You hear it from the "news" media everytime there is a major Tea Party rally, or even in the case of last weekends Restoring Honor rally in Washington...the snide comments about how "white" such gatherings are. (My favorite insult from this weekend: The frequent references to the Restoring Honor rally as "Whitestock"). Setting aside the absurd notion generated by the Left that no endeavor can be seen as legitimate unless certain percentages of all ethnic groups and sexual orientations are present (one must wonder if some Liberal parents go through the guest list of their 5-year old's birthday party to make sure there is a certain percentage of black children, a certain percentage of Hispanic children, a certain percentage of Asian children, a certain percentage of Indian children, a certain percentage of gay children---wait, does that even exist?--a certain number of female children, and not too many white children. Oh, and they have to make sure there's enough cake in case an illegal immigrant children show up unannounced--after all, they're just coming by because they don't have yummy cake at their house. Of course, they could just make it easy and invite their kids actual, you know, friends...but wouldn't that be a bit culturally insensitive?), let us ask the question, Should the modern Conservatives be blamed for the lack of participation in the emerging and re-branded modern Conservative movement?
We have seen ad nauseum the isolated racist signs and placards that showed up at some of the first Tea Party rallies in small numbers. While the "Lamestream Media" (thanks, Sarah!) continues to report these incidents as though they are current instead of the old news that they are, the fact is that the fringe racist elements are long gone from the New Right. You don't see racist signs or rhetoric at your neighborhood Tea Party rally these days, and I personally have seen situations where people tried to show up as such rallies with objectionable signs and demonstrative elements, and were abrubtly and unapologetically turned away at the gate. So the knee-jerk explanation that minorities are not participating in Conservatism because the Right is sensitive to and inclusive of racist elements simply doesn't hold water to anyone who has honestly examined the facts as they stand in 2010.
So if it's not the racism (overblown and isolated as it was all along), then what is the problem? Are we on the Right somehow not including or encouraging like-minded minorities to participate alongside us? I don't believe so. Just the other day, I was speaking with a Liberal friend who remarked "Every time a black person shows up at a Tea Party, you all rush them on stage and put a camera in their face!" Now, that is certainly an exaggeration--but on some level there is a thread of truth to it. If I'm honest about it, I believe that most people within the Conservative movement today actually *are* a bit sensitive to the race-baiting that comes from the Left in terms of the Tea Parties. And while it would be folly to bend over backwards and simply react to whatever the whims of the "news" media are at the moment, I do believe that most of us look for situations where we can highlight those strong-minded people within our movement who happen to be minorities. We know that showcasing a strong Black or Hispanic Conservative flies in the face of the narrative that the media has used against us for years--and completely deflates the biggest criticism that is routinely launched in our direction. At most any Tea Party or Conservative rally you go to, you are almost sure to see at least one speaker of minority persuasion (and make no mistake, there is an emerging group of strong young Conservatives who are beginning to make their voices heard these days. Here are two of many examples--Alonzo Rachel: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction , Kevin Jackson: http://theblacksphere.net/ )
So, if the racism is non-existent, and we're not only welcoming minorities into the movement, but are doing all we can to highlight and showcase those minorities and their voices, then why aren't more minorities flocking to the New Right in droves?
The answer is not pleasant. It is also not simple. It is also an answer that involves giving some back-handed credit to the Left and the Democratic Party. For over a half century, the Left in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--have pursued a cohesive strategy of convincing minorities (particularly African-Americans) that they are victims, and just can't make it in "unjust" American society without help from the government. Make no mistake, this strategy--appalling to any reasonable person as it is--has been wildly succesful for the Democrats. Whether we're talking about Affirmative Action, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" (which has cost us more money than any actual war ever has), the demands for "justice" from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even the community agitating of a young Barack Obama, the message has always been consistent--you are a "victim", and simply cannot make it without our (meaning the government, funded by "evil racist rich people") well-meaning assistance. The result--quite tragically--has been a significant percentage of people across multiple minority groups that are comfortable living off the government teet, with no desire or willingness to get off their duff and compete for a life of their own, using the talents and capabilities given to them by God.
The lowering of expectations, ambition, and responsibility perpetrated by the Democratic Party in the minority community through the 20th Century has destroyed countless human potential. While such a long-term political strategy whould have been viewed for as patronizing, insulting, and even racist towards African-Americans, the American Left must be given...well, maybe "credit" isn't the right word...but at least acknowledged for delivering such a message in a manner which has resulted in multiple generations of minorities (at least a significant percentage of them) buying this toxic ideology hook, line, and sinker. American minorities have been "Punk'd" by the Democratic party, and as a result, many within these communities do not see the need, nor have the desire for personal achievement, to pursue a different path than the destructive one provided to them by the Left. Quite bluntly, if you want to know who has destroyed the inner cities, who has torn apart the Black Families, and who has turned the African-American community into a shell of everything it could (and should) be...you can look no further than the American Left.
When you consider that the clear message of the New Right is a message of limited government, individual responisibility and opportunity, and a rejection of the "cultural victim" ideals of the Left, it is somewhat understandable that we would have some difficulty gaining traction within minority America, given how the American Left has turned Minority-Americans (is that even a real hyphanated-American term?) against their own best interests. Hence, why so few minorities are showing up at Conservative gatherings. However, I sincerly believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see minorities who are seeing (and speaking out against) the last 50 years of Liberal dominance in the minority community and the destruction it has caused. These minorities--small in number, but loud in voice--are beginning to gravitate towards the New Right. As more minorities begin to see the lie that the Left has sold to them for several generations, they will be looking for a message that offers REAL hope...not the "hope" that comes from extended unemployement benefits or unchecked illegal immigration, but the hope that comes from having the freedom to pursue your best interests without having to concern yourself with the alleged best interests of "society". We on the New Right espouse this message, and we are welcoming these minorites, we are encouraging them, and we are showcasing them. Our doors are open to all minorities who have discovered (or are just now in the process of discovering) the truth of the last 50 years.
So to answer the question we posed at the beginning of this post--It is not the Conservatives that are to blame for the lack of minority participation in Conservatism. It is, instead, the fault of the American Left, and to an extent, also the fault of those members of the minority community who do not wish to pursue a fate other than lifetime dependance on the government. To those minorites who do not fit this category--those who with to use their talents and gifts for the betterment of themselves and their families intead of the betterment of a government who only wishes to make minorities dependant upon them--thereby controlling you...you have a home in the New Right. The Left sees you as African-American, or a Hispanic-American, or as an Asian-American, and they want you to believe that you are limited in your potential for achievement by your status as a "victim"...but the Right sees you as an American, period. No hyphens necessary. And we believe that you are not limited in your potential for achievement, because of your status as an AMERICAN.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Key Conservative Concept #2: "Fairness" and "Equality" are not interchageable terms
The words "equality" and "fairness" are tossed around--seemingly without a second thought--by the Left in almost every speech, soundbite, and debate that they have, whatever the issue might be. Equality and fairness are laudible goals--so we are told--that should be at the center of all legislative decisions.
But are these terms synomyms? Is fairness truly equitable? Is equality truly fair? Are these terms truly interchangeable?
First, let's consider what is meant by each term. For the term "Equality", WordNet Search defines the term in two ways--first "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status", and secondly, as "a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced". On the face of it, those sound like laudible ideas--but is a goal of "equality" as defined either by constant sameness in measure of value, or a state of being equally balanced, truly something worthwhile for a society to aspire to? Think about that for a second...we'll come back to that question a bit later.
Now, let's consider the definition of "fairness". Wikipedia defines fairness as "The property of being fair". Um...ok...so that definition really told us nothing. So let's look back to our childhood and think of how many of us learned the concept of "fairness", through play, games, and sports. If you remember back to your childhood, a "fair" game or contest was one in which everybody played by the same rules and conditions. The the idea was that such a "fair" environment would give the best chance of winning to the person or team who played better on the day. When you played baseball, both teams get nine innings at bat. Would if be fair to give an inferior team 15 innings at bat, while restricting a superior team to only nine innings? Ceratainly not. When you played football, was an inferior team only required to make five yards for a first down, while a better team had to gain the full ten yards? Of course not.
