Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

I know you are oozing with jealousy, but that blur just to the left of the blur that is my face is the senior senator from Utah.  This snapshot was taken at a taping of The Music and The Spoken Word where somehow I ended up about six seats and a small aisle away from the senator.  This, I have to say, is the extent of my physical exposure.

However, there is slightly more to the story.  As we drove into Salt Lake City last weekend, something sparked a chain of thoughts that ended with “You know, I hate Orrin Hatch.”

The response: “Why?”

The witty return: “Uhh.. I.. uh.. I.. don’t know.  I.. uh.. think he did something I didn’t like.”

I sat for a few moments and I couldn’t think of one single reason.  This smacked of ill-formed, ignorant opinions and generic biased thinking, so I started to do some research.  To be honest, I have not put a big amount of research into the senator, but I did a little research to try to understand who he is a little better.

So I found what he did that made me feel some kind of dislike for him:  his staunch view on copyright laws.  Now, for the record, I am not a zealot about copyright law.  I do think the system is broken, but I don’t really know why–and, really, I have not put a lot of time to study it.  But what I know is that I believe people should be paid for their work–and really, it is up to the individual artist to decide this.  If they want to give it away, great.  If they want to charge you ten cents for every second the music is played, great.  I won’t spend money on the latter and the artist probably won’t make any money.

Orrin Hatch aggitated a lot of people (let’s call them The Internet) because he sided strongly with big music and movie companies in the debate surrounding filesharing, which of course still rages strong today.  I couldn’t tell you what they are anymore, but the things I read about what he was doing certainly made me angry.  But, uhm, I don’t remember what they were.  Should I still be angry?  Hey!  It turns out I’m not angry anymore, just biased, thought I find myself using such a strong word like hate.  I don’t really approve of that, it turns out.

And, lo and behold, the man is a musician in his own right and has several music copyrights and has actually made some money from the business.  I remember people clammoring about how he was in the pocket of the RIAA/etc and that may even be true, but I think it’s not a small detail that he has a personal interest in the process.  Now, many people would stand up and shout about conflict of interest and such, but I think I’d have to disagree.  We need people with passion and vested interest to be in government service.  That’s part of what this country is built on:  it’s supposed to be regular people in government.  Now that’s totally not how it works and I’m not even trying to suggest that someone like Orrin Hatch is a “regular person”… clearly he’s spent his life in government and he plays the game, but I can’t support an argument which would tie his personal interests and pursuits to a conflict of interest with his legislative aims.  That doesn’t mean, though, that I agree anymore with his strong stance.

Okay, so now I feel sheepish for really uncovering my own failing and I find myself feeling much more neutral about the senator.  What is there to learn?  He sponsered the “Hatch-Waxman” act.  What’s this?  From the unverisal fountain of truth that is wikipedia, it is apparently the law which made our modern system of generic drugs.  Now, again, our drug and health care system is completely out of whack–that is to say almost broken beyond repair–but I don’t know anyone who does not appreciate generic drugs.  And, in fact, I find it pretty amazingly how quickly generic drugs can make it to the market and so I find this in potential conflict with the efforts he has made with copyright reform.  But, then again, I hardly know anything about the generics and pharmaceuticals, so I could be totally and completely wrong.

It also turns out that, and I did some research on this one after reading it wikipedia, he’s a supporter of stem cell research!  That’s pretty awesome.  He is pro-life, yet pro-stem cell research.  That’s refreshing.  For the record:  I am 100% in favor of stem cell research.

So what did I learn about Orrin Hatch?  Not much, really.  I learned there are some things I like and some things I dislike.  That’s really true with most people.  If I looked closer at the issues and his positions, I’m sure I’d feel much stronger about my view of him as a legislator, but the truth be told, this wasn’t about Orrin Hatch.  It was about myself and my own biases.  I learned more about the fact that I took a few headlines and turned them into disdain for someone which I never even bothered to research.  That’s not cool.  It’s that kind of attitude which makes bickering, fighting, and war.  People don’t taken enough to learn about the people they are dealing with or the reasons those people do what they do–and that ignorance is used as a foundation to build hate and further misunderstanding.

