Friday, September 05, 2008

A shameless nonsensical rant...

So here's why I'm always bitching about some (but not all - you know who you are) social conservatives - they really don't seem to get the idea of 'liberty.'

What I should be doing is bitching about the most extreme liberals - who really don't seem to get the idea of 'personal responsibility.'

Actually, those accusations work equally well the other way around!


The Far Right

Take some conservatives. They boast about being 'good Americans' and supporting 'liberty' and the 'constitution,' but they do no such thing!

The first amendment means that the social conservatives should stop trying to ban pornography! Barring child porn and bestiality (which require child abuse or animal abuse to produce) I think anything filmed between two consenting adults (and viewed by consenting adults) is fine.

If you don't like it - don't buy/rent it!

It is not up to the 'moral majority' (which is neither moral nor a majority) to dictate to the rest of us!

Likewise - let's have some T&A back on the television, please. I think after a 10pm watershed, American television should show all the nudity and bad language they want. If parents don't want their kids to be 'corrupted' then DON'T LET THEM WATCH IT.

It's not the network's responsibility to monitor what kids watch (after a certain time.) If parents don't like it, they really shouldn't let their kids have TVs and access to the Internet in the privacy of their bedroom.

Don't they remember being kids themselves? Of course they want to watch the naughty stuff! (Back in my day, I used to thumb through Jilly Cooper novels just to get to the saucy bits.)

It's called the 'off' button people. Learn to use it. The television is no longer your kid's babysitter! (The DVD player is.)

Let's move on...

How about teaching creationism (old school creation doctrine, not fluffy 'intelligent design') in schools? It's totally stupid, but I'll meet the social conservatives half way on this one...

If people want to home school their kids, or send them to private school, I think it's fair enough. Teach the we tykes whatever you want (thank goodness there are responsible home schoolers like Coffee Bean who give their kids a well rounded education - and still manage to squeeze in the religion.)

I think teaching 'new earth' creationism is ridiculous and still say it's tantamount to child abuse - but it's your money, they're your kids - if parents want to send them out into the 'real world' thinking that the earth is six thousand years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens, that's their (ir)responsibility.

But public schools, funded by taxpayers money, should only teach secular, proven fact. Not even intelligent design, which is meaningless and unprovable.

And if parents don't like that? What about letting them have 'vouchers' so their property tax can be refunded to pay for their kids to attend religious or private schools?

Hmm. Why not? Then they'd stop demanding prayer in public school, intelligent design in the public classroom and stuff like that. There would be the opportunity for them to have education their way and leave us to have (sensible) education our way. I think that's a fine compromise.

Okay, onto gay rights.

Let's talk turkey for a second. Despite long arguments with CK, I suspect he's probably right.

The Bible probably does say that "teh ghey" is wrong, ghastly, unnatural and an abomination. But the Bible says a lot of things that turned out to be rubbish (and a few things that didn't) and I'd prefer to look at a more progressive picture.

Men and women, just like animals in nature, occasionally turn out 'a bit gay.' They seek sex and relationships with their own gender. And you know what? That's absolutely fine with me.

Seriously, it's like what I wrote about pornography. If their sexual and romantic tastes were directed towards children or animals, that would be wrong (since it would involve or risk child or animal abuse.) But between two consenting adults? I think that's fine.

It doesn't do me any harm whatsoever - and that goes back to the essential rule about American society - I don't have to like it, but if that's what you want to do with your life, leave me free to do what I want to with my life in return.

So whether it's marriage or civil partnerships, I think there should be a system in place for men and women to enjoy the same rights and protects of a married heterosexual couple (and suffer the same divorce problems if that relationship breaks up.)

Anybody who disagrees? They're sticking their oar in and trying, once again, to dictate to America what is and isn't 'moral' according to their own narrow-minded agenda. That's not acceptable. You don't dictate how I live my life (unless if affects you, which, in this case, it doesn't.)

Abortion. How about that?

Well, I can see where social conservatives are coming from here. But when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, they're not the ones facing the most difficult decision of their lives...

Imagine that you're a forty-five year old single woman and you're accidentally pregnant (and there's a good chance that the kid will be seriously disabled when it's born.)

You're not financially, emotionally or physically ready to bring this baby into the world... Yet somebody else, sitting in the smug comfort of another state (and another life,) decides that they should make the decision about what's best for you and your unborn baby. Then they take no responsibility for what happens after they've decided that your baby should be born.

I don't know. It's a trickier issue because we're talking about another life. But I think, within reason (say, up to 13 weeks, or when there are medical issues) we might just have to accept that what's best for mother and baby might, just might, be up to mother and baby to decide.

And I don't think that's a decision any pregnant woman makes lightly (or forgets in a hurry.)

The Far Left

Let's leave the social conservatives alone for a second and move onto the liberals. These guys can be just as bad, if not worse.

I mean, take Barack Obama, dictating that the oil companies 'make too much profit.'

I'm sorry, but if you run a private business and operate within regulations, you should be free to make as much damn profit as you like! It's not like the oil companies are even the biggest businesses in America. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions more than Exxon. What are you going to do? Start redistributing their profits next?

Good luck, America. I think the supply of new and exciting drugs will start to dry up pretty damn quickly when that happens.

This is America - the land of opportunity. You should have the freedom to (legally) make as much profit as you want - and keep it (or redistribute it to your shareholders.) The government should butt out!

