Big Government, Morality, and More

Am I a prude?  Maybe.  But I just read the other day an article about moral relativism and shook my head. I think there's a strong contingent out there which thinks that, as long as an activity is among or between "consenting adults," it is moral and, therefore, should be legal.  Each individual should determine what is moral.  For instance, it is utterly proper for, say, a professional athlete to have several children with multiple women and then abandon them.  After all, as long as begetting is consensual......

Ultimately, there are no sins.  That leads to no laws against immorality.  No longer proscribed would be prostitution ("What a woman does with her own body....), polygamy, pornography (as long as it's consensual), drug abuse, and more.

OK, no doubt I would be called a prude or perhaps even a modern-day Puritan, but when nobody sets any rules......

Tea Partiers are not opponents of government, not at all.  They would embrace the Constitutionally-limited government established by the Founders.  That they oppose the Big Government of today, though, has made them targets of Big Government--its politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats.  They are demonized, with the disgraceful complicity of the LameStream media, as "haters of government," "bigots," and "racists."  They are criminalized; note the IRS scandal.  Big Government desires to perpetuate itself, for a variety of reasons.  Opposition, therefore, is not tolerated.

Are our politicians, as a "class," bad people?  I don't know.  But they, of both parties, are increasingly arrogant and elitist.  They do what they want; what their constituents want be damned.  After all, they know what's best for us better than we do.  They may well be smarter than most of us, although from what I've gathered--listening, reading, and seeing their handiwork--over the years, I really doubt that.That that isn't really the point here doesn't matter--to them.

How can the City of Detroit and State of Michigan hand over half a billion dollars of welfare, er, incentives to the Red Wings for a new stadium?  Can't $465 billion be better used elsewhere in Detroit--lights, streets and roads, schools, police protection, bus service, etc.?  OK, some Detroiters may get construction jobs while the facility is being built, but those dry up upon completion.  And haven't studies shown that new stadiums and other such facilities really don't add up to more long-term jobs than the old places?  Besides, isn't the owner of the Wings a billionaire?  Why do taxpayers have to front his stadium for him?  The next time one of our opponents of welfare rips on that system, bring up this example of corporate welfare--to a billionaire!

So, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Beatles' debut in the US, on the Ed Sullivan Show.  I know their impact here was pretty big, but I never was a big fan of theirs.  Oh, there were some songs I liked, but I think I owned only one of their albums, Abbey Road.  I guess I liked the Stones a little better, but also owned only one of their albums, Hot Rocks.  I never got caught up in the British-mania, largely I guess because I didn't think their music was what others thought it was.  A chacon son gout......

I also read where a "legendary reporter" died yesterday.  Supposedly he wrote and reported nationally for years.  I've followed politics for more than 40 years, pretty closely.  I admit I never heard of this guy.  His name never rang a bell, not even a tinkle.  I would think I would at least recognized a little bit the name of "a legend."