Posts Tagged ‘federal government’

« Older Entries

The intersection of humor and politics

April 16th, 2010  |  No Comments »

When I first saw this “Government Motors” t-shirt, I loved it immediately. It fits my sense of humor and political view to a T. However, I put off buying it until a couple of days ago. The reason is that I foresaw a potential problem with wearing it.

Namely, I drive a Buick. It’s a 2001, granted, but still, it’s a Buick.

In case the problem isn’t quite clear yet, allow me to continue.

For most if not nearly all introverts, the one thing that will bug us as much as being misunderstood is explaining our thoughts.

Furthermore, I know when I get out of or into my car with that shirt on, most people likely will not care or fail to make the connection. There is also a pretty good chance that some people will get why, in my case, wearing that shirt while owning the car I do is not contradictory. And of course most days I would wear it I won’t run into more than a handful of people near my car, anyway. So, yes, I admit concerning myself over something than probably won’t happen at all is rather silly.

Yet it’s the people who get enough to understand the seeming hypocrisy but not enough to know why it isn’t hypocritical I still want to avoid. And given what you might now about me already, you might understand that even a one in ten thousand chance in dealing with some… genius who thinks they are “calling me out” is worth avoiding.

I can imagine that person being either liberal or conservative, and the conversation going something like this:

—

Twit: Hey! If you think the government owning GM is so bad, why do you drive a Buick, then?

(Note: The Lefty’s argument would be that ought to support the government take-over because I own a GM car; the right-winger’s would be that owning the car but wearing that shirt makes me a hypocrite… or a commie. He would still be a twit, either way.)

Me: Hmm. Well, let’s see: The car’s obviously older than two years old, right? That would make it older than the bailout. I bought the car in 2007 and GM was taken over in 2008, so I wouldn’t have known about the bailout because it hadn’t happened yet. And for me to get rid of the car just because GM is now mostly owned by the government, especially when I can’t afford to buy another car, would be pretty idiotic. Nice try, thanks for playing.

—

Now it would be fun to make some guy like that eat his words, but frankly, I would rather avoid him all together. Oh well. I’ll take the 10,000-to-1 shot. The humor factor of the shirt finally became too much to pass up.

Commentary    ,

Health Care

April 2nd, 2010  |  No Comments »

If you’ve read almost any of my other posts, then you’ve likely picked up on my political views. Hence it should come as no surprise that I am strongly against government involvement in health care.

I recognize that many people like the idea. I will admit universal health care or the availability of a universal health care plan sounds wonderful. Not having to worry about the costs of doctor’s visits or the unfortunate trip to the hospital is comforting. It can be argued, however, that lack of worry is part of the problem we have already, and that will only be exacerbated with further government involvement.

I will not pretend I will (or can) do anywhere near as thorough of an analysis of Obama’s government health care plan as The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation or The Brookings Institution have. I’m not a think tank, but in this case, I’d argue that’s a good thing. Whether you agree with their positions or not, each of the sites is a huge chunk of reading. They certainly serve their purposes to be sure, but the average American is not very likely to read too many of the articles, studies, books, etc. they’ll find at those sites if they are inclined to visit at all.

Nonetheless, my goal is to point out the flaws I see not necessarily in Obama’s health care plan in and of itself, but the idea of universal health care as a whole. I will ask you to consider empirical evidence and conduct a few critical thought experiments along the way. I also will occasionally link to outside sites.

If you think government-run health care is the way to go, all I can ask is for you to be open-minded to my reasoning. I promise I won’t insult your intelligence.

By the way, despite what I said about the think tank sites, this post won’t be short, either. It can’t be. I will, however, try to keep it under 25,000 words.

(more…)

Analysis, Opinion    , , , ,

In light of recent events (or, But I repeat myself…)

March 22nd, 2010  |  2 Comments »

There are a couple of things I find absolutely amazing.

The first is that Washington politicians and political party adherents seem to think that earning slight majorities in the popular vote is a “mandate” for their policies.

To start with, if you get, say, 53% of the vote, that means 47% did not vote for you.

It isn’t even that simple. The way that the political system is set up, only Democrats and Republicans are easily seen and heard in elections, with alternate party candidates all but destined to be “spoilers” at best but, most likely, mere afterthoughts. Therefore, many people who do choose to vote may simply be doing so to throw the other party out or otherwise are selecting between what they see as the lesser of two evils.

