And what of Mark Shea's Attitude to Marco Rubio?

Series on Chestertonian attitudes on Creationism (i e today's Chestertonians being clearly less favourable to Young Earth Creationism than GKC): 1) Mark Shea Basically Calls Creationists Protestants, 2 Mark Shea Responded, 3) And what of Mark Shea's Attitude to Marco Rubio?, 4) Answering Thomas Storck and Solving Problem (I Propose at least) Set by Humani Generis, 5) Trin80ty's bias, his ugly bias

Mark Shea's article on why Romney's party lost

I tried to post a comment about asking him why Marco Rubio - his namesake - lost. Was it because Mark Shea and other Catholics who might morally speaking have voted for him (he comes from a poor and hardworking family) felt oh no, they could not possibly vote, not just not for a young earth creationist, but they could not even vote for one not positively excluding young earth creationism? Or was it for some other reason?

I could have added that people suffering from higher taxes could perhaps get some more sympathy (from other voters) if they did not themselves, some obnoxious ones of them, insist on measures for the poor one more oppressive than the other, that after all cannot be financed other than by taxes, and which are only partially palliated by feeding the poor also via taxes. Because one effect of oppression is increased poverty.

I remember how George Bush Jr deceived me when he caved in to Responsible Rich and after all did keep inheritance duty in place. I mean, when millionaires like Bill Gates said it was not good for someone to be born with a silver spoon in the mouth, they were perhaps not thinking of their own children, some of them lacking such, others sure that their own will be born with siver spoons anyway, they were perhaps more concerned with the "spiritual welfare" (and the more spiritual and less material the better as far as they are concerned) of, say, smaller family business.

But even poorer folks than inheritors of mom and pop shops who need to sell to pay inheritance duty can get a hard time due to the taxes. If the taxes goes to your welfare, it does not mean in some persons' books it must go to your pocket. It may well mean it goes to measures that you do not like yourself, like paying shrinks or social workers to keep watch over you.

As a son of a psychiatry victim, as a victim of social workers more than once (at least three major occasions, 1983, 1993-5, 1998) and that victimhood not meaning a refusal of money but far more bitter things (in 1988 it was ma's and my kid sister's turn), I do have sympathy for people who want to pay less taxes, unless their first reaction seeing certain poorer people is "you go and feed yourself on tax money and we'll push the social workers so they get you to sweep the streets soon, unless you are really retarded".

But awaiting that, it seems there was a Marco Rubio, and he was from a poor hardworking family and he was called incompetent by some (incompetent as in neither knowing nor knowing whom to ask), because he refused to exclude Young Earth Creationism. Could that have been the reason Marco Rubio lost? Could US otherwise have had a President as caring for the poor as Ted kennedy (or more) and as pro-life as Mitt Romney?

Now, I would have made a far shorter comment than this under Mark Shea's blogpost to which I linked, but I am not sure if it is the library and the computer admins in it, or if Mark Shea put me on a spam-list, the comment was written, I clicked "post comment" and the comment did not show.

Happy Birthday Ma, hope you like this and it does not hurt you through the revenge of certain tax financed institutions!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
in Paris (FR)
Mother's Birthday
5-III-2013