libertarianlunatic

I propose a new rule to deal with bureaucrats. When I use that word, I speak not only of government officials, but anyone who is paid to ensure that the amount of paperwork needed is inversely proportional to the actual impact of the change you wish to make. Bureaucrats, in this broad sense, consist of a populace almost uniformly lacking in intellect, having a low self-opinion, and sharing a need to judge their worth by just how much time they are able to steal from hardworking individuals and how much misery they can add to the world of functioning human beings.

Bureaucrats, essentially, are bullies. Lacking as they do the normal virtues of a bully including something resembling a spine, a superiority in some ability, whether it's pounding people with their fists or in debate, and an ability to actually instill fear in people, bureaucrats make every single thing even vaguely under their jurisdiction harder to do than it should be.

I propose that we deal with them in the same fashion as paternal figures have been urging us to do with others of their ilk for centuries: stand up to them. Browbeat them.

And I don't just mean with words or gestures. Pickup that stapler, see if you can leave a matching indent in their skull. Remind bureaucrats that they are not the world's highest lifeform, and that their power only exists so long as we deign to humor them. Put them in their place, along with the other pale, slimy things under rocks and in damp dark corners.

To understand the nature of Buddhism, and the purpose of Buddha's life itself, one has to understand why God himself would come to Earth in mortal form, for the express purpose of telling people NOT to pray to Him.

Buddhism is a much misunderstood religion, often the biggest perpetrators of it of misinformation are Buddhists themselves.

The New Testament is like a ship floating aimlessly in the sea without the anchor of the Old Testament: You can't understand Christianity without a basic knowledge of Judaism.

The same is true, even moreso, for Buddhism with regard to Hinduism. In fact, Buddhism is not a religion of its own so much as a sect of Hinduism. To understand this, we might as well start at Buddha's birth.

There's a whole lot about dreams and gigantic white elephants with 6 tusks gruesomely impaling pregnant queens in their dreams, but at the end of it all, a baby boy is born: Siddhartha Gautama. He's the crown prince, lives it up for a number of years, and at the end of a gigantic hallucinogen-filled orgy with his concubines in his late 20's/early 30's, realizes he's a punkass and a half. The next morning he kisses his wife and son goodbye and sits underneath a tree (a bodhi tree to be specific) and doesn't move for 8 years.

He comes back from his trance, enlightened. Now it is revealed that he is Vishnu incarnate. Other vishnu incarnations you might be familiar with include Rama and Krishna (as in Hare Krishna cultists...those dirty dirty bastardizers). Buddha didn't actually say anything new. But then again, Krishna didn't really in the Bhagavad Gita. Buddha's contribution was to remind us of the soul of Hinduism.

Hinduism had become (and is becoming again today) an empty religion of prayer for things-- rather than guidance--and ceremonies whose symbolism was lost. To rectify this, Vishnu came down as Buddha, and preached the same central message that had been present in Hinduism since before the Vedas had been assembled.

Vishnu (as Buddha) reminded us of the central fact that you do not reach salvation through devotion to God. You reach it by living according to your dharma, your duty. Which isn't given to you by god, but through obeisance to the Vedas. The Vedas were not God's (or God's earthly incarnation's) words to us; they were an explanation of the world around us (epistemology), and an elucidation of man's place in it (ethics). Hinduism, at its core, is about man living as a part of nature, respecting nature, and interacting with others and the environment according to the precepts of natural law.

Buddha did this through the expedient of declaring that the question of God's existence is irrelevant. It isn't that you don't believe in god, or believe wholeheartedly in Him, it's that said belief doesn't change how you should live. It is a godless, but far from soul-less sect. Buddhism wasn't the first agnostic Hindu sect, but it was originally the most widely practiced...until ideas of God, prayer, and ceremony invaded Buddha's central tenets some years later.

