The poor you shall always have with you

John Fielding

On September 18, 2009, Bill Ulrich commented on the passage “For you always have the poor with you” and, in so doing, excerpted a comment of mine from the combox of my blog, “Berks Conservative”:

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you," and he is right, almost by definition. Since I beleive (sic) the problem to be ultimately intractable (at least in the sense of some always suffering), I tend to steer clear of utopian solutions since those "solutions" have hsitorically (sic) caused the most suffering experience by the greatest number. Ultimately, if government would get out of the way, I think charity would then be freed to step up to the plate (if it hasn't already become so atrophied by haveing [sic] government usurp its role all these years.)

Now, I am not accustomed to having my blog read by folks at the Reading Eagle, still less Bill Ulrich, and even less, the combox. I guess I will have to be more careful of my spelling next time if my comments in my combox are going to gain such notoriety. Indeed, it took me quite a while to even realize that Ulrich had said anything, and the intervening election kept me from responding more quickly.

Before Mr. Ulrich disagrees with me in his column, however, he disagrees with the Bible itself (“Clearly, this is one story the Bible doesn’t have straight.”), so I suppose I should feel flattered to be in such esteemed company. He engages in the same fish-eyed criticism of the Bible that we have come to expect from liberal churchmen so I suppose we should expect the same from liberal church laymen. Having destroyed the Bible as divine revelation by interpreting it in the most naturalistic manner possible, the liberals have proceeded to pour into it the most saccharine liberal social understanding possible. Indeed, Jesus is so inoffensive in the liberal telling, one wonders why anyone would have gone to the trouble of crucifying him at all.

In this scene, Jesus is attending a meal at the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany. A woman has an expensive box of perfume and anoints Jesus’ head with the perfume. The disciples (in John, we learn it is Judas leading the way) begin murmuring against this to the effect that the perfume was expensive and could have been sold, and the money given to the poor. Jesus responds in the Mark account, “Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” (Mk. 14:6-9).

Oddly enough, Ulrich says this:

In the Markan account, Jesus says "For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish" (14:7), echoing the Mosaic law set down in Deuteronomy: "Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’" (15:11).” We can make much of the fact that in the synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus’ anointing, he is in the house of a leper – one who is unclean and a societal outcast - in Matthew and Mark and in the house of a Pharisee in Luke. We can also explicate the significance of a kingly anointing by a woman when women had no status in that society and what significance exists in the anointing of Jesus’ head in Matthew and Mark and his feet in Luke and John.

That’s a long discussion for another day.

Then he goes on to take issue with me: “But we must take issue with Fielding’s hyperbole that his straw-man ‘utopian solutions… have historically caused greater suffering among the most people.’ Is care for the poor a "utopian" ideal or a Christian value?”

Of course we know that care for the poor is not a utopian value, but in order to find out why, we must have the long discussion that Ulrich eschews.

To the contrary, the Bible commands care for the poor. In fact, the fact that Jesus quotes the Deuteronomy verse indicates that, contra some current scholarship, Jesus’ teachings are not just dropped out of heaven, with no connection to the Old Testament.

And that is the point.

God has commanded how the poor are to be cared for in the Old Testament, and the government is nary to be seen, either in prescibing the care, or in enforcing it, or in punishing the lack of it. In fact, part of the condemnation of the nation Israel by the prophets was that Israel did not care for the poor as God had commanded and that was one reason for God’s judgment. But we search the Scriptures in vain for commands for governmental action on behalf of the poor, actual governmental action such as a welfare state, or, more importantly, any enforcement mechanism for individual Israelites’ failures to obey the commands of the poor law.

In creating his own strawman, Ulrich equivocates between my distaste for “utopian solutions” to poverty, and any care for the poor whatsoever.

Despite the impression upon our modern society has, which would rather create its own standard for good and evil, and generosity or lack thereof, Biblical law is fairly moderate in its approach.

The state and the church are fairly closely circumscribed, with certain responsibilities being left to the family (such as the bulk of charity), leaving considerable freedom for individual action. I believe I said nothing about the “free-market” or “capitalism” in my combox, but Ulrich just assumes that I believe that the free-market is the solution.

And of course he is right, although not to the exclusion of care for the poor by individuals, families, and church under biblical law. Notice I did not mention the state. Because there is no such provision. It is when the state steps in a la liberal progressive Christian social gospel that we have the “utopian” solutions I distrust so much.

Because the free-market is what is left after state, church, family, and individual have obeyed those commandments directed to those spheres of authority in the Bible. Thus, “free-market” is simply another word for free individuals engaging in free human action.

Sorry Bill doesn’t like it.

Far be it from us to gloat...

On this morning of bright and shiny political glory, it would be presumptuous of us to remind our assorted Bolshie fans of the reason we won both Sutton and Long last night.

So, we won't.

Much.

Suffice it to say, as primary-colored roundels strafe Red wounded for target practice, that this may have had something to do with it:

and perhaps this:

This is not Fire Island or the mud massage room at The Bell Tower. When you run campaigns that only try to impress denizens of both, you get it right up the ... well... ahem..... Of course, some people...

My advice? Continue to use the same teams you used this time around. It will make us happy enough to fly more victory rolls, and you able to whine about the evil GOP attack machine.

We get power, you get melodrama. Sounds like a fair trade to me.  

Sutton piles on Corbit

John Fielding

Here’s the latest spot in the campaign for Berks Prothonotary. And as you will see, it’s a hilarious spot. As we predicted earlier, this October Surprise further hits the Corbit campaign, an effort already on the ropes. Our sources tell us that this is not the end of Corbit’s misery, as the Sutton campaign has one more massive and also hilarious trick up its sleeve to finish the campaign in proper style. Enjoy.


