February 20th, 2006

eyes black and white

Tale of Two Cities

There was a snowstorm eight days ago, and that's the precisely the time I chose to go out shopping for tidbits at Home Depot. I asked my way twice. The first time near the subway station, a very gentle man explained me the way, under the highway twice along a crooked itinerary. I try to follow his instructions. And then, along what was either the last straight line to Home Depot or a straight line to nowhere, I try ask confirmation from another poor soul lost in the dark and in the snow across the lane. The guy asks violently who I think I am to jump at him, and that says that next time I do that he could hit me or kill me, then continues his way. From what I see of his face, he's saying that defensively, and from the tone of his voice, he sounds like a nice guy who wouldn't hit an innocent man. But he obviously must have grown in quite a bad district, where nice people are abused by violent criminals who poison any cooperative attitude -- and he's tried to develop a carapace to survive there. Up to now, I've mostly been confronted to nice, helpful people in this country, who were raised in a civilized atmosphere of general benevolence. Violent uneducated scum haven't invaded all the cities here as they have in Europe. But apparently, impune rule by aggressive violence is the rule in parts of this country, and that's quite sad. Yet another result of the victim disarmament program of which the rulers are so proud.

eyes black and white

Why indiscriminate charity is immoral / De l'immoralité de la charité aveugle

An interesting corollary of the Law of Bitur-Camember is to agree with traditional morality against the goodthinkers who love to moan about poverty and the third-world, when it condemns indiscriminate charity that gives to beggars or the non-deserving poor, and when it encourages charity only when it is conditional, as a sponsorship that comes with strict and paternalistic monitoring.

 

Un corollaire intéressant de la Loi de Bitur-Camember est de donner raison à la morale traditionnelle contre les geignements des bienpensants misérabilistes et tiers-mondistes quand elle condamne la charité aveugle faite aux mendiants ou aux pauvres non-méritant, et n'encourage la charité qu'au conditionnel, sous forme de parrainage accompagné de stricte et paternaliste surveillance.

Collapse )