Freedom of Speech Under Attack

Oh look, people are trying to piss all over America’s freedom of speech again.

CBS is planning to air an advocacy ad featuring a story about Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy-winning American football quarterback for the Florida Gators. Tebow’s mother gave birth to him in 1987 despite her doctors’ advice to have an abortion. Apparently her health was at high risk with the pregnancy but she decided to go through with the birth anyway. The ad will tell this story and promote a message of celebrating life and family. Or something like that.

The ad is being paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. The group’s spokesman, Gary Schneeberger, says the ad is not political. “I can tell you there’s nothing controversial about it, there’s nothing political about it,” Schneeberger says. “It is simply a very inspirational 30 seconds about celebrating life and celebrating families.”

Women’s groups and abortion rights groups are demanding the ad be pulled. They also warn that CBS might alienate viewers by showing divisive commercials. “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year—an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jemhu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center.

Unfortunately for them, they can’t just have ads they don’t agree with pulled off the air, especially when they don’t impose on anyone’s rights. God forbid they have to … *GASP* … change the channel when the ad comes on. Or … *LOUD SCOFF* … leave the room for a minute. No no. They have to take a nice long piss all over the freedom of speech instead. Yes, that’s much better. And certainly not un-American in the least.

I am aware that abortion is a very, very touchy issue and a divisive  topic, but really this isn’t about abortion. At least not to me. It’s about people who can’t handle the fact that there are others out there who disagree with them, so they go out of their way to try and stifle them. Despite the fact that their opponents are protected by the First Amendment whether they like it or not. They just can’t stand the thought that someone with opposing views is able to speak of them freely to the public.

Please know… This isn’t a matter of who I agree with on the issue of abortion. That will have to remain a mystery for you. But when it comes to our rights I am not biased. If there were a pro-choice ad that Christian groups were demanding be pulled, I would be just as angry with them. It doesn’t matter. I could agree with a particular group on every issue, every policy, everything in the world… I will still give them a good lip-lashing if they try anything to stop protected speech. A Voltaire quote comes to mind. But I don’t know if I’d actually die for your right to say something. Probably not.

Also understand that this is not about whether or not airing the ad is smart or not. A lot of fans are saying they’d rather not see advocacy ads during commercial breaks. Fine. That is their opinion and they are not the ones I’m pissed off at. It’s the idiocy of people who think they actually have the right to silence messages that contradict their opinions.

So. For awareness’ sake, what speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment? I left my pocket Constitution at work, but I got some help from www.firstamendmentcenter.org. Speech that is not protected includes:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (includes libel, slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crime

Hmmm… I can’t seem to find “Advocacy ads” on that list. Or “Ads that some people may not agree with.” Or “Ads that hurt people’s feelings.” This ad is not threatening, violent, obscene, encouraging crime, or forcing anyone to do or think anything. It’s just an ad that tells a 30-second story. Well, guess these groups will just have to suck it up and change the channel. Boy I feel for them. That’s going to be tough.

What I don’t mind is their offering a simple suggestion to CBS – that they are going to risk dividing their audience on a touchy issue. That’s fine. They have all the freedom in the world to give some advice. In fact, if I worked for CBS I might have even advised against airing it. But nobody… nobody… has the right to pull that ad except CBS or the Focus on the Family organization as it is their business transaction. CBS obviously could use the money, otherwise I doubt they would have chosen to air a controversial advertisement.

To any person who really thinks this ad should be pulled even though it would violate our most important freedom in America, may I suggest that you take a little trip to North Korea? If you really hate freedom of speech, you just might like it there. Hell maybe you’ll even stay there. North Korea ranks zero or near zero on all the usual freedom indices: freedom of public speech, private speech, public religious worship, assembly and association, the press, residency, domestic and foreign travel, political participation, and due process of law. Any person who speaks freely about something that isn’t considered acceptable is at risk for execution or imprisonment. So yeah. That sounds right up your alley. Who knows, maybe you will decide to stay instead of impose totalitarianism on America.

I know that last part was a bit extreme, but I get pissed when assholes try to pull shit like this and think it’s “just”. It is the opposite of just. And it should NOT be tolerated in this country. We are free here. Get used to it assholes.

I’d like to end this entry with this question directed at the groups trying to pull the ad, or anyone who really wants to silence their opponents: How would you react if someone were trying to silence you? Probably let out a rant similar to mine. Just note that anyone who looks to the Constitution for support only when it’s convenient for them is an asshole, and I would happily pay for their one-way ticket to North Korea.

