2014

Happy New Year!  I hope 2014 is happy, prosperous, and, especially, healthy for all.

I was greeted this new year by one of my favorite quotations from one of the most quotable people in history, Winston Churchill.  (He's also provided us with numerous stories worth recounting again and again.)

George Will (I know, he's a conservative, so he's a bigot and a racist....) cited this Churchillian gem:  "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  Alexander Hamilton, I'm sure, would agree with that one.

Yes, voters are ignorant, as Will notes.  Only 42% of them can identify the three branches of government.  (How do they get out of high school?)  Fewer can name their own US Senators and Congressmen/women.  I've noted, not all in jest, that more people are concerned with voting for American Idol or Dancing with the Stars than with the people who run our government.

Of course, this is frightening, that voters so ignorant choose who will determine how the rest of us (I'm assuming "us" are informed) have to live.  That's not a gross overstatement, is it?  Incandescent light bulbs, flush toilets, television sets, fast foods, large sodas, and more have been legislated on the federal or local levels to take personal choice out of our hands.  Federally-mandated gasohol (less efficient than gasoline) has driven up the price not only of corn, but all products produced or including corn.  (My grandson said he learned in school "That's everything, Grandpa.")  How far behind are the mandates about electric cars?  The feds already subsidize their purchase.  I haven't even mentioned yet taxes and taxes and taxes, the mentality that "More taxes will solve everything" (credit to The Temptations).  Yes, in far greater proportion than ever before in US history, government tells us how we must live.

Now, let me defend, in part, American voters.  First, government is far too big.  It is too removed from the imaginations of the people.  Who can fathom billions and even trillions of dollars?  Laws are now, not hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of pages long.  The legislators don't even read them.  When government was more local, Americans could more readily see the results/consequences of their votes, that is, of their elected politicians.  Second, lying by politicians has almost become a requisite quality for election. It's not called "lying," but "misspeaking" and other euphemisms to mask the dishonesty.  And, because we are so far removed from these liars, the euphemisms are more readily accepted.  How are even informed voters supposed to cast an intelligent vote when candidates lie and lie and lie?  I'm talking about members of both parties.  They lied about ObamaCare.  They lied about incandescent light bulbs.  The list seems almost endless.  And, the problem of dishonesty (or at least disingenuity) is so prevalent that voters throw up their hands and say, "What's the use?  They all lie."  Third, much of what we must do as federally-mandated, comes from unelected bureaucrats.  These pencil-pushers have often been given a free hand by the election officials, spawning a growing regulatory nation.  If the bureaucrats are not accountable to the electorate, then what's the use of being an informed electorate?

I also read an op-ed article by one who purports to be a lawyer (maybe he wasn't required to take any courses in Constitutional law?) chiming in on that Duck guy's issue.  (I've never seen the show and have no intention of seeing it.)  This supposed lawyer quotes from the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law...."  Then he goes on to say that "if A & E or any other business suspends, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee" because of his/her speech, "that is an obvious violation of the First Amendment."  He rightly then asks the obvious question, "Why?"  But then he gives the wrong answer.  It's not a "violation of the First Amendment" and he answers why, but doesn't know it.  "...if A & e or any other business...."  The First Amendment is pretty clear when it opens with "Congress shall make no law...."  Even the Supremes had to wait until the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person....") to expand freedom of speech guarantees against state intrusions--and that took 57 years!  There is no violation--legally or Constitutionally--by a private company/employer/person if the 1st Amendment's own words are taken to mean what they actually read.  Law school must not be what it used to be.

BTW, speaking of lawyers, what's with the newly-elected mayor of NYC asking Bill Clinton to due the swearing-in ceremony?  Wasn't Clinton disbarred?  Hasn't Clinton shown again and again that an oath means nothing to him?  Yet more evidence of the dumbing down of America and I'm not talking about education.

Perhaps there is a difference, but I don't see it.  Someone recently brought up that a number of states have laws that supersede living wills/trust.  That is, if a pregnant woman is on life support, being kept alive only by machines, her desire, as expressed in the living will/trust, is not followed.  The argument is that allowing the woman to die, after removal from the machines, would also kill the fetus.  Yep, I understand and favor saving/not killing the baby.  That's what some folks call a no-brainer, at least to me.  Don't kill the baby!  OK, now, how is that different from an abortion?  Many of the same people who agree with the above law also favor abortions.  I don't understand.  Unless botched, the abortion will keep the mother alive, but will kill the fetus/baby.  What's the difference?  If "a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes," (And we don't hold that to be a universal truth; note bans on drug use, prostitution, etc.) why can't she also decide she doesn't want to be kept alive on life support/machines?  Is it because if she's allowed to die, the baby also dies?  But if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, doesn't the baby die?  There must be some nuance I don't quite comprehend.