I’ve tried hard to be open and honest. As such, I’ve come to speak my mind a lot… probably too much. And so, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve probably alienated several of you, made others of you angry, and appeared arrogant, condescending, and abrasive. Perhaps you think I’m too judgmental. Maybe you don’t like me because you think I’m too intolerant.

I get it. That’s fine. I’m sorry, but not very much.

We’re all judgmental to some degree, maybe I’m more so than you can tolerate. Guess you know where I’m going with that –> We all have standards of tolerance beyond which we cannot go.

That’s fantastic. We’re in agreement!

If you think I’m arrogant or condescending, I’m sorry. The way I see it, there are only a few possibilities:

1) I’m more stupid than I think I am or I’m more stupid than I sound like I think I am.
2) I sound like a person confident in my opinions and you feel threatened by it.

I really hope it’s #2 (even though I have no idea what to do about it), but suspect it’s probably #1.

Either way, as I said, I’m sorry. I’m tired of trying to figure it out.

If you think I’m abrasive, I probably am. My openness, honesty, and judgmental nature precludes me from being able to worry too much if my opinions offend you. I don’t mean to be offensive. I don’t even like being offensive. I try not to be offensive. I mean, if I haven’t told you that I thought you were being an idiot at one time or another, then I’ve probably tried to avoid being offensive. But there it is.

If you think I’m too open or too honest… well, come on… honestly. Sheesh.

Maybe you dislike me for other reasons altogether. Who knows? Who cares? If you’re not going to tell me, then I guess you don’t. Maybe if you do, I won’t care. Won’t know until you try, though, huh?

There, now, that’s out of the way. Let’s continue with the experiment (and if you don’t have the courage to do this yourself, feel free to ask someone to do it on your behalf).

I think two things are the case:

• If you’re my friend and you like me, you don’t mind me saying what I have to say.
• If you’re my “friend”, but you don’t like me, then you probably do mind me saying what I have to say.

If you fall into the second category (you know… the acquaintance who pretends to be “ok” with me, but smiles and nods their head alot or just waits and sighs with relief the moment I leave the conversation), then let’s do this:

Tell me you don’t like me.

That way I know what to talk to you about and what to avoid avoid talking to you about. You won’t be bored or offended listening to me or my opinions. Unless we’re amongst a group of mutual friends, but then you won’t offend me by walking away. Because, see, we’d have an understanding. I don’t have to worry about being open with you, this way. I’ll still be honest unless you ask me not to be, but whatever.

Plus, if you tell me you don’t like me, it most likely won’t hurt my feelings (ok, maybe in few rare cases), but this way we can avoid playing stupid games. I don’t have to pretend to care about the stupid crap you talk about and you don’t have to pretend to care about the stupid crap I talk about. When you leave to go home, I don’t have to say, “Take care.” And when I fall down, you can laugh without feeling embarassed. See how much easier that would be?

Maybe you think I can’t “work” with you if you tell me you don’t like. Quite contrary. In fact, not only can I work with you, but I can work with you without you having to listen to my mouth. See how wonderful that is?

So, c’mon, let’s try! It doesn’t matter who you are. Don’t like me? Say so. I’ll just say, “Ok,” and, “Thanks for letting me know.”

Oh, and if you don’t give one’s rat’s ass about me:

Tell me you don’t care one way or the other about me.

This way, perhaps, we can exclude each other from each other’s lives. Simple and uncomplicated.

The NYT reported on Jan. 25, 2010 that the White House has proposed a “spending freeze” on a portion of the government’s annual spending – on discretionary spending. This portion equates to about 17% of overall budget. Only 17%? Well, that’s still quite a bit even by government standards. If the government were to stop 17% of it’s spending, that would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s not a “spending freeze”. This is such extreme spin, we ought to consider it an outright lie. They’re not intending on freezing any spending whatsoever. What’s really been proposed is a:

Spending Rate Freeze

That’s right. No non-spending happening here. For the next three years, government officials can not increase the rate of spending in certain areas of the government. Nor can they decrease it! Additionally, along with this budget proposal, they increase those rates well above last year’s rates before they get locked in. There’s no proposal to stop or “freeze” any spending.