NPR: Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Commercial Causes Storm

First Amendment Center: Speech NOT protected by 1st Amendment

Foreign Policy Research Institute: North Korea: The Nadir of Freedom

Focus on the Family Website

Quality Health Care : True or False?

When it comes to getting the facts, things are not always as they seem. People are arguing constantly about the quality of health care here in the US as opposed to the quality of care in the countries that practice socialized medicine (i.e. Canada, UK, Cuba, New Zealand, Australia). The thing is, you have to challenge those supposed “facts” because chances are they don’t tell the story that person really wanted to tell. They want you to say: “omg i didnt kno that i totes belive u now!” You high-five them, you both go get a pizza. Then they just pray that you don’t question their logic. Unfortunately for them, there are a lot of us who still think for ourselves.

So. This is going to be an entry where I take arguments that people make to support their position, and then completely invalidate them. It is loads of fun. I refer to the OECD countries in this post, which refers to 30 Democracies: United States, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Canada, France, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Finland, Greece, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea, Poland, Slovak Republic, Mexico and Turkey. Most of these are considered the most economically advanced countries in the world, and they each have a government that funds at least 90% of their health care… except for the United States, that is. Onward.

#1 : OECD countries have higher life expectancy than the US.

TRUE. The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 ½ years — slightly below the OECD average (78.3%), and 4½ years less than top-rated Japan (82.1).

HOWEVER… This doesn’t reflect the quality of our health care and certainly does not prove that our care is inferior to theirs. Consider the lifestyles of Americans compared to other countries. We have the highest number of overweight people out of everyone (about 3 in 5 Americans are overweight, 1 in 3 are obese). Considering the complications that come with obesity (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and dozens more), that alone explains our lower life expectancy. That still isn’t even considering all of our other detrimental habits. We’ve also got a higher instance of AIDS than the 0ther OECD nations, second only to Portugal, because we’re still not wrapping out shit up for some reason. It’s no wonder we’re not living as long when there are more of us with compromised immune systems. Considering all of these factors, you’ll find it has nothing to do with the actual quality of care and everything to do with the higher instance of the stupid decisions that US citizens make*.  When you get to #3 you’ll find another good explanation.

#2: OECD countries have a lower mortality rate than the US.

TRUE. The United States has a higher rate of deaths from natural causes than 17 OECD countries. 

HOWEVER… Refer to the “however” explanation in #1. The US overall has an unhealthier lifestyle than other countries. There are more of us who practice bad habits that harm our health, thus more of us who develop disease, thus more of us with compromised immune systems, and thus more of us dying. Again, this does not reflect quality of care, but rather the less-than-great  lifestyles of the patients.

#3: People in the US visit health care facilities more often.

FALSE. When comparing U.S. utilization of hospital care with other OECD countries, the United States is well below the average. The United States experienced 121 hospital discharges per 1,000 people in 2004 compared with the OECD average of 161.

HOWEVER… This might be another explanation as to why the US has lower life expectancy and a higher mortality rate. When the country with the least healthy habits has the lowest tendency to visit a doctor, obviously the outcomes are going to be worse than those in the countries that are better at avoiding the same unhealthy habits. But why aren’t we going to see our doctors as much as the other countries? That answer should be fairly obvious – We Have To Pay. Sometimes a helluva lot. But that is a different entry for a different day.

#4: Patients in the US have longer stays in clinics and hospitals.

FALSE. Patients in the US have the shortest visits of all. The average length of stay in a hospital in America is 5.6 days, only about 2 days more than the lowest (Denmark at 3.4) and almost 15 days less than the highest (Japan at 20.2 days, but that’s quite an outlier. Refer to the PDF).

HOWEVER… This measurement is not a good way to decide the quality of health care. If you think about it one way, a short visit is good. Maybe there are more staff available, the procedures are more efficient, and the recovery rates are quicker, thus leading to a shorter stay. But, if you think about it another way, a short visit is bad. It could mean there’s not enough time, not enough room, or the staff do not care enough to keep you any longer. I think it’s safe to conclude that length of stay is not the best way to judge the overall quality of care unless you have detailed accounts of each visit.

#5: The US  has a better supply of resources.

TRUE. For example, the United States has nearly twice as many CT scanners and three times as many MRI machines per capita as the OECD average. In fact, the United States has the second-highest number of both CT scanners and MRI machines per population in the OECD, second only to Japan. They also perform more advanced invasive procedures (such as coronary bypasses and angioplasties) more frequently than the average OECD country.

