digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at latimes.com

P.J. O'Rourke Fairness, idealism and other atrocities

latimes.com — Well, here you are at your college graduation. And I know what you're thinking: "Gimme the sheepskin and get me outta here!" But not so fast. First you have to listen to a commencement speech. Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Johneeeee, on 05/05/2008, -16/+37PJ! Where has he been! Thank God! Real political wit is back!
    • hipnerd, on 05/05/2008, -3/+15I'd love to see O'Rourke get a Gig on The Daily Show. He's one of the few genuinely funny conservatives and he would be a great sparring partner for Stewart.
      • petrodollar, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2He's ugly and he can't turn it on for the cameras.
  • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/05/2008, -22/+35Sage advice...

    Too bad a crapload of young graduates won't listen to a word of it, much less put any of the enumerated items into action.
    • n3demonic, on 05/05/2008, -1/+116. Don't listen to your elders!

      I'm pretty sure they'll put that into action
      • Kohaxx, on 05/05/2008, -7/+7I'll start by not listening to him.
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3You can start that by listening to him.
    • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -9/+7sage advice...
      for continuing to run us into the ground
      (and for the soldiers _literally_ into the ground)
    • Rotzooi, on 05/05/2008, -9/+3It was a sarcastic rant, not sage advice, lol
      • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -2/+12Humorous, but not sarcastic. I'm pretty sure he was entirely serious.
      • cathars1s, on 05/05/2008, -1/+11O'Rourke is a libertarian, which means that he actually believes that making money may not be a bad thing.
        • VAXcat, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5 O'Rourk is right. I've been poor and I've been well off....believe me, having money is better. A lot better.
    • nylrym, on 05/05/2008, -10/+8Is someone channeling Ayn Rand in here? Proposing that amassing personal wealth is the only viable social good all people can contribute is ridiculous. The article goes through (systematically) broad categories of things that people could dedicate their lives to, and categorically dismisses all of them, except commerce, with little more than a wave of a hand. It's silly, especially the 'Get Politically Uninvolved' bit, as Politics and Business are welded together in an incestuous relationship that would make Oedipus blush. Maybe it's because I am a bully (ie an idealist), but it seems to me that the same accusations he levels at the idealistic can more aptly be applied to the financially ambitious - that they think because of what they are and what they've done (an idealist who 'helps the cause' one one hand, a reasonable business-person who makes a lot of money on the other) makes them better. That's the case that PJ tries to make here - that going out and making more money makes you somehow better. I won't get into trying to analyze every point - at least not in this post - but I will say that I think his base assumptions are deeply flawed.
      • tst1212, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Go chain yourself to a tree, so we don't have to listen to your crap!
    • antdude, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1We're doomed.
  • Qong, on 05/05/2008, -12/+10Great and funny read.
    A lot of what he's saying there does hold actual value and people should look at it from their own viewpoints. I really do wish that new graduates would read it, they don't have to accept his word or value his opinion, but at least come to their own conclusions through having an open mind and at least some knowledge of the world; instead of blindly following the majority of people, whom as the article states, are really not the best group of people to lead you in anything.
    • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5you know that he's _not_ being sarcastic, right?
      He actually believes what he's saying to be true.
      • Qong, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I didn't state that he was being sarcastic. There was clearly a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor behind the article though.
        Not that anything in the article is bad to actually believe. What exactly did you have a problem with? I don't think that people should be politically uninvolved, I do think that they should be better educated when it comes to their political opinions; and I am neither for or against his advocacy of being religious, that's his opinion which he is free to express.
        Do you somehow disagree?
  • jhodapp, on 05/05/2008, -32/+33I couldn't agree with PJ any more. He's right on! Why do leftists (certain politicians and some general citizens) generally push the notion that all people must make the same or very similar incomes? The Constitution of the US only guarantees equality of opportunity but it does not guarantee equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is boring, undesirable and not possible. It doesn't give motivation or inspiration to do anything of sheer greatness. It doesn't give people their own freedom to be and do what they want. This is why I almost always fundamentally cannot vote for a modern Democrat.
    • lendrick, on 05/05/2008, -14/+26No normal leftist (lunatic commie fringe not withstanding) wants equal income for all. What we want is a safety net so the poor don't get reamed up the ass quite so badly. Being poor ought to be uncomfortable to deter the lazy from taking advantage, but there are certain things, like health care, which shouldn't be driving good, working families into bankruptcy.
      • davewashere, on 05/05/2008, -5/+13That's a good point. The safety net isn't about giving the poor a free ride in life, it's about protecting society from social decay. When the poor (many of whom are under-educated and/or mentally ill) are unable to feed themselves they don't just go find a nice corner under a bridge to whither away and die in. They will often strike out against society, mugging people on the street, holding up banks, and pushing drugs to whoever has the money to buy them. You can only push the poor so far down before they have nothing left to lose, which is why the rich should be in favor of creating that safety net -- not just to protect the poor, but to protect everyone else.
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -5/+10Ah, but the problem is that millions of lazy people are only too happy to abuse the "safety net" in the US. And one need only look to Europe for what the end state becomes when the entitlement class becomes the majority--the "safety net" morphs into socialist cradle-to-grave benefits and nannystate-ism.
        • moonshn, on 05/05/2008, -2/+8exactly as mm..biscuits said, do you decide the worthy and the abusers on a case by case basis? That will cost just as much as your safety net, which we can't afford in the first place.

          before anyone says it, no we can't afford Iraq either
        • lendrick, on 05/05/2008, -5/+3I don't know the statistics on abuse of the system -- do you? The sad fact about a safety net is that some people will abuse it. That's a fact of life. What you need to do is set it up in such a way that abuse is minimized and legitimate use is maximized. You need to identify trends and similarities between abusers (and also legitimate users) and make adjustments to the criteria as needed.

