on fully funding my retirement myself.
I think that Medicaid and welfare are more or less the same. They are the government’s attempt to help the poor. The problem with those programs is that they do not incentivize the poor to stop accepting their “free” government payments which actually come from tax payers. So they create larger and larger groups of people that have learned to game the system and not have to work.
In just a very quick search on Google I found out that the US is the most charitable nation in the world. So what evidence were you looking at that showed that our economy produced only money for the successful and not for charities? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233106/america_the_most_charitable_nation.html?cat=37
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/
Though I do not agree that corporations are always good or looking out for the little guy. I think that the government is much worse. The government is nearly immune from change as you can’t really boycott it or spend your money other places. You can always vote from someone else but they often are all from the same group anyways (rich, professionals with a lot of time on their hands). So you really have little recourse with the government while a lawsuit or public pressure can change a corporation’s business habits.
I dislike oppression in all its forms. As your “oppression through militarism,” is a thinly veiled attack on US foreign policy including Iraq, Afghanistan and other military operations, I will comment on those. I view oppression as a significant control over something. I think if you look at our country’s history, you’ll see that in all of the wars we have fought. We have not taken control of the countries we fought in even though we controlled them militarily for a while.
I like our current form of government. I just wish the government was run more like a business which would cut out all of the pet projects and kick backs and other wastes. I think, for example, that our post office could be made to actually break even annually. I think this could be done with many of our government programs through cutting costs and increasing efficiency. I also think we should eliminate our national debt and lower our contribution to the UN and other such organizations. Why should we foot such a large portion of the bill when other countries don’t pay hardly anything for the same amount of access and power?
I think everyone supports the little guy and his rights. But what happens when that little guy becomes successful? Is he now the problem? I don’t think so. I think the successful and the unsuccessful should all be responsible for paying for our government. How is it human decency to take from one person who spent years obtaining what he has and give it to someone who never worked a day in their life? How is that fair?
Finally, I thought this was a civil discussion, why would you insult Tea party members (calling them tea baggers) if you seriously cared about having a discussion?
Stephen-
Like you, I too have the right to freedom of speech, even if you don’t agree with me and so instead of asking that my comment be removed, please tell me what you disagree with.
Petros-
I think you may have found the day in which your memory has failed you. I think it would be beneficial for you to make certain that you are correct before writing a paragraph about me, especially if you are going to comment about how you are rarely incorrect. I used to be the President of the Young Democrats, yes, but now Maureen Gregory is the President and has been since April. I will let her defend her comments made at the debate but if you have a problem with her “[breaking] the debate structure” to give an answer to a question, then I would hope you were appalled by the way in which Matthew Jarzen handled the debate and did not stick with the “debate structure” at all.
I stand corrected. I had heard the name of the Dems. Pres. was Destiny, which it was apparently, I just assumed it was the same person who is the president now.
Anyway, her comments clearly show how uninformed the left is about the policies of the people they support. To not even know medicare is a government ran institution is pretty sad if you ask me. You know that coupled with all the stuttering..it was great.
Matthew Jarzen was a debater. Not sure of what structure he broke…
Well you know what they say about assuming…
And while I cannot say that she did not say that, because I do not remember the specific comment you are talking about, I do know that she does know that Medicare is a government run institution and do believe you either misunderstood her or she misspoke. Regardless, just because we believe in different things, does not mean we are ignorant. I think that you will find that most politically active people are very aware of the issues and are not ignorant at all.
And about stuttering, it must be nice to be a perfect speaker but was that necessary?
No she said it because I about fell out of my seat wanting to yell out. Also, I didn’t say ignorant, I said uninformed. I guess they mean the same thing, but one is nicer than the other. It was blatantly obvious how uninformed the debaters were. I mean come, to say we would still have slavery if it wasn’t for democrats when Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation was a republican? And the Civil Rights movement was because of the left? Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican, and most of his family still is..
HIs niece Alveda King
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfRn2V-NxM
Also, the stuttering comment was not to make fun of some ones speech impediment, but referred to the person who didn’t know what to say when the republicans through something at her. Sorry if that came out wrong.
You’re right, they do mean the same thing but with different conotations but I’m not one for sugar-coating things.
I do not think that you can make a blanket statement about all of the debaters on one side because of the actions of one. She was nervous, had never debated before and just lacked experience which would explain her stuttering. As for the other debaters, they were very well informed, well spoken, and spoke clearly.
About the whole Dems and Repubs thing, I’ll repost here what I did in another article:
Just because the Democrats and Republicans did different things at different points in history, does not mean that a person can ignore the historical and ideological shifts between the parties, socially and economically. The reasoning “Democrats” used for slavery, before abolition, was their states’ rights to slavery and the dislike of a large government “controlling” them and telling them what to do, which is the same ideology used in the arguments against gay marriage and other social issues today; the parties have switched.
I think you ned to realize that the modern democratic party wants nothing to do with rights, they want control. Obama and his minions in the democratic party want nothing more than to control the people, much like (but maybe not as bad) as Mao or Lenin. When Obama’s own appointees claim they look up to and are influenced by such “philosophers” as Mao, you know something is wrong. The man killed 50 million of his own people for God’s sake. What the democrats want to do, such as government healthcare and even welfare, are being done to control the people and have people rely on the government.
Since you brought up gay marriage, lets talk about that. It’s not that they want people to have the right to be gay, which everyone does, and any gay person can get married, regardless of what they say, it is about making people who don’t like it, which is the overwhelming majority, deal with it and push it in our face. Again, control. Why teach gay rights in school to children? Other than to control their minds?
That is what modern democrats need to realize, the days of old, are just that, the days of old. Classic liberalism is no longer part of the democratic party, classic marxism is..liberalism of today has become an extreme form of actions without repercussions, and government power. Even free societies need rules or else we have anarchy. Our fore fathers were classic liberals, and this same classic liberalism now lies with the conservative side. Conserving the Principles which this country was founded.