We also hear that in an erstwhile private e-mail from the Corbit campaign that they find alleged covert sexual innuendo in commentary on the Corbit campaign "icky." Icky? Icky?! What kind of word is that for a man to use? Icky. I'll show you icky.

Attendee at the Reading Pride celebration, which Corbit attended

Or this

or this

Mr. Corbit doesn't seem to mind "icky."

Charles Corbit, far left Dem Prothy candidate and happy Reading Pride revelers

Neither does his "campaign manager," Jane Palmer.

The only problem with the Corbit camp is that it doesn't understand a political campaign.  These girls think they're involved in performance art.  Reports are that because the Sutton campaign kicked back and didn't stand still to watch a senior County row officer get slammed by false and misleading campaign drivel from the arts and croissants crowd surrounding Corbit, Corbit's in a crisis mode.

He is alleged to have said that he doesn't understand why people have to be so "hurtful" in politics, and that he "just wanted to go someplace and hide until the campaign was over" and other things on his campaign website that have been excised because they are truly "icky."

Well, bro, as Wll Smith said in Men in Black, "don't start nuttin', won't be nuttin."

The Berks Democrats Strike Out Again

John Fielding

Well, well.

What will the Berks Democrats think of next?

They have much to pick from, but in the county races they may have had a shot in they go with a professionally challenged dilettante and an estrogen-enriched pretty boy.

Snyder and Corbit, running against Long and Sutton, for Treasurer and Prothonotary respectively but not respectfully, have enlisted the battered acolytes of the president as their base of support. In Berks today, not last year, too little very late.

Snyder is so dense light bends around her. She’s out of her depth in a parking lot puddle. Long has toyed with her in debate, reducing her to simpering. But she’s got cash and, despite a non-starter resume, is not an incumbent in a rebellious year. Long is wildly popular with moderates and his gruff/no b.s. demeanor and C.P.A. status is seen by most as a proper temperament and creds for the office.

Corbit is, well, from a certain sub-section of the usual Dem grievance groups. Rumor is that may come to hurt him late this month. He’s running for Prothonotary rock hard and has a consistent message against Sutton. Sutton herself, a long vote-getting champ, has his number and is punishing him (though, he may like that) in the media war. Perhaps a…ahem…protégé of a Dem elected official, Corbit is making neophyte mistakes and is bleeding momentum. And the shadowy circumstances of his wife’s recent filing for divorce cannot help matters much.

The lack of qualifications of Snyder and the cult of personality aspect of the Corbit campaign highlight two major motivating forces in today’s Democratic Party: nihilism and narcissism. From the White House on down, who cares if they have any ideas for the job if they just really want it or the camera likes them? It recalls the Coen Brothers’ great line, “Nihilists! F--- me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

Neither of these races is in the bag for any candidate. But in a year the Dems could have zigged, they zagged. When they could have swoshed, they swished and grabbed possible defeat out of the pouty mouth of victory. Nice going girls.

School Choice: Waaaaay Overdue

"Barocky Road"

From Ann Coulter's blog, by PA Electric Man

In honor of the 44th President of the United States ,

Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: " Barocky Road ."

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.

The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you.

You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

It’s Worse Than a Lie; It’s…It’s…Déclassé!

By John Fielding

An obscure congressman from South Carolina has now become a cause célèbre. Joe Wilson has become the face of the faceless forgotten people showing up at tea parties and in Washington by the thousands. Calling the President out in the middle of his address to a joint session of Congress, Congressman Wilson could not stand to hear the lies and half-truths issuing forth from Obama since he sits on a committee that deals with the subject being addressed in the speech.

Joe Wilson lost it for a second. He is like ordinary people when pushed too far by falsehood and threats to their well-being. Now he is the national face for all of us who are tired of Washington grabbing too much for itself and treating the Constitution as if it is not worth the paper it’s written on.

And what has been the response from the “brie and Chablis” crowd? "Tsk, tsk, how rude." "Sniff, sniff, how distasteful; pass me another canapé, dahling." We all know them because they belong to both parties.
Here in Berks County, they got Tom (the terrible) McMahon elected mayor of Reading twice. Through their party organ, the Reading Beagle, they even managed to cover up a deficit and unfavorable crime statistics until after Mayor McMuffin’s reelection.

On the Republican side, they wander in from the skeet ranges to support liberal Democrats for office simply because they belong to the same country clubs. One must never allow ideology or truth or principle to intrude on good manners.

They are simply the local inhabitants of the upholstered play pens of the arts and crafts auxiliary of the Northeast Liberal Establishment.

I remember a few years back, I was running for office. I had a late custody negotiation in a judge’s chambers. The judge said, “Gee, John, I didn’t expect you here this late. I thought you’d be out shaking hands with the shift workers as they got off work.” I replied, half-joking, “Nah, Judge, I’m a Republican. I go station myself outside the country club clubhouse to catch the blow-dries as they come in from the 18th green to graze on martinis."

The blow-dries think they control the local GOP. However, parties need foot-soldiers as well as those who write checks without getting their hair mussed. And the present and future foot soldiers of the GOP are in the tea parties and the demonstrations here, and in Washington. And Joe Wilson is the voice of that wing. And it is a large wing. And it exists in both parties. And the reaction of the blow-dried “brie and Chablis” toffs in both parties was the same: “It is worse than a lie; it is gauche.”

The judge was half-right. I have more in common with the workers getting off their shifts than I do with the blow-dries. The President was lying, and everybody knows it. Joe Wilson’s voice was my voice and the shift-workers’ voice. The blow dries in both parties are just going to have to get used to it.