Editor's note: I created this blog so my internet-unsavvy (or just lazy) friend could have his semi-frequent ramblings appear in the blogosphere. Up to this point I've agreed with him 99.98%, but this time I think it's good to mention that we don't always agree on everything. After reading this last one, I can't help but imagine the Team America: World's Police song blaring from a 1985 IROC-Z as it cruises down Main Street on its way to the liquor store...
America is at war, again. And make no mistake, it is war, and we are at it. Our enemies are many. Our friends are few. Our detractors are numerous. They just don't understand. Slime balls, like Ward Churchill, claim its chickens coming home to roost. A friend of mine insists its our outrageous and intrusive foreign policy. Another friend insists its because George Bush was "appointed" president by a conservative Supreme Court (obviously he hasn't been paying attention to recent decisions). They are, of course, wrong. Though nothing I say or write will change their mind. Its always puzzled me how, during times of peril, Americans almost always look to themselves, as the cause. After all, we are the 800 pound gorilla in the world's china shop. Actually I think that's one of America's greatest traits. First, lets look at ourselves. No matter where we stand, no matter where we sit, something is probably going to get busted. Damn laws of physics. Does that mean we broke something? Yep. Does it mean its our fault? Yep. Did we do it on purpose? Nope. Did we do it out of spite, hatred, desire to inflict pain? Nope. Are we evil people stomping across the world, destroying things in an immature tantrum remaking the world in our image? Not a chance Jack. Quite the opposite actually. The world, the real world, the real people, every day schmos like you and me absolutely love America and everything it stands for. How can this be? How can I say this? Just look at all the demonstrations around the world, the angry chants "death to America," "the great satan," "Yankee go home!" I'll tell you how I can say this. Look at America's borders. See the millions who risk everything, absolutely everything, their own lives and the lives of their families to get here. They risk death. From Mexico, Central America, Cuba, Haiti. That's people voting with their feet. And believe me, they aren't risking life and limb to get into the Sudan or Ethiopia. They want to come here.
America is at war. Again. It seems every 10 to 15 years, humanity forgets exactly why we hate war, and plows into it again. In the above paragraph I dwelled a while on reasons why we are not at war. Now lets dwell on reasons we are at war. The world has been neatly divided into three parts. The old world (Europe), the new world (America) and the third world (everything else.) But the third world is a far too complicated to be lumped into "other." It is a diverse mosaic of cultures, religions, people and lands. One thing third world countries do seem to have in common is their inability, for one reason or another, to pull themselves out of the middle ages. Some are working on it (China, Singapore, Philippines, India). Others have already done so admirably (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea). others are trying desperately (South Africa). Still others have no intention of changing one single damn thing (North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran). And those are the dangerous ones. They hate America. Because of something we did? Well, yes. We've proven to the entire world what freedom, free markets, democracy and capitalism can accomplish. We've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all the lies they've been told by their leaders over the centuries are just that, lies. And the power brokers in these backwater dictatorships hate us for that very reason. And you know, there's a funny anomaly in a dictatorship. When dictator hates someone, then that's what is seen on the TV (assuming they have TV), its what's broadcast on the radio (assuming they have radios) and its what is taught in school (assuming they have schools). Dictators need that seething, raging, hate to dominate their people. They need their minions to be more scared of us, than they are of the dictator. He needs them to hate us more than they hate him. Because if they stop hating us, if they stop believing the lies, then the public's anger will turn to where it rightly should be, against the dictator. And a dictator can't have that.
America is at war. Again. And its a fight like we've never seen before. Actually, we are the underdogs in this fight. Again. I know it doesn't seem that way. And there's a strong argument against my statement, one need look no further than the US Marines, the US Navy, the US Airforce, well, the US itself. But we are the underdogs here. We don't have enough bullets, enough guns, enough bombs to destroy the enemies who want to cut off our heads, who want to drink our blood, rape our wives and daughters, enslave our children. We can put up one hell of a fight, no doubt. But in the end, you just can't kill a major portion of the world. Besides, we're Americans. We won't stand for that. Contrary to popular opinion, we are still the good guys. There's an old internet story making the rounds, I have no idea if its true or not, but I still love it none the less. It's been said that then Secretary of State Colin Powel was asked by an official of the Anglican Church, how America was enjoying its current conquest (Iraq). In my opinion, Colin Powel is the classiest person in politics world wide. I'd vote for him for president in a heart beat, and I would never have to second guess it. Powel replied that America has sent many of its young men and women around the world to fight and die to free oppressed people. And the only land we've asked for is enough to bury them. Does that make your heart swell with pride? It does mine. Because weather the story is real or not, the statement is. Lets look at the litany. France (twice), Britain (twice), Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Greece, to sum it up, basically half of Europe. By the end of the cold war, that total grows to pretty much all of Europe. China, Burma, Japan, and hundreds of tiny island paradises in between. I admit it freely, America once lumbered into the realm of colonialism with the Philippine Islands. It was a gross error, and has stained Old Glory for ever. But MacArthur did return to the Philippines. And when we were through liberating them, we left them in freedom. You can't remove a stain, but you can mitigate it, make up for it, and try to do better.