Of course, in most elections, about half of people who are of voting age don’t vote. (Even the previous election, heralded as historic and crucial and a victory for the people and so on, failed to attract 40% of those eligible to vote.) So, whether it is apathy, disenchantment or whatever, well over one hundred million people don’t think much of what either (or any) candidate is offering them, therefore I would be quite hesitant to include them as anyone’s support. Hence, that means the “majority” becomes a plurality… of people essentially choosing “none of the above”.

Those might the type of numbers you’d choose a music superstar contest winner with, but the laws, regulations and policies of a country?

The second troublesome thing is that the populace, for the most part, is just fine with the first. Sure, Republicans/conservatives may be putting up a stink now about national health care, but when Bush 43 was in office, they were the ones shouting “He’s the President” at anyone who deigned to argue against the “War on Terror” and calling their opponents “traitors” and linking them with “hate” (”comforting the enemy” then, “racist hillbillies” now). And their “mandate” in 2004 was even weaker than Obama’s.

I would find all of this very amusing if it weren’t so sad. Well, that and if the whims of Washington didn’t directly affect all of us.

Commentary    , ,

Submitting to terror in the name of freedom

September 11th, 2009  |  4 Comments »

I was pleased with the relative ease I had in averting constant bombardment with reminders of what today is.

Of course, short of avoiding any form of media and not leaving your house, it was impossible not to see anything regarding the attacks of eight years ago. “Never Forget” or some variation, as I’m sure you’re well aware, is the popular mantra.

“Never Forget” what? Well, a commentary I read in my local paper seemed to bemoan the fact that many Americans seem to think less about the anniversary each passing year. The author’s contention is that we need to be constantly reminded of the attacks — and hence “remain vigilant” — by making 9/11 a national holiday.

Remember the attacks. Remember the victims. Remember the sacrifice. Remember the military. And so on. And so forth.

I understand what happened. I know nearly three thousand people lost their lives. I know that some really brave people on United Flight 93 kept that number from being even higher. I understand the great job the NYPD, FDNY and citizen volunteers did at the former site of World Trade Center. Yes, I get it.

However, you can’t consider those things and leave out the other effects the events of eight years ago had on this country. Consider a few of them:

Less than two months after the attacks, an enormous and little-read piece of legislation called the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (or for short, and to put those concerned about civil liberties in an unwinnable position of being “anti-American”, the USA PATRIOT Act) was passed, allowing the government, among many, many other things, to collect and search through data on any American — not just those accused of a crime — without a court order.

Agents of the Bush Administration also held and tortured terrorism suspects in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, acts they still claim helped “protect” us, but essentially showed the government would commit acts similar to the ones it condemned terrorists for, all while waving the banner of “freedom.”

A national ID system is being implemented, complete with easily-tracked RFID chips. Citizens in states that choose not to comply will be unable to travel by plane or have access to numerous public (i.e, government) buildings, privacy concerns be damned.

While we are on the topic of RFID chips, they are already in the passports we now need to go to Canada or the Caribbean, whereas a simple picture ID and answering a few questions once sufficed.

We still take off our shoes, are limited to low-weight containers of liquid items and are forbidden to use cell phones during our flights (despite that being the exact way the people on United 93 learned of the other three planes) thanks to the Transportation Security Administration well after the methods were tried, thwarted and, if the terrorists have any brains at all, abandoned.

We Americans were constantly told the terrorists attacked this country because they “hated our freedoms.” But the simple fact of the matter is that we are as Americans less free than we were eight years ago due to legislation and restrictions directly and deliberately tied into 9/11 and the allegedly looming threat of another attack. That means the terrorists have successfully infiltrated the collective psyche of this nation.

Furthermore, when 9/11 is used as a day of honor, no matter how noble the cause is argued to be, it repeatedly gives credence to how that day became a rallying point. Making 9/11 a national holiday would all but set the terrorists’ influence on America in stone.

By many of the commemoration supporters’ own definition, the terrorists have won many times over already. And as long as the pro-celebration crowd continues to insist we “Never Forget”, the terrorists will keep winning.

“While we’re on the subject of never forgetting, Never Forget the way our personal pain is so frequently exploited for political ends. Never Forget the way an honest expression of pathos can twist around and around on itself until it becomes xenophobia [and] jingoism. Never Forget that tragedy has economic value. Never Forget that the patriot’s job in a democratic society is to question as much as it is to support.”

– Zach VandeZande

Commentary    , , ,
« Older Entries