Hello again, everyone. Welcome to a new day, and a new thought!
Well, that may not be totally honest. You see today is actually an old thought, but a continuing problem. It's what's currently on my mind, and the emotions it stirred in me made me realize that I never really resolved my own internal conflict on this topic. Then I realized that if it's still happening, no one has resolved the conflict. And that's just unacceptable.
Let me explain. Yet again, a pharmacist has refused medicine prescribed by a doctor, based on alleged moral grounds, to someone that needed it in order to decrease the possibility of death. You can read a slightly longer synopsis here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/578303-pharmacists-refusing-to-fill-prescriptions-for-potentially
Basically, the pharmacist didn't want to save the lady if she was bleeding from an abortion. Privacy laws being what they are, the referring entity could not disclose such details. Hence the conflict.
The first I remember hearing of this issue was back in what the old folks might refer to as "ot 4". Some 'heartland' pharmacists got their moral superiority panties bunched up in a wad and started refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and the "morning after pill". It seems these fools (I picked a really bad day to stop swearing in my posts) may have been suffering from the same delusions as the aforementioned pharmacist. You can read all about it here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm, or you can stay on my page, where it's nice and warm.
And I have a problem with this? You can bet your sweet patooties I do.
Medical professionals are sworn to protect and sustain life. The good ones take the jobs for that exact reason. So is it a contradiction to expect them to dispense life-ending drugs such as birth control or the infamous "morning after pill"? No. Not one bit. You want to hear why, don't you? Of course you do. Why else would you be here? Then without further adieu...allow me to present to you...for your reading pleasure...logic!
We know the following to be true (explanations to follow for the slow kids):
1) Life is not the most important thing.
2) When we hire someone to do a job we expect them to do it.
3) Sometimes discrimination is necessary.
4) You'll be hard-pressed to find two people sitting in the same pew at the same church that define morality the same way.
Now let's discuss:
1) Life is not the most important thing. If it is then all those soldiers we send to die for our freedoms are just useless casualties. Unless you own stock in a body bag and/or oil company. I've always thought it funny that the demographic that is most supportive of war is the least supportive of a woman's right to choose. That would make an excellent Venn Diagram. If you're seeing the contradiction here, congrats. You're thinking. Why will we send our mostly grown kids to die in order to improve someone elses quality of life, but we don't think it's okay to stop a birth for the same reason? That may sound awfully crass, but any distinction you try to draw there is cognitive dissonance. Own it. Your brain may try to draw lines between choice and personal responsibility, but if that's the case then all the people overseas that we are fighting "for", had their own choices, and their own responsibility to take care of themselves. You also assume that just because the Army is voluntary, everyone in it is there by choice. This is simply not true. See, that's a big problem. We fail, far too often, to think through even the most basic of our beliefs. If you're pro-life, then you can't be pro-war. If you're pro-quality of life, but thought before reading this that you were pro-life, then it's time to rethink how you perceive the world around you, and why. Then you may realize that you can disapprove of a woman's right to choose and support our troops without having to strip personal freedoms or bomb Iran. Philosophy is full of happy mediums, but if you don't think them through they can become hypocrisies.
2) If I hire a contractor to do a job, and he screws it up, I can take him to court for damages. If Macy's sells me a crappy sweater, I can take it back. But if I'm in a medical emergency, and am refused treatment, I'm dead. Sue all you want, there are no second chances. So shouldn't we, as a society, try to limit medical error? Of course. "But Mr. ToT's", you say, "we can't make people do what they think is wrong." Horse puckey. Yes we can. I know so because we do it all the time. What a great segway to #3...
3) Have you read my post on discrimination? No? Then go do that now, we'll wait. It's the one titled "Equal Thoughts".