America is at war. Again. And this time its against an enemy like we've never fought before. As I mentioned, we can't win this war through traditional methods, blow the crap out of them, then rebuild and make nice. That won't work. There's too many of them. To much hatred, too many lies, too many distortions. Okay, technically we can. But we won't. Because we're Americans. We don't do that. So how do you fight a war against people who hide behind women, strap bombs to their children, care nothing for their neighbors - if it means a chance to kill the ugly infidels? What weapons do we have at our disposal that could possibly stop this madness? When you come right down to it, we only have one real weapon in this fight. And its a pretty damn good weapon. Its actually the ultimate weapon, if wielded properly. We have freedom.
America is at war. Again. And we have one weapon in our arsenal that stands a chance against our enemies. We have freedom. I like to think of it as the ultimate weapon. Free people seldom have the time to worry about some Joe Schmo in another part of the world mishandling a book. They're generally too busy enjoying life, playing with their kids, worrying about the mortgage, retirement. They don't generally worry about infidels, because there are more important things in life. That is the benefit freedom gives. It gives the individual the freedom to worry about stupid, every day, mundane things. The cost of gas, the pot holes in the street, the quality of their children's teachers. Freedom. Freedom not to have to mimic the great dictator's hatred and fear. Freedom to laugh at religious nuts and ignore their ramblings. Freedom to not give a damn about anything they don't want to give a damn about. Freedom.
America is at war. Again. We're the underdogs, and we have one weapon at our disposal that stands a ghost's chance in hell of winning this war. That weapon is freedom. And since this is war, we must use what ever weapons we can to ensure our survival. And we will use freedom to win this. This is why America is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not because we're building an empire. If America wanted to rule the world, believe me, we'd already be doing it. Hell, we were in charge of half of it by the end of World War II. We said, thank you no, we have to go back home and build the American dream, but thanks for asking. Of course we have military bases all over the world. After loosing 500,000 lives in a bloody war, you tend to want to keep an eye on things. But a naval base in the Philippines, and an Army base in Iwo Jima do not, an empire make. The only chance we have in this new war is to bring freedom, democracy and stability to drain the cease pools of the world. Drain the swamps, kill the mosquitos, free the people, and let them enjoy the freedoms we have here. That is how this war will be won. Its the only way. They will either accept life on our terms, or we will accept death on theirs. My money is on America. My money is on freedom.
Freedom.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
A twist on Godwin
There's a little known rule for debating. It should probably be called a "theory", because I don't know how to prove a "law" for political discussions. But it's proven itself time and time again for me, so I call it a law. That and "theory" sounds kind of whimpy. Who's going to obey the "theory" of gravity? We'd have anarchists floating all over the place.
Its called "Stratt's Law" and it's pretty simple. It goes something like this: you can gauge the depth of a debater's argument by how quickly they resort to calling their opponent a "nazi". (I always spell nazi with a lower case "n". Take that you nazis!)
There are two points of consideration to this law. First is the term "nazi" is not required. You can easily substitute Hitler, Goebbles, brown shirts, jack-booted thugs, Gestapo, etc. You get the picture. The second is that this does not apply if they are debating an actual nazi.
Keep this in mind next time you hear a political debate, or read a political essay, or even letters to the editor of your favorite newspaper - or even recently, on the Senate floor. See how often, and how soon the dreaded "n" word shows up. Its easy to see why. If western civilization can agree on one thing its that the nazis were bad. More than bad, they were down right evil. More than down right evil, they were evil incarnate. So what better way to make your point than to simply point out to your audience that your opponent is evil incarnate? End of discussion. No need to continue (though you know they will). After all, if they are against nazis (and you being a sane person, are of course too, against nazis), then what more needs discussing?
