Does it Track?

The government needs more power.

If the government had more power, then they would be able to work EVEN MORE magic than they already do. A smaller government would decrease their power to give us all this fabulousity.

Size is so important to Our Government as to be omnipotent. There is a war on. That means we need a military. We need to protect ourself against the enemy. The enemy is called ‘terrorism’. Since our enemy has neither a face nor a place, military spending must be unlimited. That is the only way to ever rid the world of all the evil that just might be coming out of your neighbor’s stereo system at this very moment.

Healthcare: Since everyone needs healthcare, the government simply needs to increase spending in order to regulate more insurance (thereby creating more pharmaceutical outlets) enabling everyone to be on drugs: If you are 5 and figity, you are ADD. Ritilin or some other wonderful drug for children will be put into the General Consensus Soup, spilling out onto our playgrounds and coursing through our public school systems. This will eventually create a need for psychiatrists at every school, justifying even still yet more money for bigger government.

The bigger, better – new and improved – larger government is welcomed as an increased benefit for taxpayers. The monstrous vats and coffers required to pool, skim, and subsidize our increased needs are demanded by the voters.

Here’s the sales pitch: Until the government gets close to 90% of all the wealth in this country, it will just not be able to operate properly. (And I have only begun to touch on some of the expensive stuff.)

Is it just us, or is this Government tailor-made for an ailing country?

People are as healthy as they are un-medicated. Whenever pharmaceuticals increase, populations become less healthy. The current healthcare system is to thank for our medication dependence and subsequent decrease in overall health.

Not to be outdone, our government wants a piece of the action.

Enter: Obamacare. Once this kicks in, more and more medicated people from all walks of life will be wandering aimlessly in hospital corridors waiting to be given their latest prescription, enabling the pharmaceutical company profits to skyrocket even further. The moment Obamacare reduces pharmaceutical use in the USA, I will bow, and insist everyone else does the same.

Any idea needs to follow a line of reasoning which makes sense throughout. Ideas need to ‘track’. For example: if you go to the doctor and you are healthy, you don’t come away with a prescription do you? Imagine your doctor saying: “Hey, everything is great. Just fantastic! I am going to put you on these meds… just to make sure that doesn’t change.”

Does it track: Does this seem to track with your experience? How many people do you know who are on one med, and one ONLY? The argument that ‘we are living longer’ is paid for by the system that administers these drugs. Yes we are living longer, but – – is that really because of all the 90-somethings scoffing down 17 prescriptions a day?

Increasing the time before life expires does not increase the life modern medicine has managed to sustain.

The internet is fabulous for those who use it properly. However, what is ‘proper’ is completely unregulated by government. Am I the only one who believes hard-core pornography shouldn’t be instantaneously accessible to anyone with internet access? The Government has done nothing to crack down on free internet pornography, but not to worry: they do keep tabs on all we do here.

While I can’t fathom the internet was invented to allow the government to keep tabs on all of us, what a spectacularly invasive Governmental Glom! Henry Ford never created the automobile with the idea of restricting our freedom, but that is what a ‘motor vehicle’ does. Unregistered ‘freedom’ likely results in large financial penalties, or even jail time. Any perceived freedom comes at a cost far greater than your registration, or the gas at the pump, or the plane ticket.

In the 21st century, your movement costs you your freedom.

Our government doesn’t need to design invasive entities. They need only to regulate the inventions. This allows their Orwellian Fingers to grope every skin-tag in our lives. You can’t buy your way out, either. The more money you have, the more invasive technology pervades your life. Poor people are just too damn hard to track. Why do you suppose that is?

ABORT THE MISSION: The abortion issue is easy if you don’t care about life. I think parents should have the right to abort their child when they are in Middle School: “Sorry, son. Your mother and I have been reevaluating. On second thought, forget your mother… I have been reevaluating.”

Look at the News: Fox News gets a bad rap. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, and all the other forms of information gleaned from a source called ‘media’ are controlled by the same corporations. As a result, news programs are largely responsible for dumbing down America. Interestingly, the most reliable source of information is the internet – – which (overall) has a lower reliability than the media outlets. (It’s a quantity thing).

Behind the scenes, our Democratic President is mucking up our country.

‘Say one thing, do another,’ is the battlecry of politics. ‘The people will fight our battles for us. We can just sit here in Washington lapping up champange with the opposing party.’ True partisanship is in the college electorate. A candidates speech defines their beliefs as much as William Shatner’s world view is defined by the words he uttered on Star Trek.

Before you pull the levers, do some research. I am not talking about the issues themselves. The issues are just ‘talking points’ designed to make the pavlovian electorate drool with common conviction. Real research comes from finding the funding filling the campaign trail coffers. You can’t be The American Cancer Society and have a great deal of funding come from Philip Morris… can you?

I like Ron Paul, but this is his swan song. The enormous funding sources aren’t interested in someone they can’t control. He means what he says, and nobody is going to fund that disaster. Where does his campaign money come from? (Hint: it’s not Big Business.)

