RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Occupy Wall Street and The Modern Martyr by Gilbert K. Chesterton

14 Oct

I read this article by G. K. Chesterton some time before the small groups of hookie-playing students and others started living in public parks. Not getting enough attention for their bad behavior, they began seeking to trigger consequences by breaking the law for trespassing (in Boston), pooping on police cars (New York), pretending to be hurt by non-moving police vehicles and damaging police property (also New York), and breaking various other laws.

The goal is to present a false image of suffering hoping to gain sympathy for their cause (being lazy and entitled).

It reminded me of this section from the Chesterton article (entire text linked below) about those fighting for causes that unlike OWS were worthwhile, but were using similar methods to induce small punishment:

I should advise modern agitators, therefore, to give up this particular method: the method of making very big efforts to get a very small punishment. It does not really go down at all; the punishment is too small, and the efforts are too obvious. It has not any of the effectiveness of the old savage martyrdom, because it does not leave the victim absolutely alone with his cause, so that his cause alone can support him. At the same time it has about it that element of the pantomimic and the absurd, which was the cruellest part of the slaying and the mocking of the real prophets. St. Peter was crucified upside down as a huge inhuman joke; but his human seriousness survived the inhuman joke, because, in whatever posture, he had died for his faith. The modern martyr of the Pankhurst type courts the absurdity without making the suffering strong enough to eclipse the absurdity. She is like a St. Peter who should deliberately stand on his head for ten seconds and then expect to be canonised for it.

via All Things Considered : The Modern Martyr by Gilbert K. Chesterton @ Classic Reader.

 
 

Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell

23 Sep

image

I’m only 70 100 pages into this 317+ page book by the author of Basic Economics, but I can’t wait to talk about this with others.

Sowell writes about the trends among intellectuals ( those whose occupations – professors, authors, columnists, many politicians – are in dealing with ideas rather than the mundane things of business or the application if ideas) and how they influence society.

I highly recommend this book. It is supremely helpful in understanding the truth obscured by politicians, professors and the media, and also contains enough to be formed into the prescription for how to combat bad ideas ( like the Obama job killing jobs act that was just advertised in Pandora through my ear buds).

 

Tax Cuts for the Rich

10 Sep

political satire cartoon about tax cuts for the rich

Cutting taxes for the richest citizens is only a bad thing if you believe it is the government’s job to punish people for being successful.

Those who want to raise taxes on some and lower them for others do so because they believe it’s the government’s job to use the power of the federal government to pick winners and losers – to punish people arbitrarily for what they like and don’t like.

My kids get paid for doing chores. If son 1 does more work more efficiently and earns $4 but son 2 only earns $2, is it my job to forcibly take away money from the one who earned more and give it to the one who earned less?

No. It’s immoral.

Political cartoon of redistribution of candy at Halloween

On the other hand, those who want to lower taxes do so because they believe that money in the private sector is more productive for the economy and freedom than government confiscation, waste, and redistribution

The private citizen has no vested interest in wasting money. The citizen (and corporations run by citizens) are interested in investing the money to get something of greater value, whether that’s goods or more money. So if the rich keep more of their own money, they invest more in the market – that’s putting money into businesses, who add value to the economy and create jobs.

This pursuit to get more value drives the market and also drives corruption, where someone will want to use their ability to impede the ability of others’ liberty for their own gain. This is where the government steps in, protecting the citizens’ liberty from being infringed on by others.

These two views are diametrically opposed on what the purpose of the government is. The first “liberal” view is that the government’s job is to solve all of society’s problems and through arbitrarily deciding what is “fair,” pick winners and losers by force (like taxing some at different rates than others). In this view, government is the solution to everything and should be always getting bigger and more invasive in citizen’s lives.

The second “conservative” view is that government’s role is ONLY to do things that the market cannot practically do – protect people’s inalienable right to liberty from being invaded by others in or outside of the country, and a few other things that private citizens or corporations can’t do. In this view, government intervention into people’s lives is a problem, and government should be strictly limited with enumerated powers.

The second view is how the founders set up America, and is the view that lead to America’s greatness from the start.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

The Rich Need to Pay Their Fair Share

09 Sep
Photo of Obama at his Job Speech to the joint session of congress on September 8, 2011
Obama speaks to congress about the rich needing to pay their fair share.

As expected by many, Obama’s job speech last night consisted of recycled rhetoric and finger pointing. One of the key phrases he uses is:

The rich need to pay their fair share.

The ambiguity of this statement is astounding. Clarity is needed, not Ambiguity. As G. K. Chesterton said, “Evil always takes advantage of ambiguity.”

So the questions are:

Who are “the rich”?

“Rich” and “Poor” are arbitrarily defined by the government. President Obama picked a number $250,000. If you make that much or more in a given calendar year, you’re rich.

“Poor” is also arbitrarily defined.  I recently heard a reporter say that one out of seven Americans is “poor.” I don’t think the reporter was lying, but they are speaking according to whatever income dollar amount the federal government picked to define the poverty level.

There’s nothing to stop the government from saying that the “rich” are those who make a million dollars per year or those who make more than $40,000 per year. Likewise, there’s nothing to stop the government to adjust the numbers to show that 50% of Americans live in poverty.

The terms are meaningless. They are only used in order to create angst between American citizens and to create a class warfare of classes that the government arbitrarily picks to pit against each other for the benefit of the politicians in power.

What is a person’s “fair share”?

