Depending on the Government

There have been a lot of misconceptions about the term "self-reliance," and how much the government gets involved in our lives. You've all heard the term "Nanny State," and many of you have agreed with me when I've decried it, be it the effect on lemonade stands, how we feed our children, bringing sweets to school, or even how we raise our kids to begin with.

Yesterday, I was reading Charles C.W. Cook's excellent National Review article, "Why I Despair", and something jumped out at me that I would like to address. Actually, my wife read it first and pointed this one out to me, but it jumped out even more after I read it myself.

So many in our society are rolling over and not only letting government take over their lives, but actively demanding it.

What have we become?

On page three of the article, Cooke says the following:

"In 2010, on the BBC’s Question Time — a British current-affairs show on which the guests trip over one other to display the appropriate degree of fealty to whichever orthodoxy is in the news that week whilst the audience tries to be as clever as one can be without doing any reading — the question of impending government spending cuts was raised. One audience member stood up and, waving her hands around, asked who would mow her elderly mother’s lawn if the government no longer did it. The audience clapped. The host looked serious. Not a single person on the panel said, “You!” Neither of the putatively Conservative guests even raised an eyebrow. A particularly oleaginous MP proceeded to tell her that it was a “good question.” I threw a coffee cup at my television."

I had to do a double-take, as I could not believe somebody could seriously ask that question, and nobody would call them on it.

When I was in high school, I mowed the lawns of both sets of grandparents. It would never even have occurred to us to wonder if we could somehow get the government to do it. When I went off to college, I still did it in the Summer and I think my Dad did it when I wasn't around. Somebody in the family did, anyway. If it had become an issue, we would have hired some local kid.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF LAWN-MOWING.

This is the mind-set we're dealing with, where everything is a government program, where we don't rely on ourselves to actually get anything done.

The idea that conservatives put forward of "self-reliance" has been misconstrued so badly, as sort of a "everyone must fend for themselves!" type mentality. That couldn't be further from the truth. When we say "self-reliance," it's things like this, that you should not be depending on the government for. Government should not be mowing your lawn. Government should not be shutting down kids' lemonade stands because the kids didn't "obtain a peddler’s license, a food license, and pay $50 per day for a temporary business permit."

Where do you draw the line? When you demand that government do everything for you, how can you say that you're living your life at all? It's not your life if you're not doing anything for it.

Privacy? Many liberals decry the invasive policies of the TSA and their airport security procedures. Of wire-tapping and demanding that cell-phone companies cooperate in anti-terrorist activities, to name two examples. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you're demanding that government should provide everything in your life, then you don't get to complain when they take that extra mile forward that you allowed them to take. You let them in the door.

It's like a home invasion in one sense. If you open the door for the robber and say "come on in," you don't get to demand that they only take the broken microwave that's sitting on the counter. The robber will also take that nice brand-spanking new TV you just bought.

This is an honest question to all of you out there: where DO you draw that line? How much government intrusion is too much?

Lawn mowing? Lemonade stands? Diet? Should there be a Department of Diet Control that you submit your grocery list to every week and they strike off the stuff that's bad for you? Where they come and inspect your home every week to make sure you're not hiding any candy or cookies, especially if you have two kids? Where they weigh all of your kids and take them away from you if they've become too big because you're obviously a bad parent?

I don't think any of you want that. I hope you don't.

So why do you want them running any other aspect of your life?

It just boggles my mind.

Why do you trust the government to make one choice for you but not another? The common perception is that all politicians are crooks, or greedy, or corrupt, or out for themselves, or whatever. Nobody likes a politician, and such has been the feeling for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Remember that old Mark Twain quote? "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

And you want these people making your life choices?

Up here in Canada (and I'm sure there are similar things in the States, or maybe they exist down there too), there is an excellent charitable organization called "Meals on Wheels." This charity delivers meals to seniors who have trouble making their own meals and who can't get out of the house and down to the store. They don't have anybody else to help provide for them, so this service is a godsend. In Calgary at least, they also serve a number of schools where kids are not having their nutritional needs met.

This is a charity, with volunteers and donations. It's not a government program. If it were a government program, it would be so fraught with waste, abuse and bureaucracy that it wouldn't be funny.

There used to be a time where we all looked out for each other. Society as a whole took care of its own. Families looked after their loved ones; churches looked out for their flocks. Charities took care of those who couldn't help themselves and had nobody else.

