At a forum with Democratic opponent Jack Conway in Kentucky, Paul said America’s poor, are “enormously better off than the rest of the world.”

He cited an old Russian propaganda film that showed poor Yanks with color TVs. The story goes that while this flick was meant to demonize capitalism, it backfired when the Russkies saw all those TVs. Rand added that “It doesn’t mean we can’t do better. But we have to…be proud of …capitalism.”

Some Dems are knocking Rand, saying his comments reflect ” a dogmatic belief in free enterprise and limited government,” which to me, sounds like a compliment.

The fact is, the richest person in a Third World country would trade that spot for the lowest rung on the American ladder. But I’ll go further and say the poor in the US – when viewed by the rest of the world – aren’t poor at all. The poverty level for us looks like something to shoot for.

According to the most recent data I found, there’s roughly 250 million TV’s in America. That’s over two per household, not including lap tops, dvd players and homemade puppet diorama’s.

And if you hate anecdotal evidence, you’re going to hate what I say next: I watch Cops, and every “poor” household they bust into has shag carpeting, an overabundance of prescription drugs and a cluttered entertainment center. This to me, is not poverty: it’s a slice of heaven.

Fact is, there are too many countries to mention where citizens have a yearly income measured in hundreds of dollars. While our poor can still buy music, beer and Nikes, one purchase at the Footlocker cripples Liberia for a week.

Anyway, for more information on this topic, watch Cops.

And if you disagree with me, that’s your problem.

tonight, we’ve got: 

Dana Loesch (a first timer!)

Joe Devito!

Rick Leventhal!

Now before you go and crucify me, keep in mind that there is a huge difference between someone who is “down on their luck” and someone who is able-bodied and “chronically poor.” There’s a big difference, and I’m only addressing the latter.

We see the stereotype everyday in Hollywood films: The wealthy, corporate, penny-pinching sell-out who inevitably becomes a slave to their own greed. Note: That stereotype excludes the rich, bloated constituents of Tinseltown themselves. The sad part is that oftentimes Americans believe it. As a largely blue-collar nation, I could think of nothing more satisfying than vilifying the “boss” (not a Springsteen reference, for those wondering). The only problem is that it’s dishonest.

Successful people aren’t inherently evil. I believe that more often than not people’s lives are a result of their actions. It’s silly, I know, but when you look at things within that context, you have to ask yourself: what kind of actions lead to poverty?

Now, I hate to throw a Proverb at you (particularly as it’s not of the trendy Chinese variety, but one of those scary Old Testament scribbles) but no matter what your faith, I would imagine that Proverbs 28: 22 would still have to be incredibly insightful.

A stingy man is eager to get rich and is unaware that poverty awaits him.

See, God isn’t condemning rich people. He’s condemning actions followed by a solemn warning of where they would lead. God seems to think that actions are a reflection of your heart. He’s a freaky dude when it comes to that kind of thing. Yes, I said “dude.” Feminists, start sending your letters.

Now statistically, it’s true. Poor people (particularly liberals) donate a lower percentage of their income than middle and upper-class Americans. To be fair, they have less to give… But then I guess it becomes the whole “chicken or the egg” deal. Do they have less to give because they’re stingy/greedy, or are they greedy because they have less to give?

Either way someone’s getting punched in the face for milk money.

I would say that the action of a perfectly healthy individual living a life on welfare provided by the hard work of others taken by force through taxation… That’s greedy.

The action of not stepping out of your comfort zone and creating a business, or helping OTHERS to prosper because of your personal contentment… That’s greedy.

The action of hoarding all the good-looking prom dates, leaving me no other date options than my cousin Kevin… That’s greedy.

Not giving to those who are seriously less fortunate than you… That’s greedy.

The problem with greed is that it has no understanding of logic and will constantly find a scapegoat… Sometimes it’s an actual goat (he deserved it), sometimes it’s a lemur (he didn’t deserve it) and sometimes it just ends up being a decent rich guy whom everyone loves to hate.