HOWEVER… That advantage obviously comes at a cost. Having the most resource-intensive technology and procedures also means it requires more money from the patients to use them. Implementing such procedures and surgeries more often than the other countries is obviously going to affect more people. The question is whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. How many more deaths would occur due to our habits if we didn’t have the advanced and resourceful health care that we do? Well if my opinion matters, our life expectancy would likely plummet and our mortality rate would climb.

#6: The US has a higher number of deaths due to medical mistakes.

TRUE. The United States has the third-highest rate of deaths from medical errors (0.7 per 100,000 people), among the OECD countries.

HOWEVER… Like I mentioned before, we perform a lot more invasive procedures than everyone else does. So yeah, no shit we are going to have a higher number of mistakes and resulting deaths. If the other countries performed as many surgeries as we do here, I wonder what their rates would look like then. Another thing to consider is the number of elective surgeries we conduct here. In 2008, there were: 355,671 boob jobs, 341,144 liposuctions, 152, 434 nose jobs, and 700,000 LASIK procedures conducted, and that’s only scratching the surface (Get it? Like scratching the surface of the cornea? Come on that’s funny). Overall, there were 1.7 million cosmetic surgical procedures performed in the US in 2008. And still, cosmetic surgeries only make up a fraction of all elective surgeries. Don’t forget gastric bypass, vasectomies, tubal ligation, circumcision, etc. Since all surgeries come with a risk, and the US takes the most risks, it only makes sense that we would have a higher number of deaths due to medical mistakes.

#7: OECD countries have longer waiting times than the US.

TRUE AND FALSE. The United States is one of eight countries in which wait times for elective surgery are reported to be very low. In a recent survey, a quarter to a third of respondents in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia reported waiting more than four months for a non-emergency procedure, compared with only 5% of Americans. In terms of doctor visits to primary care physicians, a five-country survey found that Americans had the greatest difficulty getting care on nights and weekends and were the most likely to forgo care because of cost.

HOWEVER… The US has fewer clinic hours open. I couldn’t find any documentation on open clinic hours in the US or other countries, but I did Google a few dozen clinic websites from the US and Canda, just to get an idea of how we differ in that respect. I found that most of our own private practices tend to close no later than 6:00 PM on weekdays and are open for only a few hours, if open at all, on Saturdays. Very few were open on Sundays. After checking out some Canadian clinic hours, many of them had similar hours to the US but there was a much, much higher chance of finding a clinic with longer hours. One center in Alberta is even open from 9am-10pm every day of the week. If you want to see a doctor after 5:00 PM on a weekday or anytime during the weekend, you’ve got a much, much better chance of finding that in Canada. So my suggestion to US practices would be to extend their hours a bit, just so people won’t have such a hard time making same-day or weekend appointments. Though that’s easy for me to say as I’ve never had to work at a medical clinic.

#8: The US spends the most money on health care, more than any other country.

TRUE. The US spends about 15% of its gross domestic product on health care. The only country to be even remotely close to that is Switzerland at 11.6%, and that isn’t even close. The average percentage of GDP spent on health care among the OECD countries is about 8.9%.

HOWEVER… Different topic for a different day.

————————————————

* Stupid decisions that we make because we have more freedom to make them. Which isn’t a bad thing.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table7.pdf

http://www.cosmeticplasticsurgerystatistics.com/statistics.html

http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Media/stats/2008-US-cosmetic-reconstructive-plastic-surgery-minimally-invasive-statistics.pdf

http://www.mcithedoctorsoffice.com/patients/clinics.cfm?location=AB

Good Intentions? Or Just Bad Solutions?

Who doesn’t want to end world hunger? Who doesn’t want to see a cure for AIDS? Who wouldn’t be happy to see everyone have health care? Who doesn’t want all children to have an education? Who doesn’t wish we didn’t have to go overseas to outsource jobs? The answer is nobody.

We all want to see the end of suffering and we all want the world to be a better place. But in a world where economies are struggling, countries are being oppressed by  their leaders, and scandals in government are an everyday occurrence, how can we expect our good intentions to become a reality? Is it even possible to live in this fantasy world where everybody is content and free of struggle?

Our nation has come up with some solutions. Bad ones. These “solutions” involve asking citizens to give more and more of their money to the government so that it may be put towards agencies and programs that are supposed to help resolve each respective problem.  (http://www.ospb.state.az.us/documents/2009/2008-10MasterList-Final.pdf). One major problem with this, among many, is that these programs almost always suck. After we unwillingly give them our money lest we are arrested for tax evasion, it’s wasted on poorly planned, poorly executed endeavours.