All done? Great. Let's get back to the discussion at hand. Every day, in every city, small town, and village across this planet, people do things they find unpleasant, distasteful, and even morally reprehensible in order to provide food for their families and themselves. I bet even people on other planets have to do things they don't want to do. It seems like that would be universal. But why? That seems so unfair. Not true! False positive! Not only is it fair, it is the essence of fair. We live in a society. Many people and machines working together to do the best we can by and for everyone else, as well as ourselves. Sometimes, that means we do what we must, rather than what we want. The more we evolve, and step away from being a survival-based race, the less we have to do that. Maybe it's why we pick these stupid little fights - boredom. Or maybe we just need to modify the Hippocratic Oath in light of what we now know. We need our medical professionals to protect the quality of life first and foremost, since we now know that life is not the most important thing.
4) Every doctor in this country goes through pretty much the same training, taking pretty much the same tests and reading pretty much the same books. So why do some doctors abort babies, while others refuse? Because morality is subject to our experiences and how we digested and rationalized them. I believe that most atheists assume religious people, both the 'cafeteria' and devout types, are just not thinkers. However, that's not necessarily true. In fact, it doesn't seem to be true at all. Except the Baptists. Baptists are definitely short bus. But Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc, share a pretty shocking statistic: They are just as educated, if not more so, then the population as a whole. In fact, the "more so" is more common than the "just as". Studies have tried for years to pin down what professions have the least/most 'believers'. It was only when the data was drilled into last year that the conclusion was made (conclusively) that upbringing and socioeconomic status had more to do with religious devotion than education. Religious groups may profess to believe a lot of common things, but overall, in those day to day situations, morality is unique to the user. And people that hold positions of service that grant them power over life and death must approach those positions free of prejudice. If we expect it of lawyers and judges, why the hell don't we expect it of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists?
The medical field in this country has no shortage of job openings. If you wish to serve, but can't bear to prescribe some of the pills you will be asked to provide, then just do something else. Become a radiologist, or an anesthesiologist, or a nurse, or a billing coder. You can go to night school for that last one!
Still not smart enough to agree with me? (Yeah, I said it, and yes, I'm always that arrogant.) Then here's another, more...sensitive...way to look at it: If you are too righteous to dole out birth control, but you can rationalize prescribing a pill to give an erection, stop pain, or alter consciousness, then it seems to me you are already violating the will of your god. If it doesn't work, didn't god will it so? If it hurts, didn't god allow it to break? In the same way he seems to have charged you, Mr. Pharmacist, with dispensing his will, he has acted out his will upon those you pretend to want to treat. There goes that cognitive dissonance again. If you want to enforce your morality or beliefs on others, the LAST place you belong is in a pharmacy, or even in a lab coat for that matter. You may say that stopping a birth is a worse evil than those other things, but you're lying to yourself. Something else is going on here. Furthermore, it smacks of that 'cafeteria christianity', which brings your alleged devotion into serious question.
Pharmacists take a job that requires them to fill prescriptions at the order of a doctor. If you can't do that, for any reason, than you must conscientiously object, and step down from your position. There is no happy medium available to you. Then go home and consider a life in the clergy, another medical profession, the police force, or (god forbid, but it is your right) your state, local, or national legislature.
Whatever you choose, you must get out of the pharmacy. I promise you that the god you describe will not forgive you for killing a woman by refusing her medication.
That wraps it up for today, readers. Agree or disagree, you definitely thought. If you didn't then go back and read it again because you missed something. Thanks again, and please remember comments are encouraged!
Oh, and if you think this is no big deal, you're wrong. On March 3, 2009 the Idaho State Senate passed a law making it a-okay for pharmacist to refuse medicine based on religious or philosophical beliefs. Next they'll tell cops it's okay to enforce some laws, but not others, based on their personal beliefs.
Turning philosophy, politics, and ethics inside out, picking them apart, then reassembing them as ideas for a new way to look at life. Agree or disagree, you'll find it's worth reading. © 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Spoken Thoughts
Welcome back, let's skip the foreplay and get to the point.
The greatest threat to our way of life in the wake of this political assassination attempt in Arizona is not the perceived threat to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. Get used to it, hippies, guns are here to stay. Like it or not. It is for countless reasons that I neither fear nor celebrate the attack on this American freedom, considered sacrosanct by some and archaic by others. But the main reason I don't take a distinct side on it is because it doesn't matter. Reform the policy but preserve the liberty. Right...like that's ever gonna happen. Anyway, we face a far greater threat that demands my immediate ranting...err...I mean attention. My immediate attention.