And no, I’m not talking about Sean Penn.

Telling the story of an emotionally troubled American billionaire who travels the world in order to help desperately poor strangers in need, the show manages to condescend to the philanthropist himself, the society that allowed him to become rich, and the poor people he helps.

It condescends to the philanthropist, Teddy Rist (Phillip Purefoy) by positing that his quest was caused by an emotional reaction to a devastating personal loss–the death of his young son and subsequent breakup of his marriage. Near the beginning of the pilot episode, Rist establishes this theme strongly by saying that few people are happy these days, even people with money.

That will strike many viewers as a quite offensive notion, as it posits that happiness is based on an accumulation of material things and creature comforts. Even worse, it is false in all of its particulars: people in the United States are wealthier than ever, despite the current recession, and if material things and creature comforts made for happiness, we’d be happier than ever.

In addition to being untrue to life, this premise undermines the dramatic value of the show. By positing Rist’s philanthropy as an emotional reaction to a gnawing need within him for meaning in his life, the premise diminishes the moral praiseworthiness and dramatic power of his actions by characterizing them as not really freely chosen, as not flowing naturally from his character. Hence he cannot deserve full moral credit for his actions, as he’s really using them to fulfill his emotional needs.

Given its premise, the show can hardly help but condescend to the poor people he helps, as these ethnic people in Africa, Asia, and the like obviously need the assistance of this superior Caucasian person. Yes, their troubles are sometimes caused by natural events, such as a hurricane in Nigeria, but natural disasters in wealthy places such as the United States don’t result in the kind of devastation we see in The Philanthropist.

Obviously sensing this, the showmakers try to forestall any complaints of racism by having Rist’s business partner–designated as co-CEO of their multi-billion-dollar natural resources investment firm–played by an African-American, Jesse L. Martin (Law and Order). But that is an obvious sop to Hollywood’s absurdly unrealistic (though well-meaning) affirmative action plan in which African-Americans are continually cast in roles of corporate and government managers and common-sense conscience figures who keep flighty white people in line (those that aren’t portrayed as gang members or prostitutes).

The unreality and stereotyped nature of that premise destroys its effectiveness, and in the present case it serves only to underscore the artificiality and didacticism of the show’s concept and story lines.

The first episode of The Philanthropist even tries to blame businesses for everything that’s wrong in Nigeria, with a Nigerian official claiming that the rebel activities there are “a rebellion against the very corporate intrusion that companies like your routinely perpetrate on sovereign nations like Nigeria.

That’s absolute rot. Nigeria’s entire economy depends on Western corporations and consumers making the nation’s oil and other resources worth something. To claim that the one thing that brings wealth to that nation creates turmoil is to argue that the people there are better off scraping off a living in subsistence farming and starving to death whenever the weather isn’t just right.

In attempting to absolve the Nigerians of responsibility for their nation’s problems, the people behind The Philanthropist paint Nigerians as inferior beings who cannot even respond reasonably to being saved from starvation.

Later in that same episode, Rist is bullied by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents, whose presence in Nigeria is spectacularly inexplicable but of course thoroughly sinister. This scene adds the United States government to the disruptive American forces whose involvement in Nigeria is the cause of the nation’s problems. The Philanthropist exemplifies the phenomenon noted by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick when she noted that many people in the United States always seem eager to “blame America first.”

The second episode, “Myanmar,” has Rist explicitly asking whether economic sanctions against oppressive governments do more harm to the government or to the people of the nation thus punished. Naturally, Rist ultimately comes to the conclusion that his corporation must not be tainted by even a secondhand relationship with such a nation by doing business with a company that does business in Myanmar.

His partner and co-CEO refers to this as “the right thing, the moral thing, the financially responsible thing.” It’s certainly the sentimental and most immediately sympathetic response, but the morality of the situation is much more complex than that, just as Rist initially thought. After all, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have not become more humane by being cut off from Western investments, or as The Philanthropist calls them, “corporate intrusion.”