          There are a lot of anecdotes out there about "welfare queens" who have ten kids and live off the government check. First off, it's never been made clear to me what percentage of welfare goes to people like this who are clearly gaming the system. Half a percent? Ten percent? Fifty percent? That's the sort of information one might user to make an informed vote about policy, as opposed to "so I heard on the news that one person took advantage of this system, therefore we should shut the whole thing down."

          I can, however, find solid numbers about lack of adequate health coverage here in the states:
          http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin06.ht ...

          Can you show me solid numbers about how Europe's safety net is hurting their economy?
        • busket, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Millions of lazy people? I know of at least one person who is making up large numbers to suit their preconceived notions about poor folks.
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Between federal, state, local, and church/charity programs in the US, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all to estimate that at least 10% of the total recipients are scamming benefits they don't deserve. With a US population of over 300 million, I think "millions" is a very safe guesstimate indeed. I don't know about you, but I witness likely benefits fraud almost every time I go to the grocery store.
          • busket, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1So what you're saying is that you don't really know, but that you don't have a problem making up numbers to suit your preconceptions? I guess I'm unimpressed with your back of the envelope guesses. Seems like convictions should be based on more than just half-assed self serving guesstimates.

            I am also interested in how you can be so sure that the people you are seeing are committing fraud. Do you ask them? Even if you could be sure, It's just plain lazy to assume that your micro experiences apply macroscopically.
        • moonshn, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8I can find you solid numbers about how a welfare state hurts MY economy; its called a W-2. I'm not trying to be mean here but honestly, does it not bother you that YOUR hard earned money goes to some drunkard on the street or some career welfare mom?" I honestly just don't understand your point of view.
          • busket, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4It doesn't bother me, because I don't assume that a significant portion of my money goes to some drunkard on the street or some career welfare mom, because it doesn't. You're assuming, probably erroneously, that a significant portion of the people on welfare are abusing it. Until you have some data to back that up, you're full of *****.
          • lendrick, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Yes, that bothers me. But that's what stories are meant to do -- get people riled up. What you need to do when you hear one of these anecdotes that makes you angry (welfare money going to welfare queens and drunkards, for instance) is look at the hard numbers. Find out if the story is typical or if it's an unusual case (or even true at all, for that matter). Don't make your judgment until you've determined whether it's a legitimate and widespread problem, or if it's someone blowing something way out of proportion in order to get you riled up so you'll go vote for them.
        • Tinkered, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5Simply because there will be abuse doesn't negate the value of having a safety net. There are lots of reason's why a person may rely on a safety net, laziness may be one of them. Removing the safety net will not make laziness go away, but it will hurt lots of people who deserve some support in a time of need.
          • jhodapp, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1So why can't they get their support at shelters, churches, non-profit organizations, family members, random kind people off the street, etc? Why must it be tax money?
          • Tinkered, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Shelters, churches, non-profit organizations, family members, random kind people off the street, etc. have always been insufficient. Government have the ability to fill in where other forms of support are insufficient. In fact, government has a mandate to work for all citizen, regardless of finical status.
          • jhodapp, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1And tell me then, has government been filling in this insufficiency? Also, can you prove that these private methods of a safety net aren't effective to your arbitrary level of effectiveness that you seem to have in your mind? When government takes from one sector of society to give to another, it becomes the lord of all and it also increases inequality, increases resentment, and creates an unsustainable society. In other words it's evil. If a private individual took money at gunpoint to give it to another person, they'd be seen as evil and go to jail. Why is it any different for the government when they take money (at gunpoint) to give to others?
        • logosx1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The more you subsidize anything, including poverty, the more of it you create.
    • scamper22, on 05/05/2008, -7/+9I sense you missed one of his key points. All politics stinks.

      Why do leftist politicians push ABC...because that's what they want to force on you.
      Why do right politicians push DEF...because that's what they want to force on you.

      I don't see why the Right cares what I smoke in my own house, or have sex with in my own house, or dress like in public, or invades other countries, or gives my tax dollars to the military/health/whatever industrial complex.