We have a passionate political discourse in this country. We always have. We have nuts from both the right and left inciting hate speech and extremism. We have a culture of violence. Notice the syntax. Not specifically 'political' violence, just violence. Violence of all kinds. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we are virtually alone in our love of "torture porn" movies like Saw and Hostel. I think it's a little to real to the rest of the world. But for us, it's entertainment. We like to watch things die. Slowly. And often.
We step into dangerous territory when we confuse this simple verbage. It's easy to say we're politcally violent. It may even be slightly accurate, but it's far too shortsighted. That's like saying Africa has a small AIDs problem. All but one word in the sentence is completely accurate: small. Let's apply that same logic to the following sentence: America is politically violent. All but one word is completely accurate. Guess which one? Exactly! So let's call a spade a spade, not a 'darkish, pointy, round thing that's vertically challenged'. Let us strive for accuracy in our syntax. Especially when discussing such delicate issues.
Faulty or innacurate syntax can be dangerous. That childhood rhyme "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" - that's total crap. Toss that one in the Santa Claus-Toothfaily-and-other-lies-we-tell-our-children pile.
Words can hurt a lot when those words pose a danger to our ability to use whatever words we choose. Seems like a contradiction, and it may be, but so may be slander lawsuits and gag orders in a country with free speech. We'll save that one for another day.
We have enough contradictions that already embattle and restrict our First Amendment, and the more we push to limit the political hate speech and rhetoric that some people falsely see as responsible for the attempted murder of a genuine public servant, the less freedom we will have when this debate subsides and this day is long forgotten.
I've never before understood how people make the parallel between liberalism and facism. The past few days have brought me amazing clarity on how volatile the line between protection and restriction is. Enforcing limitations upon political discourse will protect no one. Instead it will harm everyone in ways we cannot see when we are blinded by reaction.
I don't like Glenn Beck. Or Sean Hannity. Or Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, or...what? wait, that can't be. Surely you jest. Chris Matthews? Really? Yes, him too. Or anyone else that tries to present their opinion as if it's news. Except maybe people who are funny about it, like Jon Stewart. Everyone else can shut the hell up until they have facts to report. Fox news can't seem to tell the difference, so they are invited to shut the hell up forever.
As much as I'd like these people to be removed from the public discourse, along with a looooooong list of others, even assholes and morons have the right to speak freely to anyone willing to listen. They have that right because we live in the US of A, and if you take away free speech will just be a big shithole of a country that can't educate it's kids or pay it's bills. Yes, the line is that thin these days.
So I encourage you to make this change, America. This one little change. Hell, you can even replace one of you many already-defunct New Year's Resolutions with this easy-to-attain goal:
If you don't like it, don't participate in it, listen to it, or watch it.
Make that decision anywhere that you can. We can't always choose what our tax dollars do, but we sure as hell can decide what our radio's, televisions, and expendable dollars do. Stop yelling at the TV, and stop letting the TV yell at you. Change the fucking channel. Just don't you dare tell anyone they can't talk. Free Speech is the one thing that makes me say about America that line that the wealthy and white have been using for oh so long: "Love it, or leave it". It is not subject to change, nor should it be.
Thanks again for reading, or if it's your first time then what took you so long? Agree or disagree, turn off the TV and think.
The greatest threat to our way of life in the wake of this political assassination attempt in Arizona is not the perceived threat to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. Get used to it, hippies, guns are here to stay. Like it or not. It is for countless reasons that I neither fear nor celebrate the attack on this American freedom, considered sacrosanct by some and archaic by others. But the main reason I don't take a distinct side on it is because it doesn't matter. Reform the policy but preserve the liberty. Right...like that's ever gonna happen. Anyway, we face a far greater threat that demands my immediate ranting...err...I mean attention. My immediate attention.
We have a passionate political discourse in this country. We always have. We have nuts from both the right and left inciting hate speech and extremism. We have a culture of violence. Notice the syntax. Not specifically 'political' violence, just violence. Violence of all kinds. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we are virtually alone in our love of "torture porn" movies like Saw and Hostel. I think it's a little to real to the rest of the world. But for us, it's entertainment. We like to watch things die. Slowly. And often.
