Changing the World Just a Touch
One last word about my being called "anti-God" for a recent story. I'm not going to name the reader or her location so she can't be identified: Free Weird Newsletter "Anti-? I've been reading 'This Is True' since 1997. Good grief that's 10 years!!! The only thing that I have seen that you are against is idiocy. In my opinion, that is why you added the 7 + 1 deadly sins on the back of the plastic GOOHF cards. I also have to say that when I have a knee-jerk reaction to one of your editorials or taglines, I tend to go back and read the article over to see what pushed a button. I have learned quite a bit over the last 10 years about some of my reactions." I was intrigued by that last sentence, so I replied asking, like what? She replied: "I think the one thing in particular that stands out is my reaction to the Zero Tolerance debacle. I am a trainer for the Episcopal Diocese of [my area] for Sexual Misconduct Awareness and Prevention. As a trainer, I tend to be overly alert to misconduct, and I have had to rethink some of my own training. I have also made suggestions to the Diocese about why ZT is a BAD idea -- BOUNDARIES, yes; ZT, no. The whole point of the training sessions is learning to recognize APPROPRIATE boundaries rather than extreme boundaries." I've long said that True has a dual mission: to entertain and to provoke thought. Why provoke thought? To improve the world just a bit. I appreciate the validation that it's worth the effort to try. Blog Updates
|
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Mike from Dallas on July 1, 2007:
"There is only one basic human right and that is to do as you damned well please. And with it comes the sole human resonsibility, to take the consequences." ~P.J. O'Rourke
However, I do have insurance so it's a specious argument that taxpayers pick up the tab. It's been argued that it drives up the cost of insurance for all people, but the same holds true for AIDS patients. It's already been ruled that people cannot be denied health insurance based upon their lifestyle. We could also save money on health insurance by refusing to insure skiers, mountain climbers, smokers, bicyclists (yes, there are large numbers of those who get hurt or killed each year), but it's been ruled illegal.
In the northern states, it's very popular for some people to go ice fishing. On some days, the ice is too thin and people are warned not to engage in the sport, but some do so anyway. Taxpayer resources are expended to rescue them. It's been suggested that the first time for an individual is free, even though warnings were given. The next time, that individual would be charged for any rescue. Nice idea, but it's just never gotten enough muster to become reality.
Randy, you live in the mountains where people have to be rescued from skiing accidents, getting lost in the snow, and a multitude of other similar incidents. Are any of those people charged for their rescues? Should we restrict their decisions to engage in those activities which might necessitate their rescue?
While I'm not talking about my "right" to do whatever I please, in a way I am. I'm talking about restricting the government from over-regulating each individual life under the pretext of "protection." And the nature of the government to be Big Brother comes from the human nature that each person KNOWS what's best for everyone else. Get enough of those people together, and what's "best" becomes law.
Posted by Luke in Maryland on July 17, 2007:
I agree with Mike from Dallas. It's one thing to make it a law require seatbelts & car seats for minors and those who can't protect themselves from a parent's stupidity. It's another thing entirely to not only require seatbelts for adults but then to ticket both the passenger (who failed to put on a seat belt) & the driver for failing to require the passenger to do so. The fact that Maryland actually actively searches for drivers and passengers failing to wear seatbelts in order to ticket them is Big Brother at its worst. Where does the money go? Emergency services? Of course not! It goes to make up the shortfall in the budget of the police departments so they can pay overtime to officers who are then made to work overtime on traffic duty. WOW! That really makes sense doesn't it.
Posted by Mike from Dallas on July 19, 2007:
Actually, I never meant this to be a discussion about the value of seat belts. The topic was essentially about Zero Tolerance, no decisions allowed, which is similar to the enforced mandatory seat belt laws. Yes, in America we do have the right to be stupid (except for making seat belt decisions). I can smoke like a chimney, eat cholesterol by the metric ton, enjoy sugary snacks to the point of diabetes, and drink alcohol like a fish. I can even get a license so I can drive like a fool, run into YOU and kill you, but (thanks to those who know what's best for me) I'll be safe since I was forced to wear a seat belt.