In any truly fair competition, inequalities will naturally develop--those who play better, are more talented, and/or work harder will develop advantages within the context of the competition. Fast forwarding out of childhood and into adulthood, it stands to reason that if people are allowed to perform, develop, and work to extent that their talents and capabilities allow, then inequalities will natrually develop. Those who perform better in life will have a higher liklihood of "winning", those who don't perform as well will be less likely to "win" in the game of life. Because human beings are not created with equal amounts of talent, intelligence, drive, work ethic, or any number of other factors, human beings cannot expect to end up with equivalent results in a truly fair environment. Instead, a truly fair environment should see the "best and the brightest" have more success (and, by extension, more money and property, which are how human beings measure success, or "keep score") than others within society.
So now let's re-examine the concept of equality. The concept, as we defined earlier, is strictly about a numeric sameness. It does not take into account performace, work ethic, talent, or drive. Equality doesn't care who performed better or why, it simply takes from those with more natural ability (or from those who have less natural ability but have found a way to get more out of it), and gives to those who don't play "the game of life" as well. To pursue equality in this manner punishes success (and punishes all that leads to that success--the concepts of hard work, ingenuity, and drive) while rewarding failure. If you were playing any game, and you knew that no matter how many points you scored, the referee would simply end the game in a tie no matter what, then how hard would you try? How hard would you compete? Would you truly have anything to gain by playing your best game? I would think not.
So you see that "equality" is actually an unfair concept at it's core. Yet, the American Left bases much of their political philosophy around the concept of equality. How many times does the Left talk about taxing the rich at a higher rate than the rest of the population? While doing so might approach "equality", it certainly isn't "fair". Should those who can afford Health Care be forced to pay for those who cannot? In terms of fairness, the answer should be no-- because doing so rewards those who have not worked and sacrificed to become succesful while punishing those who have.
Much of Liberalism is about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. However, what Liberalism doesn't take into account is that there are some very good--and very fair--reasons why the "haves" have what they do, and the "have nots" don't.
The next time you hear a politician (usually a Liberal) talking about equality, your ears should now perk up...because you now realize that the politician in question is attempting to use the flawed concept of "equality" to foster an environment that is absolutely unfair.
But are these terms synomyms? Is fairness truly equitable? Is equality truly fair? Are these terms truly interchangeable?
First, let's consider what is meant by each term. For the term "Equality", WordNet Search defines the term in two ways--first "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status", and secondly, as "a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced". On the face of it, those sound like laudible ideas--but is a goal of "equality" as defined either by constant sameness in measure of value, or a state of being equally balanced, truly something worthwhile for a society to aspire to? Think about that for a second...we'll come back to that question a bit later.
Now, let's consider the definition of "fairness". Wikipedia defines fairness as "The property of being fair". Um...ok...so that definition really told us nothing. So let's look back to our childhood and think of how many of us learned the concept of "fairness", through play, games, and sports. If you remember back to your childhood, a "fair" game or contest was one in which everybody played by the same rules and conditions. The the idea was that such a "fair" environment would give the best chance of winning to the person or team who played better on the day. When you played baseball, both teams get nine innings at bat. Would if be fair to give an inferior team 15 innings at bat, while restricting a superior team to only nine innings? Ceratainly not. When you played football, was an inferior team only required to make five yards for a first down, while a better team had to gain the full ten yards? Of course not.
In any truly fair competition, inequalities will naturally develop--those who play better, are more talented, and/or work harder will develop advantages within the context of the competition. Fast forwarding out of childhood and into adulthood, it stands to reason that if people are allowed to perform, develop, and work to extent that their talents and capabilities allow, then inequalities will natrually develop. Those who perform better in life will have a higher liklihood of "winning", those who don't perform as well will be less likely to "win" in the game of life. Because human beings are not created with equal amounts of talent, intelligence, drive, work ethic, or any number of other factors, human beings cannot expect to end up with equivalent results in a truly fair environment. Instead, a truly fair environment should see the "best and the brightest" have more success (and, by extension, more money and property, which are how human beings measure success, or "keep score") than others within society.