We have developed a society recently with a "me-first" mentality. These people not only don't look after their fellow human beings, but have instilled a "I don't need to do it because the government will" attitude as well.

It's all a vicious circle. When we demand government do everything for us, we figure that the government will help so we don't have to. Since nobody's actually helping anybody, the government steps in, blasting through that open door that this mentality has provided it.

How can we break this cycle?

I wish I knew. But if we don't, society will continue to deteriorate to the point where it's unsalvageable.

If it's not already there.

*Edit* Just came across this brilliant quote from an otherwise not-so-brilliant President Gerald Ford, which sums it up beautifully.

"A government big enough to give us anything is strong enough to take everything"

Post-election reaction

It seems that a majority of the country just stomped on the accelerator to oblivion.

God (if He exists) help us all.

An Informed Vote - What You Owe the Country

Some of you may be aware that there's this "election" thing coming up next Tuesday. It's kind of a big deal. Of course, some of you may *not* be aware of it, and that's actually kind of sad (unless you don't live in the US, of course, in which case it's semi-understandable).

Many people are out there encouraging people to vote. "Have your say!" they proclaim, trying to get as many people out there to vote. "You shouldn't complain about how things are going if you don't take the time to vote!" they also say.

While this is all well and good, I would add a caveat to all of that. Yes, voting is important. However, to me it's most important that your vote be an informed vote. Take the time to learn a little bit about the candidates and what they stand for. Listen to them; read about them. This applies whether it's a local election or an election for President.

(This is not a political blog, so I'm not going to advocate one way or the other. Those who know me know which way I lean, of course).

When you consider voting, you should ask yourself why you're voting for that candidate. If your reason boils down to "he's a great speaker!" or "I'd love to have a beer with him" or "he's so cool" or even "old white guys have to stick together," then I'd hazard to say that your vote is not an informed one.

It doesn't have to be a deep understanding of *all* the issues. It can even be one issue that you feel strongly about. At least it's an issue and not something frivolous, though I think that's not seeing the bigger picture if you do it that way. It doesn't even have to be a deep understanding of some of them, as long as it's at least somewhat of an understanding.

For instance, you don't have to have delved down deep enough to say "I'm not voting for Obama because he won't take a stance on how flying unicorns could help the Middle East situation."

But there should be something issue-oriented in there. There should be a reason you're voting for one candidate over the other that is more than something superficial. If you're not at least somewhat informed, I don't believe your vote is helping the country, whichever way you vote.

I would never go so far as to say that you don't have the *right* to vote if you're going to vote superficially. But I do think you owe it to your fellow citizens to have some reason. I would rather have 55% voter turnout where every voter is informed, than to have 85% turnout where most of them are of the "my guy's way cooler than the other guy!" variety.

So yes, get out and vote on Tuesday (if you haven't already). But before you do that, how about doing a little reading up on what's going on first?

Help keep the country from going deeper into the toilet. If the other guy wins (whoever your other guy is), it's already going to be heading down there anyway. You might as well know *why*.

Arizona Congresswoman Killed in a Shooting

*Update: Sheriff's office says Giffords is still alive and in surgery. Let's hope all goes well, but still, my condolences to those whose family members have died. And this doesn't change the point of my post*

*Update 2: Apparently the prognosis is good for at least some kind of recovery. That's great news! My best wishes go out to her as she works through the difficult process. And my heart goes out to those who were killed and their families.

*************

I normally don't do "Breaking News" posts on this blog, but this one (and the reaction to it) has really affected me.

Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, along with some other people (I'm hearing differing reports, but the last number I heard was 12) at an outside political event. As I type this, I just saw the news that she has died. What a horrifying incident this is, and all of my thoughts and condolences go out to her family (and the families of the other victims, of course).

Giffords was a Blue Dog Democrat who had just won re-election in 2010. I can't comment on her politics other than that, as I don't know her or know her history.

Thankfully, it appears that the gunman is in custody, so hopefully we'll find out the motivation behind this incomprehensible atrocity.

But you know what's horrifying me about this incident as well?

The reaction to it.

People are making politics out of this already! Passing blame, condemning what they believe is the purpose behind it, all without even knowing anything. Some on the Left are already blaming Sarah Palin for this! Can you believe it?