According to Merriam-Webster, a society is defined as:

3a. an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another
3b. a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

So, with that understanding of society, where does “government” come from? It derives as a natural consequence of the baser instincts of humanity. We come together for common support (society), but we establish a governing authority to keep in check the more ignoble behaviors of the people.

Now, I’d like to ask a series of questions and get your thoughts on it.

1) So, if 85% of the members of a society give freely to another 10% of society that needs help, would that be indicative of an enlightened society?
2) From (1) above, if the remaining 5% percent (that could) do not wish to give and the other 85% (that do) were to force them to do so (via direct enslavement or the “softer” illusion of taxes) and/or punish them for their refusal (whips in the first scenario or prison in the second), would that be indicative of an enlightened society?
3) If half of the 10% who received the help, did not need the help, but took advantage of the other 90%, would that be indicative of an enlightened society?
4) Assuming that (2) & (3) both obtained, we would have a situation where 5% of society worked and produced and were punished for resisting the collective master, while 5% of the population was rewarded for taking advantage of the collective. Would this scenario be indicative of an enlightened society?

Our society works much like the scenarios painted in 2, 3, and 4. Our society has established a government and then via the use of police-backed force has mandated the altruism of the people. But that’s a purely nonsensical notion “mandated altruism”. It’s as nonsensical as a cold number or a green thought.

In reality it’s more akin to justified larceny. Armed robbery is the collective’s method of taking from everyone under the guise of an ethical and moral imperative. The problem here is that there’s no logically necessary reason to believe that the mob is more enlightened than those from whom they’re stealing.

Whenever you hear terms like “enlightened societies” being used to support notions of mandated altruism, remember what is being said and not said. What’s being said is, “Let’s force people to do what we believe is good,” and what’s not is, “let’s enlighten our fellow man in the ways of goodness”. These enlightened societies are like rotting trees bound with iron for strength (via laws that demand altruism). Because the tree is tall and straight, it has the illusion of being strong. But the tree itself is weak and now restricted from further growth. Treat the sickness of the tree, feed it, water it, and give it sunshine. Otherwise, leave it alone to flourish. Then you’ll find your enlightened societies. Most people call it charity.

In that first post, I recommended that people not get caught up in the details of the proposed House Bill and to pay attention to five key points which are listed below in bold blue text. The response to each point is listed below in red, and finally my answer is listed in the standard font color.

Please take the time to read through what has been written and consider the points yourself.

Point 1: Our federal government has never run a program within budget. There were huge opponents to the Medicare and Social Security Programs back when they were first established. What we see now with the fiscal crisis of those programs is validation that the government should never have created the programs in the first place. Our government’s solution is not to shut those programs down and find a way to pay off those who have invested into the system. Instead, they want to overhaul the health care industry as a whole. They don’t want to just perpetuate what has failed miserably, they want to quadruple the failure.

Response: I think medicare and SS have done good for this country. I wouldn’t say they should have never been made. Complete overhaul of health care does suck, but it seems that at this point it needs to be done. Fixing it back in, say, the 90′s would have been good. Shame that didn’t work out when it was tried. Basically, it might be best to blow the dam and rebuild anew, cause we aint’ got enough fingers to plug all these holes.

Answer: This response fails to address the point, which is that the government has failed to run any of these programs with any sort of financial responsibility. Medicare and SS have not done nearly enough good for the amount of money we’ve paid into the system.

Point 2: Our federal government has failed to provide good service in just about every entitlement program they’ve established. Doctors can’t get the funds they need from Medicare. Patients can’t get the health care they need from the VA. It is a truth that in spite of 40+ years in our war on poverty, the poor are still poor. Expecting government to be successful this time around defies belief.

Response: So the war on poverty hasn’t been won. Neither has the war on drugs, nor the war on terror. Gotta keep fighting the good fight though. The government provides a service to people who without it would have no other options. Yes, that one choice can usually be run better, but at least it’s there. At least there are programs that ensure some baseline quality of life for those in need.