The words spoken by politicians don’t reflect who they are, and what they believe. Politicians on the campaign trail only utter what they believe will get the vote. Why else would every elected president be full of promises which pop like bubble wrap? A few years later they hold up their tattered bubble-wrapped promises, and point to the two (intact) bubbles – the promises kept – stating, “I keep my promises.” While farcical, it rings of truth, right at election time. (Ain’t that a coincidence?)

Ayn Rand. George Carlin. Frank Zappa. They were the last of the true free thinkers. I don’t know of anyone alive who gives me confidence in the future of our society. America has become a sloth of sedentary beings – operating on pre-packaged ideas – fueled, funneled and funded by the government.

Happy voting!

Advertisements

5 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. cp
    Sep 24, 2011 @ 18:20:43

    I’d like to include Pete Seeger with Zappa and Carlin

    Reply

  2. Minerva Serro
    Jan 11, 2012 @ 20:21:01

    “ABORT THE MISSION: The abortion issue is easy if you don’t care about life. I think parents should have the right to abort their child when they are in Middle School: “Sorry, son. Your mother and I have been reevaluating. On second thought, forget your mother… I have been reevaluating.”

    So true! Wonderful article, loved it! 🙂

    Reply

  3. Ed Darrell
    Mar 20, 2012 @ 17:28:06

    The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, and all the other forms of information gleaned from a source called ‘media’ are controlled by the same corporations.

    Four outlets, three completely different corporations. Yeah, there are some big newspaper chains, but you don’t even touch them here. Gannett, Scripps League, Scripps Howard, McClatchy — four more corporations.

    One corporation? No. “The same corporations?” No. What it the world were you trying to say?

    Reply

    • arthuriandaily
      Mar 23, 2012 @ 10:32:39

      Ed: Do you see completely different takes on our news information? Do you see one news source totally contradict another?

      I have yet to see that, barring a political stance.

      Either our news sources are completely reliable, and our government does wonderful things (although the other side might be needed for our government to show how wonderful they really are,) or the news sources are fed consistent information.

      Consistency within varying news organizations is either:

      1.) Competency or
      2.) regurgitation of spoon fed information.

      Reply

  4. Ed Darrell
    Mar 24, 2012 @ 17:29:41

    Do you see completely different takes on our news information? Do you see one news source totally contradict another?

    All the time. Sometimes one has made an error, sometimes they have different sources. I suspect you don’t read widely enough to see this, but I see it all the time. Used to see it more when I consumed newspapers in bulk.

    Track stories on local stuff, say in the area between Baltimore and Washington, in the Washington Post versus the Baltimore Sun. Two great newspapers, two often contradictory reads.

    And especially on political stuff, you can often find contradictory articles in the same paper, on the same page. Most good newspapers do that intentionally, to present opposing views so that people get different perspectives, to make better judgments. David Brooks, our greatest current conservative columnist, writes for the New York Times opposite Maureen Dowd and others.

    Completely different takes on news information is a hallmark of a good newspaper. If you’re not seeing it, you’re watching way, way too much Fox News.

    I have yet to see that, barring a political stance.

    Way, way too much Fox News, as I said.

    Either our news sources are completely reliable, and our government does wonderful things (although the other side might be needed for our government to show how wonderful they really are,) or the news sources are fed consistent information.

    Or our news sources are very good, reliable most of the time, but sometimes make errors due to deadlines or in some other way just missing the full picture, or other error. Our major news sources don’t take “fed” information. The networks write and broadcast their own take on what happens at the White House, or in Congress, without accepting anything at face value.

    If there is some consistency between the very conservative Dallas Morning News, the conservative Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the slightly more liberal Boston Globe and the very conservative Arizona Republic, it’s more likely that the facts of the story go the way you see them in all of those publications. You assume conspiracy if the papers report the same thing, but if it rained on Thursday afternoon, it doesn’t take a weatherman nor a Weather Underground conspiracy to get the story. Fox News may report it did not rain, but why in the world would anyone believe them?

    Consistency within varying news organizations is either:

    1.) Competency or
    2.) regurgitation of spoon fed information.

    Consistency between varying news organizations probably reflects the ability of good writers to get the facts right, in different stories, in different cities, in different outlets.

    Over the years, conservative bias turns up more than any other. Rachel Carson was raked over the coals for her accurate reporting of problems with chemicals, in Silent Spring. After all, who could doubt Dow Chemical and Monsanto? Over the years a few people have gotten more skeptical — but Monsanto’s RoundUp is still a huge seller as an herbicide, despite a lot of clear scientific information against it. In the morning ag reports farmers can hear where to buy the latest seed from Monsanto; in the science reports on PBS you can hear the problems with Monsanto’s seeds. Directly opposite reporting, nearly every day.

    I think the problem is readers and listeners who lack the capacity to make valid decisions from the information presented.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: