As reported by
Media Matters, Neal Boortz stated in his October 14 radio show that "we should save the rich people first."
If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor?
I used
his e-mail form page to respond thusly:
Right you are, Mr. Boortz. In the event of a terrible disaster we must first save the engine that drives the economy -- those of us who are rich.
Before I comment further on that thought I want to congratulate you for pointing out one of the major problems with the, as you say, "great unwashed." They keeping having children they can't afford. This is unforgiveable, especially after all we do to make it so easy for them to choose the size of their families. If they have a failure of birth control, all they have to do is go to the local pharmacy and get a morning after pill. If a girl or a woman is raped, many states now recognize that this little innocent zygote has all the rights of a full human being and, therefore, that girl or woman should accomodate the possibility of getting raped when she thinks about how many children she wants to have. And we make it so easy to understand the nature of sexuality and the risks of fooling around with our president's wonderful abstinence only programs. If they choose to ignore all of that teaching, not to mention God's Holy Word, then it should be no sweat off our teeth if they get preggers. Oh I know how those people view sex, as some sort of pleasure to which they have as much right as us rich people. But I am pulled back from some of these musings when I recall that our Beloved Leader, Ronald Reagan, sponsored a task force that determined that the poor should be encouraged to have MORE children so as to provide more people for the Army and to provide more funding for Social Security. Of course that was back in 1986 and things have changed a lot since then. We don't need so many people for the Army and once President Bush gets rid of Social Security there will be no excuse anymore for their profligacy.
Wow. I guess you can see how hot that subject makes me. I'm going to cool off now and get back to your brilliant analysis of the importance of saving the rich instead of the poor. I'm not certain you went far enough but you might have been afraid to say what you really think: we should just get rid of the poor people without waiting for a natural disaster. How much better it would be if there were no poor people at all -- well except that we might need some of them. Not as many as we have now, to be certain, but we do need someone to take care of our children, clean our houses, cook and serve our food, work in our factories, oh yes, and pick our food. And then I'm wondering who's going to keep our streets in good repair and who will clean the universities to which we must send our children. Oh dear. I think I've just painted myself into a corner... But wait, I've got it: we won't get rid of all of the poor, just the one's who aren't working. After all, we need the working poor to make things actually work and then we need them to buy the cheap products that we make and sell in order to sustain our fabulous lifestyles.
Sorry for the length of this message. I was just so moved when I heard what you had to say and my meds don't seem to be working as well today as they normally do.
Yours for prosperity for some (just as our lord and savior wanted it),
Mrs. Talma K. Eta
New York, New York
New York