G: Anyone who impinges on America’s freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
S: How can you justify all this?
G: You’re not looking at the big picture, Stan. Here’s a scenario: You have the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child; could you kill that child, Stanley?
S: No.
G: You disappoint me; it’s the greatest good.
S: Well how about ten innocents?
G: Now you’re getting it, how about a hundred – how about a thousand, not to save the world, but to preserve our way of life?
S: No man has the right to make that decision; you’re no different from any other terrorist.
G: No, you’re wrong, Stanley. Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where’s your bleeding heart for them? You give your twenty dollars to Greenpeace every year thinking you’re changing the world? What countries will harbor terrorists when they realize the consequences of what I’ll do?
11 September 2001
We know what happened.
We saw the reactions.
We live with the results.
Still, we ask:
How far are we willing to go?
6 January 2016
I don’t remember when I first saw Swordfish; I think it was my senior year of high school, which would put it sometime around 2004. I think the movie was taboo in the conservative circles I moved it, not just for the rating but also for its kinds-sorta anti-government message.
Recently, I found it again on Netflix; remembering it as mainly a tecno-drama in which John Travolta shoots massive weaponry and gets away with his scheme to divert $6 billion in government slush money to wage War on Terror [before such a thing existed], I sat down and watched it again.
The conversation stopped me cold. Swordfish came out mereĀ weeks before 9/11. In the aftermath, did we go too far or not far enough? It depends. I wonder what the world would be like if Gore had won Indecision 2000 and not Bush; I honestly think Bush was the right President in 2001, but have second-guessed his re-election in 2004. That may have been a mistake. Dangerous things happen when historians start playing “What-If?”.
Perhaps it’s because Ender’s Game is still fresh in mind, but when I have a free moment, I find myself asking:
How far would I go?
How far should I go?
Thing is, I’m not convinced there’s a right answer.
What do you think?
Have a suggestion for a poem, photograph, or future post?
Facebook – where I share news stories, articles from other blogs, and various and sundry miscellany that happens to catch my eye. It’s stuff you won’t see here! Well, mostly.
Instagram – where I show you my Life in Motion and share quotes and such. The widget only shows my last three photographs – don’t you want to see them all?
Twitter – where you can see my thoughts in 140 characters or less. Also, funny retweets.
Saturdays here on Running in My Head are what I call “Uncensored Saturdays” in that I write what I really feel about a particular subject with no regard for tact or certain types of political correctness.
You may not like my point of view.
You may find what I have to say offensive.
And that’s fine.
However, I hope they won’t make you feel less of me or cause you to stop reading my blog on the “creative” days.
See something you don’t like, disagree with, or think I’ve got totally wrong?
Great! Leave a comment; let’s start a discussion.
I consider myself both educated and open-minded. I know why I believe what I do, yet I’m not so stuck-in-the-mud to consider other opinions or the fact I might be wrong.
Ten years ago, I was an authoritarian-leaning Republican; now I’m a centrist independent leaning mainly conservative or libertarian depending on the issue.
That change didn’t come about on its own, it came about because I was willing to listen to others with opposing views.
I’d like to think I still have that open mind.
I only ask you keep the conversation civil.
With that in mind, here we go:
I enjoy watching House of Cards on Netflix.
Now, I could never vote for Frank Underwood; however, in Season Three he gave a speech which resonated with me:
In the full clip, Underwood uses this as a springboard to launch a program even more ambitious than the New Deal – the very system of programs that created the problems he’s trying to fix.
Nevertheless, I agree with him on this point:
Like Henry David Thoreau (and possibly Thomas Jefferson), I am of the opinion that
the government is best which governs least
Now, I understand that government must tax in order to function. However, not all governmental functions are necessary, neither are they all the government’s responsibility.
According to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, the purpose of American government is to
1. form a more perfect Union
2. establish Justice
3. insure domestic Tranquility
4. provide for the common defence [sic]
5. promote the general Welfare
6. secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity
I want to focus on No. 5, but feel I should briefly address the other 6; perhaps they’ll appear in future Uncensored Saturdays.
For better or worse, the form of the “more perfect Union” was decided on the battlefields of the Civil War. Personally, I feel our current system invested the central government with far too much power.
As a people, we’re still working on what, exactly, Justice means and how to adequately implement it. This means we’re also working on insuring Tranquility.
I think we’ve done a fair job on providing for the common defense; so long as the Second Amendment remains intact and SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v Heller is strengthened and applied nationally.
