(In case you don’t know, the only ones objecting to the treaty are the three countries above — and the NRA. Nice company, huh?)
Libertarians
You have to give libertarians credit for one thing: they are consistent.
Liberals want government involvement in economics (Health care! Welfare! Regulations!) but not in individual personal choices (Gay marriage! Legal abortion! No promotion of religion!).
Conservatives want government involvement in individual personal choices (Prohibit gay marriage! No abortion! Our religion in the laws!) but not in economics (No health care! No welfare! No regulations!).
And, of course, both are completely hypocritical even in that. Liberals want to regulate all sorts of personal choices (No smoking! No unhealthy foods! No assault rifles!) and conservatives want involvement in economics (Tax breaks for corporations! Subsidies to oil companies! Government vouchers to help private schools!).
Libertarians are consistent. No government!
There aren’t a lot of true libertarians, though. After all, libertarianism is practically anarchy. Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t really.
Take someone like Rand Paul, who says big government is bad, except when it is telling women that they can’t have abortions or gays they can’t get married — or when they give our tax money to corporations.
Not that you should ever believe anything this guy says, but especially pay no attention to him when he says he is a libertarian, because he isn’t.
Editorial cartoon of the day
Obamacare is not really socialism
With Obamacare, you are forced to buy insurance.
This was the plan supported by Republicans since Bob Dole was running for President. It’s the exact same plan Romney installed in Massachusetts that he bragged about until the GOP decided it was a bad idea. They originally thought it was a great idea, because it supported insurance companies and business. It promoted capitalism. It was the exact opposite of socialism, where the government provides the service.
Many of these same Republicans (well, at least the ones who have no morals about being completely inconsistent in their views) are now screaming against this terrible form of “socialism”.
Damn, I wish it was socialism. A “medicare for all” system would solve a ton of the problems Obamacare brings and allow us to better spread the costs over all Americans while at the same time getting rid of a middle-man (insurance companies) that provide no health care whatsoever. What a savings that would be.
But no. Obama caved in to the Republicans in order to get their vote and then didn’t get it anyway, which will be regarded as one of his administration’s biggest mistakes.
So go ahead and criticize Obamacare. (I certainly do; I wish it could be better.) But please — don’t look stupid by calling it “socialism”, OK?
(And now, a disclaimer: If you define socialism so broadly as to include any government regulation whatsoever, then Obamacare is socialism in the same way laws requiring you to get a license for your dog is socialism. But you and I both know that’s not what critics mean when they make that stupid argument.)
Editorial cartoon of the day
The stupidest argument against gay marriage
There are many stupid arguments against gay marriage. In fact, most of them are stupid, especially since there are no good arguments against it.
But the one that has to take the cake is the one that an actual lawyer argued last week before — get this — the United States Supreme Court.
“Marriage has to be between only men and women because, you know, kids. Gays can’t make kids and so their marriage can’t be real.”
How bad do your legal arguments have to be if you’re relying on that? Or, alternatively, how bad of a lawyer must you be?
And how much of an insult is that to people like me and my wife, happily married now for 30 years and childless by choice? What, our marriage isn’t real? It’s not legitimate?
Fortunately, there are some actual smart people on the Supreme Court who are very good at cutting through this bullshit. Let’s all hope they can get through the heads of the bigots that are there, too.
Editorial cartoon of the day
They eat horses, don’t they?
I see a lot of outrage lately about horses being used in meat.
I do understand the outrage in one respect — If you think you are buying beef and find out that it’s not, you have every right to be mad. That’s just fraud.
But on the other hand, I don’t quite understand how some people can get tremendously upset about certain animals being used for meat and not others. These people cry about cruelty to dogs or horses being used for meat while they’re happily downing their steaks and pork.
Why is it cruel to eat some animals but perfectly fine to eat others?
Editorial cartoon of the day
Listening to experts
Doctor: “Based on my examination of you and my experience, I can say with a degree of professional accuracy that you have the flu.”
Patient: “Thank you, doctor, you obviously know best.”
Auto Mechanic: “I’ve been studying cars for years and know them backwards and forwards, and can say without fear of error that the problem is the starter.”
Car Owner: “You certainly know your work better than I do.”
Lawyer: “I’ve spent years getting my law degree, studying the Constitution and the laws and taking constant continuing education classes. I can say with certainty, having studied the cases and history, that the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd amendment is not absolute and reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use are perfectly Constitutional.”
Citizen: “Oh yeah? What do you know? I know that the exact opposite is true and there’s nothing you can say that will change my mind.”
That was something I posted on my Facebook page a few months ago that generated a bit of conversation (including notice from my US Representative who “liked” it).
Some folks tried to read more into this than was intended. I am not saying that every “expert” is always right, or that you should never question authority — far from it. My point was that when you personally have little or no knowledge of something, paying attention to an expert is not a bad thing. And disagreeing without having any evidence to support your view won’t get you far.
Doing some research, educating yourself, and presenting an argument based on facts is different. It is certainly possible to make yourself into someone knowledgeable.
However, discounting an expert’s opinion simply because he or she disagrees with you doesn’t seem like the best way to win an argument.
Note that disagreeing with what the law is is not the same as denying the law exists. There are lots of laws I disagree with. I think laws denying gays the right to marry should be declared unconstitutional, in my opinion. But they currently are not.
My problem is when I say “Here is what the current law on the Constitution is” and have someone respond “No it isn’t” and be absolutely wrong and unwilling to accept that. Currently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment allows for individual ownership of guns but also that this right is not absolute. That’s the law. There should be no debate over that. It’s clear cut and in black and white for anyone to read. When gun lovers say “Nuh uh! The 2nd amendment is absolute!” they are merely giving their opinion and are, therefore, wrong. They’re as wrong as people who deny that evolution is real simply because it goes against what they personally want.
I guess, in a roundabout way, I’m agreeing with Isaac Asimov: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
ventrellaquest.com 