While we're at it, what is up with this reckless abandonment of personal responsibility? I thought the conservatives were bad enough, trying to ban pornography. Liberals want to ban smoking and trans fat (and have succeeded in New York.)

I hate eating in a smoky restaurant as much as the next person - but I think there should be bars in New York that are allowed to let smokers in. Give people the choice - smoking or non smoking. If they want to go to a smoking bar, that's their responsibility and their right.

Likewise, if you don't want to have smoke blown in your face, you should also have that right. I agree with some specific 'smoking' bars, but I also agree with a ban in every other public venue, like cinemas and sports arenas.

It's the same with trans fat.

Okay, so it's really, really bad for you - but nobody's forcing you to shove Kentucky Fried Chicken down your gullet. If you eat too much fatty food and have a heart attack, that's your shauri. You made that choice (and this is America. It's your right to.)

Banning trans fat is the start of a slippery slope. Next what'll it be? Dairy? Salt? If the liberals had their way, we'd all be eating nothing but a homogenized vegan slop.

It gets worse. I recently heard of a bartender on Long Island who got arrested because a woman he'd served got into her car (over the limit, since she'd been drinking elsewhere) and killed some poor kid on her drive home.

Lock that lady up and throw away the key - I'm fine with that. But the bartender? He was just doing his job? I know bartenders are not meant to over serve, but by suggesting he's responsible for the girl drink-driving also suggests that she isn't.

**adopt sarcastic tone** Poor little lamb. Despite the fact that she was probably drunk when she rolled up to the bar in the first place, it's not her fault that she drove drunk. It's that mean ol' bartender, who served her a drink even though she was already tipsy. All because she would have yelled at him if he didn't.

Liberals seem so desperate to relieve us of responsibility for anything. Why doesn't anybody man up, hold up their hands and say: "Yeah, I made a bum decision and I take responsibility for it?"

That'd be refreshing.

The Big Picture

At the end of the day, the far left and the far right have the same vision. They see America and it's problems and want to fix them.

Statistics prove that banning smoking saves lives. People claim that banning pornography would reduce sexually transmitted diseases. The Bible said that the world was created in six days and somebody in the Tennessee backwoods wants to teach their boy that (and demand that every copy of Jurassic Park get burned.)

Perhaps banning these things would work for the 'greater good.' But manipulating society to 'make it better' is social engineering. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in Communist China or North Korea.

This is America. Whether they're right or wrong, we should have the right to make our own decisions here.

It's inalienable, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit doesn't interfere with anybody else's, why should it be restricted?

In the upcoming election, people banter around words like 'patriotism' and phrases like 'a good American.' Well, isn't this what being a good American is all about? Defending the freedoms that the founding fathers fought and died for?

Even if they never anticipated that those freedoms would be the right to produce pornography, marry another man and gorge ourselves to death on fried chicken!


3 comments:

Coffee Bean said...

Dang Roland... you are exhausting. I don't even have the energy to reply to this one.

Suki said...

I'll agree with ya though. The tough part is the infrastructure and mutual respect needed to keep all those choices in place!

postpaleo said...

And you think the drugs will dry up if we tax them, put a leash on them? My god you have no faith in what you say we need to begin with, if you think that for a single second. Please explain to me why America always gets the rap for the big company's and the right to make the big buck and be such an abomination to the world at large? I seem to recall most of these things are international and get more so every day, that means YOU in that other country pointing your stinking finger at ME in this one are just as responsible.

The gas crisis, I'm getting tired and I know how to fix their asses and they still can make the bucks. But you ain't gonna like it, the government has to force them to put Hydrogen out put in every service station they own and that is the fix. It's a simple case of build it and they will come and yet no one is talking about it, no one. The capitalist can form all around it have a glorious time making money and do their very wonderment's of fucking it up someplace, they always do. They don't own allegiance to anybody but themselves. But don't worry the government (us) will bail them out. Christ isn't it old yet? And where will their lobbyist be? Ducking the burden. Why because it won't show the profit that you so wisely pointed out.

You haven't been around very long have you. Not long enough to know they will kill you to make a buck. Have I? I have three things in my lungs now, that I know of, and it wasn't from smoking. You have no idea what a secret Union hand shake really means, you only have read about them haven't you. Did the Unions screw themselves? Yes they did. Have you ever wondered why health insurance ever got put into company negotiations and the company's went a long with it? Think about it for a while, let me know when you have an idea.

So dear sir, you don't believe in global warming? The company's fault? It is when they, and still, influence and I mean big time influence the governments. They are making their own regulations. That's the same damn thing as the police or the Army investigating themselves. Does that sit right with you? Just why is it there is this separation of Church and state and not, oh let's just pick one, Capitalism and state? Or is there?

Personal responsibility, don't even go there, I'll eat you alive.

Liberty? Now that is a good chuckle. Hell of it is I would do it again and it damn near killed me. And they hated my guts while I was in. And to that I say, you're welcome and fuck you.

Gay, always a favorite. They banned it, made it a sin, for the very simple fact it did not make the band grow. It's just that simple.

Naw we actually see eye to eye on most all of what you have written and written well. I just like a good rant once in a while, cleans the poison out of my lungs. Well I kid myself it isn't really in there. Bitch away, I did and it is a beautiful thing, is it not?