Dear Paul Ryan (an Obamacare Rant)

Dear Paul Ryan,

Just a few short months ago, Republicans were swept back into full control of the government on a huge groundswell of populist support. Full repeal of Obamacare was one of the cornerstone planks of the platform that led to that support.

Now, you want to foist off your own "lite" version of an abysmal, abomination of a law that was passed through deception and outright lies. Then you have the audacity to tell the press: "Obamacare is collapsing. If we just did nothing, washed our hands of the situation, we would see a further collapse of the health insurance markets. So we feel an obligation to step in front of that collapse and replace this law with one that works, that has more freedom."

I strongly urge you to rethink that plan. Stepping in front of that collapse will get you crushed like a bug by a pissed off electorate. I'm not saying do nothing. Quite the opposite. By all means necessary, REPEAL BUT DO NOT REPLACE. Please allow me too explain further.

Prior to Obamacare's inception, I had decent healthcare coverage paid for by payroll deduction through my employer. Not the Cadillac coverage congressmen and administration officials enjoy, but functional and usable. Deductibles were either $500 or $1000. Premiums for me and my family were manageable and within our budget. Since Obamacare, the lowest deductible my (now former) employer offers is $5000 at essentially triple the premium.

Let me be clear, this makes my healthcare plan functionally unusable to me and my family. I have no choice but to take it unless I want to be penalized for not having health insurance.

No where in the constitution is healthcare listed as an inalienable right. It is not the government's business to mandate healthcare or be involved in it in any way. Government involvement in healthcare (or any industry for that matter) is antithetical to the principles of freedom upon which this country was founded.

If you want to do something productive, figure out a way for health insurance carriers to sell coverage across state lines so that something approaching free competition is possible.

So,  again, I urge you and your fellow Republicans to REPEAL Obamacare and let the free market sort itself out. 

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

Bill of No Rights

Ed. - I found this in my creative writing folder gathering dust. I can't remember when I first read it or where I came across it. It's not my work, but I like it and it seems appropriate in the wake of the election results. Beyond correcting one glaring typo and some minor formatting for readability, I've done nothing to it. 

A Little History...

The Bill of No Rights was written by Lewis Napper, a computer programmer in Jackson, Mississippi, after listening to a radio report about then President Bill Clinton's abyssmal free health care plan in 1993 on his way home from work. As he wondered about why some people think that they deserve government provided health care, he decided to write a bill for these people, the "Bill of No Rights," and shortly after listening to the broadcast, typed it up and e-mailed it to a few of his friends where it is now found through the Internet and often mis-credited; the most notable case being Mitchell Kaye, a Georgia lawmaker who e-mailed it to a few of his friends. Napper takes it in stride, e-mailing people who got it wrong, and asking them to change. Most do, except the stubborn few who refuse to believe him. Despite mis-credits, the Bill of No Rights is certainly a part of Internet history.

---

The Bill of No Rights

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bedwetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - and not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Election 2016

Greetings friends, it's time for another episode of Daddy Hawk’s Wandering Windshield Dialogue. It's just before 6 AM, and I've had no caffeine yet. I’m not sure if that bodes well for this episode or not. My Sister…The Devil checked my blood pressure yesterday which came in at a relatively mellow 110 over 69. So, in today's episode, we will tackle the tragic comedy that is the 2016 presidential elections.

As long time readers know, politics is one of my favorite spectator sports right up there with NASCAR. There's a fraud, corruption, conspiracy theories, cluelessness, allegations of murder, adultery, and the dead shall rise and vote once again (at least in Chicago). It's a bad teen zombie horror movie masquerading as a governmental system.

A few months ago, I saw a meme on Facebook about the elections. The caption was: "The problem with this election is that one of them will win." Being a native Texan, I think the second problem with this election is that, no matter who wins, our next president will be from New York.

It really makes me wish Richard Pryor's “Vote Nobody” campaign from Brewster's Millions was a real, viable option.

Let's start with the third-party candidates. I really have to chuckle at the unofficial campaign slogan someone came up with on Facebook for the Gary Johnson campaign. Nothing says vote for me like "Feel the Johnson " (with apparently no apologies to the Bernie Sanders campaign).  So, does that make Gary Johnson supporters jockstraps?

Libertarians have the best shot of any of the third parties. And, by best shot, I mean none whatsoever. They're currently pulling just under 15% in recent national polls which means they could probably spoil for one of the two main candidates not unlike what Ross Perot did in ’92 which helped the Clinton’s and the snatch the White House the first time. This time, though, the big Johnson ticket is sounding more Democrat than conservative, libertarian or Republican with their stance on guns and other subjects. So, Hillary may see a statistically significant number of former Bernie supports feeling the Johnson instead of the Bern. If that happens enough in the battleground states, say hello to First Lady Melania Trump instead of First Philanderer Bill Clinton.

As someone who considers himself to be a small “L” constitutionalist/libertarian, this gives me some small measure of hope.

Speaking of the Constitution party, according to one of those silly Facebook quizzes, that’s with whom I am most closely aligned on the issues. Color me surprised. I didn't even know they existed. Who knew? Unfortunately, they are polling about as well as Lynden LaRouche and he’s not even running this year.

As an aside, there's nothing to throw your train of thought off like being stuck in a traffic jam because some idiots who can't drive in the rain. I'm trying to bypass this mess so I won't even get the payoff of seeing the wrecked cars. Oops, I was wrong. I got to see the crunched cars after all. Major front in damage to a regular cab pickup of some description with a smoking radiator and all. No photos for you. I can only do so much at once.

But, I digress as usual.