First off, lets look deeper. What is a nazi? I'd love to put that to a focus group, but the only available bodies at the moment are my wife and child, and I won't even entertain the hazard of interrupting their afternoon ice cream time. So that would leave my two dogs and one cat. And they just lay around looking happy at me (I usually feed them). So I'll have to do without the focus group.
I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's. Yes, that makes me a tail end member of that most dreaded of demographics, the baby-boomers. Please don't hold that against me. I grew up on Hogan's Heroes, Gomer Pyle, Rat Patrol, G.I Joe's and John Wayne movies. At one time, in my teenage years I could have recited a litany of WWII aircraft for America, Britain and Germany (1/3 of them were hanging from my bedroom ceiling at 1/32 scale). Quite simply, a nazi is a German soldier during WWII (or as Archie Bunker used to say "the big one.")
While that being true, not all Germans or even all German soldiers were in fact nazis. Pope Benedict XVI grew up in WWII Germany. His family had to leave their ancestral home town because his father's outspoken criticism of, and opposition to the nazis was getting his family closer and closer to a one way ticket to Auschwitz. Benedict was forced to join the Hitler Youth, and later was drafted into the Third Reich. Eventually he deserted. At some later point he was picked up by the US army and put in a prisoner of war camp. Eventually he was told to stop being a nazi and just go home. Pope Benedict XVI was not a nazi.
Dr. Josef Mengele, a.k.a. the "Angel of Auschwitz" was a physician who was given the admirable responsibility of implementing Hitler's final solution to Europe's "Jewish problem." In this noble endeavor, he over saw the importation of millions of undesirables to Auschwitz. Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and to a lesser extent Catholics and any one else who dared question Hitler's attempt to destroy the world and remake it into what he saw as the ultimate image - Aryan.
While Mengele was busy incinerating undesirables at a clip that would make a nazi proud (see note 2, paragraph 3, above), he also saw the opportunity to further medical science, which he no doubt believed, was to the benefit of mankind. In order to more properly equip the nazi war machine, he pulled a few condemned souls from the lines marching toward gas chambers and ran some tests. How much cold could the human body tolerate? How much heat? Important information when designing uniforms. How good did gas masks have to be? That depends upon how much poison gas the human body can tolerate. As any one who's taken a college level science course can attest, you need multiple cases studies in order to verify your data. No matter, just go to the lines and grab another dozen.
Mengele was, if nothing else, a renaissance man. Not only was he interested in the practical knowledge afforded by his experiments, he also was interested in a wide range of other subjects. One of them was genetics. Especially twins. They afforded the best test subjects. They come with a built in control group. Perform your experiments on one, and then you can compare the results to the test subject's exact duplicate. The preferred method for "neutralizing" their test subjects for dissection, a shot of chlorine directly in the heart. They came to be known as Mengele's children. He gathered some 3,000 of them. By the time he fled like the cowardly dog that he was, skulking off into the dark to save his own worthless, miserable, putrid hide from the invading Soviets, only some 240 remained alive. Dr. Josef Menegle was a nazi.
Notice the difference?
There is a difference between people you don't like and nazis. There is a difference between people you despise and nazis. There is a difference between people you hate and nazis. There is a difference between your opponent (usually, again, see above) and a nazi. The word nazi is reserved not for the people you find most contemptuous, its reserved for, well, nazis. And the list is long. Took a lot of man power to round up and slaughter six million people. That's right, 6,000,000. They kept records that would, well, make a nazi proud. By the time civilization finally flushed these pieces of crap down the toilet, 50,000,000 people around the world were dead. And not just killed, horribly, horribly, horribly killed. Hundreds of millions more were injured, both mentally and physically. Most of Europe lay in ruins. And I don't mean just more pot holes than you can stand - I mean ruins. I mean real ruins. Picture little one armed kids, five, six, seven years old searching through bombed out cities for some small scrap of maggot infested food to feed their sick, younger siblings. That was Europe after WWII. After the nazis.
Now keep that image fresh in your mind, we'll need it later. If you're from my age group, give or take a few years, you can probably still recite the litany of grotesque evil. Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann, Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler. These, my friends, were nazis. Notice the past tense of the last sentence. They are no more. And not because evolution, in all its infinite wisdom, removed them from the human gene pool. They are gone because humanity was repulsed by the horror of their presence in their lifetime. So we humans, we decent humans, put down our papers, our shovels, our plows, our books, and went to war to rid ourselves once and for all from this stain on humanity. And you know what? Humanity is the better for it.
