But, lets start with the positive.... Ben Carson is the definition of a self-made man and I have to admit he is admirable. He was raised by his mom, who had a 3rd grade education, and managed to become a neurosurgeon at Hopkins... you also have to add the fact that he grew up in a period where racism was still pretty rampant, making his feat even more astounding. There also have been several notions that I seem to be in agreement with. For instance, on the topic of immigration he wrote:
Even today we exploit our fellow human beings for work. Is it moral for us, for example, to take advantage of cheap labor from illegal immigrants while denying them citizenship? I’m sure you can tell from the way I phrased the question that I believe we have taken the moral low road on this issue. Some segments of our economy would virtually collapse without these undocumented workers — we all know that — yet we continue to harass and deport many individuals who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Is there a way to apply logic to this issue and arrive at an intelligent solution?
I need to read more on his policy on immigration though, because I was pretty shocked when I read this as it was my understating he was pretty anti-immigration.... maybe I ll discuss that further once I dig in a little deeper.
On the topic of health-care he wrote the following, which I fully agree with...
For example, providing basic health care for every citizen can be done quite easily without increasing our national debt one penny. If we address our inefficient and wasteful billing and collections procedures, move to a national electronic medical record, provide people with incentives to use clinics instead of emergency rooms for primary care, and engage in meaningful tort reform to limit costly lawsuits, we would have plenty of money to provide basic health care to all citizens of this country.
I think that is where the good ends. In general terms, I find him to be narcissistic, megalomaniac and very condescending. He comes of as being the ultimate expert on the bible and constitution, and he, better than anyone else, understands what Jesus, the apostles and the funding fathers meant. He rarely supports his claims by facts and figures but instead ties to back up his claims by mongering....for instance, talking about the socialism he says:
Because we live in a free and open society, those who advocate socialism are free to do so, but for the well-read individual, it is easy to discern the agenda of the socialists and how they are implementing that agenda in an attempt to bring fundamental change to America. The agenda? Total government control. For jobs, income, you name it . Anytime you give to government the responsibility and authority to provide government-made jobs, old-age financial security, “free” health care, and “free” education and indoctrination of children, it will control the lives of the people who live under its jurisdiction, and individual liberty and freedom of choice are sacrificed.
I mean.... right? He is basically saying that those who believe in socialism are ignorant uneducated people.. I think that is sort of a low blow.
Okay, besides that.... I think what bothers me the most is his attitude that because he was able to get out of poverty everyone should be able to do the same, and if they don't it is because they are lazy. He calls poor people lazy several times...and he doesn't say some poor people are lazy....he says "poor people are lazy". Based on this he is obviously against welfare programs, and I think social security and medicare as he says people should plan ahead...but overall it is confusing, because he seems to have a lot of contradicting thoughts...for instance, in the passage above he seems to be against free education and apparently considers it indocrination of the children, but then he discusses how Benjamin Franklin thought education was fundamental for the welfare of the nation.... but then he goes on a rant about religion and moral values, and how some would say that we have become a more tolerant nation because for instance we don't really judge single mothers, but in reality, by not judging them we are sort of promoting that life-style which often lads to poverty and therefore we end up having to pay for people who made bad choices... so, I may answer the questions later on in the book, but if he is so opposed to single mothers, how does he feel about contraception? and providing programs to promote contraception and decrease teenage pregnancy rates?
He also talks about a woman who was going to get an abortion because her unborn child had hydrocephalia, but finally he convinced her not to, and the baby was born, and they placed a shunt that drained the water, and the baby survived,....but with some developmental delays...so, the question is, should the government then help these people who have kids who have special needs? I mean, you are telling people they have to give birth to a kid with a disease, that they may be able to survive, but will require special attention for the rest of their lives. The parents of some these children obviously have the option of having the baby but giving him/her up for adoption, but I wonder what the adoption success rates are for kids with disabilities. The other option is to keep the kids, but then, what happens when these kids need at home care and one of the parents has to quit their job to provide it? what about the hospital bills for whatever medical expenses associated with these diseases? Because apparently, giving government assistance just enables laziness...so I am not sure what the options are for those cases.
The strange part is that to me, he comes off a little racist... to the point where I think he sort of justifies slavery because of the economic benefit it brought to the country... maybe not as far as justify it...but sort of.... he does call it atrocious, but then.... well, here is the quote
It is not difficult to see why it took the United States so long to join other civilized nations of ridding ourselves of this atrocity. Slave labor was essential to the financial well-being of our fledgling nation, and without it, our struggle for recognition and economic power would probably have had a different outcome.
He goes on after that to say that he doesn't agree with reparations... however, like much of his arguments, this is an oversimplification. I too am against giving people money just because their ancestors were enslaved, but, I do believe that maybe we need to even out the field for those who came from nothing...maybe by providing better education? and some incentives to stay in school? so, this is sort of a tangent, but, If you see nothing wrong with people inheriting large sums of money and therefore being able to keep a very comfortable lifestyle with minimum amount of work because their parents or grand-parents or great-grand-parents work really hard to provide for their kids and future generations, should't you on the same account provide some help to those who did not inherit anything because their grandparent and great-grand-parents were slaves?... he talks about an instance when he went to an native-american community and saw that the kids had money so made no effort to get an education...and that money came from reparations given to native-Americans in the form of lands, which then allowed them to build casinos that made them rich...but, on one side, they did work hard to create the casinos.... so by his own principles, they deserve the amount of money they have earned because it was earned through their hard work, but also, there are non-native american kids that also drive BMWs and party instead of taking advantage of education opportunities, because they were lucky enough to be born to a wealthy family...and I don't see him criticizing them. Here are his own words
Many years ago, I was asked to speak at an all-tribe graduation for a large group of Native Americans who owned a massive gambling casino complex. Elders of the tribe told me that they were hoping that I could inspire many of the unmotivated young people to attend college, which the tribe would happily pay for. Since the tribe had so much money, many of the teenagers were happy to drive around in their BMWs and party instead of taking advantage of educational opportunities that would ensure a positive future for the tribe. The reparations the tribe had received were certainly justified given the tremendous losses suffered by Native Americans at the hands of American settlers, but I’m not entirely certain that the end result benefited the tribe as it could have.
By the way, this whole reparation issue brings me to a very sensitive topic: Israel. He says that he disagrees with reparations that have to be paid of by people who had nothing to do with the original problem, int he case of slavery, people who are alive these days and never even owned a slave (although, you could argue that a lot of families became rich thanks to slavery and the wealth created back then has allowed them to continue accumulating wealth)....but, what does that mean for Israel? Do the Israeli people then deserve the land of Israel even though it had not belonged to them in over 2000 years? moreover, can that land be given to them at the expense of the Palestinian settlers who had nothing to do with WWII and had occupied the land for centuries? We will see...hopefully he touches on the topic later no that book...or maybe tonight in the republican debate.
So, anyways... this is already pretty lengthy, and I still have half of the book left to read! so Ill be brief with the rest of my grievances. One is the amount of bragging he does regarding his charitable work, which, if I remember correctly, it is a very unchristian thing to do (so when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you")
Back to fear mongering, he makes it seem like we live in the country where money is taken away from the rich to give to the poor. Yes, I get it, people hate taxes, but it is not like all the tax money is given to people on welfare...how about defense? about 25% of the national budget is set for defense, while only 10% for welfare programs like food stamps...
Anyways, as I said...pretty lengthy already, so I ll stop for now, but, I am sure I ll get back to this again soon.... stayed tuned!