Buddha once again espoused the ideas of karma (what goes around comes around), ahimsa (not harming other living creatures more than necessary), dharma (duty), reincarnation, and release from the endless cycle of birth death and rebirth through the attainment of perfect harmony with the natural laws(nirvana). But he did so in simpler terms, leaving God out of the picture, and thus making sure the meaning of God was not perverted by the selfish actions of what we in Hinduism have termed Rajasics (or those who pray in order to achieve their desires).
--------------
To be a Buddhist then, one is faced with the paradoxical belief structure of admitting the existence of God, yet having a religion in which God plays the most minimal role possible. Brahma still created the universe, and Vishnu, in his incarnation Kalki, will still destroy it at the conclusion of the Kala Yuga (the current age). Buddha himself was an incarnation of Vishnu. In adhering to Buddhist tenets you are obeying the word of God. But Buddha is to be thought of as a messenger, enlightening us on natural law, rather than dictating it. One of his many titles was The Teacher. And it is in this capacity we must accept him.

When a Buddhist prays or meditates, seeking enlightenment, he is not asking for the answer of an omnipotent God, but asking for the counsel of his sagacious Guru, his all-knowing Teacher.

When I pray, or attempt to meditate, it is not to ask Buddha for the answer, but for guidance in how to solve the problem.

Myself.

-----

I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions about Buddhism, and explains somethign of the differences between the Buddhist sect of Hinduism and other religions. It isn't that this way is the only way, just that, so long as you remember the above lessons, it is incorruptible. If you live as a Christian, a Jew, whatever, so long as you, yourself are uncorrupted, the Hindu Gods really won't give a damn which path you took to get there.

First off, I'd like to thank everyone who got ahold of me to see if I was ok today. I was really touched by just how many of my friends, acquaintances, and even people i'd lost touch with for years contacted me to see how I was after you woke up. Thank you all. And now for a tasteless joke:

I can't remember the last time so many people wanted to talk to me.

Next yeah, the blasts were close to me. I was in Russel Square yesterday. Everytime I take the tube, I pass through King's Cross. I walk by it everyday anyway. And Tavistock Square? Just south of my school. Bus 205, which I think is the bus that got hit, is my second most used bus. I screamed at my phone so loud i woke up the guy on the floor above me cuz the lines were locked up and i couldn't get in touch with my parents. And then I threatened to strangle a squirrel outside my window with his own entrails. I've calmed down now.

I'm not going to point fingers on why this happened, although I'm sure most could anticipate my opinions on that subject. But, I will engage in a Churchfill quotefest. England stands at a crossroads today, and I'm not being melodramatic when I say that this may be the biggest decision its ever faced. This is more than just about the War on Terror but also a decision on how English they wish to remain. England's always been a different from the Continent, partially because of the channel, and partially because of their Anglo-Saxon roots as well as a heavy Scandinavian influence. That difference has rapidly disappeared since World War II. First with the adoption of the European 'Social Model' and then with the adoption of their postmodern, nihilistic, relativistic worldview.

I was astonished when I came here that the Brits I'd read about in my turn of the century novels, in my Wodehouse, and in my World War I and World War II history books had simply disappeared. They'd been replaced by Europeans with posh Brit accents. I did manage to find a small holdout of them in their NRA Highpower association (a few of us are goin out shootin' Saturday), but they're a dyin breed.

Their youth have turned European, so has their domestic policy. But their foreign policy doesn't have to. They can go Spain's route, pull out their soldiers, and give the moral victory to the Islamos. They can go France's route, break out the big brass band and escort the terrorists down the Thames and make England the second Islam Lite Republic in Europe. Or they can do what both Germany and France are guilty of, dealing in weapons and tech to the very terrorists they pretend to poopoo in public.
---------------
To switch gears for a second, one of my major reasons for coming to the UK this year was that I've always said that I needed to live in a place that either had history or was close to the great outdoors. London fit that bill nicely. The facades still stand, King Harald (the guy who William the Conqueror killed in 1066) lies in a tomb in a small chapel up in Walthamstow, Old ST. Pancras Church, a continual site of Christian worship since roughly 300 AD is a bare mile from my house, and there's all the other stuff everyone's familiar with. But I'm hoping, for their own good, the Brits remember their much more recent history: That of the Nazi appeasement debacle:

I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honour.--The words of Neville Chamberlain, then Prime Minister in England. Speaking of the Nazis...in 1937.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last--Winston Churchill, critiquing Chamberlain as he inherited a seemingly unstoppable war with Germany.

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.--More Churchill.