With every attack on personal liberty in the name of diversity, safety, security, or some other intangible notion, we chip away at those Blessings of Liberty. Soon, we will have no Blessings to pass down.
Yes. I can see these will become fodder for future Uncensored Saturdays.
So many ideas!
Now, welfare is a tricky word whose meaning has changed over the years.
I cringe whenever I hear it.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language (the closest online dictionary to 1789 I could find) defines welfare as
Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
Now, I understand that even this definition can be interpreted many ways.
Nevertheless, I see in this definition no basis for such government programs as
Medicare / Medicaid
Food Stamps / SNAP
WIC / CHIP
Social Security
AHA / Planned Parenthood
Before you jump all over me as a woman-hating Republican racist bigot, let’s clear a few things up:
1. Disagreeing with government programs does not equate with hating the people those programs benefit. It means I disagree with the nature of government. Go read some political theory then come back when you can carry on an intelligent conversation.
2. Disagreeing with certain government programs does not mean I think people shouldn’t have access to certain services. It means I think the government has no right or responsibility to either fund or run said programs. Most likely, I feel those services should be in the hands of the private sector.
3. Whoever said I was a Republican? I haven’t identified as a Republican since at least 2004. I’m a registered Independent who leans conservative/libertarian depending on the issue. Like any well-informed citizen of the United States, I refuse to believe that any political party hold all the answers to all the problems. I have never voted a straight party ticket, and I’ve voted for candidates from a wide variety of political parties.
Now let’s look at the programs I listed and I’ll tell you why, exactly, I am against them.
First, I am against the Affordable Healthcare Act for two reasons:
1. It only passed SCOTUS review in that it was interpreted as a kind of tax. As such, it is a tax on life. Too many people likened it to a driver’s license or car insurance, but this is a false equivocation. Only those who drive need a driver’s license or car insurance; the AHA applies to anyone living – it is essentially a tax on life.
2. As such, the AHA violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits such taxes.
Along the same lines, I view the Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax) as directly opposed to the original intent of the Constitution and blame the increasing liberal SCOTUS of the early 1900s for allowing its continuation.
The Seventeenth Amendment is the worst offender; the Senate was never supposed to represent the People, but the States. With direct election of senators, we may as well abolish the Senate since we already have a body representing the people: the House of Representatives.
3. The government should have no say in how I spend my money or what I spend my money on.
4. The AHA is not affordable; I find myself making too much for any real form of government assistance yet making to little to afford any insurance that would actually benefit my needs. Essentially, I’m paying for insurance which I’ll never use or meet the deductible – beyond a major catastrophe – just to avoid paying a tax penalty. The AHA has placed me in a worse financial situation that I was in before its passing.
Second, I find it well within government’s regulatory power to regulate the insurance and healthcare industries.
Simply forcing the American people onto insurance rolls has not lowered insurance prices, neither has it decreased hospital costs. If it were to regulate the healthcare industry, particularly the monstrosity known as the charge sheet, healthcare costs would come down. Since insurance companies traditionally pay a percentage of hospital costs based on the plan one has purchased, their overall costs would decrease and they could charge less for premiums. I’m not sure that they would without government intervention, but it would be easier for them to turn a profit.
TL;DR: Let the government regulate the business, not the people.
Third, were the government to take such steps, programs such as Medicare, Medicaid Food Stamps, SNAP, WIC, and CHIP could be reduced or outright eliminated.
Again, I’m not against access to affordable healthcare.
I am against government sticking its ever-growing nose and fingers in places where they don’t belong.
Fourth, I am against Social Security in that – again – the government has no business in taking taxes out of my paycheck to support someone else. The program is not a bank; politicians have made it clear they’ve used the money invested in the program, lost it, and it now relies on younger payers paying into the system to keep it going. How is this any different than a Ponzi Scheme? We’d have more economic security investing that money in a bank guaranteed by the FDIC. If Social Security were a bank, it’d have collapsed long ago.
Finally, I’ve already made it clear I’m against Planned Parenthood because I am against abortion. However, even those who support abortion ought to be outraged over its sale of human parts. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to consider a fetus a “thing” before abortion yet classify a fetus as “human” after abortion? Isn’t killing a human being murder? The hoops they jump through for moral justification puts contortionists to shame.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
Liberals use this arguments to clam certain moral superiorities and to justify attacks on certain conservative values.