Speaking of digressions, there's the Green party. That's really all I need to say about them. I have no idea what they think they can accomplish other than waste the money of some useful idiots. I did hear a segment on the Sean Hannity show with Dr. Jill Stein who is their presidential candidate this year. As near as I can tell, their platform is to take the worst parts of the New Deal, ignore history and all economic wisdom to the contrary, wave a magic and magically create jobs and a healthy economy. Good luck you ignorant twits. At least Bernie was honest about being a socialist.

That brings us to the Democrats. I have to say that I think it is a sad commentary on the party that the BEST candidates they could put forward for the primaries was an aging, self-avowed socialist and, arguably, the single most corrupt woman in American politics. She continues to be dogged by scandals that have brought down lesser people; and, yet, nothing sticks to her. The fact that Hillary had to conspire with the DNC to rig the primaries to beat Bernie is nothing short of hysterical and is further commentary on just how fed up America is with the establishment of both parties.

Discussing the establishment brings us to the Republicans. If Bernie was so unpalatable that the donkies rigged the game to pick Hillary, Trump is a poison pill with a chainsaw enema for the GOP elephants. Say what you will about Trump, but he beat a deep field of contenders including some serious talent from hard core conservatives to moderate establishment favorites. A lot of good candidates underestimated him and/or misread the direction the electoral winds were blowing. Either way, Trump is the horse the ‘Pubs are stuck with and has at least as good a chance as Hillary of winning the White House.

My final thoughts for now is that this election could really go either way. I’ve not seen voter discontent at this level in my lifetime or in my study of American history. I would submit the recent Brexit vote up for consideration as a case study in the triumph of the will of the people over the desires of their supposed betters in the establishment. I think we will see record setting voter turnout especially in the battleground swing states. Were I a betting man, I would give odds in favor of Trump. However, I could not begin to give an estimate on an over/under or point spread. I seriously doubt the winning candidate will have a clear majority and, thus, will have no clear mandate.

Stop Hitting Yourself

Dear Texas Republican Party Members (and you folks at the National Party HQ need to listen up too),

I'll make this simple: STOP HITTING YOURSELF! Seriously. Put down the shovel, go take a bottle of Tylenol and reread the Bible and the Constitution when you wake up.

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

I'll be the first to state that, as a conservative Christian, I believe the Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality. The Bible is also very clear about not judging others, accepting people as they are (while loving them and encouraging them to sin no more) and looking after your own problems before you try to solve everyone else's. I'll also be the first to admit that I do not understand the "cause" of homosexuality anymore than I do particle physics, and I'm pretty sure no one living has a decent grasp on that subject either. We can debate genetics and nature versus nurture until the end of time; but, if you listen closely, you can just make out the sound of God laughing at us for thinking we have a clue.

So, it strikes me that these well intentioned folks are suffering from a special form of stupid to think that 1)homosexuality can be "fixed" through therapy, 2) that it's any of the government's business in the first place, and 3) there ought to be a law to do something about it.

Do you want to take a stand on moral issues? Fine be me. Live your life according to those morals. Be the example you want others to follow. Talk to people about why you do what you do when offered the opportunity. Talk to them out of love and be respectful of that teachable moment.

Do you want to make a difference in state and national level politics? Fine by me. Stick to things that are defined by the Constitution as being the government's business. Let's talk fiscal policy. Let's talk foreign policy. Let's talk about securing the borders. Let's talk about taxes. Let's talk about how entitlements are bankrupting the county. Let's talk about the ideas you have to make Texas and America stronger (or strong again depending on your point of view).

Let's stay out of people's bedrooms. Let's stay out of people's minds. This isn't Orwell's 1984. There should be no political correctness. There should be no hate crimes or thought police. You don't fix racism by inciting riots and perpetuating the "us vs. them" mentality. You change people's hearts and minds by being the best example you can be.

[dropping mike and stepping off soap box]

It's Been A While Since I Got Political

As many of you may have figured out already, I'm not a fan of what passes for politics these days. And, when it comes to choosing sides, both major parties can roll in a box of razor blades before a dip in the piranha tank for all I care. Having said that, today's offering (shamelessly stolen from another blog...which one I forget otherwise I would credit) strikes a chord with me.

Click to make bigger for easier reading.

Now, as much of a fan as I am of the concept of Ted Cruz tossing the apple cart over the hill and rubbing the elephant's trunk in it, there is a flaw to this plan. The fly in the ointment is the same one that has been plaguing the Republican party since Reagan left office: the establishment.

The big money establishment wing of the GOP would drop a 24 carat load on anyone with a pulse to run against Ted Cruz and his team. With the complicity and overt support of the liberal media reporting on scandals (real or imagined...see Herman Cain's failed campaign, what they did to Sarah Palin just as a VP nominee), a Cruz campaign would be fighting a three front war (do you think Hillary will stand by quietly and let Cruz get nominated?) by Super Tuesday.

Do I want to see this happen? You betcha. I want to see Cruz and company break the establishment like Moses broke the stone tablets while staring at the golden calf after coming down from 40 days on the mountain. I want to see a rollback of every failed social program and half baked, unconstitutional law, agency and Federal overreach going back to at least the Wilson administration (though credible arguments could be made to extend that back passed Lincoln). I want to see a dramatic rebirth/resurrection of the small government republic that good men and women have fought and died for. I want freedom and liberty to once again reign supreme including the freedom to fail (may there never again be a "too big to fail").

Do I realistically think this will happen? Sadly, no.