      This is why I don't vote. If you vote, you only legitimize the BS. I'm a socially progressive, fiscally conservative nut. It really doesn't matter who gets elected. How I long for the day, people actually realize that all politics stinks and someone gets elected with 5% voter turnout. You know...that would actually send your politicians a message.
      • swrostmore, on 05/05/2008, -3/+9No vote = a vote for whoever wins.
      • Sherman901, on 05/05/2008, -1/+10you are a dumbass for not voting.
      • kingmanic, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7Not voting doesn't take away their legitimacy. All it does is make dedicated fringe groups more powerful because they tend to vote more so then you.
      • randumbusername, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6i hear you which is why im slowly becoming a libertarian. guarantee property rights and individual rights.... the rest is up to you. want to help the poor, start a business or charity [particualry those who are well off and want to pay higher taxes. going through a middleman (gov't) is inefficient and wasteful. ex. social security]. want to protect the environment then own property. want to lower the cost of health care then get rid of government mandates that force the price up with medications and procedures you'll probably never need. all problems stem from a bunch of ***** residing in washington, dc . will life ever be perfect. NO!! but if you get 535 ego-maniacal assholes out the way YOU'd be more able to do something about it.
        • kingmanic, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3A single nearly impossible ideological stance will not solve everything. Just as communism, true socialism, or pure democracy all have inherent flaws and ideal examples of each have not been created, the libertarian ideal is similarly implausible and flawed. The focus on individual rights are good but the absence or diminished nature of government only allows corporations to become more powerful in comparison with out even the shadow of popular representation that now exists. Stripping away corporate rights would be good too but the path from what the west in general has now and the libertarian ideal is as hazy and implausible as the path from what we have now and some socialist utopia.
          • warsql, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Except that corporations are government created / sanctioned entities to begin with.
          • gregfadein, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Corporations are bottom-up structures that rely on providing in-demand goods and services in order to earn money.

            The government is top-down, centralized, planned authority. It just has to sign more taxes into law, and then can and will use force up to and including incarceration.

            I'll take corporations over the government any day.
        • scamper22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3exactly.
          There is a role for politics, but 90% of what government does it should not be doing.
          Strong non-profits would be much better at dealing with these issues. But politicians have gotten lazy through taxation. Instead of convincing us of the benefits of a program and earning out trust so we voluntarily partake in the pogram, we are just required to 'trust' them and how they spend our money.

          Well the emperor has no clothes as they say.
          Best to spoil your ballot and actually do things on your own to make a difference.
          Instead HIlary/Obama becoming a lawyer and championing public health care, you would think they could have become doctors and started community health groups.

          Instead of ranting about big bad corporations, they could help setup worker coops.
        • AmaDaden, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1"if you get 535 ego-maniacal assholes out the way..."
          You then have 535 ego-maniacal assholes out on the street ready to start a business in a society that no longer protects the average Joe who just wants to live a happy life and not worry about every jackass trying to ***** him. Enjoy never retiring like they did back in 1900, it'll be fun
          • scamper22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2and who do you think pays for your retirement?
            While you talk about jackasses fcking people over, I look at previous generations what saddled us with so much debt based on their entitlements and wars. Who has fcked over who?

            You're more than welcome to take 10% of each years earnings and put it in a retirement fund. Countries like Chile and Sweden have a similar program.

            And maybe if Joe gets married, has some nice kids, and lives a happy life, his children will be kind enough to support Joe when he gets old. Maybe if Joe spent some of his younger days staying out of debt, he could rhave his house paid off when he retires and live a comfortable simple retirement.
            Instead of course if Joe nowadays thinks he is entitled to live the good life when he is young buying iphones and suvs and a house he cannot afford. Then he expects everyone else to pay for his retirement in Florida.

            Good old Joe 6pac; I think is his last name.

          • AmaDaden, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1@scamper22. You bring up a good point in terms of things like Social Security but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about back when capitalism was so unchecked there was no middle class. Back in the days of the robber barons. They payed people so little they were lucky if they did not stave to death never mind trying to save any of their pay. I don't want to pay people to be lazy but I also don't want to let the people in power go unchecked. It has been PROVEN to be destructive.
          • scamper22, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I agree with you on that point.

            power always needs to be checked. But a corporation/businessmen has no power over anyone unless they involve the government. If they can get control of key resources (roads/land/banking....) or if they can classify workers as being different (importing Chinese laborers to build railways, or Mexicans to work the farms...).

            I grew up on a farm in Africa, so I know what poverty is...but its not that bad on a farm if the government just left us alone. We raised our own food and what not. Simpler times I guess.

            industrialization and moving people into cities almost necessitates the welfare state to some degree. But that's another issue all together.


      • malex, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Listen to these people. The only message not voting sends to politicians is that they can do whatever they want and you won't do ***** to change it.

        Register Libertarian. Register Green. Register whatever moonbat yahoos turn your crank, but DO NOT sit the goddamn election out.
    • Enasni1212, on 05/05/2008, -8/+11But they don't push equality of outcome, except in certain situations. General equality of outcome is socialism, and the vast majority of "modern Democrats," aren't socialists.
      That said, I'm pretty well off. I could live with paying a higher tax if it will get socialized health care to the United States. It's true that the poor didn't "earn" that free health care. It's true that your higher taxes would be paying for the health care of a bunch of bums. But it's also paying for health care for many people that never got equality of opportunity, which you acknowledge to be important.
      Saying that Democratic values don't allow, "people their own freedom to be and do what they want," is ridiculous. It's true that the rich will be a little less rich, and the poor will be a little less poor, but the rich are still rich and the poor and still poor, and not much is going to change that, regardless of your political system.
      • scamper22, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1you're making a grand assumption when you think the democratic party takes from the rich to give to the poor. I'd be more inclined to vote democrat if that were the case.

