I was supposed to have a dentist appointment for two teeth that have been killing me on my left side in the morning, but they rescheduled me for the middle of the afternoon, so I stayed home today and relaxed. Which was good, in retrospect, because Owen didn't let Heather and I get any sleep last night. We were both up dealing with him screaming. We think he's teething and he has a cold so he's just miserable.
But I went to my dentist at 2pm and we decided to fill the two wisdom teeth rather than pull them (I had cavities, shhh, don't tell my mom). They injected me with 6, count them, 6 shots of novacaine and away they went. Oh blessed scream of the drill, the smell of your own teeth burning, the dull ache of the drill in the nerve even though they gave you anesthetic. It was a blast. My teeth still hurt tonight.
And on the plus side, when it was all done, I was half-a-head shorter because I would have sworn the left side of my face wasn't there.
On to other things...
- I happened across Neal Boortz's website today. He's a talk radio pundit and apparently known for raising people's blood pressures with his point of view on the issues. Which is fine, because I've been known to raise the blood pressue of the people around me with mine. But here's the thing that I don't understand, and Neal, maybe you can answer this for me: You claim you are a libertarian, but you seem to be pretty positive on the present administration (Bush II, in case anyone forgot). How can you reconcile those two things, when the President has passed the Patriot Act, wants to further curtail civil liberties, wants to widen the war on drugs to include steroids, has promised billions in new government money for everything from AIDS research to a base on the moon. Those are NOT libertarian ideals, and I fail to see how one who claims to be a libertarian would defend them. Please help me to understand this. I also dispute your notion that Clinton's administration was the most corrupt presidential administration ever. I think that there have been more corrupt: Johnson, Nixon, Reagan all spring to mind. Tell me why you think Clinton is more corrupt than them.
- Speaking of the Reagan administration, I was reviewing some stories from the Iran-Contra affair. Do you guys remember that? Raise your hands if you recall the Iran-Contra affair...damn, alright, both of you can tune out. The rest of you listen up and let Uncle Mo tell you a story. Back in the day, a group of soldiers in Nicaragua overthrow their government in favor of one more friendly to the Soviets. This army was called the Sandinistas. This did not sit well with the President (Ronnie) and his men, so they encouragedand supported a counter-revolutionary army called the Contras. The President and his men sent US military personnel and equipment to the Contras, who operated out of Hondouras. They then apparently used this new support and expertise to kill and terrorize civilians, and in El Salvador, a bunch of nuns. The public cried out that we were supporting such vile activities, and the Congress passed a law (the Borland Amendement) forbidding the president from aiding the Contras. But that wasn't going to stop the President and all of his advisors. No sir, they figured out new ways of funding the Contras. Specifically, the figured out two new revenue streams: 1. They illegally sold weapons to the Iranians, a country we purportedly hated, and we had an embargo against. (They had afterall taken our embassy personnel hostage for over a year). The proceeds from this sale were then turned over to the Contras. But wait, there's more...2. The second method was to allow the Contras to fly in large quanities of marijuana and cocaine to US Military bases, usually Homestead AFB, at which point it was sold to the American populace, and again the proceeds were returned to the Contras. Just as this whole nasty affair came to light, George H. W. Bush became president and pardoned those involved. Why is ANY of this important, aside from the general human interest of it all? Because several of the people that are part of Bush II were involved in the Iran-Contra affair. There have been questions about the drug connections at every level of the administration. This is supposed to be the presidency that returned morals to the White House. But it goes beyond that. I think it's a shame that we're given a choice of this large criminal enterprise masquerading as an administration, or someone potentially just as bad. This is why I vote libertarian. I'd prefer to use my vote on a real choice, and speak up rather than give either of the two leading candidates feel like they've got a mandate.
- And finally...I've been thinking lately about why ordinary Americans seems to be in a race with each other to relinquish their protected rights in the name of safety, and I don't think that there's a single root cause. I do however believe that people have the whole notion of rights flipped upside down. What I mean by that is that today most people view their rights as something granted to them by the State, which the State then has the ability to take from them when they see fit. I see it differently, and I believe that my view is the same that compelled people like George Mason and Thomas Jefferson to fight for this country.
Here goes: We have certain liberties and rights which are ours from birth, and we carry them with us forever. We entrust them to the government in a contract, where we say "For the greater good of all of us, we allow you to rule us. However, if these rights are endangered by you, we will invoke the right to remove you from office and remake government as we see fit. This is done through our authority as the governed". I believe that when we enter into society with others, we create laws to make living in society harmonious, and we stake our individual rights on those laws being followed, but that is the extent of limits on our rights. This means that, for example, we all agree that murder is wrong, and if I commit murder, I forfeit my rights. But I am the one who individually made that decision, and it is my peers in a jury trial that determine my final guilt. It is our moral responsibility as Americans, nay, as humans, to preserve our rights, and defend them.
Instead, the majority abdicate their individual sovereignty to the few in power and hope for the best, like it's some governmental crap shoot. This is the path to tyranny. This is the path to hell. This is why you're dissatisfied with the nature and scope of our government. They're taking from you the very things that were given to you at birth, and that countless men and women died for all around the globe to defend. When the students protested in Tiananmen Square in 1989, this what they sought and risked their lives for. It is the struggle for natural rights that gave black people the strength to resist during the Civil Rights movement. It is the belief in natural rights that gave our Founding Fathers the conviction to stand in the fields of Lexington and Concord and face a superior British Army.
Some would argue that natural rights don't exist, and that the aforementioned Founding Fathers were mistaken, off their rocker, or that there can be no such thing as rights in nature, without the apparatus of a society surrounding them, but those people are wrong. They don't speak from a position of authority, but instead fear the consequences of their choices. They would rather remove their own rational minds then contemplate a world where they are on the hook for their choices. These are the people that blame McDonalds for making them fat, and blame their parents for making them alcoholics, and blame everyone for their own choices because they'd rather not face the truth that they are the only ones who can change their station in life, and most act or shut up.
Or these naysayers seek to have power over you, fearing your own grasp of rationality and reason, and fear their lack of influence in your life, and try to convince you that they alone have the facilities to make decisions for you. They operate out of fear that they are not better than everyone else, and must compete on a level playing field.
Does the animal in the barnyard have the ability to determine their own path in life? No, they are directed by the farmer, penned in, and restricted, under fear of the whip and slaughterhouse. If you abdicate your rights, and allow others to think for you, to make your decisions, you have voluntarily made yourself a beast of burden, a brood mare or a mule for that person's desires and whims. And you do not have an assurance that those desires and whims will be in your best interest. Why would you give up your ability to decide things rationally to someone who is not himself thinking rationally? Do you wish to descend to that level or lifestyle? Do you wish to join the sows in the mud and the hens, scratching at the dirt for seeds, so you can escape the responsibility of thinking for yourself? I do not. And if you choose not to as well, I ask you to join me, and push back on those that try and yoke us.
Leave a comment