The speech by the Nigerian official mentioned earlier exemplifies another element of the show, the characterization of Rist as hubristic and somewhat clueless about the practical difficulties involved in getting help to people, which requires regular rebukes and object lessons by the locals. Hence the locals are portrayed as morally superior and more practical than Rist. But if that’s so, why are they so poor?

The answer, of course, is in the Nigerian official’s rant: Evil corporations from the West exploit the nation and strip it of its resources. But that’s obvious nonsense, as those resources are worth nothing to the locals unless they can sell them to people who can make some use of them. Hence the show is mired in contradictions in addition to being untrue to life.

Finally, The Philanthropist condescends to the society that makes possible the riches Mr. Rist distributes. In an interview for a television news show, Rist begins to talk about how much his corporation gives to charity, and then stops, disgusted that 1.9 percent is so paltry. He storms off the set and heads off to Nigeria to “look them in the eye’ and personally deliver a large shipment of necessities such as food and blankets.

This is false in two important ways in addition to the aforementioned conceit of Rist using his philanthropy to fill a psychological and emotional need.

First, the notion that corporations do good mainly by giving to charity is false and pernicious. Rist’s company buys and sells natural resources such as oil, natural gas, etc. That in itself does society an incredible amount of good–which is why people pay for it.

Thus any profit that the corporation makes that does not go back to its shareholders in the form of (very well-earned) dividends should go back into doing the good things that the corporation is already doing, or other ones which the firm can do well. The big amounts of money the corporation earns, after all, come about because they are fulfilling needs and desires which people are willing to pay for.

Yes, charity is a fine thing, but the real function and ability of corporations is to make money for their stockholders, which they can only legally accomplish by selling goods and services people want or need. In fact, many corporations have been notably pernicious in their philanthropic endeavors, often funding organizations that undermine the market system, personal liberty, and freedom of association that make the increasing wealth of the nation possible. We’d all be much better off if they stuck to what they do best.

Corporations make money by doing social good (unless assisted by government in making money from unnecessary or harmful things), and the surplus they generate–their profits–goes to additional investment (which leads to more good or decreases the corporation’s value) or to shareholders, who may then distribute it as they choose. The latter, over the entire economy, are the source of much of the nation’s monetary and in-kind philanthropy.

Even if a corporation gives no money at all directly to philanthropic endeavors, it cannot help but do good, as all the money corporations make can only go to reinvestment, debt pay-down, distributions to shareholders, or taxes. Of all these categories, the only one not especially likely to do good is the tax payments.

The second false and condescending notion in The Philanthropist regarding American business is the conceit that the forcible redirection of corporate profits by an individual is morally good and proper. It is, in fact, quite wrong for Rist to divert even what he considers a piddling amount–1.8 percent–to pet charities that will make him feel better about himself.

That is an outrageously elitist notion, that Rist knows more about what’s good for society than his stockholders do. The money he gives to charity would be much more productive, as noted earlier, by being reinvested, paying down debt, or distributed to shareholders. All of those things have the potential to create further economic value, from which all of society ultimately benefits.

Rist is doing exactly what governments do, forcibly extracting money from other people and claiming moral superiority for doing so. He does show courage, determination, and self-sacrifice in bringing help to people in need, but that doesn’t make what he’s doing morally right.

Finally, the notion that what really makes the world a better place is philanthropy is entirely false.

What makes the world better, at least in simple material terms and in the creation of opportunities for personal fulfillment, is increasing wealth. And although many people–such as the producers of The Philanthropist–make extravagant claims about how philanthropic activities created various breakthrough developments, the reality is that the wealth of nations is created by the daily effort on the part of millions of people to earn their keep by doing things that benefit other people sufficiently that the latter are willing to pay for them.

Philanthropy is a good and fine thing indeed, but it’s a choice best made by individuals to give of their own wealth in a compassionate hope of doing good for others. Forcible extraction of other people’s money, even for charitable purposes, is not philanthropy; it’s tyranny.