Editor’s Note:  It has been pointed out that this article is from 1970, so I suppose that changes things a little bit.  I preserve the original entry nonetheless.

Apparently not in New Jersey.

According to this Time article, a New Jersey couple has been denied the ability to adopt a child because they are not religious. Let us just cut to the chase–here is what the judge who ruled this says it is all about:

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” . . . he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

Here is the argument in a nutshell: 1) the law says no one shall be denied the ability to worship God, 2) the parents do not worship God, 3) therefore the child is being denied the ability to worship God.

First, if nothing else, I am simply offended at this, even if the logic was not flawed. If I may be frank, this judge can suck my left nut. I think this kind of rough-shod abuse of authority is absolutely asinine. The judge obviously is simply making a point and, I would guess, knows that this bullshit will never stand up over time. I am a big fan of the idea of the judiciary, but any asshat who uses the bench as a pulpit (or other type of soapbox) deserves to be stripped down and run out of town.

Now that is out of the way, let’s take a moment to look at the logic. First, to make this work, the judge is taking a narrow definition of the word “worship.” I.e. the law only protects the actual worship (positive), not lack there of. While there are those who would agree with him (and may even define the “freedom to worship however they like” to mean “the freedom to be Christian and, oh, by Christian, I mean my denomination”), legal precedence (and perhaps just using you head) tells us that “freedom to worship” has a much broader definition which happens to include the option of not doing so.

Second, the judge is appealing to all kinds of logical bullshit. You wouldn’t want to deprive the child of her right to make her own decision, would you? This poor, innocent, little child, depraved and left to shallow ignorance by her, while highly moral and ethical, adopted atheist parents. There’s no other way to put it. It’s bullshit.

Third, the logic is incomplete. The assumption being presented here is twofold: 1) parental influence necessarily defines a child’s ideological framework and 2) the parents would necessarily only present the child with the option of atheism. The judge tried to lighten the blow by talking about the “influence” of the parents, but he’s basically saying the above. Neither of these statements are axiomatic and it is wrong to simply present them as assumed fact.

Lastly, and most ironically, the flawed logic allows for some interesting thinking. I mean, if the judge is correct (and I’ll look to his own words, where he says “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”), I would that we should not allow Catholics to adopt, as they parents may influence the child to believe in, of all things, Catholicism and not give the child the freedom to worship “as she sees fit.” For that matter, Jews are out too. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t let anyone adopt. Well, really, that’s a bit of a slippery slope, but seeing as the logic is gone from the judge’s argument already, might as well!

Do not be deceived by Internet buzz.

I have been pleasantly amused by everything surrounding Ron Paul and, for the sake of completeness, Mike Gravel. There has been a lot of Internet press about these two, though Ron Paul seems to be the real darling (at least of digg).

As you may have noticed, I posted a Ron Paul video. Please do not construe this as an endorsement, but more that I thought the video was worth sharing. He -does- have good things to say and, more importantly, he says them with conviction. This, I believe, is what people find refreshing more than his actual message.

One of the points he makes is that he is not Libertarian, but that he is a “real” Republican. He makes a convincing argument, besides the issues about peace. The support of war or peace has not been, typically, an issue which divides “the parties.” Rather, it has always, always been power politics motivated. Support for the war waxes and wanes in the public and the parties, any party, try to use this to their advantage.

Ron Paul will not succeed. This is not an issue of liking him or not liking him (I haven’t heard enough to make a decision), but it’s whether or not he can succeed in the main stream and I simply do not believe he will be able to do that. While it IS refreshing to see some of the news outlets turn and say, “whaa?” I do not believe this sort of thing will be a momentum shift.