Answer: But it’s not a “good fight”, at all. You can’t claim to be doing good, by forcing people against their will to do what you believe is “good”. Additionally, the language in this response is misleading, “can usually be run better”. It blurs the truth. The truth is that it’s “not being run well by any measurement”. In fact, one could say that it does more harm than good by creating a dependent state that remains poor instead of inspiring those who are poor to elevate themselves; creating generations living together in households proud of how they’re “bilking” the government while doing nothing to improve their situations.

More importantly, the point here is being ignored. Why expect the government to be successful at it’s proposed job, when we have examples, even government-run health care examples, that they cannot be successful at it?

Further, while I think it’s apples and oranges and quite tangential: I think it’s quite arguable that the War on Terror is being won, but I’ll agree with you about the War on Drugs. The latter is a war I’m not convinced we should be fighting.

Point 3: Consider every other country with nationalized health care. With the exception of a few Scandinavian countries, where they do fairly well with socialism because of high revenues from the sale of national resources, no socialistic medicine anywhere in the world works very well. It’s hubris to think we can do better, especially in light of #2 above.

Reponse Every European I know, many who have dual citizenship between their respective country and the US, all agree that the universal health care they receive is much better than the system in place in the US. By no means is it the end-all-be-all, but it’s functional and covers more people while costing the country less overall. I think it’s worth trying.

What really should be done though, is universal health care should come from the Defense budget. Defend our citizens from preventable death and disease! Fight the Axis of Infirmities! Death to the Infections!

Answer: This response is the most valid of all. Truth be told, it’s very hard to comparitively gauge the health care of different countries. It’s true that the health care system of other countries doesn’t work well, but neither does the US. Additionally, but on a “bang for buck” point-of-view, it could certainly be argued that other countries have it better. But I emphasize “argued”, because it could be equally argued that we have better quality of life and/or general health care as a result of the money we spend. Unfortunately, the non-anecdotal studies that have been done are few and of those few, the most famous WHO study is highly biased and factor-exclusive in it’s methodology. Comparisons of life-expectancy and infant mortality are based on non-standard measurements across different countries and the higher value of the latter leads, necessarily, to a lower value of the former. Additionally, the issue of infant mortality rates also seem to be directly related to low newborn birth weights, which is puzzling to all who study the issue. As there are other methods of fixing the health insurance system (not the health care system) in this country, little unbiased data to support either side, and long in-depth argumentation involved, I would call this a push.

However, understand that while there is a great deal of discussion to be had concerning the comparability of the US health care versus other developed countries, even in vague terms it is comparable. What can’t be compared is that the greatest cost to our country (private or public combined) is the amount of money spent on health care for the elderly. We spend more money per capita on health care for the elderly and as such we have diminishing returns. The only way the government can truly become fiscally responsible is by rationing care to the elderly or taxing the healthy more heavily. Hence, the point I made elsewhere about quadrupling the failed Medicare program.

Exception must be taken to one thing said here, however, “I think it’s worth trying.” This is extraordinarily important. The words are saying, “It’s worth the experiment.” You must understand, if we go down this road, we’ll never go back. Programs of this sort become so systemic and far-reaching, they’re an economic and governmental cancer. They can’t be removed. Plus, governments never relinquish power, they only grab more. This is an experiment with dire consequences!

Finally, the issue about drawing from the Defense budget is once again tangential and in no way speaks to the point. However, I’m surprised at how many people who support the President’s stimulus plan also speak out against the defense budget. Is it not just another form of stimulus and at the very least meant to protect our freedom and lives? Even if it is argued that the military is sometimes used in less than desirable ways, there’s no question it should exist to protect our citizens, even if it must just be used more correctly.

Point 4: It gives the government too much power. They already have far far too much. Consider the fact that they raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco (much more on tobacco, because it’s an acceptable demon), simply based upon their perceived costs to the health care industry (Medicaid/Medicare). Whenever the government gets power, it wants to control and regulate. This point leads to a very long conversation, but one that every person should have at some point.

Response: Too much power… yeah, I see your point. Unfortunately, they’re gonna tax the crap out of tobacco regardless of what happens though.