We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire...Give us the tools and we will finish the job.--Churchill in 1941.

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.--Again in 1941.

I beg of the country that once enraptured me so much I faced a staggeringly bad exchange rate, hostile deans anxious to get another 40,000 dollars tuition out of me, and the condescension of medical schools all over the nation at studyin monkeys for a year, to remember your history lessons. To not utter the same idiotic words already spoken by Chamberlain more than half a century. Not to give in to the French, the Germans, or the Spanish, who tread down that same past, heedless of the past's admonition.

The spectacle looming before you is not so different than that presented by the Nazis. Like them, these people don't really want to live with you in peace. They don't want to live with you at all. Like them, they hate not just the jews, but anything different. And like them, they have no respect for you. Why should you give any to them? They are Churchill's crocodile and nothing more.

Remember that past you are so proud of. Remember its lessons. God bless you, and I hope you find your way to the truth.

I'm really getting sick and tired of the atheists picking on Christians. Yeah there are some bad eggs out there, I won't deny it. But bad people are bad people, regardless of what creed they follow. You mock them as irrational, illogical, and hopelessly 'backward'. You'll even call them weak for having faith. Foaming at the mouth, you scream "There is no proof of a god; your entire religion is a sham." You know, that may be (I'm an agnostic myself, but have the ability to appreciate things I don't perfectly understand--like faith in a higher power), but your philosophy isn't exactly on the most stable of foundations.

Humanism, whether derived from the principle of an innate human-ness or an extrinsically-derived human condition a la Sartre, posits essentially that "Man is the measure of all things," to quote Protagoras, an early contributor to this school of thought. From the wiki definition, we get a concise and workable list of this school of thought's salient points:

Humanism is an active ethical and philosphical approach to life focusing on human solutions to human issues through rational arguments with or without recourse to a god, gods, sacred texts or religious creeds.

In context, this asserted that people are the ultimate determiners of value and morality— not objective or absolutist codices.

It's important to note that humanism essentially replaces God with Man. Humanists, though, pride themselves on their logical ability. If they are to use Man in such a capacity, they must

Round about 2002, a hoax email went out with fabricated IQ data purporting to show that Gore states were smarter than Bush states. Of course, since every liberal likes to believe they're smarter, it was quickly picked up by such Bush-bashing publications as the Economist (scroll down...middle of page), who later had to retract it. And you know what they say: Once Bitten, Twice Shy. Nope! Not the liberals, same hoax was trotted out again in 2004, and their raging egos took the bait once again.

This resulted in an interesting change of pace in what had formerly been an amiable conversation between two Americans in London at a Soho bar. He'd made the assumption that any guy who'd pick up off to 'forn parts' for a year couldn't possibly be so benighted as to be conservative. That night I was reminded once again just how bigotted and closed-minded liberals can be. But I digress...

The amazing thing to me is that for all they claim to be the more intelligent side of the debate, liberals evidently have not even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, nor common sense. The false data had Connecticut's (Democrat) average IQ at 113. This mean's the entire state's average is 13% higher than that of the nation as a whole. Now, I'm usually up there trumpeting the differences between the red states and blue states, but America is a little bit more homogenous than that. The likelihood of such a difference, even accounting for things like income, etc, is just so vanishingly small I won't bother to dignify it with a number.

While I'd like to claim that liberals are naturally stupider than conservatives, I would be doing myself and my education a dishonesty. I think your political affiliation has very little to do with your IQ, and everything to do with your worldview (should be no surprise there). If you are swayed by the Declaration, the Constitution, the words of our Founding Fathers, you will turn out conservative. If instead your eye is turned to TH Green's Theory of Positive Freedom (see Julian Baggini's column here for a more lucid explanation of a theory that essentially posits that freedom=comfort), or by the classist writings of Karl Marx, then, well you'll probably become a liberal. It would be easy for me to insult the intelligence of anyone who can't see that 'positive freedom' isn't freedom at all, but I won't. Anyway I'm so off topic now I should be shot for rambling just to hear the sound of my own fingers typing, a charge I won't bother to deny.