It will be interesting to see what the internet push will produce. There was a lot of buzz around Howard Dean in 2004 and look what happened. Though, I am going to make a very hindsight guess and say that most of those internet fair-weather fans probably did not reside in New Hampsire.

Success, though, may not be what is important. What do you really want from a candidate? Candor? Success (electability)? Someone who shuts up and let’s you make money? Someone who ties him/herself to a tree? Someone who believes in god?

People are disillusioned with politics for many reasons. I am certainly not one to speak to all of the reasons why. But I can take a guess at one: because a candidate/politicians opinion is based more on a public poll than a personal conviction. This is one of the reasons George W. Bush was re-elected–people see/saw him as a man with conviction. I am awfully tempted to make the simple argument that it is vital for politician to have conviction. It makes sense, right? Fight for what you believe in and get support from and for the people.

The problem with this argument, by itself, is that there is no quantification for the belief. By that reasoning, a blood-thirsty murderer should be a better choice as a candidate for President. (No quips, please.) So, I am not going to make the simple argument that conviction is everything. But, it’s damn important. More important, though, is that the people voting have conviction and, well, vote on that conviction.

If only it were that easy.

Okay, let’s get down to business. I feel like a person stuck in the middle of everything. If I were to use labels (and you know simply how much I adore labels), I might call myself a compassionate atheist moderate conservative. Who the hell is on my side?

The bottom line is that one of the reasons that I despise categorization and stereotyping is that I personally do not fit into those categories… but, more importantly, I also cannot choose to be part of a mainstream group if I did.

Take, for example, politics. I am very into politics and in perhaps a slightly different life, I would be much more actively involved; how knows, I may still be one day. The thing is that in today’s political enivronment, there’s not many groups that I idenifity with nor could work with. If you take the standard mantra of conservative and liberal (it pains me to enough use these words in this context), I am what you might call a social liberal and fiscal conservative. But even these descriptors are not accurate.

I do not fit in with the camp labeled as liberals. I do not believe in the wonders of government regulation, I do not believe the current welfare system is worth squat, and, for me personally, protesting is a waste of time. god damn dirty hippies.
I definitely do not belong with the camp labeled conservatives. The defensive budget is not the only budget, the executive branch can shove it, and I’m not Christian. Stupid, corrupt bigots.
What, you say? One or both of those is a bit extreme (well, we knooooow conservatives are corrupt, but liberals are not hippies!). Ah-ha! You have taken the first step to realizing that the world is not black or white and people are not liberal or conservative. There are many people who would have you believe that the country is super-polarized, but those are just the people who are getting listened to–that is, the people who are saying these things are the people who are yelling the most.

That makes me wonder if what it takes is to simply yell a bit. I dunno, but I do know a couple of things. 1) I have a voice and I use it. 2) You should, too. 3) And don’t tell me to become some third party.

They’re just a bunch of weenies.

I have an issue, however, that I want to discuss. I feel that this is an issue that will become a very important topic of debate.

Many of you might find this laughable, but I consider myself a conversative. This might be laughable depending on your definiton of conservative and, more importantly, that is what I want to talk about.

If I were to try to put the political views on a two axis view rather than a one axis view, we might end up with something like this:

Traditionally, or at least recently–which might be the same thing to many people–the political axis only swings left or right. Liberal or conservative. Politics is, obviously, quite a bit more complex than this. However, keeping things simple is also important–as long as they are still useful. The problem is there is a second polarity. Fiscal and Social.

In fact, there are more than these two, but I think most of issues of political importance can fall into these categories. For example, government oversite of business practices would be fiscal while abortion issues are social (one might even want to use “moral” instead of “social”, but I think this is wrong).

This is the two axis political spectrum I like to use. One axis is fiscal, one is social. Both have a liberal and a conservative end.

My position is one that has the least amount of power and influence in today’s political process–I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Even that is a bit generalized and untrue, but again, it is simple.

However, being a fiscal conservative places me, politically, in the traditional single axis “conservative” group. However, this group is both fiscally and socially conservative. As a result of elections and political movements across this country, it might be more prudent to place social first in that list.

