Lessons from the middle III: 1/4 cup less crazy; 2 cups more content

In my continuing series of "Lessons from the middle" I've previously offered advice to both liberals and conservatives. In this bit of continuing education, I once again offer advice to those right of the center line. In this particular bit I refer to government health care. But as always: I beg you to generalize. It's about so much more than that.

Now I feel I should offer a few disclaimers right up front, just so I don't blind side you or mislead you. First off, I am vehemently opposed to any form of government run health care. (Remember: generalize.) I will also offend you by saying I am NOT opposed to some sort of rational euthanasia, assuming the person receiving said Chinese child is a willing and knowledgeable participant. I certainly believe people own their own lives and are the final arbiter on the use and disposal of said life.

Now, as I mentioned, this advice is for those with only a right wing. (For those keeping track, this would be the ones that can only fly nowhere in counterclockwise circles.) Those in the left and center can move along. Have a nice day. Come back real soon.

Okay, now that we're alone, let me just tell you in plain English. You sound crazy. No, listen to me. You really do. You already know I totally agree with you on the whole government health care thing. I said that up front. And while we disagree on so many things, you should know this and know it well: you're attacking the wrong issues entirely. Instead of whining an moaning and bitching and complaining that the "Obama Plan"¹ is going to create government sanctioned euthanasia, you should oppose the concept of government health care. Between you and me -- isn't that what you are really opposed to? Arguing over the specific rules in a game of "let's eat poo" is really only going to change which end of the poo you bite first and how much you are going to have to consume. Let's for a moment just not care what's in the damn plan. Let's -- for one split second -- argue that the general concept that one man's ill fate (be it disease or self inflicted wound) is another man's servitude is just wrong. It's wrong for health care and it's wrong for subsidized bubble creating housing and it's wrong for clunker cash and it's wrong in general. Taking one thing rightfully owned by one man and giving it to another -- even "for the good of society" -- is wrong. Period. End of sentence. Asking for help is fine. Giving help is fine. Taking help by force: not fine.

Now, back to the euthanasia. Between you and me -- I sent the liberals home, remember -- we know that's not what is going on, right? If there wasn't "end of life counseling" then you'd probably bitch and moan that you've turned your back on the poor folks in hospice and say the plan is wrong (while admitting to the left that you think the concept of a health care plan is okay). And when you bring up the whole "you're killing old people" thing, you sound frickin crazy. Seriously. Batshit crazy even.

It's like Looie Gomer Pyle actually standing in front of Congress to argue gay marriage and saying "the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." And while that may perfectly be the case of what the Bible says, it has no bearing on the law and only serves to ruinificate the shreds of credibility Mr. Pyle has left. There may well be a perfectly logical argument for opposing gay marriage, but toss one crazy rancid bone in the soup and you've got rancid soup.

So. Please: Content, not crazy. If you oppose something on principle -- say it. Use nouns and verbs and logic. But when you make a bunch of scary noise and scream with wild animal eyes -- it doesn't help your cause.

Now. Go oppose this crap in general. Don't pick it apart. Knock it down.

---




OCD footnotes



1. which is really Congress's plan with Obama as a pitch man.

Crash (the economy) for Clunkers

Generalization. People can't do it. Take a concept, apply it elsewhere in a different, possibly wider context. Why is that so hard?

Most of us remember how the Federal government spent the terms of 2 presidents pouring federal money into building the housing market "to help those that could not afford it." Most of this was done by convincing folks to borrow. And most of us can remember the outcome: The crash of the housing market that drug the entire economy down with it. Thanks a lot guys. You helped the poor a lot.

Now take that same idea and bolt wheels on it. We want to take a bunch of folks that have a car that is most likely paid for... and replace it with a brand new car that comes with payments. And we want the taxpayers to shoulder this burden. Convert one asset (a car) into 2 debts (one for the consumer and one for the government). Oh, and it's "for the good of the environment." Oh, please.

I've mentioned before the intrinsic value of a paid for car (or house or tractor or ....) And our wonderful government is trying to remind you that it isn't cash that's important, it's credit. Forget the whole "greatest generation" that worked hard to eliminate debt and reach retirement. Pay for it later. Save for retirement some other time. There's always social security to fall back on. And medicare. It's not your responsibility anyway.

We're told this will help the economy... by asking people to reach out and buy something they weren't sure they could afford.

And remember: it helps the environment. You know, because getting 4 mpg more is going to save the planet. Forget, for a moment, that it actually takes some amount of actual resources and even petroleum based energy to produce a car out of nothing. Forget that the ultimate in "recycling" isn't taking a car and crushing it flat: it's reusing it for as long as it is usable. Come on -- it's more "environmentally friendly" to drive a clunker than to smash it, throw it away and build a new one.