The hair-trigger that people are on in this country right now is almost beyond belief (I say "this country" because I do consider myself still American, as well as Canadian). A prominent woman (along with multiple others, I'm seeing reports of now) have been killed. Murdered in cold blood on a public street.

And you're playing politics? NOW???? While the blood is still wet on the street?

Reprehensible. Those of you who are doing this should be ashamed of yourself.

There can be a variety of reasons for an incident like this. Let the investigation take place and find out what really happened before you jump into this and start casting blame about.

This terrible tragedy really saddens me.

The reaction to it just heaps more sadness on top of it.

It's a symptom of the sick political culture that we're living in right now.

Pat Sajak - how politics and celebrity should meet

In Saturday's post about Ricochet, I mentioned that Pat Sajak was a contributor to the site. Even before that, I had read a few articles by him, but not a whole lot.

I remembered vaguely that I had heard that he was a Conservative, but I had never really thought about it before.

Instead, I just knew him from Wheel of Fortune. He's been hosting that show since 1981, and to most people that's all he is: a game show host. Very innocuous, kind of dweebish, actually. I had never really thought much of him. I don't like the show (though I sometimes stop when I'm channel-surfing to see if I can solve the current puzzle), but I thought "it's nice that he's had a job for so long."

But then I read a political article by him, and I was floored.

This man is thoughtful, witty, and an excellent writer! I've heard him on the Ricochet podcast, and he's intelligent, bringing a lot of cogent political commentary to the podcast. He's the author of the wonderful post-election Ricochet post "How to Communicate Legislative Successes in 140 Characters or Less" (because Obama is still saying that the problem was messaging, not the actual message).

And you wouldn't know any of this if you just watched Wheel of Fortune.

The first time Pat came on the Ricochet podcast, he talked about this. He keeps his celebrity persona and his political/personal one completely separate. He doesn't try to inject politics into Wheel of Fortune or anything else he does like that. When he's got his "pundit" hat on, he doesn't trade on his celebrity in order to make it heard more. He may appear on Fox News (I don't know if he ever has, though), but it would be as a Conservative pundit, not because he hosts a popular and seemingly ageless game show.

They are both separate spheres, never the twain shall meet.

That's something I love about him.

I wish more celebrities were like this. Sure, express your opinion if you want. You're an American, you have every right. But keep in mind the venue. Make sure it's appropriate. If you're a singer and I'm at one of your concerts, I don't want to hear about your political views. Just shut up and sing!

You want to be a regular contributor to the Huffington Post? More power to you. Get your views out there.

But don't expect us to pay attention to you just because you're a celebrity. Being a celebrity doesn't give your words any more weight than if I said them. They might get more attention, but they're not any more important.

You know who the perfect celebrity is? The one who, if I just follow that person's movies or singing career, I have no idea what that person believes. If I want to dig deeper, or if I'm into the whole political thing, then I'm pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised when I stumble upon their political views.

Somebody like Sajak.

Let the choice be mine. And let me enjoy your work without all of the baggage behind it.

Female politicians and blasts from the past - double standard?

Yet another politician has been caught on camera doing something he/she shouldn't be if they want a political career. Something truly embarrassing, though whether it should make a difference in a political campaign is debatable.

This time, it involves Krystal Ball (an unfortunate name, I would think), Democratic candidate for Congress from Virginia. A series of pictures from a party shortly after college, of a scantily-clad Ball, along with her now ex-husband, have been posted on the Net.

Personally, I don't like these "gotcha" type of stories, where stuff from the past is dredged up to try and sway current voters, rather than addressing the issues. Anybody who grew up from the 60s onward has to have some extremely weird stuff in their background, given the permissiveness of society nowadays. (Ok, I don't, but that in itself is weird). If the person in question is unfortunate enough (or stupid enough) to let it be caught on film (or even video!), then it's even worse for them.

But does something that happened years ago, when we were young, really matter? I don't think so.

There is one place where Ball gets this totally wrong. She says that the release of these photos is "sexist" and reflective of how female politicians are treated today compared to male politicians.

That just ain't so, Krystal. (Can I call you Krystal?)

I don't deny that there is a double standard in politics, and that too many female politicians are judged by their looks rather than their politics. Though it can't apply to everybody, or Nancy Pelosi would have been voted out a long time ago.

But I digress.

So yes, there is a double standard.