Answer: The flippant response notwithstanding, this is one of the most important points. And it’s the one I stand on repeatedly: we must have our liberty. Every new entitlement program enacted by the government takes more of our liberty away from us. Forget the tobacco and consider every other parental-based regulation the government has decided and will decide to enact, couched in ethical rhetoric that it must be done due to their “responsibility” to the tax-payer!

Point 5: There are solutions to the Health Insurance Problem, but they involve removing government regulations, not adding to them. They involve greater competition among health insurance carriers by removing restrictions among the states on that health care. They involve allowing people to choose to insure themselves solely against catastrophic health care costs, not against regular check-up and maintenance which sucks so much out of the system.

Response: Yeah, deregulation of wall street over the past 8 years worked out great. (I’m not actually gonna try to argue this point that way, just a fun quip.)

Answer: This is an important point to be understood and considered, though. There are free market solutions that can and do work. It’s the current government mandates and existing entitlement programs that limit the ability of insurance companies to compete to bring costs down to an acceptable minimum and that prevent individuals from purchasing the catastrophic health care insurance they could easily opt into. Let me make the analogy more clearly. I don’t insure my car for oil changes and tire changes. I insure my car against accidents that would financially devastate me. That’s the whole point of insurance and how it first got it’s roots: to allay financial risk. It has grown into a state where people depend upon it for the smallest of medical problems directly as a result of government meddling. The contemporary view of health insurance, applied to a car, would mean that if I needed a wiper blade, I would go to the mechanic and pay a co-payment for the blade and installation of the blade, and then the mechanic would bill my insurance company a couple of hundred dollars to be reimbursed about 75% of that. Or I could just use a bandaid and do it myself.

Conclusion: In all, if the government were a corporation, they would be out of business with the points I’ve listed above (1 – 4). But instead they’re able to set the cost of their products/services (not the free market), eliminate the competition (by pushing an overpowered federal government and emasculated state government), and with the threat of physical force, their “customers” are required to purchase their products/services (police-backed tax collection).

Response: As for the government as a corporation eliminating the competition… There’s an underlying question that needs to be answered. Do you believe there’s even a market in what social services cover, and if there is, at what point is it profitable (will the breadth of that service really be comparable to what the government offers?) I think the government, by not having a goal of profitability, can do better (for those in need, not shareholders) than what the free market would offer.

Anyway, it’s not like the government is killing other options. It’s just providing one more. Like how the post office is with UPS/Fedex/DHL. If there wasn’t a post office and UPS had to deal with all the baseline mail, it would suck too, and it would cost a buttload more.

Without question there’s a market for retirement services/investments. It already exists and is in use by millions of people. The most well-known is your standard 401k plan. The problem here is the mismanagement that exists in Social Security and the mandatory nature of it. We are required to take care of our retirement through the federal government. We are required to work and invest that money for our future. Why? Because people don’t want to have to tell us “no” when we come begging at the age of 85 for a little help. Accountability is no longer required of us, instead we are no better than children being told to save our allowance by putting it into the government’s “piggy bank” which they then raid to fund the household expenses with the promise that they’ll put it back in a few years (which they never do, they just keep on raiding). And while no one could live on the meager benefits they get from Social Security anyway: the age of benefit keeps rising, the payout keeps diminishing.

And if you believe the government is not incrementally working towards complete governmental control of the health care industry, listen to Barak Obama’s words on the subject:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”, 2003 to the AFL-CIO.

“Here’s the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I don’t want to wait for that perfect system…The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who’s gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?…I believe I’ve got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work.”, campaigning in Iowa.

The idea that he’s going to let you keep your plan if you’re happy with it and just provide “another option” sounds laudable on the surface. And to that end, what you say is true. That is the plan. But you obviously haven’t read the bill. I, on the other hand, have read several parts of it. Including where it talks about commissioning a study after the program has been in place for a few years to find out how to de-incentivise people from being a part of private health care plans. With the full power and resource of the government, the plan intends to squeeze out private health plans with the public “option”. You’re right. As long as the government doesn’t need to make a profit, it can do better for the people. It can go into debt if it needs to (at least until all the competition is dead). But it’s unsustainable. We have a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit this year alone!!!!! Add that to the debt and you tell me, do we really really want this?