When conservatives use the same argument, they are routinely labelled regressive moralistic bigots.
Furthermore, it’s been proven the so-called “services” (apart from abortion) they claim to provide are either (a) nonexistent at most Planned Parenthood facilities or (b) performed better and more often at other healthcare facilities. Again, why support a failing business?
As my speech teacher once said:
Stand Up. Speak Up. Shut Up.
Since I’ve run out of steam and have nothing more to say, I’ll turn it over to you in the comments.
Have a suggestion for a poem, photograph, or future post?
Facebook – where I share news stories, articles from other blogs, and various and sundry miscellany that happens to catch my eye. It’s stuff you won’t see here! Well, mostly.
Instagram – where I show you my Life in Motion and share quotes and such. The widget only shows my last three photographs – don’t you want to see them all?
Twitter – where you can see my thoughts in 140 characters or less. Also, funny retweets.
Pre-1982 pennies make the best squishing pennies for their copper content.
Modern zinc pennies or – heaven forbid – those metal alloys sometimes provided by the press manufacturer just don’t stack up.
Back to the task at hand.
Of all Founding Fathers, Hamilton is the most deserving of a place on our currency.
Hamilton . . .
Grew up in the West Indies.
Acted as Washington’s senior aide in the Revolutionary War.
Served in Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
Spearheaded the Annapolis Convention,
which led to the Philadelphia Convention,
which led to the Constitution as we know it today.
Advocated for constitutional ratification in the Federalist Papers.
Using the pseudonym Publius, Hamilton wrote 51 of the 85 papers.
Today, these papers are considered the single most important source of constitutional interpretation.
Established the foundations United States’ federal government, specifically in arguing in favor of the doctrine of implied powers and the creation of a National Bank.
Influenced early foreign policy, especially in America’s preferential treatment of Britain.
Swayed the electoral college to make Thomas Jefferson third President of the United States.
Opposed Aaron Burr’s attempts to become President and Governor of New York.
You may recall that Burr attempted to establish his own empire in what would become the Louisiana Purchase.
By this time, Burr had killed Hamilton in a duel over comments made regarding the aforementioned elections.
Alexander Hamilton lived the American Dream before it was a thing.
Removing him from our currency would be both a travesty and a dishonor.
Facebook – where I share news stories, articles from other blogs, and various and sundry miscellany that happens to catch my eye. It’s stuff you won’t see here! Well, mostly.
Instagram – where I show you my Life in Motion and share quotes and such. The widget only shows my last three photographs – don’t you want to see them all?
Twitter – where you can see my thoughts in 140 characters or less. Also, funny retweets.
However, I’ve begun to think differently about Memorial Day.
Yes, men gave their lives.
Yes, we should be grateful for their sacrifice.
But I’ve also begun to ask: what – exactly – did they sacrifice their lives for?
I don’t think those who gave their lives would want us to perpetually mourn.
After all, I sincerely doubt they held Rat’s opinion:
From Unsportsmanlike Conduct (p. 37) A Pearls Before Swine Collection by Stephan Pastis
Ā Yes, remember their sacrifice. But they died so we could live normal lives. So that we could hold barbecues on the beach while listening to our preferred sport on the radio with our families. Or whatever your tradition is this weekend.
You know what? I have no problem with the President enjoying an ice cream.
What I do have a problem with was this being the very first Memorial Day post from the Democratic Party.
Things didn’t get much better with their second and third Memorial Day posts:
They finally got around to thanking the fallen two days after posting that first image:
Again, this is just my opinion and I understand that this Twitter feed belongs to the Democratic Party and not President Obama, but since one of the President’s roles is Commander in Chief, it only makes sense that the first Memorial Day posts would thank the troops. Maybe that just me.
All this to say: enjoy your Memorial Day how you see fit, but take a moment of silence to remember those who gave their lives for normalcy.
How can I resist sharing a poem on Memorial Day?
This year I’ve selected
For the Fallen
Robert Laurence Binyon
With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.
Solemn the drums thrill: Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres.
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.
They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.
But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;
As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain,
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.
Don’t forget to follow me on:
Facebook – where I share news stories, articles from other blogs, and various and sundry miscellany that happens to catch my eye. It’s stuff you won’t see here! Well, mostly.
Instagram – where I show you my Life in Motion and share quotes and such. The widget only shows my last three photographs – don’t you want to see them all?
Twitter – where you can see my thoughts in 140 characters or less. Also, funny retweets.