There are many others like me, as well. And many of them are rising up, in anger, at the marginalization we feel at the hands of other so-called conservatives. This is going to be a real problem and, perhaps, a largely unexpected problem.

With mainstream focus being on the “bitter political divide” of the two parties (or of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’) we are seing the really the reaction of extreme to extreme. Those of us in the middle are left both without a voice and without a viable course of action.

I think the “bitter divide” will become more and more prominent in the ‘conservative’ camp and this is the political arena which will become the hottest sparking point.

I say, proudly, no to “Under God.”

To properly cover the issue, the history of the Pledge of Allegiance must first be examined. Then, a discussion of the history of the Establishment Clause (the clause in the Bill of Rights which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting an individual’s free exercise of religion) and the court’s interpretation thereof. Lastly, the relationship of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Establishment Clause will provide a clear picture of whether this phrase “under God” is constitutional or not.

Perhaps a surprise to many, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include an affirmation to God. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” It was modified in part in 1924 to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In this, one can see that there is no mention of “God” or any sort of non-secular affirmation. The Pledge of Allegiance, at least in 1924, is a political affirmation of the secular state–I believe and support in my country. As can be imagined, this change in 1924 was not the last change. The last change came in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added. When the “1954 Act” was signed by President Eisenhower he said “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” This sentiment does not appear to be a secular political sentiment. Rather, it appears–no, it openly proclaims–to be a religious affirmation.

The Supreme Court has much to say on state sponsored religious affirmation. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling on Newdow V. U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court has established three different tests to the Establishment Clause. The first the is “Lemon” test, created in Lemon v. Kurtzman; the “endorsement” test, found in Lynch v. Donnelly; and the “coercion” test, first used in ISKCON v. Lee. Any of these tests may be used to determine the constitutionality of something in regards to the Establishment Clause.

The “Lemon” test checks for three things: (1) does the government conduct in question have a “secular purpose”, (2) does the government conduct in question have “a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion”, and (3) does the government conduct in question refrain from “[fostering] an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

The “endorsement” test is as follows:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lastly, the “coercion” test tells us that it is unconstitutional to include invocations and benedictions in the form of “nonsectarian” prayers at public graduation ceremonies. It relies on the principle that “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or it exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so” (emphasis added).

Now that the background of the Pledge of Allegiance has been examined and a solid definition of what tests the Courts use to examine issues relating to the Establishment Clause, a review of the “under God” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance can be done.

As has already been explained, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the pledge and it was later added with an explicit understanding that is affirmed a belief in the “almighty God”. It appears straight forward that, at the least, the statement is not a secular statement and is clearly a religious one. In addition, the phrase lends itself to a monotheistic bent. While many have argued that it is merely a “place holder” for other religions to place their professed belief, those who profess this “place holder” belief have a hard argument to make. Not only does the history of the phrase show it is monotheistic, but to those of a non-Christian or a non-monotheistic background, this is simply not possible.

In his dissent on the Nordow v. U.S. Congress opinion, Justice O’Scannlain argues that by removing the phrase “under God”, it is favoring an atheistic platform. However, this is also not true. To favor an atheistic platform, one would need to affirm a belief that this is a nation �under no god�. Removing this affirmation does not support an atheistic platform�even if the movement is brought up, as it is in this case, by an atheist.

Speaking of affirmation, affirmation is exactly what is at the heart of this issue. Justice O’Scannlian and Justice Fernandez both argue in separate dissents to Nordow v. U.S. Congress rulings that by making the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, we must also refrain from reading historical documents and speeches, such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg address, or even the Constitution. If the Pledge of Allegiance were just another document or speech, this argument is solid and true. However, this argument is a classic logical fallacy. The comparison is a bad comparison and riddled with an emotional appeal. To read from a document is different than to make a public affirmation to something, in this case the principles found in the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Goodwin says, “to recite the Pledge is not to describe the United State; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and since 1954 monotheism”.