Now lets get back to Stratt's Law. The shallowness of an argument can be determined by how quickly a debater resorts to calling their opponents a nazi. Don't like your opponent's position on Social Security reform? They're nazis. (Here's where you need to recall that image I asked you to keep fresh, I told you you'd need it). Don't like your opponent's political party? They are a nazi. Don't like the way your opponent speaks? They are nazis. I say its time to apply Stratt's Law to all public debates. If the best argument a debater can come up with is to compare their opponents to the most lowly dregs civilization has ever known, then they obviously haven't done their homework. Instead they are so filled with righteous indignation that they can't even be bothered to learn what a nazi truly is. And that's too bad. Before anyone picks up that debater's banner and runs with it, they should stop and take the time to learn just what a nazi actually is. There is a difference. History should preserve the unspeakable horrors of what that word truly means. Because the more its applied to other groups, the less power and horror and repulsion it holds. And let me tell you, the horror of World War II should never, ever, ever be forgotten. I don't want to even think about testing the old adage, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Its called "Stratt's Law" and it's pretty simple. It goes something like this: you can gauge the depth of a debater's argument by how quickly they resort to calling their opponent a "nazi". (I always spell nazi with a lower case "n". Take that you nazis!)
There are two points of consideration to this law. First is the term "nazi" is not required. You can easily substitute Hitler, Goebbles, brown shirts, jack-booted thugs, Gestapo, etc. You get the picture. The second is that this does not apply if they are debating an actual nazi.
Keep this in mind next time you hear a political debate, or read a political essay, or even letters to the editor of your favorite newspaper - or even recently, on the Senate floor. See how often, and how soon the dreaded "n" word shows up. Its easy to see why. If western civilization can agree on one thing its that the nazis were bad. More than bad, they were down right evil. More than down right evil, they were evil incarnate. So what better way to make your point than to simply point out to your audience that your opponent is evil incarnate? End of discussion. No need to continue (though you know they will). After all, if they are against nazis (and you being a sane person, are of course too, against nazis), then what more needs discussing?
First off, lets look deeper. What is a nazi? I'd love to put that to a focus group, but the only available bodies at the moment are my wife and child, and I won't even entertain the hazard of interrupting their afternoon ice cream time. So that would leave my two dogs and one cat. And they just lay around looking happy at me (I usually feed them). So I'll have to do without the focus group.
I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's. Yes, that makes me a tail end member of that most dreaded of demographics, the baby-boomers. Please don't hold that against me. I grew up on Hogan's Heroes, Gomer Pyle, Rat Patrol, G.I Joe's and John Wayne movies. At one time, in my teenage years I could have recited a litany of WWII aircraft for America, Britain and Germany (1/3 of them were hanging from my bedroom ceiling at 1/32 scale). Quite simply, a nazi is a German soldier during WWII (or as Archie Bunker used to say "the big one.")
While that being true, not all Germans or even all German soldiers were in fact nazis. Pope Benedict XVI grew up in WWII Germany. His family had to leave their ancestral home town because his father's outspoken criticism of, and opposition to the nazis was getting his family closer and closer to a one way ticket to Auschwitz. Benedict was forced to join the Hitler Youth, and later was drafted into the Third Reich. Eventually he deserted. At some later point he was picked up by the US army and put in a prisoner of war camp. Eventually he was told to stop being a nazi and just go home. Pope Benedict XVI was not a nazi.
Dr. Josef Mengele, a.k.a. the "Angel of Auschwitz" was a physician who was given the admirable responsibility of implementing Hitler's final solution to Europe's "Jewish problem." In this noble endeavor, he over saw the importation of millions of undesirables to Auschwitz. Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and to a lesser extent Catholics and any one else who dared question Hitler's attempt to destroy the world and remake it into what he saw as the ultimate image - Aryan.
While Mengele was busy incinerating undesirables at a clip that would make a nazi proud (see note 2, paragraph 3, above), he also saw the opportunity to further medical science, which he no doubt believed, was to the benefit of mankind. In order to more properly equip the nazi war machine, he pulled a few condemned souls from the lines marching toward gas chambers and ran some tests. How much cold could the human body tolerate? How much heat? Important information when designing uniforms. How good did gas masks have to be? That depends upon how much poison gas the human body can tolerate. As any one who's taken a college level science course can attest, you need multiple cases studies in order to verify your data. No matter, just go to the lines and grab another dozen.