We step into dangerous territory when we confuse this simple verbage. It's easy to say we're politcally violent. It may even be slightly accurate, but it's far too shortsighted. That's like saying Africa has a small AIDs problem. All but one word in the sentence is completely accurate: small. Let's apply that same logic to the following sentence: America is politically violent. All but one word is completely accurate. Guess which one? Exactly! So let's call a spade a spade, not a 'darkish, pointy, round thing that's vertically challenged'. Let us strive for accuracy in our syntax. Especially when discussing such delicate issues.
Faulty or innacurate syntax can be dangerous. That childhood rhyme "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" - that's total crap. Toss that one in the Santa Claus-Toothfaily-and-other-lies-we-tell-our-children pile.
Words can hurt a lot when those words pose a danger to our ability to use whatever words we choose. Seems like a contradiction, and it may be, but so may be slander lawsuits and gag orders in a country with free speech. We'll save that one for another day.
We have enough contradictions that already embattle and restrict our First Amendment, and the more we push to limit the political hate speech and rhetoric that some people falsely see as responsible for the attempted murder of a genuine public servant, the less freedom we will have when this debate subsides and this day is long forgotten.
I've never before understood how people make the parallel between liberalism and facism. The past few days have brought me amazing clarity on how volatile the line between protection and restriction is. Enforcing limitations upon political discourse will protect no one. Instead it will harm everyone in ways we cannot see when we are blinded by reaction.
I don't like Glenn Beck. Or Sean Hannity. Or Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, or...what? wait, that can't be. Surely you jest. Chris Matthews? Really? Yes, him too. Or anyone else that tries to present their opinion as if it's news. Except maybe people who are funny about it, like Jon Stewart. Everyone else can shut the hell up until they have facts to report. Fox news can't seem to tell the difference, so they are invited to shut the hell up forever.
As much as I'd like these people to be removed from the public discourse, along with a looooooong list of others, even assholes and morons have the right to speak freely to anyone willing to listen. They have that right because we live in the US of A, and if you take away free speech will just be a big shithole of a country that can't educate it's kids or pay it's bills. Yes, the line is that thin these days.
So I encourage you to make this change, America. This one little change. Hell, you can even replace one of you many already-defunct New Year's Resolutions with this easy-to-attain goal:
If you don't like it, don't participate in it, listen to it, or watch it.
Make that decision anywhere that you can. We can't always choose what our tax dollars do, but we sure as hell can decide what our radio's, televisions, and expendable dollars do. Stop yelling at the TV, and stop letting the TV yell at you. Change the fucking channel. Just don't you dare tell anyone they can't talk. Free Speech is the one thing that makes me say about America that line that the wealthy and white have been using for oh so long: "Love it, or leave it". It is not subject to change, nor should it be.
Thanks again for reading, or if it's your first time then what took you so long? Agree or disagree, turn off the TV and think.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Explosive Thoughts
Guns! Scared yet? No?
Guns and Killin'!!!!!!!!!! Still not scared?
OK, so maybe not scared, but uncomfortable? Definitely. Why? Because when it comes to guns, no one wants to be disagreed with. Why else would so much money be spent on trying to sway public opinion in either direction?
So why guns??? You, Mr. ToTs are a self-proclaimed gun-totting liberal (aka, a 'Southern Democrat'). What gives?
Well that's an excellent question. As a living, thinking person, my mind is subject to change. And from time to time, thoughts are known to occur within the walls of my skull that cause me to consider changing. These thoughts don't always force change, but they do inspire the possibility. So what happened this time?
On Saturday, the attempted assassination of a congresswoman in Tucson, AZ, left a 9 year old girl, as well as 5 others, dead. We went a whole 30 years without a political assassination attempt. That just may be a record for us 'free' and 'brave' peoples. Thus begins the great internal debate on:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands...oh...shit...sorry...i got carried away...