There has been a great uproar because of the issue of “under God” and the Pledge. This is mainly due to a high level of emotional attachment to the issue. For those who ascribe to “the Almighty” as the sovereign power of this nation, by removing “under God”, something seems to be taken away. And in some sense, this is true. But, what is a greater crime, to remove “under God” for some people, or to push “under God” onto the rest?

The Court answered this best in their ruling on Barnette, when they said “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.

I’ve written a couple of times in the past about marriage in general and about gay marriage.  I’m going to revisit this subject.  Please give some feedback on this as I’m not here to crusade for or against… just a moral crusade for thought.

I want to remind everyone of something very important about our heated moral debates. Generally, the debates are either a farce or a waste of time. Why? Because the different sides are arguing different points… but they generally do not realize it. It is hard to debate with a person about whether abortion is right or wrong when one person believes life starts at brith and the other at conception. If you ever find yourself in a situation where the other person just DOES NOT GET IT… go back to the defitions. That is where the debate should.. and it seems to be where it never even goes.

So, what about gay marriage?

Well, guys and gals, it’s really about definition.

See, for me, marriage is just a public announcement and commitment to an already true and established relationship; relationship being defined somewhat roughly as a connection of two people on their core values.

By this rough definition, who cares what sex marries what sex?

However, if you’re definition of marriage has to do with a Protestant Christian or Catholic notion that marriage is a holy sacrament to God, or that it is an expression of the relationship to Jesus and the Church, or.. you really don’t think about it and just it evil.

Well, then, hey, damn the gay marriages!

And do not let my generalization about religion get in the way here. It is not just about religion, these religions, or anything like that. Keep in mind that is just an example.

But let us look at something even more important. One of the largest arguments against gay marriage has to do with something that there seems to be little talk about. And that is “it’s harmful to the children”. Well, implied in that argument is the assumption that marriages HAVE to be about children.

And that is what I want people to think about. IS marriage ALWAYS about the children? Would gay marriages “destroy the family as we know it”. In this age of steadily raising population, I don’t think we need to ensure that every couple on the planet get together and pump out children. Many might say that overpopulation is a myth… but if they (or you) do… ask for some harder facts.

A blog from a regular, average Iraqi citizen: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/…

You know the one I’m talking about. He’s (and to be fair, I’ve known girl ones, too) the one who goes into Jewish chatrooms saying “Heil Hitler!” and into Christian ones professing his love for Satan, then follows that up by going to a gay newsgroup and talking about how much God hates fags.

They’re Internet Assholes. They’re usually about thirteen years old and they just do it for attention, probably attention they can’t receive at home. They’re media whores who don’t have enough prestige to do it properly for ideas that are reasonable, so they take extreme and outrageous stances, hoping that will merit them the same sort of spotlight. They want to rebel and so instead of doing it for a cause they believe in, they just do it for something so incredibly unpopular that they know people will be reviled. It also happens with kids who feel that no matter what, they’ll be hated by their peers – so why try to be liked? May as well try to be hated, at least they’ll succeed, they think.

A lot of times they succeed in making people angry. In the chatrooms, newsgroups, and bulletin boards they frequent, people will often get pissed off enough to start calling the Asshole names. This is where the Internet Asshole seizes on an opportunity to make even more people angry, and starts to make even more outrageous statements.

In other places, though, there are Mature Ones when this happens. Mature Ones say to the people arguing with the Asshole, “look, it’s just The Bulletin Board Asshole. If you don’t argue with him, he’ll eventually stop.” But the Mature Ones really aren’t so smart. Instead of backing off, the Asshole will usually take a series of even more offensive positions. Usually, the only way to get rid of them is just to wait them out, letting them know consistently and firmly that their ideas aren’t wanted there, though this should be done without degenerating into name-calling.