There are so many good reasons to say, “no”. There are other paths we can take. Why then do we insist on saying, “yes”, to this massive and permanent “experiment” in overhauling health care and giving it to the government when it never successfully runs anything? Ronald Reagan once said (actually, he said it on multiple occasions), “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

There is another very similar and powerful truth: a popular habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right. If your mother is/was like mine, you’ve probably heard something like, “Well, if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?” This question might be posed as a challenge to your excuse that you threw a paper airplane at the teacher because everyone else was doing it!

Anyone who’s taken a class in logic understands that “argumentum ad populum” is a fallacy. Appeals to popularity never withstand the rigors of logic. So why do we care what everyone else thinks? Because we have evidence that the crowd is often “right”, or rather “right enough”. Right enough that we’re not willing to face the crowd with the truth. We’re not willing to face the isolation and mockery such truths can bring.

By way of example, you might hear someone refer to welfare programs as “legalized theft”. But you inately reject such labels. It sounds too extreme. Seriously, if that’s what it is, then everyone would be against it. Argumentum ad populum. But which word is too extreme: “legalized” or “theft”? And most people don’t rebel against such policies for many reasons: ostracization, laziness, and fear. So instead of rebelling, we justify our inaction by accepting the poor disguises that these governmental policies wear. “We’re good people. We should take care of those who can’t take care of themselves.” But when we apply logic and reason, we understand that this sort of policy-making is unsustainable.

What will it take to motivate us out of our laziness? What will it take to give us courage to face the ostracization of society and the fear of punishment by our government. Stand up, I say, and declare what is wrong in spite of what others may say or think. Remember, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Be brave and free thinkers, speakers, and citizens. When something is wrong, don’t put the problem off for your children to face. Don’t push it out of your mind with justifications. Face it. Declare it’s wrong. Even if you only have the courage to admit it to yourself, right now.

I also believe that liberty requires vigilant protection and that America has done a very poor job of being vigilant and committed to the principles of liberty. The current health care plan is a shining example of what should be opposed and fiercely.

I can tell you where to get a copy of the bill, but I can’t tell you where to get unbiased, reliable analysis of the bill. I know of a few people that have undertaken the task without access to lawyers and external documents that are referenced in the text, but their analysis is very supsect. You can download a copy of HR3200 here.

Unfortunately, reading that bill is only so good. Knowing the details of the plan and how it will affect you is important, especially if it passes, but the thing you’ll want to keep uppermost in mind are the following points, because these points are by far more important than any of the details in that legislation.

We’re focusing so much on individual ants, we’re not seeing the river about to swarm over us.

Try not to get distracted with the bickering going on about the intricacies of the plan, the following points are far more important.

1. Our federal government has never run a program within budget. There were huge opponents to the Medicare and Social Security Programs back when they were first established. What we see now with the fiscal crisis of those programs is validation that the government should never have created the programs in the first place. Our government’s solution is not to shut those programs down and find a way to pay off those who have invested into the system. Instead, they want to overhaul the health care industry as a whole. They don’t want to just perpetuate what has failed miserably, they want to quadruple the failure.
2. Our federal government has failed to provide good service in just about every entitlement program they’ve established. Doctors can’t get the funds they need from Medicare. Patients can’t get the health care they need from the VA. It is a truth that in spite of 40+ years in our war on poverty, the poor are still poor. Expecting government to be successful this time around defies belief.
3. Consider every other country with nationalized health care. With the exception of a few Scandinavian countries, where they do fairly well with socialism because of high revenues from the sale of national resources, no socialistic medicine anywhere in the world works very well. It’s hubris to think we can do better, especially in light of #2 above.
4. It gives the government too much power. They already have far far too much. Consider the fact that they raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco (much more on tobacco, because it’s an acceptable demon), simply based upon their perceived costs on the health care industry (Medicaid/Medicare). Whenever the government gets power, it wants to control and regulate. This point leads to a very long conversation, but one that every person should have at some point.
5. There are solutions to the Health Insurance Problem, but they involve removing government regulations, not adding to them. They involve greater competition among Health Insurance carriers by removing restrictions among the states on that health care. They involve allowing people to insure themselves against catastrophic health care costs, not against regular check-up and maintenance which sucks so much out of the system.