The odds are stacked against Cruz. Depending on whose figures you use, 49 to 51% of Americans depend on the government for their livelihood in one form or another. Add in the margin of fraud, the primary process that gives the more moderate/liberal parts of the country the opportunity to "thin the herd" and set the tone, and a conservative estimate of the loons and kooks that seems to crop up every election cycle trying to vote for Lyndon Larouche or some other equally viable candidate. What you are left with is a snowball's chance in Hell's outhouse of Cruz successfully running the gauntlet.

I'll be cheering him on regardless. I'm just setting my expectations low now so that reality doesn't hurt quite as bad.

This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

So, here lately, the North Texas area has been getting a lot of attention, unwanted in my opinion, from aggressive proponents of open carry upsetting the apple cart by carrying rifles and shotguns in public.

I'm sure most of you have seen the Facebook photo of the two dweebs...mall ninjas...wannabees...fools attention whores standing in Chipotle with their EBRs (evil black rifles) on display. I'm not going to post that photo as I don't need those two preserved here in my digital home for posterity. Google "Dallas Chipotle Open Carry" if you really want to see it. Suffice it to say, they look silly.  The one wearing his mirrored shades and holding the rifle at low ready, other than looking like the rifle is bigger than he is, should probably have been arrested for disturbing the peace or brandishing of some other related offense. Maybe it's not too late. There is photographic evidence of the offense after all.

Add to that little drama, the events going on in Arlington where the city council recently passed a new ordinance preventing people from stepping into city streets to hand out literature. This ordinance was the result of a Tarrant County open carry group passing out copies of the Constitution at intersections while carrying rifles and shotguns to the apparent dismay of some if you believe the news reporting of the events. The open carry group is crying violation of their first amendment rights, and they promise civil disobedience when the ordinance takes effect at the end of the month.

And now there is this:

Little orange signs like this are popping up all over Granbury (southwest of Ft. Worth). When I asked the manager at Fuzzy's Tacos what gives, he advised that they were informed that an open carry group was coming to town Memorial Day weekend and wanted no part of that nonsense. So, essentially, what they have done since the sign does not comply with Texas section 30.06 signage requirements is create a reason for a simple trespassing charge. If someone entering the business with a gun is asked to leave and refuses, they can then be arrested for trespassing.

Frankly, I don't blame Fuzzy's for posting the sign. I don't blame Chipotle for their position either. Do I wish they had handled it differently? Yes. Then again, I wish the attention whores had stayed home to beg mommy for donut money or play video games too.

In the meantime, I will comply with the laws of the state of Texas while enjoying my burritos and tacos.

Liberty in America: A Political Theory

I've been meaning to sit down and write this post for a while now. It just so happens that, today, I am sitting here at the office twiddling my thumbs doing nothing since today is "moving day" and we can't do any productive work since everything is boxed up and shut down. Everything but my trusty iPad that is.

Anyway, let's talk about freedom and liberty for a bit. I am going to try to avoid using terms that come too heavily "loaded" with excess baggage, but I want to take a second here to give a couple of definitions to set up a common frame of reference for the rest of the discussion.

First, let's look at the definition of "liberty" from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:

a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

When I talk about liberty here, I am mainly focusing on the first part of the definition above. Specifically, I believe liberty, true liberty, is the state of being free and having the power to do as one pleases (within certain easily definable boundaries...i.e. your freedom of action ends when it interferes with the freedom of action, health or welfare of another). The other aspects of liberty mentioned in the definition are part and parcel with that in my humble opinion. It's hard to do as one pleases when under physical restraint for instance.

Moving along, let's look at the definition for "freedom" (same source):

FREEDOM

1: the quality or state of being free: as

a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
d : ease, facility
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use

2

a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

As you can see, the definitions of freedom and liberty are very closely related; and, in my opinion, one cannot exist without the other. There are a couple of concepts buried in the definition of freedom that should be emphasized though. Those are: independence and privilege. Freedom IS a privilege. It is one that must be guarded and protected. Freedom also requires independence. Once independence is lost and the majority slide into dependence, freedom is gone as well. Keep your thumb here or highlight it or something. We'll be coming back to this concept in a minute.

Finally, for purposes of this discussion, political terms such as right/left, Republican/Democrat, liberal (or progressive if you prefer)/conservative, etc. will be used in the manner consistent with common usage as of this writing as opposed to any historical or rhetorical connotations that may rightly or wrongly apply.

Moving along, let's get into the back story leading to the formation of my theory. I don't recall exactly where or when I read it; however, there was a blog article a while back making the argument that Americans have been duped into thinking that the government has to take a side on any given issue (gay marriage in the case of this particular article but the author later generalized the point to apply to all issues). The writer went on to argue that, in reality, both sides of any given argument were shooting themselves in the foot by insisting that the government get involved in something that was NONE OF ITS BUSINESS.

Think about that for a moment. Take, for example, the issue identified by that article. Where in the Constitution does it say that gay marriage (or straight marriage for that matter) is any of the government's business? I'll help you with this answer: NOWHERE! And, yet, here we have people on both sides of the issue yielding their independence by depending on the Government to take a stand by denying the liberty and freedom of people on the other side of the issue by enforcing one side the views of one over another. How absurd is that?

Whichever side the government takes regardless of the issue, there is corresponding legislation, regulation and government bureaucracy necessary to enforce that position. Look no further than the news regarding the implementation of Obamacare (I am using the popular term here because I am too lazy to write out the full name of the bill not for any pejorative connotations the term may have) and all the rules and regs and people needed to sort that out.