So… do we give them the benefit of the doubt and say they had the best intentions? Maybe they just care so much about the issues that they want to execute as many programs as possible and spend as much money as they can until the problem finally vanishes. Because throwing money at problems has always worked so well in the past. If this is the solution we are going to stick with and try over and over again to no avail, then we’re in for many more years of disappointment and wasted money.

“So Jill, what’s your plan to solve all of the world’s problems?”

If I knew that, I like to think I would have done something about it by now. What I do know is the government does not have a place in regulating our private lives and it underestimates our willingness to help others. Do they really think we are so incompetent that we can’t solve our own problems? I guess that isn’t so surprising with how many people are out there whining and demanding their assistance.

Which brings me to my next point… whatever happened to helping ourselves? Helping each other without being forced to? If 25% of my paycheck didn’t automatically go to the government and its wasteful and inefficient bureaucratic  bullshit, I could instead give that portion to a worthy charity that actually does do something to resolve a public issue. Only God knows if I would actually be generous enough to give that much. But even if I just gave 1% of my check to a private charity, I still think it would do more good than the 25% the government takes from me and recklessly squanders.

My least favorite thing that people tend to do to make politicians look bad, as if they don’t already look bad enough just being a politician, is automatically condemning them for voting against bills that are well-intentioned but are blatantly unnecessary. Sometimes you hear about a bill that sounds like it does nothing but good, but it turns out not to be the most intelligent plan. John McCain, for example, supposedly voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Why would John McCain ever do that? The VAWA was a legislation made to put an end to charging rape victims for sexual assault exams. I’m sure it’s because he hates women and gets sick pleasure in watching them suffer. Right? Afterall, he’s an old, pasty white man set in the ways which automatically makes him intolerant of others.

Now for the correct story. In 1994, McCain voted against a crime bill that just included the Violence Against Women Act. He did not oppose VAWA itself but the extra spending included in the bill that he felt was unrelated to crime, so he voted against it. Nine months prior, McCain supported the original bill, which also included VAWA but did not include the extra spending he ended up voting against later. In 2005, McCain even introduced a companion bill to VAWA that protected the rights of Indian women. “The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has had a tremendous impact on raising the national awareness of domestic violence and providing communities, including Indian tribes, the resources to respond to the devastating impact of domestic violence,” he said.

See, this is what happens when you search for all of the facts instead of blindly trusting the liberal media. Next time you see a smear campaign that makes a candidate look like heartless demon seed, just ask yourself: “Is it plausible that this person is that evil? Could he really be heartless demon seed?” 9 times out of 10, the person turns out not to be heartless demon seed and just needs his side of the story told. Generally, they have a pretty good explanation.

The reason I wanted to bring that up was to support my original thought. No mentally stable person is in favor of letting people suffer, which is what makes radical statements like those said in smear campaigns ridiculous. Perhaps what our government fears is that if they stopped collecting money for human rights efforts, then nobody would be helped. They are underestimating the power of private charities. If the government gave up on using our tax dollars for humanitarian efforts and let private charities work their magic instead, people would be willingly donating their money to competing organizations who have the motive to be as efficient as possible … because (gasp) they want to succeed. When you voluntarily give your money to a private charity and you find out they are inefficient, you stop donating to them. When you involuntarily give your money to our government and you find out they are inefficient, you can’t stop paying them because you will be arrested. The truth is, the government doesn’t like anything to be private… given the opportunity, they would have a hand in every part of your life. Everything you do would require filling out a government form. They don’t like things being done without their supervision.

Now, if we were to rely on people donating to private charities now, I doubt it would be very effective. The unemployment rate is sky high and people are struggling to take care of themselves let alone each other. So. Our liberal government would probably agree that, if the economy were better and more people were working and earning more money, they would be more willing to donate cash to help causes. Great. Let’s fix the economy.

Our government’s solution for fixing the econony = Spending. Bail-outs. Stimulus plans. Welfare. Sure, why not? Because what I like to do when I’m $12 trillion dollars in debt is spend more money than ever. No. The better solution, nay, the only solution, is to take the clips off the wings of the free market. Just let it go. Nail anyone who earns their money illegally (ie, murder, threats, stealing), but other than that, get your regulations out of business. Oh, and stop paying people to sit around on their porches and drink Michelob. They are pretty comfy there and I doubt they will want to get up unless you make them.