But is this a good example of it? Can you seriously tell me, if there were photos of a male politician feeling up some woman at a party, having fun with a sex toy (if that surprises you, you obviously didn't go look at the link I provided), that they wouldn't be put out by the opposition party (or a fellow traveler) in an attempt to discredit them?

There is definitely sexism in politics. The release of these photos, as smarmy as it is, is not an example of it.

Sex and titillation sell, no matter the gender of the politician in question. The media would have a field day with this.

That being said, I'm looking on Google news, and I'm not seeing any real "mainstream" press reporting this, so maybe they *aren't* taking it and running with it. Maybe it truly is an Internet phenomenon.

Whatever the case, maybe I'm just being pedantic. There is a lot of sexism in the political field. There is a lot of dredging up of history rather than attacking somebody on their positions going on in politics too.

Let's call this what it truly is. It's the latter, not the former.

Obama in Madden 11? A different take

Wow, lots of controversial comments and vitriol in response to Game Informer's post about President Obama making a cameo in Madden 11.

For those of you who don't know, EA Sports has revamped its Super Bowl celebration when your team wins that Super Bowl trophy.  In addition to team-specific commentary and the appearance of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, the team takes a trip to Washington D.C. and meets President Obama, giving him a team jersey and everything (you can see videos of this on IGN's site).




(This is a horrible rendition of Obama, by the way)

Of course, this news sparked outcries of "boycott Madden!" and "You're just a bunch of rednecks!!!" in the comments section.

I'm a conservative who has no love for Obama whatsoever, but that's the most political I'm going to get in this post.  I think calls of boycotting the game are ridiculous.



I also hope that this is just an image and that Obama didn't actually record anything for them.  I have no problem with Presidents appearing in our media (I loved Clinton showing up in an X-Men comic, for example), but I don't want any sitting President actually *participating* in something like this.

But I also think this is an incredibly stupid move on EA's part, for a couple of reasons, none of which are really political.

First, because there are a lot of people who fly off the handle really easily, you could be affecting your sales.  Probably not much, but some.  Who needs it?

Secondly, and far more importantly, it's opening up a can of worms no matter how EA does it, all for the sake or "realism."

Yes, teams that win the Super Bowl go to the White House and are congratulated by the President.  But the Franchise mode in Madden spans a huge number of years (I want to say 30, but I'm not sure).  So what happens in 2 years?  Or 6?  If you win the Super Bowl every year for the next 30 years, do you have the same cutscene presenting Obama your team jersey?  Really?  Thirty years?  Talk about an Imperial Presidency!

Ok, so maybe they thought of that.  When do you replace him?  After 2012? After 2016?  Each choice makes a sort of political statement.

I have no problem with them adding this to the Super Bowl festivities.  Complaints have been going on for years that winning the Super Bowl in Madden didn't really seem to mean much, because there really wasn't much celebration.  There were some fireworks, a couple of team members hoisted the trophy, maybe the coach was lifted on the shoulders of a few team members.  That was it.  Then BOOM! Into Off-season mode you go.  So I love the fact that EA has revamped this.

But why couldn't they use a fictional president?  That would have saved a lot of worms from getting out.

Ok, enough about Obama.  How about the rest of the celebration?

First, the same complaints about Obama above apply to having Roger Goodell in the celebration.  Is he going to be NFL Commissioner in 2035?  However, I can see that a little better, as there's no real way to say "THIS IS THE NFL COMMISSIONER" like there is with the President.  For the President, you just show a picture of the White House right before you show the jersey ceremony.

Secondly, IGN celebrates the fact that the commentary is team-specific, talking about the team's situation, even saying "I especially enjoyed his reference to how my favorite team, the Jacksonville Jaguars, were possibly going to move cities in the pre-season, and how the community wouldn't let their championship team get away now that they've won the championship."  I saw elsewhere that the Saints winning causes some commentary about hurricane Katrina.

I hope that the commentary is diverse enough that this doesn't happen all the time.  First, what happens if you win multiple times?  Does it say the same thing?  And secondly, if you win as the Saints in 2030, is Katrina really relevant anymore?

That could be enough to throw me out of the game right there, just when I was getting immersed in it.  I want commentary that's based on what's happened in the game too.  If I'm playing as the Steelers in 2015, and I've been beaten by my arch-rivals the Bengals in the playoffs the last two years in a row, I want that mentioned if I finally beat them in the 2015 playoffs!

That would be awesome.

(image courtesy of Game Informer)