Even Starbucks is smart enough to stay out of issues that are none of its business. Starbucks is in the business of selling coffee, and they have wisely decided that their views on the Second Amendment, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with the business of selling coffee. They gain absolutely no benefit from taking a stand one way other the other; and, in fact, they risk alienating a significant percentage of their customer base BY taking a stand. 

To be fair, that's an overly simplistic and non-analogous comparison; but, the point remains that there are things defined by the Constitution that ARE the government's business and things, thanks to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, that ARE NOT the government's business.

Quick refresher for those who have not read the Constitution lately:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, let's back up a bit for some history leading up to the Constitution. I'm sourcing heavily from Wikipedia for this next bit (again, because I am lazy as opposed to any endorsement or condemnation of Wikipedia's greatness).

Prior to the War for American Independence or Revolutionary War (depending on which history book you read), there was a shift in political philosophy thanks to the Enlightenment. In particular, the long held belief in the divine right of monarchies to rule over subjects started suffering from some serious setbacks starting with the notable regicide incident in England during that little dispute between Oliver Cromwell and Charles I.

One philosopher in particular, John Locke, had a huge influence in this area of thought. To quote from Wikipedia:

"John Locke's (1632–1704) ideas on liberty greatly influenced the political thinking behind the revolution, especially through his indirect influence on English writers.[clarification needed] He is often referred to as "the philosopher of the American Revolution," and is credited with leading Americans to the critical concepts of social contract, natural rights, and "born free and equal."[6] Locke's Two Treatises of Government, published in 1689, was especially influential; Locke in turn was influenced by Protestant theology.[7] He argued that, as all humans were created equally free, governments needed the consent of the governed.[8] Both Lockean concepts were central to the United States Declaration of Independence, which deduced human equality, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the biblical belief in creation: "All men are created equal, ... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

As we continue rolling forward in history to the revolution itself, we find the rhetoric of the time rooted in freedom and liberty. Notably, Patrick Henry did not say "Give me Democracy or give me death." He said, "Give me LIBERTY or give me death." Even The Declaration of Independence, based on the ideas and philosophy of John Locke says, makes a strong argument for liberty with the line "...the pursuit of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness."

Once the war was one and the leaders of the new nation came together to hammer out a social contract based on Locke's ideas. We see this codified in the Preamble of US Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the 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." [emphasis mine]

So, why did I go through all of that, and what do I think it means as far as a political theory goes?

Think of the political spectrum as a bell curve. There are relatively few radicals on either side of any given issue while the vast majority reside somewhere in the middle. Call it 10/80/10 or 20/60/20. It is my theory that the vast majority in the middle of the bell curve just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit while it is the outliers on either side of the curve that see it as, not only their right, their mission in life to make everyone else live the way they think they should.

By doing so, by insisting that the government pick a side where it has no business being in the first place, these radicals on either side have yielded their independence, their freedom and liberty if you will, in favor of dependence upon the government to define their lives.

If a politician wants to really shake things up, it is my belief that they should not promise to take a stand on this or that side of an issue. Instead, they should promise to leave everyone alone and stick to the things defined by the Constitution as the government's business.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon with the way things are going now.

Of Rights and Responsibilities

If you take a peek at the ever expanding blogroll to your right, you will find a link to a blog called "Comments For Dispatches From TJICistan". I found this blog via my normal, everyday blog stalking and reading a month or two ago and decided to follow his postings as he is quirky with a diverse body of interests similar to my own. You may have come across a news article about a blogger in Massachusetts who had his firearms license temporarily suspended after authoring a post in the wake of the Tucson shooting. TJIC is that guy.

Setting aside for the time being the issue of a state requiring a person to have a firearms license to possess firearms (we might get around to that, we might not), I want to discuss the issue that led to this person arousing the ire of the authorities. Simply put, it boils down to the right to free speech. 

Shortly after the Tucson shooting, TJIC posting something to the effect of "1 down, 534 to go" apparently in reference to the remaining members of Congress who were not involved in the Tucson shooting incident. The authorities in TJIC's neck of the woods seem to feel this is potentially a threat against our elected horse thieves, and they are investigating the "suitability" of TJIC to possess firearms.

There is now a string of "I am TJIC" posts circulating the blogosphere based on the ending of the movie Spartacus. I first came across this on one of the blogs in the blogroll which linked back to the apparent originator, Borepatch. The basic idea is that, if the rights of one blogger (right, left, liberal, conservative, non-blogger, etc., etc.) are violated, then the rights of all us have been violated. We stand together or hang separately. Etc. Etc. Borepatch and others do a much better job of stating their position themselves than I will do paraphrasing it, and it's not my intent to merely do a "me too" post.

While I do agree with the sentiment in principle, but I feel the need to temper my agreement with some thoughts on the concept of rights AND responsibilities. 

We as Americans talk a lot about rights. We seem to think every action, no matter how ridiculous, is a God given right. Much less frequently do we consider the responsibility that comes with those rights. For all the chest beating about "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed", there is a well developed line of legal thinking that says that there are certain limitations on those basic rights. For instance, the right to freedom of speech is limited in that you do not have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when none exists or to incite a riot. In other words, we have a responsibility to exercise our rights with a certain level of care for the rights of others. 

Now, back to the issue at hand. Regardless of the limitations on free speech that exist, there is no limitation imposed on free speech for offensiveness of which I am aware. Just go to a Klan rally or a Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermon if you need clarification on that point. You do not have a right to be free from offensive speech any more than you have a right to life when you are drowning. TJIC made what I feel was intended as a joke. A poorly timed joke made in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless. He did not say "1 down, 534 to go and Congressman [fill in the blank] is next 'cause I'm comin' for ya." That would have been a threat. How is what TJIC wrote any different than the film made about George W. Bush being assassinated? Were the makers of the film investigated for a threat against the president? Not that I recall.