In all, if the government were a corporation, they would be out of business with the points I’ve listed above (1 – 4). But instead they’re able to set the cost of their products/services (not the free market), eliminate the competition (by pushing an overpowered federal government and emasculated state government), and with the threat of physical force, their “customers” are required to purchase their products/services (police-backed tax collection).

According to U.S. Census Bureau. (Issued August 2008), “The government directly covers 27.8% of the population through health care programs for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and some of the poor, through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRICARE.” Which of those plans is well-funded, well-serviced, and deserves to be emulated for the rest of the population?

Thomas Paine

Introduction

          Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
          As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into inquiry,) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally reject the usurpations of either.

Let’s pause a moment here for a few comments. So, In the first paragraph Paine is issuing a caution. He knows that what he has to say is likely to meet a great deal of disagreement. In his time, it was not popular to call the Crown into question. He understands that as times passes, men will accept greater and greater suffering, if it’s incremental and approached softly. Man will come to think it’s proper. Humanity is ever trainable.

He goes on to point out that the abuse of power is often the means used to destroy the creditability of that which is right. Then he speaks specifically to the fact that England’s King and parliament, by oppressing the people, are forcing the people to assume their priviledge to throw off their oppressors.

          In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.
          The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affectations are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is.

The Author,
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.

What he’s letting us know, here, is that he’s tried to stay away from naming names or praising/condemning the words and actions of any individuals. He didn’t think it was necessary, for those worthy of praise would need no verification from the success of his “pamphlet”, and those worthy of condemnation would subside, unless it became too painful for them to change their minds.

He then goes on to point out that the problem in America, during the rule of England, were the same problems faced by all humanity. He gives examples of the sorts of things he means (citing war on the people and country, announcing hostility to the natural rights of men, and killing those who would defend those rights of men) and goes on to say that these things are the conern of every man who can feel – which, he points out, we all can, despite our parties and affiliations.

Note: Thomas Paine, in these last few words could just as easily be describing Iran as early day America, which supports his notion that the problems he discusses are the problems of all men, not just Americans.

“I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal reality. I don’t like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I’ll give you an example of that. There’s a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It’s when a fighting person’s nervous system has been stressed to it’s absolute peak and maximum. Can’t take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap. In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and the very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue. Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison Avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we’re up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It’s totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car. Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it’s no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ll bet you if we’d have still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I’ll betcha. I’ll betcha.”

So we know this. It’s obvious. It’s called spin. So tell me why we still let people fool us. Why do corporations continue to market things at $99.99, if it doesn’t work on you and on me. Because it does. The only way to deal with the problem is to be militant in our thinking. We have to force ourselves to think correctly and clearly to fight this influence. Political correctness, think-speak, and spin are all similar in their goals. It’s long been known that one cannot think or speak of an idea very easily if one does not have a word for the idea. The corollary is that our thinking becomes much clearer when we clearly define that which we are discussing. For instance, the latest “Cap and Trade” bill which really should be referred to as an “Emissions Tax Act” has, instead, been called the “American Clean Energy and Security Act”. Oh my. This bill is supposed to help put us on track to reduce global warming. Keep in mind, especially those of you who are amazed that people actually don’t believe in man-caused global warming, there is no proof (Al Gore and the IPCC notwithstanding) that man has anything to do with global-warming and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. So, on the basis of a very poorly substantiated theory (theory is too good of a word, let’s try “hypothesis”), we’re going to tax every corporation that emits any sort of gas that we might possibly think is bad for the environment. And this will cause an increase in the costs of energy and of goods and services that use that energy. We’re doing this on the basis of a poorly evidenced possibility! On the basis of an untested and, currently, untestable hypothesis!