Ahh finally, the market can breathe! Without unions making unbelievable demands for paid vacations, higher wages and 50 cigarette breaks a day, operations are better than ever! We can give raises to the hardest working people and give them bigger roles to make the business even better. Our taxes are no longer astronomical, so we can finally expand and create more jobs! We can produce more and bring the price of our products and services down so that more people can afford us! We are able to take a larger cut of our profits to put towards humanitarian efforts! Plus, we and our shareholders can earn more money and use it to stimulate the economy!

Wow, who would have thought that just one concept- a free market- could fix our problems? Who knew that we don’t need the government for jack shit?* Also, who would’ve thought that rich people are good for the economy? We want people to get rich. It circulates more money, which improves our fiscal environment, which increases production, which expands businesses, which creates more jobs … and that benefits everyone.

It may be with the best intentions that our leaders do what they do to improve our country, but what they are doing does not work. In fact, I’m pretty positive that what they are doing is only stifling any progress that could be made… Do I have your vote in 2012?

References

Government Gone Wild

Ad distorts McCain’s record on Violence Against Women Act

* We need the government for law enforcement and national defense. But that’s pretty much it.

Quickie Post #2: Whatever happened to classical liberalism?

Classical liberalism: a political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example, in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.

It seems to me that classical liberalism is not the same “liberalism” we recognize today. In fact, its definition is actually closer to that of conservatism and is pretty much identical to libertarianism, which is the category I place myself in. I just want to know one thing. How the hell did we get today’s liberalism out of its classical form? It just seems like modern liberal views and classical liberal views are… I don’t know… the opposite? With the exception of social freedoms. Shouldn’t we at least change the name, seeing as a classical liberal and a modern liberal would likely go head to head in a cage match these days? I mean, I have argued with liberals before, and it seems like they very strongly disagree with my economically conservative viewpoints. But it seems to me that if they were the same liberal that existed when liberalism began, they wouldn’t be disagreeing with me. They’d be high-fiving me. I don’t care if they don’t agree with me, I’m just saying.

More on political philosophies later.

Classical liberalism definition

30 things I could have done with $39,190.81

As of 8:50 PM on this night, Wednesday the 19th of November, our national debt totals $12,043,819,854,073.75. AKA, about 12 trillion dollars. And each of us, including you and me, officially owes $39,190.81 to our creditors. Not as a whole do we owe this amount. We are each expected to pay that amount because our government is out of control.

Thus I present to you, 30 things I could have done with $39,190.81

30. Get another bachelor’s degree.

29. Get a master’s degree and a PhD.

28. Shut down a puppy mill.

27. Purchase a 2010 Lexus RX 350.

26. Feed 400 hungry American families.

25. Remodel my parents’ kitchen.

24. Build a small bungalow.

23. Pay back 2/3 of my student loans.

22. Take a vacation to Hawaii … 8 times.

21. Hire a maid and a butler.

20. Install 8 swimming pools.

19. Purchase about 52 of these.

18. Order 400 pounds of Godiva chocolate truffles.

17. Buy a California King  Tempur-Pedic GrandBed mattress for everyone in my family.

16. Cover the cost of chemotherapy treatments for several struggling cancer patients.

15. Buy a laptop for everyone in Johnstown.

14. Fix 488 potholes.

13. Eat 1500 quarts of Tukery Hill’s Skinny Minty ice cream (and gain 560 pounds. Not joking. I did the math.)

12. House a homeless family.

11. Put 1000-thread count sheets on 390 beds.

10. Adopt at least one American child.

9. Take 181 hot air balloon rides.

8. Buy a hot air balloon.

7. Start a small business.

6. Take my family to Super Bowl XLIV.

5. Swim around in it (just because)

4. Rent a beach condo for 26 weeks.

3. Hire a part-time assistant for several years.

2. Buy a dozen horses. Just for kicks. GET IT? Because horses kick people sometimes.

1. Make my backyard look like this.

 

Perspective, people. Perspective. Start being pissed off if you aren’t already.

Quickie Post #1 : Wake Up

I just want everyone to wake up. I don’t care what party you are in. It doesn’t matter. Just wake up and realize what is happening in this country is very, very wrong and must stop. Seriously, I just want to shake everyone who doesn’t realize the damage that is being done.

When it was announced that our unemployment rate is the lowest since the Great Depression, I thought everyone would wake up. They did not.