        Instead the democrats take from one group of people...give to other rich people, and throw a penny at the poor.
        Only the modern democratic party can make 100K civil servant jobs seem middle class. Notice how hilary is against raising their taxes.
      • moonshn, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2and the middle class cannot become rich because they too are paying for the poor... they have to in any sustainable system, there are just not enough "rich" to go around.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3On the other side of the coin, isn't it a bit silly to have income alone drive people's career desires? I mean, if income were the only factor, we'd all try to be CEOs, and how would that work out?
      • gregfadein, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Only the people qualified to become CEOs would, with everyone else taking jobs in order to maximize their productivity, and therefore, personal incomes?

        Sounds pretty awesome to me.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but if everyone chose that career path, who would teach? Who would be doctors? Firefighters? Policemen? Soldiers? I mean, these are all career paths in which you don't really "move up" in the same way that you do in the corporate world.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2The same people would fill those jobs who fill them now: idiots.
    • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Keep licking those jackboots and maybe - just maybe - you can someday marry the king's daughter!! (not, but nice fantasy to jerk off to!!11!!!)
    • petrodollar, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3He tells people to become lawyers, and right wingers hate lawyers.
    • jessehadden, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1It is a historical fact that the employing class will exploit the employed class exactly to the point that they can get away with it. One of the purposes of the government of a civilized society is to ensure that class lines are not drawn. Saying that a physically-laboring janitor is worth $10/hr, while a mentally-laboring web developer is worth $25/hr, is classism. If I want to work more or less hours a day, and adjust my standard of living to follow my chosen lifestyle, that's one thing... but why is our society fundamentally set up with the expectation of inequality on what a fair day's work is worth?

      We discuss these philosophical issues; meanwhile, people in civilized nations with living wages laugh at us, with our riches and our "minimum" (aptly named) wage, and our starving children and welfare families. Oh, wait, I forgot. Poor people are to blame for their own predicament, because everything is fair, and they should be able to succeed in America... well, it's not fair here, and the myth isn't true. For some to have the American Dream, under the current expectations of classism, requires that others have the American Nightmare. And it's too bad, too, because O'Rourke is right -- there is more than enough to go around. The scarcity is artificial.
      • Hamletlere, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3No, saying that a physically laboring janitor is worth $10/hour and a mentally-laboring web developer is worth $25/hour is NOT classism.

        What it is is supply and demand in action. Since janitorial work is a low-skill job, many people (including the web developer, usually) could do it. Web development is a highly skilled job, so there is less competition driving down the wage.

        In addition, janitorial services do not make or break a company, and do not directly contribute to the company's bottom line by making products that the company can sell to make a profit. This means that companies put low value on such services, further driving down the costs.

        The employer does not say "janitors are lazy, ugly slobs so I refuse to pay them more than $10/hour" (which would be classism). The employer says "any one of my employees can empty their own trash and clean their work area... I feel it is worth $10/hour to keep them from having to do that and allow them to stay on task." That's supply and demand.

        Why do you think highly-skilled web developers command a higher salary than low-skilled web developers? Do you also see this as classism?

        Don't get me wrong, I am all for fairness. But I am also for rewards being based on merit. To me, it is fair that everyone who can perform a task at equal levels get compensated equal amounts (black, white, male, female, whatever). It is not fair to say that all tasks are equal and should be compensated in equal amounts.
        • jessehadden, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Does anybody really want to do menial work? I am sure you and I agree that our society would suddenly stand still if all the menial laborers stopped working. After all, our lives are made possible by them. And then we take that power, and use it to pay ourselves more. It is not surprising to me that we, as a society, have developed a philosophy to justify doing this.
        • EvilCapitalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1"We take that power to pay ourselves more"... Hogwash! The market values an individual's worth based on the the demand for that marginal individual's contributions. It's classic Marxist theory that says that the worth of a worker's contribution is based on the "effort" or "time" the laborer put into it.
  • Hercules, on 05/05/2008, -43/+11This is a guy that tries VERY hard to be funny, and fails almost every time.

    I haven't read the article, but this guy is extremely annoying. It's not to say he's not right (I'm right of center on most issues, especially financial ones -- think Ron Paul) but if you want to make the point, make it, don't try to do something you have no skill to do. Humor is a gift, not "practice makes perfect".
    • theeldest, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Something else that takes skill: Writing good comments on Digg.
    • hipnerd, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Like most people, I stopped paying attention to you when you said, "I haven't read the article."
    • doctechnical, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Wow. I (and judging by the digg-down you got, a lot of other people) find him very funny. Didn't you even like the stuff he wrote for NatLamp?
    • dinsy, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1I agree completely, however they'll digg you down 4 not reading article. PJ is kind of a poor man's Dave Barry. But not nearly as creative and has no knowledge of the topic most of the time. Seems to be confusing humor with ignorance. I read several of his books in the '90s (they were available free where I worked & I read 'em out of boredom), and he's still selling the same worn out tired-ass *****.
    • tst1212, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1And you are a guy that tries VERY Hard to be a douche bag, and succeed every time.
  • stickybench, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1I have just dropped my safety pin out of the window,
    Does anyone have a magnet and a strong accent?
  • thrash822, on 05/05/2008, -14/+7I thought Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Standford was better.
    link: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/ ...
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/05/2008, -38/+4P.J. O'Rourke should have said a parliament of terrorists!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
    • Nhmarine, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Erm, how exactly did you extrapolate all that crap from this article? And also, nobody cares about your opinion.
    • FecalHurler, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7Is there a way to report spam? I am so tired of seeing this *****.
      • doctechnical, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Launch every Zig! For Great Justice!