Mengele was, if nothing else, a renaissance man. Not only was he interested in the practical knowledge afforded by his experiments, he also was interested in a wide range of other subjects. One of them was genetics. Especially twins. They afforded the best test subjects. They come with a built in control group. Perform your experiments on one, and then you can compare the results to the test subject's exact duplicate. The preferred method for "neutralizing" their test subjects for dissection, a shot of chlorine directly in the heart. They came to be known as Mengele's children. He gathered some 3,000 of them. By the time he fled like the cowardly dog that he was, skulking off into the dark to save his own worthless, miserable, putrid hide from the invading Soviets, only some 240 remained alive. Dr. Josef Menegle was a nazi.
Notice the difference?
There is a difference between people you don't like and nazis. There is a difference between people you despise and nazis. There is a difference between people you hate and nazis. There is a difference between your opponent (usually, again, see above) and a nazi. The word nazi is reserved not for the people you find most contemptuous, its reserved for, well, nazis. And the list is long. Took a lot of man power to round up and slaughter six million people. That's right, 6,000,000. They kept records that would, well, make a nazi proud. By the time civilization finally flushed these pieces of crap down the toilet, 50,000,000 people around the world were dead. And not just killed, horribly, horribly, horribly killed. Hundreds of millions more were injured, both mentally and physically. Most of Europe lay in ruins. And I don't mean just more pot holes than you can stand - I mean ruins. I mean real ruins. Picture little one armed kids, five, six, seven years old searching through bombed out cities for some small scrap of maggot infested food to feed their sick, younger siblings. That was Europe after WWII. After the nazis.
Now keep that image fresh in your mind, we'll need it later. If you're from my age group, give or take a few years, you can probably still recite the litany of grotesque evil. Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann, Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler. These, my friends, were nazis. Notice the past tense of the last sentence. They are no more. And not because evolution, in all its infinite wisdom, removed them from the human gene pool. They are gone because humanity was repulsed by the horror of their presence in their lifetime. So we humans, we decent humans, put down our papers, our shovels, our plows, our books, and went to war to rid ourselves once and for all from this stain on humanity. And you know what? Humanity is the better for it.
Now lets get back to Stratt's Law. The shallowness of an argument can be determined by how quickly a debater resorts to calling their opponents a nazi. Don't like your opponent's position on Social Security reform? They're nazis. (Here's where you need to recall that image I asked you to keep fresh, I told you you'd need it). Don't like your opponent's political party? They are a nazi. Don't like the way your opponent speaks? They are nazis. I say its time to apply Stratt's Law to all public debates. If the best argument a debater can come up with is to compare their opponents to the most lowly dregs civilization has ever known, then they obviously haven't done their homework. Instead they are so filled with righteous indignation that they can't even be bothered to learn what a nazi truly is. And that's too bad. Before anyone picks up that debater's banner and runs with it, they should stop and take the time to learn just what a nazi actually is. There is a difference. History should preserve the unspeakable horrors of what that word truly means. Because the more its applied to other groups, the less power and horror and repulsion it holds. And let me tell you, the horror of World War II should never, ever, ever be forgotten. I don't want to even think about testing the old adage, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Pain of Following the Constitution
This thread [Ed - taken from an email discussion] originally started as criticizing the federal government, and now it's on how heartless and cruel constitutionalists are? I think we're getting off topic, but I'll fish this hole a while longer. It seems to me by choice of your argument, you're playing the classic democratic/liberal sympathy card (observation, not an insult). For as long as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been democrats are for the "little people", the party of the working class, union men, and republicans are the party of racists, rich people and big corporations who've already gotten their slice of the American dream and want to prevent you from getting yours. Being the type of person that doesn't go for stereotypes and labels, I chose to ignore that argument, because, like most stereotypes it is wrong.