Despite the tastelessness of the joke, I can understand the sentiment behind it. There is a lot of pent up anger and frustration with our elected officials in this country right now especially in the wake of the midterm elections that showed very clearly that the American people are not happy with a large portion of Congress.  However, just like an individual has a responsibility to not yell fire, I think there is an individual responsibility for a person to exercise some level of wisdom and discretion in what he or she posts and when. 

I must get back to work now. In short, there, but for the grace of God, go I. It was a stupid, tasteless joke.  I've made more than a few myself including the one about dead hookers and live boys...in church no less. You are free to disagree with TJIC and even be offended by him, but you'd better be willing to defend TJIC's right to make a stupid joke whether you agree with it or not lest you find your own rights taken away. 

I am TJIC.

Easy Compared to What?

According to the newsletter email I received today from my U.S. Congressman, today is the 223^RD anniversary of the affirmation and signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia. That's something worthy of celebration in my opinion.

Yippee!

And, now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

My Congressman included the following paragraph in the newsletter:

On this Constitution Day, we must again reaffirm our understanding of the founding principles, which include a restrained federal government and state sovereignty. Indeed, the Constitution established a limited, representative government that respects and protects individual liberties and freedoms.

It occurs to me that we have anything but a "restrained federal government" or a "limited, representative government that respects and protects individual liberties and freedoms." We haven't for a long time. 

Restraint? I seem to recall House Minority Leader Boehner mentioning something about rolling back spending levels to 2004 or 2006 levels. That went over well. You would have thought he had three heads and banana sticking out of every bodily orifice the way people were looking at him. The lack of support from his own party was deafening all the way down here in Texas. Seems that thought weren't too popular in our "progressive spend everyone else's money on every conceivable pet project" Congress. Which, to be fair, has been going on far longer than the current crop of thieves have been in office. 

Try listening in on the arguments (if you have a strong stomach) about extending the "Bush tax cuts". Our beloved horse thieves can't seem to agree whether or not to extend the "Bush Tax Cuts". Seems we can't afford to borrow money from foreign nations to finance a tax cut if I heard the quote from Princess Nancy correctly. Hey, Ms. Pelosi, how about you get your hand out of everyone's pocket and cut some programs?

How about a limited government? Try Googling the number of federal government agencies siphoning money out of the budget year after year? I couldn't find a solid number; however, I did find the listing of federal agencies and departments on the USA.gov website. I tried to upload a screen shot of a small sampling of the over 473 federal agencies and departments I counted in the list NOT including state, local and territorial governments, but it appears that I still have some technological deficiencies to overcome. "

I love the tag line: "Government Made Easy". Oh really? Compared to what?

Do we really need a federal African Development Foundation? That sounds like it should be a private non-profit organization to me. How much money do we waste (I mean spend) on that every year? Or how much do we spend on the Agency for International Development? How about we let taxpayers keep that money and develop our own nation?

And just where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress or the Executive branch to create an Agricultural Marketing Service? Is that an advertising agency or a public relations firm? 

I think the perfect celebration for Constitution day would be to dump the entire Federal Register in the trash can, fire every single government employee and disband every single federal agency and department (with the exception of the military). Do it on a Friday. Today, in fact. Everyone gets the weekend to come up with a Constitutional justification for their job, agency or department. If, on Monday morning, they cannot cite chapter and verse of which article and section in the Constitution gives them the right to exist (or be on the government payroll)…bye-bye…don't let the door hit you on the butt. Good luck in the private sector. 

Ditto for the Federal Register. If a law cannot be reconciled to the Constitution for Authority…off with its head…I mean off the books. 

The Constitution was a great idea. We have managed to screw it by bogging it down with the weight of generations of ignorance and greed. It's time we cleaned up our mess.

How To Solve Society’s Problems and TANSTAAFL

My last couple of posts have generated some comment exchanges which, in hindsight, I would have liked to have been included in the original posts. So, there’s only one thing to be done about that, of course. Write a new post centered around those comments.

One might ponder why these topics didn’t make it into the original posts. One who engages in such pondering would immediately be branded as someone needing something much better to do with their time. I wish I could claim that I had contemplated these gems and decided against their inclusion out of some high minded, philosophical statement about something or other. However, the truth is so much more mundane. Specifically, there’s only so much time I have to commit to writing at any one time between my other commitments, and I have to make executive decisions declaring something “good enough” from time to time. On the other hand, had I incorporated these thoughts and threads into the originals, the posts would have gone close to 5000 words each which is a little more than most blog reading people want to digest in one sitting.

Let’s get started, then, fixing my earlier oversights and omissions.

In response to “A Modest Proposal”, Nathanael Rey of the blog “This is How It Feels” commented, in part:

Now here is my general consensus. I agree with these ideologies in theory, and as a general guideline for the government. However, I think one point that could sway this theory is the whole, "what if?" factor. As I said I think as a general guideline, this is a good political theory, but i think an important thing to remember is the fact that not everything is so cut and dry. There are countless extenuating circumstances where I think there are exceptions to the rules laid down here. However, I do agree with the overall theory... especially about military action being the exception, not the rule.

Also, i don't think this necessarily solves the problems that we are facing today... but I do think they would have served us very well as preventative measures to those problems.

