One out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps, to which I say . . .

 

 

A scene from Disney’s “The Lion King”

 

Who cares?  Anyway, it’s George W. Bush’s fault.  And Mitt Romney hates poor people.

 

And let’s stick it to the rich!

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336360/one-out-every-65-americans-food-stamps-andrew-c-mccarthy

 

Hakuna Matata!

What a wonderful phrase!

Hakuna Matata!

Ain’t no passing craze!

It means no worries for the rest of your days.

It’s our problem-free philosophy.

Hakuna Matata!

Hakuna Matata?

Yeah.  It’s our motto!

What’s a motto?

Nothing.  What’s a-motto with you?

Those two words will solve all your problems.

 

Posted from Orlando, Florida.

 

 

"The religious origins of science?"
"In Argentina, apostle says religious freedom is everyone's concern"
"How Mormons use the internet to spread the good word"
Marriage definition on Supreme Court docket -- don't turn believers into bigots
  • Fred

    Dan, I greatly admire your defense of the faith writings and commitment to the Savior, but your National Review leanings distress me. One of the few great men I have ever known, Hugh Nibley, taught me that the only thing that can stand up to money is government. I agree that both parties have contributed to our huge federal deficit and that something needs to be done. With Jim Faust I am a fiscal conservative (don’t spend more that you actually have and go in debt for nothing) but that government with popularly supported and reasonably resourced funds may create safety nets for the less fortunate. The 1 out of every 6.5 Americans datum is in my opinion more a reflection of one failing of our capitalistic system than of the grasping nature of 47% of our nation ( My wife and I withdrew our vote for Romney when he revealed his attitide toward the deadbeats of America) . Won’t a Law of Consecration society have such safety nets as can be reasonably sustained? I assume that the many compassionate acts of the Savior would favor a “yes” answer. So why not support such efforts in the secular realm of our federal or state or local government led communities? I realize that your comments in Sic et Non are thin slices of a much more developed political philosophy, and I would be open to reading more of any suggested essays or books by you or anyone else. I am a faithful reader of David Brooks and so am open to his brand of conservatism, although I start in my evaluation of any political theory from the Law of Consecration and the Savior’s teachings on wealth and riches and compassion ( as summarized in part in Approaching Zion, a book that changed my life and persuaded me to abandon the private practice of law and pursuit of Mammon and join in the Legal Aid Law Firm of my state where over the past 25 years I have helped victims of domestic violence, young Indian kids caught in disastrous family breakdowns, the mentally ill, and Social Security claimants). I also assume the ugliness and inequalities that capitialism has created during the history of its practice as referred to by Nibley and other commentators. As you will always have my respect, I welcome any thoughts you may have in response to my comments. Best wishes, Fred

    • danpeterson

      If I had to choose between money and government, I would without hesitation choose money. It wasn’t the free market that killed scores of millions of people in labor and extermination camps over the past century.

      I clearly don’t have even nearly the trust that you seem to have in the benevolence of the coercive apparatus of the state.

      Which is why I can enthusiastically favor the voluntary law of consecration and yet have grave doubts about confiscatory taxation and economically inept government intervention in the markets.

  • John E. Mastkins

    Not really endearing yourself to your readers with your attitude here Danny boy

  • Greg Smith

    After all, Dan’s whole opus up to now has clearly been to ingratiate himself with his audience, and tell them what they wanted to hear.

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    I have worked inside the Federal government, and dealing with state governments, for 40 years. That is why I agree with Dr. Peterson’s skepticism toward the growth of government power. The greatest abuses perpetrated by businesses have been when they had enlisted the power of government to suppress their competitors and restrict the freedom of their customers. As state power grows, everything that is not expressly permitted is prohibited, because otherwise the government cannot control events.

    It is great that there are attorneys willing to make the financial sacrifice of giving legal aid to the poor. Nevertheless, much of the need for such aid is the government bureaucracies that take control over our
    lives and make arbitrary and uninformed decisions. At least half of the rules by which government runs are made for the benefit of government mechanisms, not the public. And God forbid that you should ever tell a bureaucrat that he was wrong. His wrath will be undying.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X