First, I am indebted to Mr. Matthew Desmond, whose article “The Seven Types Of Republicans And How To Debate Them” served as inspiration for this post.
OK, a bit more than inspiration – I outright copied him for most of this post. As I was reading his original article, I thought “Hey! All you have to do is replace ‘Republican’ with ‘Democrat,’ adjust the examples, and you’d have the same article from the opposite viewpoint!”
So, that’s what I did; I copied the entire article and made the proper adjustments to reflect a conservative viewpoint (as seen by an Independent).
Second, I intend this as an Onion-esque “report.”
Do Not Take This Seriously!
Third, for the sake of honesty, let me clarify my political position: I am an independent and think both major political parties need a time-out for several decades. Combine the two articles and you’ll understand what it’s like as an Independent ignored by both parties (except when convenient, of course).
Enjoy.
The Seven Types Of Democrats And How To Debate Them
Anyone discussing politics with a Democrat recognizes that there are a wide variety of Democrats, each possessing their own debating style. In this article, I attempt to break down the basic types of Democrats, the obvious flaws in their views, and how you can best debate them. Iāll start with the most intelligent and work my way down.
Educated Democrats are the rarest of all Democrats. Occasionally you find one in public or in an online forum. These Democrats can be the most difficult to deal with. They know everything there is to know about their positionā¦ from a Democratic perspective. Theyāve educated themselves on all the reasons why their position is correct, and are not concerned with anything that contradicts their beliefs.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
Anyone with the Internet and five minutes can find something that thoroughly discredits their version of the āfacts.ā Even when confronted with contradictory facts, they continue to fall back on their original arguments; try to change the subject to something they are more comfortable talking about, or start expressing opinions with no factual merit.
What to remember when debating them:
Keep them on-topic. Donāt let them ignore your counterpoints and then change the subject on you. Theyāre masters of that, but if you can keep them on topic, eventually they will just start expressing opinions to which you can say ādo you have any facts to back that up?ā
Media DemocratsĀ are the angriest group of Democrats. They watch television and think it makes them an expert on politics. The only knowledge they have of politics areĀ parroted talking points without any facts to back them up. When you defeat them in debate, they will resort to calling you names like āconservative,ā ābigot,ā āwoman-haterā; āracist,ā etc. They think all conservatives want to take their money and give it to big business, especially oil.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
They have no idea what they are talking about. Usually theyāre just repeating things theyāve heard from Anderson Copper, Brian Williams, or Piers Morgan (a British national who has neither a stake in nor an understanding of American government). They think that all conservatives want to restrict their freedoms and clearly donāt know what the word āconservativeā means, or what conservatives have contributed to our country and our freedoms. They think President Obama is comparable to Jesus (or his non-religious equivalent) for passing healthcare reform. They accuse you of watching FOX News if you donāt agree with them. They call you ignorant but expect you to blindly believe everything they tell you, without question.
What to remember when debating them:
Keep demanding facts from them to back up their assertions until they break down and call you any of theĀ aforementioned names. Ask them to name specific freedoms that conservatives have taken from them. They have a tendency to record your conversations and take your words out of context, so be aware of recording equipment when debating them face to face.
Atheist (or non-religious/non-practicing) Democrats are hypocrites. They do everything in the name of humanity, while simultaneously acting as inhuman as possible. They deny basic rights, such as freedom of religion and theĀ right to be born.Ā They think guns are evil and would strip Americans of their right to self-expression . They claim the Bible depicts Christ as a liberal who was opposed to capitalism and violence while completely ignoring the fact that he never spoke in favor ofĀ any political ideology and advocated civil disobedience (c.f. Romans 13). They sincerely believe that Christianity had a negative (or zero) impact on America and think we should give up national sovereignty to the United Nations . They label everyone who doesnāt agree with them as “bigoted, ” “racist,” or “__________-phobic”. They cannot understand the difference between tolerance, acceptance, and love.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
They do terrible things in the name of science or humanity. They think that anyone who doesnāt agree with them hates them. They believe that America was never a Christian nation even though the Founding Fathers and the Documents of Freedom are heavily influenced by the Bible. The Founding Fathers wanted a country of religious freedom free from religious persecution, but these Democrats do their best to marginalize and politically persecute religion – especially fundamentalist Christianity.