Now, Nathanael and I are about as different as night and day in terms of lifestyle and experience; however, he honorably served his country in the army even though the army didn’t treat him honorably in return. For that service, I believe his opinions are worthy of respect. In response to him, I said, in part:

I agree with you that theory and reality rarely coincide in the real world. We've got a complex society with very complex problems. The point I am trying to get at is that, just as an individual has to set priorities (like your post about getting the apartment and the affect it would have on your lifestyle), we as a nation have to set some basic priorities through which we attempt to address those more complex problems. Just like you have to make a choice between paying rent and getting the pedicure, America has to learn to make the hard choices between necessities and luxuries. At some point, we have to collectively say "no, we can't afford that."

It’s an undeniable fact we live in a complex society with complex problems, and Nathanael is right: not everything is so cut and dry. There are exceptions to every rule expect for the rule about exceptions for every rule to which there is no exception. The danger is when we start making the exceptions INTO the rules. When you start down that slippery slope, it becomes easy to say “just this once” or “we’ll deal with it later” or something equally intelligent. We’ve been saying that pretty consistently since the Civil War, and we are now standing in a cesspool of debt up to our collective eyeballs to prove it.

So, do we throw out the baby with the bath water because we can’t solve all of society’s problems? Do we give up trying to make a collective effort to live by a set of basic principles and priorities because they are unworkable and do not address or solve all the problems we face? If that’s the case, riddle me this Batman: when was the last time the United States’ byzantine and labyrinthine “progressive” tax code solved any of our nation’s problems. When has ANY of the 2000 plus page, tree killing, indecipherable, pork barrel project stuffed monstrosities enacted by Congress EVER done anything other than increase the size of government and line the pockets of the politically connected?

Further, in my opinion, it is BECAUSE we have tried to solve all our societal problems through creative legislation that we are broke as a nation. The point here is that any legislation not based on sound principles and priorities will CREATE more problems than it ever solves. We wanted cleaner air and water and safer food and drugs which are fantastic, laudable goals. So, Congress created the EPA and the FDA. Go read Philip K. Howard’s 1994 book, The Death of Common Sense, to see how well that’s worked out for us. I’ll summarize for you in two words: it hasn’t.

Better living through legislation and regulation is not the answer any more than better living through chemistry is. At least, not through the legislation and regulation coming out of our current system which lacks any kind of principle or priority not involving kickbacks, payoffs and outright larceny.

The founding fathers were wise to include language in the constitution limiting the power of the federal government. They understood the danger of an out of control government. They understood that most issues can and should be dealt with at a local level. Does your community have a homeless problem or a gang violence problem? Do those problems take precedence over your communities other priorities? That’s for the citizens closest to the problem to decide not for a distant federal bureaucracy to dictate. Should I, as a Texan, be forced to pay for California’s budget problems through my federal income taxes because they are too stupid to realize you can’t do everything your heart desires when I had no input into the decisions which led to those problems? What about my federal income taxes going to fund pork barrel projects in another state? I think not. That is the very essence of taxation without representation which led to the first American Revolution. Local problems require local solutions paid for by local funding.

National problems are, in my opinion, few and far between. National defense? Most definitely. Foreign diplomacy? Yep. International trade? Uh-huh. Interstate commerce. Yes. Immigration? Si, senor. Education? That’s a tough one. If the people of a certain city, county or state want to be so stupid they couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, they should have the right to be morons. We need a source of cheap labor to compete against China anyway. On the other hand, allowing a certain area to be fools hurts the rest of us. Is “No Child Left Behind” the answer? Not according to the teachers I’ve talked with. Ultimately, I think education should fall under the “promoting the general welfare” national priority. Just to be clear, I said PROMOTE, not DICTATE or PROVIDE.

Moving along now to another comment thread, in response to “Bad Bills and Basics”, GunDiva of the blog “Just Another Perfect Day…: commented as follows:

And another AMEN for Brother K! I've worked in medicine a long time. Medicine is not broken; we give great care to everyone. Insurance is broken. There are a lot of people out there who believe that Health Care Reform will result in "free" health care. Are you kidding? We'll be paying for it in the form of increased taxes. There ain't nothin' free about it. As Americans, we already bitch about how much of our paycheck goes to taxes. How 'bout when we start losing 50% of our paychecks to fund our "free" health care like they do in France? Or what about the "free" health care in Canada, whose government for a time shut down all emergency rooms and urgent care clinics from 7:00 pm until 7:00 am because of budget cuts. No thank you. I'll figure out how to pay my own medical bills, thankyouverymuch. I don't want some [abbreviated expletive deleted] Senator or Congressman deciding who, how, or when I seek medical care. [a derogatory reference to parentage deleted].

In response, I said: “GunDiva, you obviously get it where many do not. To quote from the late, great Robert Heinlein "TANSTAAFL" - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.”

TANSTAAFL is really at the heart of what I am talking about here. Here’s another quick history lesson. The originator of the phrase TANSTAAFL is unknown; however, its first known usage was an El Paso, TX newspaper article in the 1930s. It is thought to relate back to a practice of American saloons in the 1800s of offering a “free lunch” with the purchase of drinks. Common sense dictates the lunch is really not free if you have to purchase something else to get it. A modern day equivalent of the “free lunch” concept would be the “free drinks” offered by casinos to gamblers. The bottom line is: You cain’t get somethin’ for nothin’. TANSTAAFL.

Everything has a cost whether it is monetary, personal, societal, moral, spiritual, temporal, etc. You/we have to pay, give up or do something in order to receive or do something else. Do you really want “universal health care”? Because that is what the ultra liberals in Congress would love to be able to enact. But, guess what? Doctors and nurses don’t work for free. MRI machines aren’t cheap and need electricity which isn’t free. Drugs? Definitely not free. Even those cheap little tongue depressors and extra long Qtips don’t miraculously pop into existence.