When we were told of our national budget deficit (currently $11,995,420,770,680.95) and what each person must pay towards it (currently $39,037.87 per person), I thought everyone would wake up. They did not.

When Nancy Pelosi called in a sneak vote on a Saturday night for fear of losing American support of the health care reform, I thought everyone would wake up. They did not.

When it was announced that an extremist shot and killed 13 American soldiers, I thought everyone would wake up. And to my bewildered disbelief, they did not.

WAKE UP. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat does not matter. What matters is that we are all getting screwed over and being ignored  … Republicans and Democrats alike … and we are not doing anything about it. Instead of yelling at each other, we should be yelling at them. For God’s sake, it’s like there’s going to be another civil war with the way we are arguing with each other. It’s all a distraction! But our government needs to know we are not going to sit here and just take it. We are the citizens of this country and we should be in charge of where our own money is being spent. They need to know that their duties should only lay in defending the country and protecting our rights. Period.

P.S. Regarding the national debt number… Yes, each of us officially owes an entire college education to pay towards the national debt. If that doesn’t give you a perspective that makes you inconsolably angry, I’m not sure what else to say to you.

References

National Debt Clock – My number was taken at the time this post was written.

Best-Base Scenario: Unemployment Rates – It’s 10.2%. More than 1 out of every 10 Americans is unemployed.

House expected to vote on health bill Saturday – The “sneak vote” comment was merely educated opinion.

Why aren’t you angry?

I was never really angry with our government before. I figured I wasn’t smart enough to understand the reasoning behind the mortgage crisis, the struggling economy, the withering quality of education, and so on. Like so many others, I placed my trust in the government and figured “Hey, they’re the experts.” My belief was that if anyone were fit to handle the situation, it was them.

Then I started reading books. Watching the news. Listening to political radio. In a flash, it all came clear to me that these issues were not complicated. In fact, they were very, very simple. It didn’t take much to understand. All it took was some logical thinking, good reasoning, knowledge of history, and common sense. I underestimated my ability to grasp the agendas of our country, so I never got angry. I had no suspicions that my government was making bad decisions. After all, they’re the ones who graduated from ivy league schools whereas I was attending the school best known for its beer bonging talents.

The drawback of paying attention to politics is that you sleep a hell of a lot less. The anger is just too much. And when you do sleep, you have nightmares about the decreasing value of your money, the overwhelming debt of the country you have to pay for, waiting for hours in crowded clinics, being forced to give half your paycheck to the government, and the fact that your taxes are paying for Nancy Pelosi’s stupid face.

Are you angry yet?

What’s more is that there are so many reasons to be unbearably pissed off at our government and its growing power, yet they are still getting more power. There are Americans who still trust them enough to keep these people in office. Why would you trust an entity that spends assloads of your money, gets little to no positive results in return, and then asks you for more money so they can do it again? Why do you trust people who insist upon doing the same things over and over again when history proves that it does not work and probably never will? They are wasting our money, increasing our debts, and devaluing our dollars. How could any sane person be supporting them?

And the cherry on top of the shit sundae that is our current government: They claim they are doing what is best for the common good. That is how they are justifying government run health care. That is how they justify everything the government sticks its face into, things it had no business of being in in the first place.

The government just loves to cite this preamble to the Constitution of the United States in order to justify government intervention in health care:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Good point, government, but you overlooked one small yet vital part of this preamble. We the People. I think you’ll find that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government should force mandates upon people in order to promote the greater good. In fact, I’m pretty sure the founding fathers made it very clear that government had no other place except for national defense, criminal justice, and protecting our freedoms. (Note: Protecting our freedoms. Not taking them away)

Oh I know. The Constitution was written sooo long ago and the times, they are a changin’. The funny thing about the people who say that is, whenever the Constitution supports an issue they are passionate about, it suddenly becomes important to them. It isn’t until they are pushing an agenda the Constitution doesn’t support that they discredit it for it being such an old document. Well, it may be old, but the founders who wrote it weren’t drooling idiots and knew that a truly free country was one run by the people and for the people with little government intervention.

And what is our government doing now? Well, they are pretty much intervening with everything they can get their hands on. As long as we allow them to do this, they will be under control of anything they so choose to control. And we will be left wondering what ever happened to America.

Are you angry yet?

Here they are, telling us they are going to do what is best for the population. They tell us we can have free health care and free education. They tell us these things while claiming our national debt will not grow. Well then, where is the money coming from? Their own pockets? Right. It’s coming out of our pockets. Either that, or they are printing more money for which we have no collateral for, thus devaluing our money more and more.