And let's not forget that the "wonderfully altruistic" concept of asking me to subsidize someone's car they can barely afford removes their old car from the marketplace. And don't forget that the old clunker was destined for someone that really couldn't afford a car. In "helping" the new car buyer, the end result is hurting the used car market -- where there are now fewer inexpensive cars for the poor folk to choose from.

Does anyone want to make a prediction on the amount of increase in repossessed vehicles in 3 years?

New Tax Form for 2010

I propose the following new tax form for 2010. It won't fix all the ideological problems with taxation. But it's a damn fine start.

Click to Embiggenate

Shackled by religion

...and they're more than willing to admit it.

Apparently this downtown church is willing to loosen the old shackles just a wee bit if they're hurting you -- but they are in no way interested in having you remove them. You might escape.

...and they're doing the wrong things

I'm sorry. It's really the same thing said once again. Or maybe not the same thing, but a continuation. About 9 months ago, I postulated that We're Electing the Wrong People. And, since they are the wrong people, I'd also like to mention: They're doing the wrong things.

And, oh my god, how wrong can they be? Those knuckleheads (and I mean pretty much all of them) shouldn't need a handbook on how to do their jobs -- or shouldn't need one beyond the one Thomas Jefferson helped to pen. But apparently they do.

It appears as if the current handbook they're issued is something along the lines of:

Hi. Welcome to Congress. Now we'll help you figure out how to work around the system to make money for you and your friends.

Gee your voice is pretty, make sure people hear it alot.

Let's face it: The original intent of this job was never intended to be a full time job. The idea was that the Constitution was such a strict framework that pretty much every thing that was allowed to be handled was, in fact, handled. And the little things that would come up over time -- we'd just work those out in our spare time. What a novel approach.

So since congress just has no sporking clue how to do their own job, let me just give them a little lesson.

Spork's Congressional Newhire Manual

• Keep it simple. Laws should not be 1000 pages or more. If they are, you've given too many lawyers too much wiggle room to work through. You want to bitch about judges legislating from the bench? Well, they can only do it if you make it complex. If it is short and sweet, the interpretation wiggle room just isn't that large. How many times did you misunderstand your dad when you were 5 and he said "Calm down or you're going to get a spanking?" If Dad can say something in one sentence that a 5 year old can understand, why can't an old fart with a law degree and 25 years of experience?
• Along with simple and short comes an obvious corollary. You should not be editing the document in the wee hours of the morning before the vote. Make the rule simple: any change means it goes back to debate for another week.
• And, oh my god: if you haven't read and understood it, you are not allowed to hold a vote on it. Did I really need to tell you that?
• In continuing with keep it simple: keep it on topic. In no way should anyone be allowed to hide crap in the middle. If you're passing a law on "Voter's rights" there should not be something hidden inside it about conserving the habitat of the Atlantic Sea Chimpanzee or bee keeping or fuel consumption or bridges in Alaska. It should start with voter's rights, have voter's rights in the middle and then end with voter's rights. If I order a ham sandwich, I want a ham sandwich. I do not want a ham sandwich with a little bit of lutefisk in the middle. That's a lutefisk and ham sandwich. You may, however, add bacon. But that's off topic.
• Laws should not duplicate other laws, hide other laws or contradict other laws. For example, if you have a laws against murder and assault, there is no reason ever to have a law against hate crime. Is it really intrinsically worse to murder someone because of their religion/sexual preference/gender/race than to murder someone for the $20 in their wallet? Sure, you can argue over the brutality of the murder when it comes to the sentencing, but it's still the same crime. Murder is murder. If the scumbag that perpetrates the crime is a Nazi skinhead, I just don't care what his motivation is -- just that he is removed from society.
• Get the hell out of the superfluous. The government should not be involved in the inner workings of professional baseball, college football or the mating habits of lemurs. This is just proof you have too much time on your hands. Get back to your real job and go home to your family. You've obviously overinflated your own importance.
• And last, and most important: learn what individual rights are. It's important. It's the entire basis of American government. Here, let me explain it to you in words that a senator might possibly understand. Think of the other side. Think of the hot button issue (HBI) that really pisses you off. If you're on the right, maybe it's legislation that murders babies and uses their parts for research changing god's own perfect creatures. If you're on the left, maybe it's some enormous monetary kickback to an evil capitalist banking institution. Everyone has an HBI.... think of yours. Now, consider the idea that you are being forced -- at the threat of arrest and incarceration -- to pay for that HBI. Does that seem a tad bit... wrong? Doesn't it seem even more wrong to do it on a massive scale, where people have to sit and count the zeros before they pronounce the monetary total? How many zeros are in gabnillion?

I am not sure why this sort of instruction seems to be necessary, but apparently it is. If only someone had been smart enough to actually sit down and enumerate the powers of the legislative branch in writing...

Oh, and while we're on the topic of Congress being without a clue, just an off topic hint: get rid of the printed poster boards. There's this thing called PowerPoint...