The key thing about the Internet Assholes is, though, that they’re utterly harmless. They spout things but they don’t really take action. They won’t even say the things they say online in front of real-world people, because they don’t want real arguments. But they really piss me off, because they have sapped the joy from several of my favorite places online.

So I’ve wondered, ever since the John Walker case came up, why I loathe the man so much. It’s surely not just because he hates America or did what he did to fight it, because I am not angry with the Taliban foot-soldiers other than him. Nor is it even because he had had a taste of freedom before going to fight in Afghanistan. So I thought and thought. And finally I figured it out.

John Walker is an Internet Asshole.

He actually started out on the internet, pretending to be black and espousing Black Power, claiming that he and his brothers were being kept down (while simultaneously championing the use of the word “nigger”). And people in Marin County, where he lived, just shrugged. Kids will be kids, they said. They ignored it and let him take increasingly bizarre stances. At the point when he went to Yemen to “study Arabic,” he may as well have been waving around a flag that said “please pretty please I want attention!” but no one paid him any heed.

And finally, he ended up in the Taliban. And he got caught, and he’s getting the media spotlight he’s always wanted without the pesky problem of people who would dare to argue with him. CNN interviewed him, and he said some very typical Internet Asshole things. “Jihad is everything I expected it to be,” with a big smile.

You see, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it even if I truly thought he believed what he said. But I’m sure he, like all the Internet Assholes I’ve ever known, doesn’t believe a word of it. He’s playing a role. He’s gotten so into a persona that the persona has taken over. It probably could have been stopped early on, when he was first beginning to develop his persona online, when he hadn’t yet convinced himself that he believed his own stupidity. But no one wanted to interfere, and so they didn’t. Eventually, he couldn’t think of anything more outrageous to say – and his words crossed the barrier into actions.

And it bothers me, because I like to think that the Internet Assholes will never become the person they act like online. I like to think that in truth, they’re white suburban rich kids with too much time on their hands and not enough in their skulls – I have to think that in order to not be genuinely worried about far too many things. John Walker has proven me wrong, and he has given us a lesson we really should all take to heart. Playing militant, soldier, and traitorous killer made John Walker just that. Eventually, we all become what we pretend to be.

…by an old collectivist trick which goes like this: there is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the illusion of freedom–freedom is whatever society decides it is.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill–but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a ‘compromise’ between two rights–but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society–but from your own inalienable right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society–but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.”

-Ayn Rand

Are you afraid?

Do you ever hear that odd clicking sound on your phone?

Is a non-descript car following you sometimes?

Do you sometimes receive packages you did not expect or aren’t yours?

. . .

Is this any reason to be paranoid?!

It is very, very important to be careful. It is very important you protect your information and yourself. 75,000 people, reportedly, have their identity “stolen” each year, used for fraud and money scams. Don’t let that be you.

But, sorry to say, the government is NOT out to get you. And, if I am wrong, and they are, I doubt there is much you can do about it. Where the real problem and worry should lay is where ii it going? Today’s Weekly Picks are some Government Paranoia/Government Total Control material. I HIGHLY suggest you read them. Not only are they entertaining, but they are, sadly, possible. And we may be going there. We take our freedom and rights for granted so much, or the verse, we seek to so adamantly defend them that we in turn lose them.

Government regulation has become a joke. The government is, as I said in another rant, a government’s sole duty is to protect each individual citizen’s rights. Nothing more. A government should not be telling people what they can do (minus those actions that would harm another’s right to pursue happiness), or what scientist is right, or what drugs you can or cannot use. (In fact, they should be more worried about the damn roads than what drugs someone is doing … and those who know me, know I am not a drug user, so this is not a pro-drug argument… merely the truth.)

People who are paranoid about government invasion have a good point, but in the respect that things can get very bad if we let them. Instead of solving our own problems and treating people on equal grounds, we cry to mommy government or sue through daddy court. Please.

Grow up and try to take some personal accountability. Judge by merit and be judged by merit. Alone.