My point was that liberals pride themselves on their reason; in fact, it was a common enough response of theirs to me and my ilk at debates and demonstrations: "Why can't you just listen to reason? Why can't you see the truth?" But I see no reason or logic in their treatment of things like the UN, ACLU, World Bank, and Amnesty International. What I see is them temporizing and confusing a group's purpose for the group itself, using a group's mission as a justification for the group's existence. They are two separate entities, a cause can be just while its champion can be the most despicable human being to ever walk the planet.

I'm writing a short story right now about a man who goes on an eco-terrorist rampage. Killing poachers in Africa, harrassing illegal loggers in Amazonia and the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, sabotaging dam-work in India. His goals are noble; few could reproach him for wanting to preserve what's left of the natural world. His methods, however, should engender little sympathy. The whole point of the story is the tension between protecting something that's almost holy and the inhuman acts perpetrated in the name of that ideal. I'm now thinking my potential audience has been halved.

When I criticize the UN's policies and efficacy in front of my British classmates, god bless their idealistic souls, their typical response is: "But the UN is a good idea, where else can world leaders talk and negotiate and solve problems before violence erupts?" "Umm, has the UN actually solved any problems recently? Have they stopped violence? Or, failing that, used those silly cornflower blue helmets to keep the peace?". Heh, no answer. Skeptical as I am of 'world peace' and the ability of vastly different nations to ever have an amiable existence, I'll take it on face-value that an international forum of countries is a good idea. But don't ask me to support the UN simply because it claims to do that.

Then there's the ACLU, who were busy following around our patriotic Minutemen during their recent work on the border, ready to call a press conference to report 'civil rights' abuses. I guess the civil liberties of the area's inhabitants, who face violence and destroyed property every day because of the spectre of mass illegal immigration, just aren't important. I guess the 7 million unemployed citizens and legal residents are less important than the 11-15 million illegals who artificially depress wages and saturate the job markets. Washington DC, NY, CA, and Chicago have been assaulting a certain civil right we like to call the 2nd ammendment for nigh on 30 years. Did ACLU speak out about that? Affirmative Action holds down Asians (proven, i'll link later) in the interest of the more 'politically expedient' minorities, yet is there a peep out of them over this insidious racist policy? Civil liberties are damned important. And there should be a watchdog organization to help us make our voices heard when the government attempts to trample them. The ACLU picks and chooses its battles based on a political platform. It is ineffectual, and I refuse to support it simply because it's 'for a good cause.'

Ah, Amnesty International, beautiful AI. Where would we be without them? Calling Gitmo a gulag, fueling Islamofascist passion and rage, only to admit they have absolutely no basis for the claim. In fact, a former Gulag(the real thing) prisoner decried Amnesty International's characterization:

Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.

Damn. Well, anything else I'd say would be redundant.

A cause and an institution that support it are not the same thing. You can support one and not the other. In fact, when the organization proves to be a politically-biased, corrupt, or otherwise ineffectual steward of an ideal, it is morally reprehensible to continue supporting it. To do so would be to prevent the effective achievement of your goal. The Constitution, a document that remains unchallenged as the pinnacle of government foundation, would not be here today if the Founding Fathers hadn't had the chutzpah to throw out the flawed Articles of Confederation that preceded it. The United Nations is actually the successor of an even more ineffectual--if you can believe it--international ruling body known as the League of Nations. I realize it's hard to justify the existence of any of the three groups, but that's alright. This may be a sign that we need to pick up and start over. Like I said, it isn't the group that's important, it's the goal. If you really care, about piece, about liberty, then, do us all a favor, and help us put a new, better group where an old, flawed and corrupt one stands, taking up room, influence, and money.

A lot of conservative bloggers seem to be wearing black and mourning the death of America today. Truth be told, I was too as I went to bed last night, prepared to make a sob-filled eulogy to the dying ideal of the Land of the Free. But depression doesn't come naturally to me...it usually transmutes itself to burning anger within a few hours. And that's how I feel today: angry. Not just angry at the misguided people that undermine the constitution everyday in all three branches of the government. Not just angry with the idiots who shepherd them into office, chasing a dream of the European ideal...a land where they never figured out how not to be subjects. But angry with myself for getting depressed in the first place.

