CONTINUED....

MacDonald is among those many conservatives who, having gotten theirs, see no need for any form of welfare whatsoever, under any circumstance, and simply want it to disappear altogether. Such people would gladly help any person "truly" in need--it's just that they can’t imagine ever running across one. 

I am light years from being a left wing extremist, and I am absolutely FOR welfare reform, but I certainly know better than to cite examples of thirteen-year-old children to illustrate how people should be left to suffer the consequences of their irresponsible behaviors. What heartless fundamentalism! If you cannot understand how not having a decent parent can foster "irresponsible" behavior in a child—a child!—and demand that that child basically be left abandoned to her deserved punishment, then you have nothing meaningful to say. If your tough love isn't based on love, it is worthless.

One of the 13-year-old children MacDonald discusses is a girl who was pregnant due to rape (not due to personal irresponsibility). Her siblings and parents were living horror stories of drugs and violence. Social workers sought to place the girl with other relatives, where she would have a more suitable environment for success. Instead of lauding those efforts, MacDonald's gripe is that no one forced the girl to give up her baby. That there was no irresponsible behavior on the girl's part mattered not to MacDonald. The young woman should be made to suffer--for the rapist's irresponsibility, I guess.

MacDonald takes every opportunity to depict the poor (and of course these would be the "undeserving" poor, since that is all she concerns herself with) in the worst possible light--anything to make any form of welfare look silly. If you are bright enough to understand that welfare is intended for the truly needy, not the "undeserving," and wonder how MacDonald would address the needs of a responsible person who is truly in need through some unfortunate circumstance beyond the person's control, don't hold your breath. She doesn't even acknowledge a need, and the last thing she would do in this book is to cite an example that might support even a conservative program to help the poor.

The author cites projects that were clearly experimental, titled as such and referred to by MacDonald herself as experimental. Yet she then goes on at length to announce, as if bringing some great revelation to our attention, what failures they were. You'd think somebody was trying to incorporate them into routine policy! If nobody, or only a handful of extremists that no one is listening to, is arguing for something, why the pompous declarations? Answer: the point is to ridicule liberals, not find solutions.

I heard this book in audio format, while traveling, and every few sentences, I could only blurt out, "But...!" because of the lapses of logic or, more frequently, important parts of the discussion totally ignored. What about the "deserving" needy? Or the "undeserving" needy who are, nevertheless, needy? Do we just let them starve? (MacDonald would not permit begging.) Maybe letting them starve is an argument of merit, but MacDonald only tells us how broken things are, she doesn't address solutions nor even outline what she sees as the problems--if any.

She spends a chapter scoffing at the notion that homeless people would like to be housed. A study showed that many of them did not. Okay, that is a good thing to know, and it will inform our homeless policies. But again, don't hold your breath for MacDonald to discuss those who *do* need and want housing. Go to work for any homeless shelter (according to a friend who worked for several) and you will find cases of bright, formerly well-employed people who lost everything, often due to illness of a spouse. What about them? It is a non-issue with MacDonald, who finds it easier, and perhaps more fun, to scoff at those who care and try and make mistakes and try again. Nor does she address the endlessly botched (conservative-based) healthcare policy in the U.S. and how it might directly relate to homelessness.

Some of her strongest ridicule is reserved for anyone who would think self-esteem is important enough to pay any attention to, when developing school policy. Again, anyone can cite the most absurdly extreme examples of experimental efforts. But isn't it equally absurd to suggest the choice has to be all or nothing? Hey, if *I* didn't need anyone to help foster self esteem in me, then why should some 9-year-old black kid who didn't have a father and who's mother was a junkie need it? I got *my* caring parents, you get yours!

When MacDonald talks about the horrors of our museums trying to make their displays more diverse and inclusive, it frankly sounds like sour grapes. I mean, curators got a clue and started fixing things... damn! Even if (big IF) some museums have overcompensated in their laudable efforts toward balanced and inclusive presentations, she can't bring herself even to hint that perhaps indeed there was a problem to start with. Her attitude is like that of whites who complain that we don't have a "White Awareness Month." (In fact, in one of her examples, she complains that if a white student had written the same kind of essay that a black student had written, there would be outrage. Is that the extent of her rational insight and maturity?) If museums have erred on the side of too much diversity, after a couple of hundred years of erring on the side of too little, how bothered can a sane person get? Tweak the solution and move on! At this point it actually crossed my mind that MacDonald could be an "angry straight white man" using a pseudonym! We white males had it so good for so many years, and now that the scales tip a little closer to balance--or, God forbid, half an ounce too far--the sky is falling!

One need not wonder whether MacDonald ever got as bent out of shape over too LITTLE diversity and minority representation as she does over her irrational fear that such issues might now be slightly overstated rather than grossly understated.

There is no question that caring can go too far, or, better put, that many things that have been tried haven't worked or need tweaking. No one disputes it. But what is the point of announcing, almost with apparent glee, that something didn't work? A meaningful work would actually discuss the problems and attempt to make another inch-worth of progress toward resolving them. To imply that the old ways were just fine doesn't cut it for me.

I have a long-standing commitment to hearing all sides, and that's why I endured this marathon rant. It was largely a waste of time, because I already knew what was wrong. The only reason the book rates a star is that you do learn some history, some details about the things that were wrong--which can be interesting for the learning, if not for a solution. The only reason for an undeserved second star is to keep from looking like an extremist that people won't bother to read. Other reviewers who gave this book only one or two stars are right on the mark. They say it better than I. Take a look at them.

As for the audio version, the reader drones about as much as one possibly could. The only excitement or change in tone seems to be in direct quotes when she livens up with a tone of voice clearly intended to make a minority person sound as dumb as she possibly can, or to make an opposing view sound as silly as possible. Count on a lot of coffee if you want to stay on the road with this one.

Always listen to both sides . . .