        MOVE ZIG!
    • JointVenture, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Take it easy Rev.
    • dan222555, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Rev. Wright has made his way to Digg...
    • Jogga, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Spam? This is gold.
      These men are the undiscovered motherlode of comedy. Think about it, we could be rich.
  • Ratzeputz, on 05/05/2008, -14/+4"The Bachelor Home Companion" was funny in it's day, but nowadays his "humor" is really getting tired and irrelevant.
  • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -16/+9PJ's used to be a funny guy, but he peaked at "Parliament of whores". As he has gotten older, he has become completely okay with authoritarianism. Pity, but he did leave us some pretty good articles.
  • Angostura, on 05/05/2008, -6/+9Speaking as a British pinko liberal, I think O'Rouke is great.. or at least was great, I think he is getting perhaps a little stale now. If you want books that make laugh, as well as prompting you to examine your assumptions, I heartily suggest Holidays in Hell and Parliament of Whores.
  • trappleton, on 05/05/2008, -13/+5How "edgy."
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -4/+8Yeah, if only he were less intelligent, more cynical, self-satisfied, left-leaning, and had an unfunny show on Comedy Central. Then he'd be awesome, right?
      • trappleton, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3Well, he's got the "less intelligent, more cynical, self-satisfied" part down to a science, I'd say. Now if only he said something of worth.
  • way2muchsense, on 05/05/2008, -9/+12Shorter PJ - put yourself first, or at least in the top three or so.
    I would have added "shun patriotism with your last ounce of effort" to that list. If there was ever a so-called virtue that was more over-rated, it would be blind "America, love it or leave it" patriotism. Hand in hand with religion, patriotism has caused more needless human suffering than any other idea. Your country should bend to your ideals, not your ideals to it. That's why you have the vote.
  • tikal2k, on 05/05/2008, -4/+7I didn't always agree with his politics, but I was a fan of his writing in the early 1990s.Great to see he's still around.
  • Beanbones, on 05/05/2008, -6/+12We need more people like this guy speaking their mind, now more than ever. Hearing rational arguments and clear, unclouded thoughts is like a breath of fresh air at a time when common sense has become anything but common.
    • irightthebook, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Rational arguments? Please. The thing is full of straw men.
  • Kbennett, on 05/05/2008, -4/+10What I wouldn't have given to have PJ O'Rourke give the commencement address at my graduation...
    • ZenMojo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Yeah ... we would have booed him off the stage if he didn't get to number 6, at which point he would have gotten a standing ovation.
  • screamingjoker, on 05/05/2008, -7/+13***** BRAVO! That article is more honest and wise than I've ever heard from any professor, parent, politician and certainly any preacher-man. Go out and make ***** happen yourself.
  • sugarhigh4242, on 05/05/2008, -7/+20Its a shame that O'Rourke stopped reading the bible at the tenth commandment. About a thousand pages later, God has a change of heart on the whole "fairness" issue and treats the masses to a seafood dinner with an open bar.

    Oh well, at least he makes the conservative argument funny.
    • Tyrghast, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5your comment is possibly the funniest way to describe the new testament. throw a little bit about a cosmic jewish zombie and I think we have NY Times Bestseller.
  • WallyAnti, on 05/05/2008, -15/+23Yep, that sounds like the mindset of your typical jaded boomer. Forget trivial things like ethics and morality and look out for number one. By that I mean make as much money as you can and don't think too hard about it.

    It makes me absolutely sick to read how these idiotic boomers try to drop some knowledge on us. Don't vote because it wouldn't work at the dinner table or the clothing store. Democracy is already at work at the clothing store you fool. Every time you pay a dollar for something you are voting for it to continue to be produced. Yet we don't all have our mid drifts exposed imagine that.


    • trappleton, on 05/05/2008, -2/+10Agreed. Toss in some insincere self-deprecating humor to "validate" your points.
      Like George Carlin said, "How did this generation go from 'All you need is love' to 'Whoever dies with the most toys wins'?!"
      • cathars1s, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4I'm going to love to see you provide your kid with love alone because toys are materialist evils.

        Oh well, more for the rest of us.
        • trappleton, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2I'm going to see you provide your kid with hyperbole and watch him grow up to be an extremist, while I give mine common sense.
    • Kohaxx, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7I couldn't agree more, apathy and cynicism never fixed anything.
    • DavidYeah, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3"Democracy is already at work at the clothing store you fool. Every time you pay a dollar for something you are voting for it to continue to be produced. Yet we don't all have our mid drifts exposed imagine that."
      If that's your version of democracy, then the rich have the most votes, and the poor are almost totally disenfranchized. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
      • trappleton, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3That ain't democracy, it's capitalism. Similar but different.
        • ZenMojo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If people were all commodities for trade, then yes, capitalism would be democracy.
    • EvilCapitalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0That (WallyAnti's) has to be the most incoherent argument against what O'Rourke said I've read so far...
  • denholmwhale, on 05/05/2008, -15/+18I find this to be disturbing.