Throughout the great debate that has since overtaken nearly every television and radio broadcast, as well as news and social networking sites, I began to question points that were being made on both sides. When so many people are talking so loudly, a lot of it is guaranteed to be bullshit. We'll look at a little of that, and maybe even create some of our own.
It took about 14 seconds following the news break about this little girl for anti-gun nuts to start the same tired-ass debate about guns, what they do to our society, and the price we pay for having them so easily and readily available. Then within .14 seconds, the pro-gun nuts retorted back with even less comprehensible gibberish. My personal favorite bit of regurgitation was this: "If other people in the crowd had had guns, those people wouldn't be dead."
Why am I picking (almost exclusively) on this poorly constructed bit of bullshit, when there are so many other flawed arguments flying back and forth? The same reason pro-gun nuts like to sit up in trees and wait for big ass deer to stroll by: it's an easy target.
You see, AZ is an open-carry state. What's that mean? That means you can walk around with a visible, loaded firearm in your possession in broad daylight, granted you have the appropriate license. And since there are more guns than adults in the US of A, and AZ has an unusually high concentration of said guns, statistically speaking someone in that crowd did have a gun. Unfortunately, it was an assassin. But someone else, most likely, had one. And did nothing. Or at least, didn't do something fast enough.
So, are you saying that we are a nation of cowards, Mr. ToTs? No, no, no, you're missing the point. In fact, I think everyone is missing the point. Let's discuss...
Numbers don't lie. We are a war-like people. Always have been. We even built protections for our pugilistic nature into our constitution. And we need that Second Amendment, right? We have to protect ourselves from our government! So no matter what, we keep our guns! Right? Right???? Well...probably. But are we keeping them for the wrong reasons?
Here I go again, bein' a thinker... We have this Second Amendment to protect us from our government. Check. But how successful has it been? A theory that can't be tested and proven or disproved is called an assumption.
Bush 2 left office with a 28% approval rating. He peaked on his 9th month in office, and went straight down from there. Obama's has been on a plane-landing-esque descent since...pretty much day 2. It bobbles up for just the briefest of moments, then sinks without warning like the fish took the bait. The 111th Congress officially adjourned with an approval rating of...wait...that can't be right? No way. 13%???? Only 13% of people said that have done "Excellent" or even "Good"???? That's awful. This congress's AVERAGE approval rating was 25%. And as we discussed in my first post, that's what statistician types would refer to as a 'dismal failure'.
But do they deserve the rep? Or is it just another symptom of America's love for hyperbole and extremism? Let's dig deeper, shall we? Whichever side of the aisle you sit on, you cannot in good conscience dispute the following (how you feel about them will vary, but they are truth):
-Our lands, water, even airwaves, are bought and sold without our consent, and generate no profit for us.
-Wall Street was bailed out at the expense of Main Street. (For better or worse, it happened.)
-Oil companies defile our lands, violate our laws, and endanger our people, while literally getting paid by our government to do it. They then resell the product, which technically belongs to us, back to us. For billions of dollars. Really? Yes, really.
-We pay farmers not to grow food while our own people go hungry.
-45-60 Million people go without basic medical care while insurance companies write the laws that govern them, and post record profits along with record rate hikes nearly every year.
-Our food supply has become a system that fits the needs of big agribusiness, not the grower, grocer, or the consumer. At best it is considered inefficient. At worst it is considered a self-serving waste disposal system.
-The Patriot Act stripped us of basic civil liberties, most of which have still not been given back (again, you may think this is fine, I don't care about that. I'm dealing in facts right now)
-Economic stratification is at extremely high levels. Some say ever, other say since the Great Depression.
-The majority of the country has been unhappy with the majority of the government for the majority of the past 11 years. Its been even longer than that since there was true consensus of any kind.
-Our economy sucks, and every time a little hope pops up another major city, state, or soveriegn nation goes bankrupt.
-Our military has become the enforcement wing for a foreign policy that the vast majority of the country, and the world, disapproves of.
Again, again, again, again...stop the arguing inside your head, reader. Now is not the time for that. Not one opinion appeared on that list. You may say "of course they sell us oil for profit. Business without profit is socialism, which is the devil's whore...and..." Then I may interrupt you and say, "I don't give a damn. I'm just stating facts." Your opinion is yours, but the truth belongs to everyone.