What to remember when debating them:
Thereās a list of quotes that show our Founding Fathers wanted a country influenced by religion. For those Democrats that claim to be Christian, ask them questions like āhow would Jesus feel about killing babies?” or āhow would Jesus feel about someone failing to protect their family?ā For those that are non-religious, ask āif you REALLY think America isn’t the best country in the world, why don’t you live somewhere else?ā or “If other countries are doing it better, why do they have the same problems we do – or worse?” Of course, these questions should yield a response that thoroughly proves that they are hypocrites, and continuing to argue with them would be a waste of time.
Occupy Democrats are a dumbed-down combination of the previous two groups of Democrats. They think Joe Biden is intelligent and itās the media filterās fault that he looks so stupid. They think Clinton was fiscally responsible even though he borrowed money to balance the budget. They watch CNN religiously, and think main-stream talking heads are credible. They donāt understand why people think theyāre racist when they claim only whites are racist. They support the Affordable Health Care Act and higher taxes for the wealthy,Ā even though government waste and inefficiency are at record levels. They fail to see how corporate tax breaks creates jobs.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
They parrot Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, and Piers Morgan talking points. When you discredit one thing they say, they immediately move on to the next subject. Anyone who doesnāt agree with them is ignorant. They fail to see that their system of government mimics socialism.Ā They think government can provide the answers to all of societal ills; they want no personal responsibility.
What to remember when debating them:
They have no idea what theyāre talking about. Ask them to prove what they are saying. If you ask them a question and they respond with another question, refuse to answer their question until they answer yours. Donāt back down. Remind them that conservative fiscal policies were responsible for the economic booms of the past. If debating them in public, be careful because they are known to surreptitiously record conversations with intent to twist words, so be aware of any recording devices (including phones) when debating them in places like parks, bars and churches (if they deign to enter one).
Party Democrats think that Obama is an inclusive President despite all evidence to the contrary. They blame all of Obama’s failures on George W Bush. They are sore losers because Bush won the elections of 200 and 2004. They think that Obama won the 2012 election fairly and voter fraud is a myth, despite some districts reporting over 100% voter turnout without aĀ single vote for Romney. They were anti-war when Bush was President; they have backed Obama’s foreign policy to the letter. They willfully ignore scandals such as Benghazi, the Fast and the Furious, the NSA, and the IRS. They will never support a conservative, even if he/she paid off the entire national debt and passed universal healthcare.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
They think Obama, Clinton, Kerry, and Biden are infallibly credible. They fail to see that Obama is one step away from socialism. They think increasing the national debt ceiling is fiscally responsible. They love pointing out flaws in the Republican camp while ignoring the scandal and division in their own tent.
What to remember when debating them:
Donāt waste your time. You could wave Benghazi security footage and NSA internal emails until the cows come home. They are blind to reality and will never be happy unless a Democrat is president. Have them read the Constitution or news accounts of guns saving lives. Show them how fiscal conservatism has helped grow America. This is the best way to get them to go away.
[DISCLAIMER: I am putting this one almost last for a reason. I do NOT think all Democrats are racists. I have Democratic friends who are not racist. This section is only about the small percentage of Democrats who are ACTUALLY racist, because they do exist. I’m not “playing the race card” or “race-baiting,” I’m just describing a small group of racists who also affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party]
Racist Democrats hate whites because they’re white. They think whites owe something to make up for past wrongs. They desire not equality, but an inequality where whites are marginalized. They think that all Christians are racist terrorists. They think anyone who is from the South or owns a gun is a racist. Anyone who disagrees with anyone who is not white is a racist.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
They only think whites are racist. They think racism only counts if it’s racism practiced by the political majority. Whenever they possibly can, they will call you a racist, to hide the fact that they are actually racists.
What to remember when debating them:
Theyāre racists. Racists are uneducated bigots. You would have a much easier time convincing an apple tree to start growing oranges.
Extremely Uneducated Democrats are Democrats because they think itās cool. They have a Democratic friend in one of the other groups listed, so they think they know what theyāre talking about. They have terrible spelling and grammar but they expect you to believe whatever they say because they are saying it to you.
The problem with this type of Democratās views:
Itās hard to tell if they ever made it past the 4th grade. Most of their posts are illegible. They donāt know anything about their position other than what they have heard their friends say. They think Democrats help society because they say that they do, and call anyone who doesnāt agree with them āheartless.ā They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100 percent blind to facts.
What to remember when debating them:
No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think your facts arenāt credible. Instead of trying to argue with them, try explaining algebra to your dog. Iām sure it will be much more productive.
Running In My Head 