So now let's re-examine the concept of equality. The concept, as we defined earlier, is strictly about a numeric sameness. It does not take into account performace, work ethic, talent, or drive. Equality doesn't care who performed better or why, it simply takes from those with more natural ability (or from those who have less natural ability but have found a way to get more out of it), and gives to those who don't play "the game of life" as well. To pursue equality in this manner punishes success (and punishes all that leads to that success--the concepts of hard work, ingenuity, and drive) while rewarding failure. If you were playing any game, and you knew that no matter how many points you scored, the referee would simply end the game in a tie no matter what, then how hard would you try? How hard would you compete? Would you truly have anything to gain by playing your best game? I would think not.
So you see that "equality" is actually an unfair concept at it's core. Yet, the American Left bases much of their political philosophy around the concept of equality. How many times does the Left talk about taxing the rich at a higher rate than the rest of the population? While doing so might approach "equality", it certainly isn't "fair". Should those who can afford Health Care be forced to pay for those who cannot? In terms of fairness, the answer should be no-- because doing so rewards those who have not worked and sacrificed to become succesful while punishing those who have.
Much of Liberalism is about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. However, what Liberalism doesn't take into account is that there are some very good--and very fair--reasons why the "haves" have what they do, and the "have nots" don't.
The next time you hear a politician (usually a Liberal) talking about equality, your ears should now perk up...because you now realize that the politician in question is attempting to use the flawed concept of "equality" to foster an environment that is absolutely unfair.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
CWG's Key Conservative Concept #1: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
With this post we begin going through each of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts" in detail. For those of you who somehow missed my last post (Bad Reader!!!! I'm going to have to smack you with a rolled up newspaper!) here is a reminder of my 12 Key Concepts of Conservatism:
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. "Equality" and "Fairness" are not synonyms...these terms CANNOT be used interchangeably.
3. Success should be encouraged, not vilified.
4. When I choose to help somebody, it is charity. When the government forces me to "help" somebody, it is theft. Robin Hood was not someone to be admired, he was a thief to be brought to justice.
5. America is, by and large, a pretty good place. American Culture is, far and away, the greatest culture in all of human history.
6. You are your own Leader.
7. Politicians are human too--which is exactly why limited government is preferable.
8. I don't care what you do in your bedroom--but I do care when you expose my kids to it.
9. The Needs, Goals, and Desires of the individual are infinitely more important than the Needs, Goals, and Desires of any perceived "Community".
10. The truth hurts...but is beneficial for us in the long run (which is why Political Correctness is extremely destructive)
11. War is Hell...and it is also very necessary at key points in history.
12. It takes a village to raise an idiot--it takes a family to raise a child.
Today, we focus on #1: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Some of you may have heard that phrase before, for others of you (namely, those of you who grew up on the East Coast...you poor, tortured souls), you likely have never heard it. Where I'm from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a common colloquilism that refers to situations where a well meaning (but generally clueless) person will make a grand effort to "improve" something that is already functioning well to begin with. It is the concept of re-building or re-working something (and usually with an end goal that is only marginally better than the status quo) that was humming along fine--putting a lot of effort into changing something that really doesn't need to be changed. The end result of these "efforts" is usually that a problem ends up being created where none existed before.
Even if you've never heard the phrase, you undoubtedly have seen situations similar to these...it could be the new, energetic boss who tries to completly re-work the department upon his arrival, despite the department being profitable and efficient before his arrival. It could be the mother-in-law who insists that the way you fix pot roast is all wrong (despite the fact that your husband actually likes your pot roast), and insists that you do it her way--which only ends up tasting like rubber. It's your buddy who thinks he can "correct" your stance at the bowling alley, even though you do better than he does in your weekly bowling league.
Since we see the destructiveness of people in everyday life trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, it stands to reason that a rationally-thinking person would not want a government that would run around "fixing" things just for the sake of taking credit for having done so. Certainly, there will be some things that are legitimately "broken" and that a government will have to address (though there is certainly plenty of debate what type of issues that the government should have a right to address versus those issues that should be of no concern to the government). However, we seem to see a consistent message from the Left that constant change is a positive, even necessary thing. In fact, the canadacy of Barack Obama was based on little more than this vague idea of "Change".
Change that is truly for the better is a good thing...but "change for no apparent reason" (which I suspect was the original Obama campaign slogan before his handlers shortened it because "poor people and young people don't like lots of words") is a destructive and horrible concept that should be avoided.