Here they are, telling us that the rich are too rich. They force them to give money to the “poor,” which includes people who are living off of welfare money that they use to buy cartons of cigarettes, consume gallons of booze, and throw at strippers. They are taking away from the wealthy who have worked, stressed, and lost days of sleep in order to get where they are, and giving it to people who rarely get out of bed before noon. They are slowly but surely killing off the incentive to succeed because to them, success breeds from selfishness and greed. They say this while spending their incomes on summer villas in Malibu and Bentleys for their children. They absolutely refuse to admit that succeeding is a good thing that breeds what? More success.

Here they are, insisting that we abide by what they say and vilify anybody who questions them. Their supporters call us un-American. We are attacked when we criticize them. What is it called when people stand silently by while their leaders force unwanted rule over them? Oh yeah, tyranny. I apologize for not wanting to live the luxurious life that one lives under a tyrannical empire. Forgive me for wanting to prevent my country from losing its freedom. I should be ashamed of myself.

Are you angry yet?

I realize these are my opinions, but they are based on realities. You can give me an argument based on the same realities but in a totally different direction. You can render the Constitution useless and outdated. If only we would forget about the Constitution and live in a society where the government takes care of us and there is no incentive to succeed, we could be as prosperous as say, Cuba. Dammit! We could be as great as Cuba right now and that darn Constitution is holding us back! Curses!

Seriously though, if you can present a reasonable argument to me about what good the government is doing right now and why in God’s name we should trust it without question, me and my pet flying pigs would love to hear it. If you can give me a good enough reason to not be enraged by the way our country is being run, fire away. But until then, I’m going to continue being pissed and continue being baffled by those who are not.

Honestly ask yourself these questions.

I’m in the middle of a great book. I’m not going to tell you what it is because I’m worried about how people might feel about this person. I don’t want to do anything that would keep anybody from thinking in an open-minded way. If you ask me personally I’ll tell you what it is, but only if you promise to seriously ask yourself these questions from the book:

• Do you trust those in power to always tell you the hard truth – especially if it would hurt them at election time?

• How is it possible that every president since Jimmy Carter has promised to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but now we import more oil than ever from countries that do us harm?

• Are we to honestly believe that the country that took the idea of a man walking on the moon and turned it into a reality within eight years, or the country that built a transcontinental railroad in seven years (without power tools or machines) doesn’t have the ability to completely build the 670-mile fence along our southern border that was promised to us in 2005?

• Why are the same politicians who insist America is a “melting pot” the first ones to insist their distinct languages, identities, and practices?

• Why are those who respectfully question the science behind global warming mocked and condemned?

• Do you believe that your elected representatives view themselves as truly being “public servants” who place your well-being above their own?

• Do you believe that those in Washington see your face when they make decisions or, instead, the faces of those who richly contribute to their campaigns?

• Do you believe that our “public servants” have your best interests at heart and will defend your life, liberty, and property?

 

You don’t have to have an answer to any of these questions, but you can use them as a launching pad for seeking truth.

America, we’re big kids now.

When we were little, our parents and guardians made a lot of choices for us because we were too young and inexperienced to make certain decisions for ourselves. It makes sense, right? You don’t let a kid choose their meals every day because you can bet they’ll end up picking cookies and freeze pops every time. A good parent doesn’t say, “OK, well, that’s your choice. Bon appetit.” No, they care about the health of their child. So they tell them, “You can cry all you want, you are eating this chicken and broccoli as it provides key vitamins and nutrients that will keep your stool healthy and protect you from debilitating diseases.”

Maybe that’s not exactly how it would go, but you get the idea. Parents know what is best for their kids and the kids do not, at least not yet. They are still too young to understand and that is why all of us depended on a parent or guardian when we were young.

I have parents, and they do a lot for me. They make me dinner and do my laundry because if they didn’t, I would be eating Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast lunch and dinner and my bedroom would basically be one giant pile of dirty clothing. The same idea works with our current government. Right now, America is the lazy 22-year-old who let’s their mom cook and clean for them. Because why do anything yourself when someone else can do it for you? Sounds like heaven to me. No decisions? No responsibilities? I don’t see the downside.

