In a September 2005 column for the Boston Globe, James Carroll claimed that since America is a democracy, in which the citizens have ownership of the government, government-based help is self-help:

The problem is redoubled when religiously sponsored good works supply essential needs in place of government responses. Something essential to democracy is at stake here. The rights of citizens to basic relief, especially in times of crisis, are rooted not in charity, but in justice. Charity can be an affront to the dignity of citizenship. Citizens in a democracy, after all, are the owners of government; therefore government help is a form of self-help.

Admittedly, I’m responding to this column a bit late, and if I wanted to argue with Carroll’s attitudes toward the Katrina relief effort, I’d probably not even bother. But since the statement above is both timeless and fundamentally wrong, the fact that I’m nearly six months late in responding doesn’t bother me much.

These arguments are stretching the definition of “self-help” a bit, I think. The idea of self-help indicates a bit of self-discipline, an explicit decision on the part of the self-helper to do something to improve himself or his condition. Government-based help requires none of that. Citizens don’t contribute to an unemployment fund because they want to take advantage of it later. They don’t contribute because they’ve been particularly far-sighted. They contribute because not doing so will cause them to end up in prison.

The biggest reason why government-based help isn’t the same as self-help is because the people receiving the benefit are almost certainly not the ones paying for it. Government help would only be equal to self-help if one could only obtain as much help as he or she had previously contributed (or was likely to contribute in the future). Government-issued student loans, and even grants, are arguably a form of self-help. Yes, the student takes money from the system that he didn’t contribute, but there’s a reasonable assumption that the student will pay the government back (directly in the case of the loan, indirectly through increased income taxes in the case of the grant). Similarly, short-term unemployment benefits (or disaster-relief expenditures) could be considered “self-help”, since the worker has, presumably, been contributing money to the government and is now seeing a return on that “investment.”

I imagine that Carroll probably also supports a complete ban on guns. Not because guns are dangerous, but because every person who is able to defend himself (or worse yet, every layperson who uses a gun to defend someone else) is taking some of the responsibility away from the government.

I don’t know. Maybe, in the end, Carroll is right. Maybe democracy is at risk if we allow citizens to choose whether or not they wish to give to charity. Certainly, if a million people vote that Bill Gates should give each of them a couple of thousand dollars, Mr. Gates is ignoring democracy when he refuses. On the other hand, the million tyrants are abandoning a principle that is much nearer and dearer to the heart of this nation’s Constitution — liberty. Given my choice between democracy and liberty, I’ll take liberty every time.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go be giddy.

I know that I really shouldn’t get a kick out of bad news, but given how much I hate Sony, I can’t help but getting a kick out of reports that the console will be delayed and cost much more than expected. Of course, I remember hearing similar things about the Xbox 360, but none of those reports came from Merrill Lynch.

What, exactly, is the problem here? The UAE isn’t really one of those countries that I consider a staunch ally, but I was under the impression that our relationship with them was a fairly warm one. At the very least, it’s as warm as our relationship with China (China, as I understand it, has owned several of our ports since Bill Clinton was in office). With that in mind, suddenly protesting the UAE’s purchase of the company that owns several ports (a company that really manages things on a much higher level and likely wasn’t really too involved with security or day-to-day operations in the first place, as I understand it) seems kind of hypocritical from many people. Given that the UAE hasn’t been a particular target in the War on Terror, why is it so much worse for the UAE to run some ports than it is for China to do so?

There are only two reasons that I can see. Either a.) the protest stems from the fact that the UAE is a largely Arab country or b.) the protest stems from the fact that the UAE is a largely Muslim country, neither of which seems like a good enough reason to block this deal, especially not when we have to deal with a lot of dishonest protesters trying to claim that we’re waging war on Arabs or Muslims, instead of our real targets, terrorists. (Incidentally, these are the same people who will see the police arresting a black murderer and quickly claim we’re targeting blacks instead of, you know, murderers.

Mr. Parker Goes To Washington Part One of Three

Most of Peter’s costumes were destroyed while he was “dead” (See The Other: Evolve or Die, and Tony “Iron Man” Stark has created a new costume design for him. The new suit is bulletproof, with gadgets to let him see infrared/ultraviolet, hear the fire/police/emergency radios, glide. Peter takes it out for a “test drive”, but is left wondering why Tony’s going so far to help him.

First things first, let me just say that I hate the new look. The idea behind it is a good one that could’ve been fairly character-driven (though I suspect it’s more driven by the upcoming summer event) — Peter has some real superhero contacts now, and I can certainly see Tony Stark offering this sort of assistance to his fellow heroes, especially with the “price” he ends up putting on it. A bullet-proof costume with a few extra gadgets sounds like a good idea. Still, Marvel hires a lot of creative people. There’s no reason for this thing to look so ugly. The art in the issue is otherwise great, so it’s not something we can just blame on Garney. I’ve heard that Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief, Joe Quesada, was responsible for the new design, and that probably explains the craptacular nature of it.

As for the story, I know there’s a lot of people who hate the big summer “events” that DC and Marvel have periodically, and that Civil War is supposed to be highly political (and given that I’m not aware of any comic writers whose political opinions I agree with), but I’m still sort of looking forward to it. This issue of Amazing Spider-Man serves as part of the lead up to Civil War, and I have to say it’s a fun read.

The problem is that we’re piling more new “powers” on Spider-Man before the new powers he just got two issues ago have really been explored. Other than Peter’s costumes having been destroyed, there’s no real sense that there’s been any aftermath of the events of The Other, which is a bit annoying since it was pretty heavily advertised as being a big turning point for Spider-Man (I never really figured it’d change much, but it’d be nice if they’d at least pretend for a few months before going back to the status quo).

We do get a glimpse of what the core of this storyline is going to be about, and I’ve got to say I’m intrigued, even if I’m a little wary that it’s going to end up preaching a viewpoint that I’ll find unpalatable.

Here!

Now, stop badgering me about the Beauties. They’ll come back when I get off my lazy butt and post them.