Furthermore, don’t ever ever believe that taxes on corporations are not taxes on you. That is the biggest lie the government has been pulling for years. And if you swallow this notion, you’re swallowing spin. “We’re going to levy a cost on the greedy corporations.” Well guess what? Those corporations exist because of your dollars and wouldn’t exist without your support. As a result of an increase in the cost of doing business, they will be forced to increase their costs to you. And you’ll have to support this increase or do without goods. This amounts to a tax on you. Someone recently suggested that if corporations increase their rates as a result of needing to pay taxes levied upon them, then they’re “stealing” from the community. Uh…. no. If I produce a widget for $10 and I charge $12 (for a $2 profit to give to my shareholders), but the government comes along and slaps me with a tax that averages out to $5 per widget, now my cost to produce the widget is $15. Even if I only charge the “cost of doing business”, I’m still increasing my rates by $3, but I’m not doing anything good for my stockholders. I would, therefore, try to get at least $16. This is not stealing, this is doing business, because you choose to pay it when buying the goods I produce. Without the understanding that I’m going to make a profit, my business will die as investors pull out and the business is unable to deal with competition.

Remember, the Emissions Tax Act amounts to a tax on you! The Emissions Tax Act, quaintly referred to as “Cap and Trade” or in an official capacity as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act”, has been passed 219-212 in the House awaiting a vote in the Senate. Eight Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for this thing. Only eight. Forty-four Democrats crossed the aisle to say “no” to this Democrat-sponsored bill.

So, why do we fall for the lies time and time again. Do you trust politicians? I bet you’re saying, “No. Well… some of them, I think, are trustworthy.” Who, you conservatives, Dubya/Sanford? Who, you liberals, BO/Pelosi/Reid? Hate to burst your bubble. We’re electing, time and time again, people to run our country who have failed time and time again in everything they’ve touched and have proven themselves to be liars and “spinners” time and time and time again. In fact, the only successful thing they’ve done is convince you to vote for them. Do we have a fence or anything else, yet, to secure our borders? Argh… I have to be careful or I’ll end up spending my time discussing all the failures and lack of successes of the government rather than discussing how they’re continuing to fool us into voting for them. I’ll just let it suffice to be said that our government, in it’s current state, is a failure. It once wasn’t. Around the turn of the century (the 20th, not the 21st), we proved that we were extraordinarily successful when left to our devices, but the times changed. And we changed. And now we’re worse off for it. Now the government mandates and regulates every aspect of our lives. They not only try to tax the living hell out of us, but they’ve even gone so far as to do our thinking for us (I have so much to say here that I won’t). So why do we fall for the lies? Because the liars sound so damned convincing. We know they’re lying, but once they start talking in that official, confident voice, we just give up our minds entirely and start nodding in unison. Be militant in your thinking!

But now… and here’s the kicker. The lie of the year. You’ve just been taxed and you didn’t even know it. Your government has gone so far in debt and has been unable to deal with it’s own spending that it’s actually printed money. The Federal Reserve announced on March 18 that it would print $1.2 trillion to buy bonds and mortgage-backed securities (here comes the lie) to make it so that taxpayers weren’t burdened with toxic assets. Now, we all know that when they print the dollar, it devalues our own dollars. What we don’t really see is how this is not just a devaluation, but a tax. See, the value of our dollar doesn’t just “disappear”. It’s not like they’re just hurting us with their stupidity, but rather, in their cleverness, they’re stealing from us. You think I exaggerate? You think I jest? You think this is just rhetoric?

The value that was lost in our dollars flows into the newly printed dollars. Let me try to give a simplistic analogy. Let’s say that there are only 100 dollars in circulation in a small town of 10 people and the value of those 100 dollars is equivalent to 100 oranges (that which is the highest value good in the area). Now, let’s say that there are no new oranges being produced currently and there are only these $100 in circulation. All of a sudden the government prints $100 more for circulation. Now, $200 = 100 oranges. Well, there’s an illustration of the devaluation of the dollar. But, you may ask, if the value of $1 has been reduced from 1 orange to 1/2 of an orange, so what? Not much, except that your portion of that $100 remains the same. If you and all other 9 members of your small town each had 10 of those dollars, then each of you just lost 5 oranges. Where’d those oranges go? To the government. They now have your missing 50 oranges because they hold the $100 they just printed. They have just taxed you and your fellow townspeople, each, half of your monetary holdings (5 oranges each).