    It just appears like he is propagating some indulgent, glutton American lifestyle that makes me sick every time I look out the window.

    he is right, he is not wise...nor should we listen to him.

    most if not all of the problems we face as humanity is caused by following what this man has appeared to follow within this article.

    so ya, lets feed the economy, buy a mcdonalds,
    and yes, lets not get involved in politics so fascist american politics can speak for us.

    and yes...lets not be fair...other people can rot...so long as my ten year old daughter isn't dying of malaria

    I mean, i guess i could infer this as a joke by reading the last section, however i believe it is just a waste of space to have written this article in the first place.
    • cubicledrone, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1I think the word "gluttony" should be considered more and more. It is a frighteningly descriptive way to explain the current Fox News/Home Depot/SUV culture.
    • EvilCapitalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0"most if not all of the problems we face as humanity is caused by following what this man has appeared to follow within this article." Are you nuts? I paid $8MM in taxes at the age of 40 after working 80 hour weeks to create a company that provided payroll for 2000 employees (following O'Rourke's advice). You're telling me that your "disturbed" view of this has produced anything of merit? You're happy to vote for someone that will spend MY taxes on your causes. Please...
  • kipmartin, on 05/05/2008, -10/+14PJ. O'Rourke was funny back in the National Lampoon and Rolling Stone days, but hus neocon 'edge' doesnt cut it any more. he's a HUGE Bush fan now and has embraced the war (that nasty one in Iraq) by quipping tired old cliches like 'Lets bomb them back to the stone age!'

    with 4000+ dead americans, and uncountable returning veterans with psychological problems, he owes them more than a funny wry one-liner. he needs to wake up and do some thinking--something he hasnt done for 20 years. he needs to start looking at the fact that his alcoholism might be due to his selling out and all the guilt and self loathing that comes with that. he needs new wry observations and he needs to be creative.

    PJ O'Rourke used to be someone. he sold that quality and is bought and paid for. for him to tell graduates to follow in his path is a shameful use of his stature. im glad people like the Kennedys, MLK, and John Stewart worked from their idealism. they made the world a better place. O'Rouke just makes the world a meaner place.
    • deadmoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Wow, You put Jon (not John) Stewart on the same list as MLK and Kennedy. Is your comment a joke?
    • tst1212, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Yes everyone should work from their idealism, no matter how drunk you are when driving off bridges.
  • Pstmann, on 05/05/2008, -8/+6I guess old age replaces insightful humor with resigned apathy.
    • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2and learning to love your own enslavement?
      ( of course he's too lazy to be nice, so this is no surprise)
  • ScaredOfTheMan, on 05/05/2008, -9/+2Follow the commandments eh? How about those Commandments then?

    "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,"
    Deuteronomy 5:9

    Go ahead lets see you mod down the 10 commandments! Hahahahahaha

    I would say his stance on Idealism is can also be applied to over zealous religion. Stop coming to my door and trying to convert me (even though I am already a Christian) and go feed the poor around the world.
  • JimSwarthow, on 05/05/2008, -5/+17“I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you."

    that excerpt pretty much encapsulates why I love reading anything by PJO
    • tst1212, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1"That's not fair!" sums up most of the comments on dig!
    • davidmesaaz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Whenever I would complain about anything my mother would alway reply well life isn't fair. That is one of the first lessons I learned in life and she repeated it whenever I used the word fair in a sentence.
  • hackiavelli, on 05/05/2008, -7/+15You know, it's dead easy to pick on the 60s generation for their follies. They made mistakes for sure but they also did a hell of a lot of good with the civil rights movement and ending the draft.
    • arpad, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Crack a history book. The civil rights movement precedes the Baby Boomer generation by a couple of decades and none of the legislators who put their elective offices on the line to get civil rights legislation passed where Boomers.

      Us Baby Boomers had as much responsibility for the civil rights movement as a rooster's crowing does with the rising of the sun.
    • davidmesaaz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It was Milton Friedman's testimony before congress that really put and end to the draft. He destroyed the general's argument.
  • Ratteler, on 05/05/2008, -9/+7
    This whole diatribe was for the richest 1% that are allowed to play the game anyway, but he REALLY lost me at "5. Be a religious extremist!"

    Religion is just politics taken to the extreme of multi-generational brainwashing. It's the oldest way of getting YOU to make do with less, so THEY can have it.
  • RRJackson, on 05/05/2008, -5/+10Genius. He's one of the few guys who gets dragged on as a pundit and doesn't start believing his own press. I loved it when he was on Bill Maher's show recently and said, "What you've got here is a bunch of middle-aged guys in makeup sitting around a table." Then he dragged a finger down his cheek and looked at the goo he'd wiped off. Classic.
  • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -7/+4To solve problems you need a higher degree of intelligence than created them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    By pointing to the little guy as the ***** instead of the institutions that were allowed to rape us all he is effectively using smoke and mirrors to tell people to wash their own brains.

    Orwell would be proud.
    /sarc
  • rawg, on 05/05/2008, -2/+11Good advice. Do something you're good at and make a lot of money. Use the money for what you consider a good purpose.