Like its protagonist, The Philanthropist means well, but its premises undermine the very things that make philanthropy possible.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center has discovered that Democrats tend to be less happy than Republicans. That comes as no surprise to me. For the past eight years we have been listening to the whining about a stolen election, a war for oil, shredding the Constitution, Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton! You would think that now that they own both Houses of Congress and the White House, they should be happy. The economy is in the tank (as we told them would happen, if they ever got control of the government) but yet they still don’t seem to be happy.

The Tea Parties completely put them over the edge. Apparently we’re not allowed to have protest rallies and we’re not allowed to compare this President to a dictator from a previous era, as was their practice during the last administration. They call us mean and racist and use a sexual profanity too describe our movement. For some reason they seem even less happy, than they were when they were out of power.

Perhaps by forfeiting the last election, we have taken the purpose out of their lives.

It has been suggested there is far more unhappiness for the rich than there is for the poor; because if your life is imperfect (as it is for most of us) at least the poor can dream about how they might someday become rich. There is an eternal hope that money changes everything. Unfortunately for the rich, they already have the money, so there is nothing to hope for; and when hope is lost, so goes the spirit. Perhaps what we are seeing on the Left is that they have lost their hope. By voting for the Hope, they now have nothing to hope for. Meanwhile, nothing has Changed.

I might be rushing to conclusions though. Maybe being a Democrat doesn’t make it more difficult to be a happy person; rather, people are drawn to the Democrat Party because they are unhappy already. There is a certain kind of person in this world, a person who sees conspiracies everywhere. They see a conspiracy of Christians who want to bring back the Spanish Inquisition. They see a conspiracy of anti-intellectuals who want to ban science and burn books. They see a conspiracy of corporatists who want to reduce us to Eloi slaves, and march us into the kitchens when the Morlock dinner bell rings. These are the same people who think that the earth is being poisoned and toxins are everywhere.  In short, these are people with severe mental illness.

Where else are they going to go? The Republican plank of laissez-faire will not appeal to hypochondriacs and paranoids. These people need an outside force to coddle them and tell them everything is going to be all right. They want access to a doctor who is forced by the government to listen to them recite their ailments on a daily basis, completely free of charge. These functions used to be provided by churches and mental institutions; but the trend away from religion and the laws against involuntary institutionalization have allowed these patients to wander into the voting booths. They will be discontented with any government that does not promise to regulate every aspect of their lives, putting things into nice neat rows, and giving away everything for free.

In a way I think that people who run the Democrat Party intuitively know this. They know that if the people are kept miserable that they will overwhelmingly vote Democrat. I believe it’s why they really don’t care what damage their economic policies will have on us all. They don’t care if Cap and Trade will put the economy into a death spiral, or if their universal health care will start a declining life expectancy rate for the first time in American History. Because the more the misery, the better it is for them.

And for the truly miserable, the only balm is the knowledge that other people are just as miserable as you are. So what better way to find friends than to ensure there is an entire nation of miserables alongside you, living next door in the government provided housing, with equal access to a doctor, authorized to assist your suicide?

That’s what happens in other parts of the world. Most notably in the Social Paradises of Europe, places that consistently rank higher than us on the “Quality of Life” scale; those nations where the suicide rates are dramatically higher than here in the United States. I speculate it is because the ability to achieve is strictly limited over there. No matter how hard you work, you will still be living in the same neighborhood with the guy who spends his day sitting at home. What motivation is there too succeed when you will end up living in the same rabbit hutch next door to people who don’t even bother to get out of bed in the morning? Hope is the factor that inspires us to go on and by equalizing outcomes socialized Europeans have legislated hope out of existence.

It would be overwhelmingly depressing, if I didn’t believe that Americans will not stand for this. Democrats have confused a slim majority with a mandate and they are now over-reaching. I have hope, that the policies being pitched today will not survive beyond the 2010 election.

But enough nonsense, it’s getting late now … time to mow the lawn.