Ok, I admit to being cynical. I believe a politician is only good in their eulogy. I strongly support the old joke about "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" (Their lips are moving.) But the sequester spin is rapidly moving from sublime to ludicrous.
"Godwin's Law" states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." We seem to have hit that probability with the sequester already - although, admittedly, we were close before it ever started.
The problem with this, and possibly a corollary to Godwin's law, is that once such a comparison is made, any productive dialog ceases.
WE HAVE ARRIVED. I have seen conservative posts suggesting that the military is being ramped up for a possible totalitarian state, with Obama as it's head. I have seen members of the president's cabinet suggest that Republicans are purposely trying to make the country default, to make the president look bad.
Sorry, but I call "Bullshit!" on them both.
Just because someone views things different than you does not make them the enemy. I assume we both want what's best for the world, for the US, and for ourselves (possibly not in that order). We all need to understand that arguments (in the true legal sense) are not a bad thing - quite the contrary, the are a necessity in a free and open society.
In my mind, the bigger concern is not the sequester, or gun rights, or Obamacare, or the National Debt, or bringing our soldiers home, or even the Federal Deficit - it is the seemingly already decided idea that the Federal Government has ANY say inside the states. Perhaps I missed it, but doesn't the 10th Amendment still apply? "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." That means that the Federal government has been overstepping it's authority for a very long time.
And I'd like to see it stop. Returning to States Rights would solve a lot of problems. Gun rights, for example. Massachusetts wants to ban all weapons not propelled by air? Let them. You live in Mass and don't like it? Move. Texas gives all newborn babies a concealed handgun license, a small revolver, and a case of ammunition? Great. Don't like what Texas does? Move.
California has great beaches, but is too liberal? Maybe Florida fits the bill. All American citizens have more say in their State government than in the Federal Government. So, shouldn't the States have the most responsibility to their own people?
Forget Washington - the politicians who live there are unredeemable. Focus on your local governemnt, and your county, and your state. You may, just maybe, have a positive impact.
P. J. O'Rourke observed, in "Parliament of Whores", that giving money and power to government was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. And he's right. I just don't want to be along for the ride.
"Godwin's Law" states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." We seem to have hit that probability with the sequester already - although, admittedly, we were close before it ever started.
The problem with this, and possibly a corollary to Godwin's law, is that once such a comparison is made, any productive dialog ceases.
WE HAVE ARRIVED. I have seen conservative posts suggesting that the military is being ramped up for a possible totalitarian state, with Obama as it's head. I have seen members of the president's cabinet suggest that Republicans are purposely trying to make the country default, to make the president look bad.
Sorry, but I call "Bullshit!" on them both.
Just because someone views things different than you does not make them the enemy. I assume we both want what's best for the world, for the US, and for ourselves (possibly not in that order). We all need to understand that arguments (in the true legal sense) are not a bad thing - quite the contrary, the are a necessity in a free and open society.
In my mind, the bigger concern is not the sequester, or gun rights, or Obamacare, or the National Debt, or bringing our soldiers home, or even the Federal Deficit - it is the seemingly already decided idea that the Federal Government has ANY say inside the states. Perhaps I missed it, but doesn't the 10th Amendment still apply? "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." That means that the Federal government has been overstepping it's authority for a very long time.
And I'd like to see it stop. Returning to States Rights would solve a lot of problems. Gun rights, for example. Massachusetts wants to ban all weapons not propelled by air? Let them. You live in Mass and don't like it? Move. Texas gives all newborn babies a concealed handgun license, a small revolver, and a case of ammunition? Great. Don't like what Texas does? Move.
California has great beaches, but is too liberal? Maybe Florida fits the bill. All American citizens have more say in their State government than in the Federal Government. So, shouldn't the States have the most responsibility to their own people?
Forget Washington - the politicians who live there are unredeemable. Focus on your local governemnt, and your county, and your state. You may, just maybe, have a positive impact.
P. J. O'Rourke observed, in "Parliament of Whores", that giving money and power to government was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. And he's right. I just don't want to be along for the ride.
As usual, very well stated.
ReplyDelete