On this day a Call to Fight came from the colonial caucus, magnificently penned by Thomas Jefferson. 229 years later, it is still a call to fight, albeit against a far more insidious enemy. July 4th in 1776 was a challenge, to the maddened King George, and to the wave upon wave of red coats and muskets that would soon come by the boatload. On that day, our forefathers said "Come and get it. We're waiting for you. We will stand our ground." Today our enemy comes from within, but, like those British soldiers, they are simply taking orders. Their orders come from their education, and from their lack of introspection. Today we are called to arms, not to raise our swords upon the field of battle, but to raise our pens and our voices, to win possession not of bloody battlefields but of hearts and minds.

Heinlein, that preternaturally brilliant political commentator, remarked that a people who forget their history will have no future. And that is the very essence of the problem. We simply aren't taught our history well enough. We learn dates, we learn places, and we learn names. But that's the least important part of history. It didn't matter then what day of the week or the year that Patrick Henry spoke his famous words. It doesn't matter what the Federalist Papers were called, or even who wrote them. That Ben Franklin invented bifocals, who really gives a shit?

The importance of our founding fathers lay in what they said and what they did. Of the lessons they imparted to posterity. Of the struggles they fought for 7 long years. Of the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and from its ashes the Phoenix of the Constitution which arose with such glory no better governing document has been written. This is the history that's important, and it is precisely this history that isn't taught.

This country's laws and institutions aren't something to be discussed, agreed upon, and decided by Democrats and Repubicans. That was already done for us with the birth of the Constitution. Our framers were polymaths, accomplished economists, historians, and philosphers; The constitution is approximately as outdated as this post, possibly less. They were also some of the most paranoid and far-thinking individuals the world has ever seen. They created a document that did not really have to change with the times, at least as far as its central ideas go. The Constitution should no more change with the times than the Bible, Buddha's words, or Shakespeare. Our framers' very intent was to create an ahistoric document. One that it doesn't matter when you gave it a glance, the words are timeless. On the 150th anniversary of July 4th, Calvin Coolidge said as much about the Declaration (hat tip powerline ):

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Not progress, reactionary. These days no Republican is untainted by assault on certain principles of our founding document, but the entire 'progressive' movement is a reaction against the Constitution. They are not progressive, they are regressive. They are Statist. Individual liberty is not the goal, but individual comfort. By such stuff are subjects and sheep made. Their power lies in speaking to the fears and the emotions of their minions. That is not the life I want to live, to take counsel of my fears (to quote churchill) before deciding my course of action (except insects...i'm still afraid of insects) Our message is clear, it is invincible, the only thing that remains is to speak that message. To remind people of what it means to be American, to believe in freedom, and the sacrosanct individual. To remind them that the government is our plaything, not the other way around.

A few days ago I mentioned the Gadsden Flag. It's flying today in my mind and in my heart. It neatly encapsulates everything we stood for on the field of battle and in the writing of our great foundation. Years ago it was flown by the most belligerent of the belligerent Revolutionary War soldiers. Today, it's resurrected, flown by one of the most belligerent conservatives I know: me. They stood there ready to die for their cause. No one will ask that of me, or of you; we have no excuse for walking out on this fight.

Kelo depressed me. It made me question whether America really was better than Europe. I dont know how the country got to that point, but no more. Melancholy has given way to the much more comfortable rage. Rage I can do, rage is familiar to me. I can do it all my life and not blink an eye. I think I will. It all ends now. The statists fought a war of attrition for 200 long years, but their day ends now. I will shout, I will fight, I will debate, I will write. I will do everything in my power to win that ground back. My country isn't dead yet, but she is sick, in danger of dying. The erosion of the constitution may lead to its utter destruction, but like Hawkeye on MASH, all I'll say is NOT ON MY WATCH!

When a certain someone demanded I blog this, at first I was infuriated at their presumption at thinking they could control me. And then I started feeling a bit like a kid in a candy store. There were so many ways of attacking the ridiculousness of live aid, the G8 BS, and Mandela's comments...especially this gem from Bob Geldof to the leaders at G8:

In an open letter to the G-8 leaders, which appeared in several British newspapers Saturday, Geldof said the summit will disappoint the world if it fails to deliver an extra $25 billion in aid to Africa.