It’s been reported that the health care industry is approximately 1/5 of our total economy. If the GDP is $14.2 trillion dollars, that means health care accounts for about $2.84 trillion dollars worth of “free lunches”.

Oh, but wait, we’re supposed to realize huge cost savings by “reforming” health care which is a government euphemism for “we’re going to tell you what you have to do and fine you into oblivion if you don’t”. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that health care “reform” reduces costs by 50% across the board assuming that’s even possible. I know 50% is an arbitrary number picked out of thin air simply because our elected horse thieves are too slippery to commit to an estimate of potential cost savings when they have a hard time putting a price tag on how much their special deals and kickbacks are going to cost. Either way, I think most people would agree that a 50% cost savings represents a fair definition of “huge” savings. 50% of $2.84 trillion is still $1.42 trillion. How much does the IRS collect in taxes each year? Oh yeah, that’d be about $1.4 trillion. Now there’s a pill we can’t afford to swallow.

While we’re on the subject of cutting costs and budgets, I challenge anyone to try cutting your household expenses by 50% and tell me how that works out for you. Unless you are super wealthy, you cannot cut your expenses in half and maintain the same lifestyle. It can’t be done without making hard choices about who gets paid and who doesn’t or what things are necessities and which are luxuries. The same applies to our nation.

Now, last time I checked, America was supposed to be more or less a capitalist, free market economy. I know you can easily argue that any government regulation on the marketplace or economy moves us away from a truly free market economy, but that’s a whole ‘nother other can of worms (as mom would say) which I don’t have time to get into right now. So, in theory, goods and services as well as wages are determined in the marketplace. How is it possible to achieve 50%, or any percentage for that matter, health care cost savings without government interfering with the marketplace? You cain’t make a race horse out of that jack ass (I apologize. I spent some time in east Texas earlier this week. I promise I’ll be back to normal soon).

Do you want the government telling you how much you can charge for your goods or services? The pharmaceutical industry certainly doesn’t which is why they “helped” write the health care reform legislation. Do you want to invest a significant portion of your life educating yourself to be a doctor and have the government dictate that you can only charge $1 for your services (I know it’s not that extreme, but I am exaggerating on purpose)?

The constitution does not guarantee any person or company a “free lunch”. Nor does it provide any guarantees that future success will match past performance. The government has no business providing bailouts to any individual, group or company. We have to learn to stand or fall on our own two feet and live within our means. TANSTAAFL.

A Modest Proposal

To borrow from Monty Python, “And now for something completely different…” something more or less serious. My apologies to Jonathan Swift for the title.

When I began this blog, I had every intention of making regular commentary on the follies and faux pas of elected officials and the self appointed as well as formally ordained guardians of my morality/eternal soul/bank account. Hence the name of the blog and the subtitle. While I have written a couple of posts taking shots at those paragons of virtue and guardians of the public trust, I have discovered that my writing muse leads more frequently in other directions. Like towards my wife and family. There’s nothing wrong with that…they are wonderful subjects which provide me with a wealth of material…it’s just not what I expected to happen. Life is full of little surprises I suppose.

That’s not to say I have nothing to say about the goings on in Washington these days. Despite the fact that I am apolitical in terms of party affiliation (I think both major parties are the spawn of Satan Hell bent on lining their own pockets at the expense of yours and mine), I maintain an interest in following politics as a spectator sport. Not unlike following my father’s adventures/misadventures in serial monogamy or watching NASCAR...there’s always another spectacular wreck waiting to happen.

As most Americans not already living under rocks, bridges or cardboard boxes are aware, Congressional leadership has been busy buying the supporting votes of hold outs such as Senator Nelson of Nebraska who were standing in the way of the massive health care reform bill’s passage. As usual, political principle in Washington has a price. The question I always come away with is: Can we afford to pay that price?

I did a quick Google search on our nation’s debt this morning and was unsurprised to discover the good ol’ U.S. of A. has been addicted to debt from the very beginning (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm). In defense of the founding fathers, they had to pay for the revolution somehow.

That brings to mind a quick story I heard told by one of my college history professors. Supposedly, in the 1960’s when JFK was president, French president Charles DeGaulle attempted to hand JFK a bill for the money owed to France dating back to the American Revolution. JFK supposedly reminded DeGaulle of America’s costs in dollars and lives spent liberating France in World War I and II. DeGaulle is reputed to have graciously suggested the two nations call it even. I have no idea if this is really true or not, but I sincerely hope it is.

Back to our main story here. If you take the time to go through the debt archives, you’ll notice that the United States has never been debt free. Not once. Not ever. The closest we ever came as a nation to being beholden to no one was in 1835 when our national debt was a paltry $33,733.05 which was less than 10% of the previous year’s $4,000,000 plus debt and almost pocket change compared from the previous high water mark set in 1816 at $127,334,933.74. If it were only that way today, President Obama could ask his good buddy George Soros to pay it off out of the investment interest he makes in a few days. I don’t even want to think about what the inflation adjusted amount of those debt figures are.

On another note, take a moment to look at what was going on in history during some of the years when we had our biggest increases in national debt. Between 1860 and 1865, we went from owing a measly $64 million to over 2 and a half billion. Civil war can be a tad expensive when you weren’t saving back from your last paycheck. Between 1916 and 1919, we jumped from over $3 and a half billion to not quite $27 and a half billion. There’s that war thing again. The Great Depression didn’t help any although it wasn’t until FDR took office that we really started spending money like crazy. World War II, Korea and the Cold War were pretty expensive. Growth of the debt since then has been pretty steady with no one administration or event having a dramatic effect on the debt. I guess once you get past $1 trillion, a few hundred billion here or there just don’t cause the stir they used to.