Oh wait, I do. Because something is wrong with a government that treats its citizens like a bunch of incompetent children. As long as they know what’s “best” for us, they are going to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Thus the basis of my whole argument. As long as the government thinks it knows what’s “best” for us, our freedoms are going to disappear more and more before our very eyes. Just take a look at some of these restrictions that have already been made in some places:

• Washington: Washing your car in your driveway? BANNED. (Kind of makes the name of the state ironic)
• Belmont, CA: Smoking a cigarette in your own apartment? BANNED.
• Indiana: Smiling for your driver’s license? BANNED.
• Louisiana: Wearing baggy pants? BANNED.
• Los Angeles (some areas): Eating at a fast-food restaurant? BANNED.

These things have been BANNED because of a government thinking we are all too stupid to think for ourselves. Even if none of the above seem like a big deal, as you don’t smoke or you don’t eat at fast-food places or baggy pants are unflattering on you … wait until the day comes that something you do enjoy doing is BANNED. That’s when you feel the feeling of losing your freedom, and it doesn’t feel good. Even if you don’t care for the same things the government wants to put an end to, it’s still a warning sign that they are willing to take away our liberties without a flinch. And that, my friends, is scary.

Besides, there is always a catch to these restrictions which are intended to benefit the greater good.

• Taxes on cigarettes: Brought on smuggling and more people turning to the Black Market. Which, in turn, ended up hurting many honest businesses.
• Banning alcohol: Remember Al Capone? He made a killing from his underground selling of booze, gangs everywhere with the same idea were responsible for the deaths of more than a few people.
• Smoking banned in bars: Increased number of DUI’s. People aren’t walking to bars anywhere because the closer ones have banned smoking. So, they drive to the ones that don’t ban smoking.
• Food-handling laws: They got so bad that potluck lunches and dinners were rendered illegal in Indiana.

Does this kind of legislation really benefit the greater good when the results are worse than what they were legislating in the first place?

When Thomas Jefferson said, It neither picks my pocket not breaks my leg, he meant that our personal freedoms should be limitless unless they cause harm to other people. However, with government-run health care it actually does pick my pocket whenever someone who makes bad decisions ends up having to get some extensive surgery that costs taxpayer dollars. Now I’m paying for the consequences of someone’s smoking habits, Whopper habits, what have you. That is where the injustice begins. And people wonder  what could possibly be wrong about universal health care? I’m getting off track here.

Is it wrong for the government to make decisions for us and place restrictions, all because they supposedly know what’s best for the greater good? If you are living in a free society, then yes, there is a lot wrong with that. Individual freedom is a gift that is being threatened. Let those who do harm to others receive punishment, but why punish those who have been nothing but law-abiding citizens? Punishing the innocent is one of those things that probably shouldn’t be prevalent in any society, let alone a free one.

References

“Smoking Ban Hits Home. Truly.” New York Times

“Los Angeles city council issues fast-food ban for poor neighborhoods.” Guardian.co.uk

“No driveway car washes, Wash. state says.” USA Today

“Smiles banned on Indiana driver’s license.” UPI.com

“Baggy Pants Ban Signed into Law in Louisiana.” Talk of the Nation

“Fedeal Bureau Cases: Al Capone” Federal Bureau of Investigation

“Increase in Drunk Driving Fatalities Followed by Ban in Smoking Bars.” Science Daily

“Nanny-State Lawmakers Abuse Power.” FoxNews.com

“The Life of Thomas Jefferson.” Henry Stephens Randall

You are allowed to question.

Who agrees? …

… that challenging and questioning should be an encouraged part of your freedom of speech?

… that if permission to challenge and question were taken away, we’d be living under a tyranny?

… that we should be allowed to examine what our government does in case they are doing really stupid things?

… that we should be able to ask questions and make arguments based on the information we acquire, whether they be facts, supposed facts, opinions, or speculations, if they are acknowledged as such?

… that people should base their opinions on knowledge and reason rather than on what Family Guy said in that one episode where Lois becomes a news anchor?

… that most if not all news organizations are generally run by left-wing voters?

… that it is neither probable nor plausible that a dominantly left-wing media would have no agenda whatsoever?

… that it’s kind of unfair to victimize the one right-wing news station because they share unflattering stories about the current government?

… that insinuations, arguments, suggestions, allegations, implications, and so on are not lies?

… that if a news organization does lie, they should be penalized but not silenced?

… that the media criticizing an administration is nothing new?

… that we should have the freedom to listen to both sides of any political debate and decide for ourselves what seems logical?

… that it speaks to the character of a government who condemns a news source that frequently reports negative stories about them?

… that a government acting so hostile towards its critics should be a bright, flashing red warning sign?

… that politicians telling people not to lie is pretty much the definition of irony?

If not, please calmly explain why. I will listen.