The preferred role of government could be compared to that of a good sports referee. There's an old saying among officials that "you did a good job if the game ends, and nobody remembers you". This is to say that a good official in any sport will make the calls that they must make (calling those infractions which have a direct and obvious impact on play), but should not bog down the game by calling every ticky-tack foul they see. A good official gives some leeway and "let's the boys play". In fact, in the National Hockey League, there was an old axiom that in the third period and overtime, referees would "keep the whistle in the pocket"--only calling penalties that were so egregious that they couldn't be ignored, and otherwise allowing the players to police themselves. The NHL referees knew that the game wasn't about them, it was about the players...and they wanted to make sure that those players were the determining factor in the result of the game if at all possible.
On the other hand, take this summer's World Cup soccer final between Spain and Holland. A game that was over-officiated from the start, in which the referee called every foul he saw in the first half, and issued yellow cards to nearly half of the Dutch team. And on the rare occasions that Spain would try to man up and deliver some physicality back at the Dutch, our esteemed ref was right there to interfere and keep it from happening (though, in fairness, you don't have to ask the Spanish to shy away from physical play more than once...diving pansies that Spain are). The result was a second half where both teams were walking on eggshells, more concerned with the officiating than with doing what was necessary to win the biggest prize in soccer. In the end, a tough, physical team lost because of the officiating to a side that had much less physical toughness, and who was only too eager to hide behind the referee's skirt...erm, I mean, whistle. On the Monday morning after the match, talk around water coolers the world over centered on two things: 1) Geez, was that final boring as Hell and 2) That referee just wouldn't stay the fuck out of the picture--which is why the game degenerated into a boring foul-fest.
So which style should government emulate, an old-school NHL style of allowing the players (which, in terms of society, are each and every one of us) to determine the winners and losers, or a style like that of the World Cup Final, where the referee's (or, in terms of comparison, the government's) whims are the overriding factor determining victory.
To a true Conservative, the answer is the former--we believe that most of the time, humans have the ablility to respond to and handle life's challenges without relying on the government to fight our daily battles for us. We believe that most of lifes problems are better solved by ordinary people making the decisions that are best for their longevity and livlihood (economists have a name for this phenomena...they call it the "free market"). We remember that back when we were kids, problems on the playground were not solved by running to the teacher, but instead by facing them head on and taking care of them (in other words, knock the bully on his ass one time and you don't have any more "bully problems"...but go to the teacher and you'll guarantee yourself an entire school year of ass-kickings), things really haven't changed much since then.
I don't need a government to take care of what I can take care of on my own. I don't need them to make decisions for me that I am fully capable of making. If "change" is needed in my life, I'm intelligent enough to make those changes myself, and man enough to follow through with them. I don't need a government to tell me to buy health insurance, or what to eat, or what kind of lightbulbs to buy...I'm a college graduate, I can handle those things on my own, thank you very much.
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. "Equality" and "Fairness" are not synonyms...these terms CANNOT be used interchangeably.
3. Success should be encouraged, not vilified.
4. When I choose to help somebody, it is charity. When the government forces me to "help" somebody, it is theft. Robin Hood was not someone to be admired, he was a thief to be brought to justice.
5. America is, by and large, a pretty good place. American Culture is, far and away, the greatest culture in all of human history.
6. You are your own Leader.
7. Politicians are human too--which is exactly why limited government is preferable.
8. I don't care what you do in your bedroom--but I do care when you expose my kids to it.
9. The Needs, Goals, and Desires of the individual are infinitely more important than the Needs, Goals, and Desires of any perceived "Community".
10. The truth hurts...but is beneficial for us in the long run (which is why Political Correctness is extremely destructive)
11. War is Hell...and it is also very necessary at key points in history.
12. It takes a village to raise an idiot--it takes a family to raise a child.
Today, we focus on #1: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Some of you may have heard that phrase before, for others of you (namely, those of you who grew up on the East Coast...you poor, tortured souls), you likely have never heard it. Where I'm from, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a common colloquilism that refers to situations where a well meaning (but generally clueless) person will make a grand effort to "improve" something that is already functioning well to begin with. It is the concept of re-building or re-working something (and usually with an end goal that is only marginally better than the status quo) that was humming along fine--putting a lot of effort into changing something that really doesn't need to be changed. The end result of these "efforts" is usually that a problem ends up being created where none existed before.