So...our country's in the pooper socially, economically, and politically. We allow ourselves to be exploited constantly by corporations that we work for. We're falling behind (and fast) as a global power on the fronts of education and industry. Our jobs move overseas while 10% remain in a near-permanent state of unemployment. Our debt is owned by ideological enemies. Our gluttony is financed by those who have an interest in weakening us. And pretty much everyone agrees (although for different reasons) that our government is to blame. If you believe any news program you have watched on any channel since Bush 2's inauguration, you know that our government is destroying our country.
And our kids are dying at the hands of the instrument that was allegedly meant to prevent all that.
Funny how that works. That is, it would be if "funny" meant 'my stomach just turned'.
Now here's the legal disclaimer: I'm not advocating violence or anarchy. I'm not advocating assassination or extremism of any kind. I'm not advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment.
I'm advocating thought. When it comes to guns, like so many other things in our lives, do we get what we pay for? I don't mean that in the typical benefit to cost ratio schema that the anti-gun nuts love to flip chart. See, they are answering the wrong question. We don't outlaw liquor or cars when the combination of the two may have fatal consequences. I think there is a place for guns in civil society, but as we discuss that position moving forward, let's clear the air of all the bullshit. Also consider, as we define the direction we take following this tragedy, sound advice for a happy marriage may also stand as sound advice for a civil society: Never make big decisions while upset.
Thanks for reading. Agree or disagree, I hope you thought.
Guns and Killin'!!!!!!!!!! Still not scared?
OK, so maybe not scared, but uncomfortable? Definitely. Why? Because when it comes to guns, no one wants to be disagreed with. Why else would so much money be spent on trying to sway public opinion in either direction?
So why guns??? You, Mr. ToTs are a self-proclaimed gun-totting liberal (aka, a 'Southern Democrat'). What gives?
Well that's an excellent question. As a living, thinking person, my mind is subject to change. And from time to time, thoughts are known to occur within the walls of my skull that cause me to consider changing. These thoughts don't always force change, but they do inspire the possibility. So what happened this time?
On Saturday, the attempted assassination of a congresswoman in Tucson, AZ, left a 9 year old girl, as well as 5 others, dead. We went a whole 30 years without a political assassination attempt. That just may be a record for us 'free' and 'brave' peoples. Thus begins the great internal debate on:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands...oh...shit...sorry...i got carried away...
Throughout the great debate that has since overtaken nearly every television and radio broadcast, as well as news and social networking sites, I began to question points that were being made on both sides. When so many people are talking so loudly, a lot of it is guaranteed to be bullshit. We'll look at a little of that, and maybe even create some of our own.
It took about 14 seconds following the news break about this little girl for anti-gun nuts to start the same tired-ass debate about guns, what they do to our society, and the price we pay for having them so easily and readily available. Then within .14 seconds, the pro-gun nuts retorted back with even less comprehensible gibberish. My personal favorite bit of regurgitation was this: "If other people in the crowd had had guns, those people wouldn't be dead."
Why am I picking (almost exclusively) on this poorly constructed bit of bullshit, when there are so many other flawed arguments flying back and forth? The same reason pro-gun nuts like to sit up in trees and wait for big ass deer to stroll by: it's an easy target.
You see, AZ is an open-carry state. What's that mean? That means you can walk around with a visible, loaded firearm in your possession in broad daylight, granted you have the appropriate license. And since there are more guns than adults in the US of A, and AZ has an unusually high concentration of said guns, statistically speaking someone in that crowd did have a gun. Unfortunately, it was an assassin. But someone else, most likely, had one. And did nothing. Or at least, didn't do something fast enough.
So, are you saying that we are a nation of cowards, Mr. ToTs? No, no, no, you're missing the point. In fact, I think everyone is missing the point. Let's discuss...
Numbers don't lie. We are a war-like people. Always have been. We even built protections for our pugilistic nature into our constitution. And we need that Second Amendment, right? We have to protect ourselves from our government! So no matter what, we keep our guns! Right? Right???? Well...probably. But are we keeping them for the wrong reasons?