Today, as a nation, we now owe almost $12 trillion dollars. Let me repeat that $12,000,000,000,000.00. TWELVE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! The entire gross domestic product for the United States is only about $14.2 trillion, and the IRS only collects about a tenth of that ($1.36 trillion in 2007).

What is going to happen when we tip the balance on that debt to income ratio past 1:1? Nothing good I’m sure. At a minimum, inflation, which is already creeping into our lives. I’m already spending a minimum of 25% more on groceries than I was a year ago because of price increases. I know for a fact my paycheck has not gone up that much. At worst...have you ever seen or heard of a foreclosure or repossession of a nation? In my opinion, our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy and it’s only going to get uglier when our creditors decide they want some or all of their money. At gun point probably.

At some point very soon, we, as a nation, will have to balance our checkbook and get our budgetary priorities straight. As an individual, I have to make sure I buy food and pay the mortgage and utilities before anything else. It’s hard to enjoy a big screen television when you don’t have a house to put it in. As a Christian, I would love for us as a nation to be able to provide a comfortable retirement for the elderly and disabled (which I am, in fact, helping to do for my wife’s 93 year old grandmother) and universal health care to all citizens. As a proud American, I would love for America to protect itself from all threats foreign and domestic…preferably on their turf and not ours. As a fiscal conservative though, my Christian charitable desires and my nationalistic fervor come up against the cold hard reality that we can’t afford to do that as a nation without borrowing ourselves into oblivion.

And don’t get me started on the entitlement mentality. You don’t want me going there. I've got all the sympathy in the world for the elderly and infirm; but, if you’ve got most of your limbs and a functioning brain, shut up and go get a job. Put the bong down and stop having kids you can’t afford to feed and clothe while you’re at it. Oops, I went there didn’t I?

What’s the solution here? May I humbly suggest we get back to our national roots and reestablish some sound priorities like the ones laid out in the Constitution? If you haven’t read it in a while, I’ll help you out with the preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

Let’s see here, in one paragraph we have a blueprint for national priorities that should take precedence over luxuries like providing “aid” to third world dictators:

1) Establish Justice
I recall a bumper sticker that reads: “No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.” This is a great priority to start with. Without justice, there is no domestic tranquility. Or much of anything else for that matter. In the absence of justice, there is only chaos and anarchy. Go look at parts of Africa if you need any confirmation of that. Justice requires equal protection not only under the law but also in the making of laws. There is too much influence peddling involved in the American legislative process as it currently stands. Just take a quick look back at the past two years and who got bailouts and who didn’t. You will find a political connection in almost every case. Our elected officials and judges must be ethical and above monetary influence and partisan politics. We, as their constituents, have a responsibility to hold them to that standard.

2) Insure Domestic Tranquility
We’re talking about law enforcement here which is an outgrowth of justice. Once we have fair and reasonable laws, they need to be enforced. It’s as simple as that. Punishment needs to be swift and fair. Those who cannot or will not play by the rules need to be asked to leave. Permanently. Put ‘em down for a dirt nap if necessary.

3) Provide For The Common Defense
The original framers of the Constitution were talking about the common defense of the several states collectively to avoid the problem of having competing state militias. They most certainly were not talking about initiating foreign wars to protect the interests of multinational companies more or less based in the United States. Or at least who have political influence in the government. Or in which the Congressional Pension Fund is heavily invested.

As a college graduate with a history degree, you don’t have to study very deeply to figure out that isolationism just doesn’t work as a foreign policy intended to secure our national defense. However, that does not mean America has to sign on as the world’s police force or become Jehovah’s Witnesses spreading republican democracy door to door. I've got no problem with the American military going into Afghanistan for the sole purpose of digging Osama Bin Laden out of whatever cave or goat herd he is hiding in and putting an end to that particular festering wound in the American psyche. Having said that, military action should be the exception, not the rule, in which we engage with specific goals (not deadlines) to be achieved or targets to be eliminated. Once those goals/targets are taken care of, we need to get out of Dodge and come back home. We don’t need to continue wasting money, energy and lives trying to make some forgotten spot of dirt into a democratic paradise which its culture doesn’t understand and will never be able to maintain.

4) Promote the General Welfare
It seems like a minor point upon which to fixate, but the word is “PROMOTE” not “PROVIDE”. Providing for the general welfare is a luxury not a necessity. If we can’t afford to pay cash, we can’t afford to buy it. Period. And we don’t need to saddle ourselves with a bunch of unnecessary and costly regulations either. If you want clearer air, give incentives instead of penalties for reduced emissions. If you want universal health care that’s affordable, start by encouraging people to eliminate fraud and waste in the system we have. Nowhere in this priority should the word “bailout” ever be mentioned.

5) Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity
In my humble opinion, this one has to do with our nation, both the government and the governed, using common sense and not attempting to do stupid stuff we can’t afford. To quote from the Bible and be all preachy for a moment, Proverbs 22:7 says: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” Romans 13:8 says: “Owe no one anything except to love one another…” Do you ever wonder why debt is described in terms of “secured” and “unsecured”? Securing our liberty and prosperity means owing no one who could come and take it away from us. If we own it lock, stock and barrel, no one can lay claim to it.

I know I have a relatively small readership, but that doesn’t mean my feeble attempts at political reform lack value. That’s where, you, my loyal minions…I mean followers, come in. If you like what you read and agree with it (more or less), pass it on to others. Now, go forth and convert the masses my merry followers and readers.