    Take for example: Bill Gates donated a billion dollars to eradicate malaria. He's probably done more to help people fighting that disease as a software mogul then he ever would have been able to do as a volunteer or even a doctor. That's on top of shaping the global software industry, employing thousands of people, raising three children and enjoying a pretty nice life.
    • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3Classic Rockefeller - kick someone in the balls, give them a $5 bill and then gloat about how you are merciful to the great unwashed.
      Then again, you _are_ an angry (yet just!!) God in your own mind, right?
      • Envark, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Bill Gates didn't kick anyone in the balls.
        People chose to adopt Microsoft software as the de facto standard.
        • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1LOL do you even know the history of M$?
          "People" choose MS so they can keep their jobs fixing all the ***** that constantly breaks down.
          Institutions (that affect normal people) bought the BS since they were kept ignorant by MIS departments.
          "Best Practices" and SOX, my ass.
          • Envark, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Of course, the vast MIS conspiracy to make their own lives more difficult!
            That's the reason why Microsoft succeeded!
      • cathars1s, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Oh, and $5 < billions
      • arpad, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2And Rockefeller's companies produced a better product at a lower price.
      • rawg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure I understand your reply but I'll clarify my point anyway. What I'm saying is that Bill Gates (love him or hate him) is a more efficient software company executive than he probably would have been as a doctor or health care volunteer, just like there are plenty of doctors out there who are better at what they do than they would be as software executives. Would the malaria victims be better off if Bill Gates had become a doctor? Probably not. That's my point.

        Doing what you're good at, whatever it is, is a more efficient use of your time and energy, i.e. human capital, than doing something you're bad at just because you think it's the "right" thing to do. In fact, it would be selfish. It's just as immoral to waste your talents because of misdirected idealism as it is to spend money on wasteful consumption.
      • davidmesaaz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1They make a ton of money and what do their foundations do? They fund attacks on corpoations. The Ford Foundation funds Democracy Now the anti-globalization news media. They give grants to professors with the same views. Yes corporate greed is horrible isn't it?
  • rjn17960, on 05/05/2008, -7/+6What an idiot. I don't disagree with everything he said... like "go out and make a bunch of money", but that doesn't preclude you from being idealist. You don't have to chain yourself to a redwood tree to want to save them. There are other ways ... like voting in a government that wants to keep trees around. But of course, that would go against his number 3 recommendation, "get politically uninvolved".

    Getting politically uninvolved gets you something like our current disaster of an administration.
  • mickman17, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5I love watching this guy on RealTime with B. Maher.. He is unabashadly conservative but still has a ton of common sense - meaning that he isnt just blinded by choosing a platform. He call ***** when he sees it - even against the team which he chooses to play on. I wish more pundits were this way - smart, conscientious, and most important - able to see life/politics for what it truly is - a bunch of *****..
    • nycmac247, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1"able to see life ... for what it truly is - a bunch of *****"

      - be sure to say that in your wedding vows; everyone will love you
  • DocDEB, on 05/05/2008, -8/+7So then greed is good and God is on my side. Isn't that what got us into the mess we are in now?
  • moonshn, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2sorry, its Neal Boortz, but I still like it

    http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html
  • ToastedZergling, on 05/05/2008, -9/+2I took the article's advise, I didn't listen to my elders or any of this author's bias opinions.
  • JointVenture, on 05/05/2008, -6/+8Liberals would have you believe that there is a limited amount of pie, and that by some people having lots of pie it somehow denies others of having a slice of pie.

    That's *****, pie is not finite. It is available to all who are willing to work for a slice.
    • Envark, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2What's funny is that a lot of leftist politics ignore the fundamental scarcity of resources.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Yeah, those conservationist Socialist assholes with their complete ignorance of the scarcity of resources....
        (That was an incredibly stupid comment.)
  • petrodollar, on 05/05/2008, -8/+6"Observe politics in this country...Does it look like God's involved?"

    Yes, unfortunately.
  • nerfed, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3This is ***** terrible.

    and this "pie" is finite, and buying into this system of which we live is not going to help you live a happier life.
    • JointVenture, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4Really? finite? How does my earning a good living prevent you from earning one?
      • ArgusDrake, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1"We live in a world of limited resources." - This is the first thing I was told in my first lesson on Economics.
        Because we live in a world of limited resources, and because resources eventually equate to wealth, there is in turn a limited amount of wealth.
        While you making a good living may not relate directly to me not making one, as a man of means you are more likely to vote for and devote some of your time/resources into pushing for economic polices that allow you to retain your wealth, and perhaps also policies that make it harder for me to amass a similar level of wealthiness. It has more to do with your ethics than how much money you have, but by having money, you also have some amount of power, and in that position, your poor ethics may eventually harm me.
        Throughout history there's a pattern of the people on top taking a ***** on the people at the bottom. We haven't progressed so far as to eliminate that.
      • EvilCapitalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Argus: This ("We live in a world of limited resources") most certainly is NOT lesson one in Economics... If it was for you, you were poorly taught by a socialist Keynesian. True wealth creation is most definitely not a "zero-sum" game. Have you ever created anything of worth? I mean something that someone was willing to pay you for? Innovation, hard work, risk (and extraordinary rewards [profits] for those risks) create wealth. Dolt.
        • ArgusDrake, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1... And the creation of anything physical requires material resources in order to invent, produce and market.