Here I go again, bein' a thinker... We have this Second Amendment to protect us from our government. Check. But how successful has it been? A theory that can't be tested and proven or disproved is called an assumption.
Bush 2 left office with a 28% approval rating. He peaked on his 9th month in office, and went straight down from there. Obama's has been on a plane-landing-esque descent since...pretty much day 2. It bobbles up for just the briefest of moments, then sinks without warning like the fish took the bait. The 111th Congress officially adjourned with an approval rating of...wait...that can't be right? No way. 13%???? Only 13% of people said that have done "Excellent" or even "Good"???? That's awful. This congress's AVERAGE approval rating was 25%. And as we discussed in my first post, that's what statistician types would refer to as a 'dismal failure'.
But do they deserve the rep? Or is it just another symptom of America's love for hyperbole and extremism? Let's dig deeper, shall we? Whichever side of the aisle you sit on, you cannot in good conscience dispute the following (how you feel about them will vary, but they are truth):
-Our lands, water, even airwaves, are bought and sold without our consent, and generate no profit for us.
-Wall Street was bailed out at the expense of Main Street. (For better or worse, it happened.)
-Oil companies defile our lands, violate our laws, and endanger our people, while literally getting paid by our government to do it. They then resell the product, which technically belongs to us, back to us. For billions of dollars. Really? Yes, really.
-We pay farmers not to grow food while our own people go hungry.
-45-60 Million people go without basic medical care while insurance companies write the laws that govern them, and post record profits along with record rate hikes nearly every year.
-Our food supply has become a system that fits the needs of big agribusiness, not the grower, grocer, or the consumer. At best it is considered inefficient. At worst it is considered a self-serving waste disposal system.
-The Patriot Act stripped us of basic civil liberties, most of which have still not been given back (again, you may think this is fine, I don't care about that. I'm dealing in facts right now)
-Economic stratification is at extremely high levels. Some say ever, other say since the Great Depression.
-The majority of the country has been unhappy with the majority of the government for the majority of the past 11 years. Its been even longer than that since there was true consensus of any kind.
-Our economy sucks, and every time a little hope pops up another major city, state, or soveriegn nation goes bankrupt.
-Our military has become the enforcement wing for a foreign policy that the vast majority of the country, and the world, disapproves of.
Again, again, again, again...stop the arguing inside your head, reader. Now is not the time for that. Not one opinion appeared on that list. You may say "of course they sell us oil for profit. Business without profit is socialism, which is the devil's whore...and..." Then I may interrupt you and say, "I don't give a damn. I'm just stating facts." Your opinion is yours, but the truth belongs to everyone.
So...our country's in the pooper socially, economically, and politically. We allow ourselves to be exploited constantly by corporations that we work for. We're falling behind (and fast) as a global power on the fronts of education and industry. Our jobs move overseas while 10% remain in a near-permanent state of unemployment. Our debt is owned by ideological enemies. Our gluttony is financed by those who have an interest in weakening us. And pretty much everyone agrees (although for different reasons) that our government is to blame. If you believe any news program you have watched on any channel since Bush 2's inauguration, you know that our government is destroying our country.
And our kids are dying at the hands of the instrument that was allegedly meant to prevent all that.
Funny how that works. That is, it would be if "funny" meant 'my stomach just turned'.
Now here's the legal disclaimer: I'm not advocating violence or anarchy. I'm not advocating assassination or extremism of any kind. I'm not advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment.
I'm advocating thought. When it comes to guns, like so many other things in our lives, do we get what we pay for? I don't mean that in the typical benefit to cost ratio schema that the anti-gun nuts love to flip chart. See, they are answering the wrong question. We don't outlaw liquor or cars when the combination of the two may have fatal consequences. I think there is a place for guns in civil society, but as we discuss that position moving forward, let's clear the air of all the bullshit. Also consider, as we define the direction we take following this tragedy, sound advice for a happy marriage may also stand as sound advice for a civil society: Never make big decisions while upset.
Thanks for reading. Agree or disagree, I hope you thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)