There is nothing in a constitutionalist argument for a smaller, more accountable, less intrusive government that advocates harming anyone or anything, other than politicians and the parasitic lobbyists who feed on them. On the contrary, its exactly because of my compassion for my fellow Americans that I have taken the political stands that I have. Our constitutional based government was founded on one main principle: America's greatest threat is not an outside force, but from forces within. By distributing the power of the government via elections, by definition power resides in the hands of the majority. (Remember that next time you hear Chuck Schummer complain about the government being hijacked by a fanatical, right-wing minority.) The question then becomes how to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority? This leads to a second problem, how to make sure that once in power, a majority does not change the rules to give them unlimited power? The answer lies in our system of check and balances, which prevents any single branch of the government from obtaining too much power, and the constitution which prevents the majority from riding rough shod over the minority.
What I see when I look at Washington DC is a bunch of politicians who completely ignore the very document that is supposed to protect us from them, the constitution. I don't see the argument as to "well, it's the right thing to do." I see the argument as "you can't do that!"
By allowing politicians to ignore the very restraints designed to restrain them, we are putting everyone in this country at risk. If the government is free to confiscate your personal property (your hard earned money) and redistribute it because "it's for the children," what's to stop them from taking more of your property to redistribute it to Pfizer Corporation? (Oops, that's right, they already do that!) We have a great set of rules already. My argument isn't meant to throw poor people out in the streets, to have old people eating dog food (I recommend Eukenuba, very nutritious). My argument is every time the government proposes to "give" me some benefit, in actuality, they are taking something away from me, namely my constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (thank you sir, may I have another).
And the most insidious aspect of this giant scam going on is the damage it does to the American psyche. They are, and have been for decades, trying to twist the paradigm that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, to government being the supreme power in America and we are only "entitled" to rights they see fit to "grant" us. That's completely ass-backwards. Am I capable of seeing to my own retirement? Of course not, the government will "provide" for me. Am I capable of taking care of my own health care issues? Not if Washington DC. has anything to say about it. What this type of mind-set does, it makes us, free Americans, think we can not survive without the feds. It makes us dependent upon them. We, free people, begin to think that we can not handle life, and won't the government please just take care of us? Please make all the bad situations go away. Please scare away the monsters under our beds. When we've reached that state, then we are no longer free. And we will be completely dependent on the government, for everything.
There is nothing in a constitutionalist argument for a smaller, more accountable, less intrusive government that advocates harming anyone or anything, other than politicians and the parasitic lobbyists who feed on them. On the contrary, its exactly because of my compassion for my fellow Americans that I have taken the political stands that I have. Our constitutional based government was founded on one main principle: America's greatest threat is not an outside force, but from forces within. By distributing the power of the government via elections, by definition power resides in the hands of the majority. (Remember that next time you hear Chuck Schummer complain about the government being hijacked by a fanatical, right-wing minority.) The question then becomes how to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority? This leads to a second problem, how to make sure that once in power, a majority does not change the rules to give them unlimited power? The answer lies in our system of check and balances, which prevents any single branch of the government from obtaining too much power, and the constitution which prevents the majority from riding rough shod over the minority.
What I see when I look at Washington DC is a bunch of politicians who completely ignore the very document that is supposed to protect us from them, the constitution. I don't see the argument as to "well, it's the right thing to do." I see the argument as "you can't do that!"
By allowing politicians to ignore the very restraints designed to restrain them, we are putting everyone in this country at risk. If the government is free to confiscate your personal property (your hard earned money) and redistribute it because "it's for the children," what's to stop them from taking more of your property to redistribute it to Pfizer Corporation? (Oops, that's right, they already do that!) We have a great set of rules already. My argument isn't meant to throw poor people out in the streets, to have old people eating dog food (I recommend Eukenuba, very nutritious). My argument is every time the government proposes to "give" me some benefit, in actuality, they are taking something away from me, namely my constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (thank you sir, may I have another).
And the most insidious aspect of this giant scam going on is the damage it does to the American psyche. They are, and have been for decades, trying to twist the paradigm that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, to government being the supreme power in America and we are only "entitled" to rights they see fit to "grant" us. That's completely ass-backwards. Am I capable of seeing to my own retirement? Of course not, the government will "provide" for me. Am I capable of taking care of my own health care issues? Not if Washington DC. has anything to say about it. What this type of mind-set does, it makes us, free Americans, think we can not survive without the feds. It makes us dependent upon them. We, free people, begin to think that we can not handle life, and won't the government please just take care of us? Please make all the bad situations go away. Please scare away the monsters under our beds. When we've reached that state, then we are no longer free. And we will be completely dependent on the government, for everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)