Even if you've never heard the phrase, you undoubtedly have seen situations similar to these...it could be the new, energetic boss who tries to completly re-work the department upon his arrival, despite the department being profitable and efficient before his arrival. It could be the mother-in-law who insists that the way you fix pot roast is all wrong (despite the fact that your husband actually likes your pot roast), and insists that you do it her way--which only ends up tasting like rubber. It's your buddy who thinks he can "correct" your stance at the bowling alley, even though you do better than he does in your weekly bowling league.
Since we see the destructiveness of people in everyday life trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, it stands to reason that a rationally-thinking person would not want a government that would run around "fixing" things just for the sake of taking credit for having done so. Certainly, there will be some things that are legitimately "broken" and that a government will have to address (though there is certainly plenty of debate what type of issues that the government should have a right to address versus those issues that should be of no concern to the government). However, we seem to see a consistent message from the Left that constant change is a positive, even necessary thing. In fact, the canadacy of Barack Obama was based on little more than this vague idea of "Change".
Change that is truly for the better is a good thing...but "change for no apparent reason" (which I suspect was the original Obama campaign slogan before his handlers shortened it because "poor people and young people don't like lots of words") is a destructive and horrible concept that should be avoided.
The preferred role of government could be compared to that of a good sports referee. There's an old saying among officials that "you did a good job if the game ends, and nobody remembers you". This is to say that a good official in any sport will make the calls that they must make (calling those infractions which have a direct and obvious impact on play), but should not bog down the game by calling every ticky-tack foul they see. A good official gives some leeway and "let's the boys play". In fact, in the National Hockey League, there was an old axiom that in the third period and overtime, referees would "keep the whistle in the pocket"--only calling penalties that were so egregious that they couldn't be ignored, and otherwise allowing the players to police themselves. The NHL referees knew that the game wasn't about them, it was about the players...and they wanted to make sure that those players were the determining factor in the result of the game if at all possible.
On the other hand, take this summer's World Cup soccer final between Spain and Holland. A game that was over-officiated from the start, in which the referee called every foul he saw in the first half, and issued yellow cards to nearly half of the Dutch team. And on the rare occasions that Spain would try to man up and deliver some physicality back at the Dutch, our esteemed ref was right there to interfere and keep it from happening (though, in fairness, you don't have to ask the Spanish to shy away from physical play more than once...diving pansies that Spain are). The result was a second half where both teams were walking on eggshells, more concerned with the officiating than with doing what was necessary to win the biggest prize in soccer. In the end, a tough, physical team lost because of the officiating to a side that had much less physical toughness, and who was only too eager to hide behind the referee's skirt...erm, I mean, whistle. On the Monday morning after the match, talk around water coolers the world over centered on two things: 1) Geez, was that final boring as Hell and 2) That referee just wouldn't stay the fuck out of the picture--which is why the game degenerated into a boring foul-fest.
So which style should government emulate, an old-school NHL style of allowing the players (which, in terms of society, are each and every one of us) to determine the winners and losers, or a style like that of the World Cup Final, where the referee's (or, in terms of comparison, the government's) whims are the overriding factor determining victory.
To a true Conservative, the answer is the former--we believe that most of the time, humans have the ablility to respond to and handle life's challenges without relying on the government to fight our daily battles for us. We believe that most of lifes problems are better solved by ordinary people making the decisions that are best for their longevity and livlihood (economists have a name for this phenomena...they call it the "free market"). We remember that back when we were kids, problems on the playground were not solved by running to the teacher, but instead by facing them head on and taking care of them (in other words, knock the bully on his ass one time and you don't have any more "bully problems"...but go to the teacher and you'll guarantee yourself an entire school year of ass-kickings), things really haven't changed much since then.
I don't need a government to take care of what I can take care of on my own. I don't need them to make decisions for me that I am fully capable of making. If "change" is needed in my life, I'm intelligent enough to make those changes myself, and man enough to follow through with them. I don't need a government to tell me to buy health insurance, or what to eat, or what kind of lightbulbs to buy...I'm a college graduate, I can handle those things on my own, thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)