Monetary aid is such a moronic idea on so many levels that I just don't know where to start: personally, economically, ecologically, common sense? I'll leave the economics and ecology for a later post. It's boring technical stuff. But I'll speak from my own experience and involvement in service organizations today.

A fire breaks out somewhere in the barn...the hay got too dry. Everyone on the farm breaks as fast as they can for the buckets, forming a chain from the cattle watering trough to the barn. The bucket is filled, and as it gets passed from one peson to the next--Quickly, quickly now--a little bit of the water sloshes out. By the time it gets to Poppa, who's closest to the fire, it's only halfway full. Dousing the growing conflagration, he's surprised when instead of sizzling, it explodes with tinges of blue, bigger and hotter than ever. That wasn't the cattle trough, but JimBob's corn whiskey still. As everyone begins to flail around in panic, you realize they're only fanning the flames...

An acquaintance from Africa said something to me today (loosely paraphrased): "When you think about how poor these warlords are when they come into power, how much poorer the country gets under them, how much aid pours in, and how rich the gangleaders get in such a short time, you begin to realize where all the money's going."

Money, in my experience, is one of the worst things you can give to a charitable cause. The problem lies in money's intangibility and universality. Like the water sloshing out of the bucket everytime it's passed, money too easily falls through the cracks...and into crooked hands...simply too intangible to keep track of through the many transactions that must take place to turn money into food, clothing, or shelter. And then there's that universality. Money can be used by anyone for anything. It doesn't matter if the G8 earmarked it for AIDS drugs, or education programs, or food. Money is money, and until it is converted into something more tangible, it remains nearly as easy to lose as your dignity.

Give a charity 50 dollars to buy toilet paper, and I bet you everything in my bank account that 50 dollars doesn't get entirely spent on toilet paper. Give that same charity 50 dollars worth of toilet paper...and it stays toilet paper. I know this cuz I've worked in charities, handling both money and tangible goods. That money you gave 'to the kids' might get spent on full-time supervisors' salaries, the banquet the board of directors throws for themselves, or it might just disappear into a volunteer's pocket. But the account you opened for us at the food bank, or the toys you donated, well I've never seen those become anything but lunch and entertainment for the kids.

Another thing people don't realize is that your time is often far more valuable than your money. If I'd been able to find a job in the heavy recession of the summer of 2002, I probably would've pulled 6-10 dollars an hour. My work as a volunteer was often worth more than 80 dollars a day. Not because I was particularly skilled, but simply because most people are overqualified for a minimum wage job. If you can turn a screwdriver, you can save them the cost of calling out a carpenter for a minor issue like a broken fence latch or you can assemble DIY furniture for them, saving the money a pre-built piece would've cost. You can cook the meals, or you can help out in any number of ways that just about anybody can.

Heck, in the VA a high-school age volunteer can essentially increase the number of nursing staff by 1, simply by being able to read a name off a chart, put on a velcro cuff, push a button, and then when the machine beeps, walk the patient down to the right exam room. And if they're capable of wearing latex gloves and learning the diference between an army/navy whatchamacallit, a scalpel, and an artery clamp thingy (looks like a pair of pliers, sorta), they can even help out in surgery.

I'll end this incoherent ramble with reminding you about your high school days. You all knew the kid with the rich educated parents who basically ignored him. But threw money at him. How'd that kid turn out? I knew a few. Two are full out druggies. Two committed suicide. The rest have just...dropped off the radar.

You also know a kid whose parents maybe didn't have a lot of money, but they did the right things for her, and raised her right, and put effort where they coudlnt' afford to put material things. How'd she turn out? Pretty well, eh?

Money's no different from JimBob's corn whiskey. It sure as hell looks like it'll put that fire out. But give it a quick whiff...and you'll find yourself trying not to pass out from the stench. Money, like bootleg alcohol, just turns bad way too easy. Methanol contamination made plenty of speakeasy goers in the 1920's go blind. Corruption has allowed aid money to become the warchests of dictators. Aid money in a very large sense was the seed of the exploding poverty all around the 'dark continent'. Are you going to fuel that fire? or put it out?

p.s.Feel free to add a few trite aphorisms here like 'the road to hell is paved wtih good intentions', and 'give a man a fish, and he eats for a day...' blah blah blah.