          The only forms of wealth-earning not involving resources are investing (in which case you must already have had wealth), and labor. When you act as a laborer, you exchange your time and work for profit. However, even laboring in itself can be referred to as finite, as there is not an unlimited number of people who need and are willing to pay for your services. "Dolt."
  • crocodilexp, on 05/05/2008, -7/+4I was almost about to digg this, when I got to point #5. It's not clear to me why any reasonable person, in the course of rational argument, would need to invoke the Bible (especially irritating is that he suggests it to people of other religions). Completely predictably, he picks the point he likes from it, ignoring the others ("Love thy neighbor"?).
    • DavidYeah, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Love Thy neighbor, but only when he pulls the same six figure salary you do and you're both living in a gated community. That's in the annoted version of the bible that god put out during the reagan administration.
  • hydroplane, on 05/05/2008, -7/+4Self serving jibberish.
  • thing01, on 05/05/2008, -7/+3THE BUMS LOST LEBOWSKI!.... I found this text uninspiring drivel from a self-centered Coot. While he strikes a successfully ironic tone, and I don't disagree with all the advice, he really comes off like an asshole.
  • ddrucker, on 05/05/2008, -9/+5This is American garbage. That bit about getting rich so that you can give $100,000 in taxes assumes that the rich pay their fair share. They don't. As for the religious stuff, that's even worse. Sometimes stuff just isn't funny, no matter how you couch it in bleary-eyed scotch-scented world-weariness. Someone should give him a good detox and then let him spend a couple months living in public housing in downtown Chicago. Then see if he feels the same way.
    • JointVenture, on 05/05/2008, -5/+6booo hoooo hooooo, everyone in my neighborhood makes over 100K easily, and they all pay taxes.

      They work their asses off ya dumb *****, nothing was given to them. They're professors, lawyers, Dr., business owners and contribute more to society than someone earning less and getting a rebate check come tax time.
      • cubicledrone, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Nothing was given to them? Did the lawyers and doctors work their way through school sweeping floors and digging ditches? Who hired them? They all hang up a shingle and start banging the cash register door?

        Whoops! Looks like the facts is a bitch!
      • mrgreenjeans9, on 05/05/2008, -3/+4ddruker: ^---THAT is american garbage
    • tst1212, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2"let him spend a couple months......" Why would he want to? He'd prefer to work and live in a nice house. So maybe you should try getting off your lazy socialist ass and get to work.
    • EvilCapitalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1"That bit about getting rich so that you can give $100,000 in taxes assumes that the rich pay their fair share. They don't." Man.. you are an idiot. I paid $8 million in taxes by the age of forty, after creating a startup (that's now in it's 20th profitable year) and employing 2000 people. You're telling me "I didn't pay my fair share"? You have a really weird sense of "fair."
  • BikeMessenger, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9I'm glad he touched upon the issue of fairness; it's not an easy topic to honestly address (especially if you're a politician). I like to think the world would be great if some benevolent power somehow made us all equal, and that we could live out the rest of eternity in some social paradise where everyone was content (but not bored) and well-fed (but not overweight) and had a nice car (with free gas), but that ***** ain't the truth. The truth is, the best model we have found is just the opposite: let people be free to pursue their own interests, don't burden them with excessive taxes or regulation, and the creative effects of the market will benefit everyone, rich and poor alike.
    Friedman says "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will find itself with a great measure of both."
    • ZenMojo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1And then Friedman said "I have come to believe that Capitalism only works in very small social groups." And then he died. And then everyone ignored what he said and started quoting his earlier ***** to make a point.
      • BikeMessenger, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Zen, can you please provide a citation for this Friedman quote? I'm interested in the context and spirit of the conversation or essay in which it took place. Until then I am unwilling to believe that he would endeavor to contradict himself or the free market philosophies he so passionately believed.
  • dinsy, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Amazing how much mileage PJ has gotten by blaming everything on the "1960s generation". He hasn't come up with anything new in 15 years. Glad I did not read the long version of this.
  • cubicledrone, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1At least now we know why all the 1960s generation is so enthusiastic about firing their employees.
  • wakemeupin09, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2This article is a perfect example of what's wrong in the world today. If that douche spoke like this at my graduation, I'd walk out. Anyone who buys into this idiot's 'wisdom' is an ass.
  • ChickenOfDoom, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0Wealth after a point is useless. Money is not real power; money is exchanging your time for someone else's time, decreasing all of our freedom. Public education IS ***** up. If something is unfair about a domestic situation, it has absolutely nothing to do with starving kids in Africa, it has to do with how those with arbitrary power are being dicks about it.
  • Iztikeit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1He went to my University, he's a ridiculously funny guy in person.
  • JerTheBear, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2What a bunch of cynical garbage. With a collective attitude such as that, it's no wonder this country is going down in flames.

    BTW: A great way to impress typical Diggers: Feed them nuggets of advice from a selfish contrarian. They'll lap it up like a bunch of thirsty hounds! Anything that justifies selfishness...
  • TommyBoy919, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Dugg for speaking the truth! The gist of this article; stop whining about what you don't have or who has it better than you, get off your ass and make something happen!
  • bshock, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Is anyone still listening to this mouth-breathing fool? P.J. O'Rourke can't decide whether he wants to be a pundit or a comedian, and he fails at both.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.