Every single dollar in this country has just been devalued significantly with the printing of $1 trillion dollars. And the value that was lost is now in the hands of the government.

You were just taxed without even being notified. You just had money taken away by the government without even knowing it. That is the definition of theft. And in the amount they took it, Grand Larceny.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain. At the very least this was a flat tax, since it affected every American dollar equally. Aren’t we glad we’re not taxing those earning less than $250,000? Tax the rich, I say! Steal from the rich. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He must be a good guy! Robin Obama promised to do the same thing! He must be a good guy! But now he’s just taxed your ass, too. They’re all crooks.

Be militant in your thinking. This isn’t “like a tax”. This doesn’t “amount to a tax”. This is a tax. But worse, this is theft!

And still you sit there and think, “What can I do? Do I really even care enough?”

Let me ask you, do you believe the politicians represent your best interests?

Neither did the Colonial Americans. More than 230 years ago they gave us liberty and the opportunity to be prosperous, but in the course of the last 70 years, we’ve let those opportunities and liberties be taken away little by little, freedom by freedom. The government is like the tough guy who just stole your sandwich at school, “Whatcha gonna do about it?” And you stand/sit there in fear finally realizing there’s no adult around to correct the situation. “That’s what I thought!” says the bully with satisfaction as he knocks you down and walks away eating your sandwich.

But that’s not the way it really is. You are the sleeping bear and the lilliputians (your government) have been running in and throwing little ropes over you for the last 70 years to tie you down. If you don’t wake up now, you will wake up with total loss of liberty. Wake up, America. You’re losing your country.

But it’s interesting, don’t you think? No religion in polite society? No politics? Then from where do we get our ideas and form our beliefs?

The news? It’s mostly one-sided, I would think. Hollywood? I don’t really have to explain my thoughts about that (I can’t remember the last time I watched a movie and didn’t feel that it was preachy… at least a little). Speaking of Hollywood: there’s no question that movies, actors, and directors have a certain bias. This bias is wrapped in notions of modern-day progressivism. That is to say, the tired, worn-out beliefs and traditions of yesteryear are generally regarded as uncool in this environment. Notions of objective morality have been replaced with relative and situational morality. Which is why I find these little ads at the beginning of movies that I rent to be hilarious: “You wouldn’t steal a car! You wouldn’t steal a roll of toilet paper! You wouldn’t steal a tampon! Pirating is stealing!”. C’mon, quit preaching moral relativism and then expect people to not justify their own thievery. I swear…

The problem is, if we don’t talk about religion, then we’ll never understand that Muslims, Christians, and your favorite Wiccan down the street are just normal people with some “extra beliefs”. If we don’t talk about politics in a civil way with our friends and associates, keeping our minds truly open to opposing points of view, we’ll never understand what’s going on with the other side–we’ll never find common ground on which to live.

Let me ask you: Do you know where Dr. Gregory House is, right now? How many have seen the new Star Trek *and* the T.V. Series Heroes and couldn’t help but rub yours eyes everytime you looked at Spock? How many of you are wondering how it worked out that Locke, who wasn’t really Locke, needed to look like Locke to have Jacob rubbed out? I mean, all he ever had to do was to convince Ben to do it in the first place. How many of you are confused how two different presidents from two opposing parties both spend like madmen without regard for the check you and I are going to have to write at the end of the day? Gotcha? Well, if I did, consider that very deeply. While we’re running headlong into socialism and fascism combined, the Russians are laughing at us. I kid you not. They’re laughing at us because they’re saying, “Now it’s your turn!” (If you’d like the link to the Pravda article, let me know). That’s because we’re more in touch with the latest entertaining movie or T.V. show than making ourselves responsible for what’s happening in our government that affects us directly.

Is that a fart I smell?