The consequence of falling into the group that Obama calls “the rich” is that you are to be despised by all other Americans. You are wronging all Americans by not paying your “fair share.” The problems that citizens experience are your fault.

What is the fair share of the rich? Let’s take a look at some numbers

The richest half of tax payers have 100% of the taxes. The less wealthy 50% pay nothing – in fact, they have  net gain from the government, usually through social programs where the taxes paid by the 50% that pay is paid to them through welfare, social security, etc. Is it fair that only half of the country pays taxes?

The richest 5%, those who made over $160,000, paid 59% of the taxes. 5% of people paid more than half the taxes in America.

It’s startling to look at the numbers and and realize the president thinks the top 5% paying about 60% of the total tax revenue is not their fair share. If they have to pay more to pay their fair share, how much would the top 5% have to pay?

Tomorrow: Tax Cuts for the Rich.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Dennis Prager Not a Ron Paul Fan

17 Aug

Dennis Prager spoke about Ron Paul following the Iowa Straw Poll.

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

You’ve bought the political lies.

23 Jul

How much of what you buy politically is totally disconnected from reality?

Today ends a week where the Democrats voted No on the second budget proposal put forth by the Republicans, which the President promised to veto anyway. The Democrats have had zero proposals so far. Today Obama gave a speech saying that the Republican party needs to decide if they can say Yes to anything. His speech is totally disconnected from reality, as he is now part of the Party of No.

Do you buy it?

It’s not just the President.There’s lots of lies we believe about politics:

  • All politicians are the same – corrupt liars
  • I can’t change anything
  • It’s acceptable to be uninformed and uninvolved
  • Republicans have no heart
  • Democrats are the party of equal rights
  • We can trust the Republican Party
  • We can trust the Democrat Party
  • If the media presents someone negatively, they’re unqualified for office.
  • The pursuit of profits is evil
  • Corporate Jets always are a waste of money
  • The New Deal helped the economy and Americans
  • Higher tax rates always means more revenue
  • When the country is in financial trouble the solution is to go further into debt.

Have you bought into any of these? What other lies about politics do we tend to believe?

 
1 Comment

Posted in Politics

 

Health Care: When facts don’t matter

22 Jun
I’ve found it difficult to engage in this conversation because most people, from any perspective, have built their argument on a foundation of ignorance. Having worked in medical management, I’ve got a perspective that most medical professionals and patients don’t have. I understand contracts between medical providers and insurance companies. I understand how Medicare and Medicaid work. I understand medical billing.  Having citizenship in two countries I also have a perspective that most people don’t share. Having had family members uninsured, on COBRA, personal insurance, group insurance, and government insurance, I have experience most people don’t.
Here’s some facts if you’d like to transition to a different foundation.
money and a stethescope
It’s a lie that only super wealthy can afford health care.
It’s simply not true. It may be that a doctor’s appointment cost someone $100. Now, we’re willing to pay that $100 to the cable company or the cell phone company. We’re willing to pay $100 to movie studios to watch and buy movies. Doctor’s visits are only for the elite in the same way that cell phones are for the elite: Not at all.
Here in Denver there’s a lot of offices geared specifically to those without a lot of money. The goal is to cut costs and ensure that everyone can get medical treatment. Offices that aren’t geared toward that provide discounts of cash patients, payment plans, and service those who are on Medicaid – tax-funded payment for medical services for the poor.
Cost of care in America
Those with insurance typically see the Explanation of Benefits (EOB) from their insurance company and are shocked at the original bill from the medical provider. A typical EOB reads something like:
Lab work. Billed: $3,000. Insurance discount: $2,994. Insurance paid: $6.
We walk away with the assumption that if we didn’t have insurance, we’d have to pay the list price of $3,000. It’s not true. Here’s a secret about how insurance payments work. Bureaucrats behind Medicare (tax-funded medical payments for the elderly and disabled) have a list of accepted medical procedures and how much the government will pay for those procedures. Each accepted procedure has an associated Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code.  The base Medicare payment rates are so low, they don’t even cover the doctor’s expenses in seeing the patient. Medicaid (tax-funded medical payments for the poor) pay even less. Medical practices enter into contracts with insurance providers, that boil down to something like: “For covered procedures, we’ll pay you Medicare rates plus 15%.”
When the government or insurance payer receives a bill of CPT codes and associated charges, they validate whether the CPT codes are covered, and then pay the contracted rate or the billed rate: whichever is less. Because of this, it doesn’t matter whether they get billed $10 or $10,000 for a blood draw, they’ll only pay the contracted $9.54. The problem is if the billed amount is lower, say, $8, they’ll just pay that. So medical offices mark up the price of everything really high to prevent under-billing.
Cash-paying patients often can pay even less than insurance if they’re up-front. Insurance doesn’t need to be billed, the doctor doesn’t have to wait weeks or months for payment.
Sometimes our medical bills are still high. I recently heard someone angry that they paid over $100 and only saw the doctor for a few minutes. They whined. A lot. But  here’s what that $100 likely paid for:
  • receptionist (scheduling the appointment, placing reminder calls, etc.)
  • nurse and/or medical assistant (the person who checks your vitals before you see the doctor)
  • filing clerk (there’s a lot of laws about how medical records are handled, filing clerks track the files and have to go through training on how to handle records – that training is another expense paid for)
  • doctor (the doc only saw the patient for a few minutes, but spent time reviewing the patient’s history, writing up notes for the medical records, possibly writing referrals and prescriptions, etc.)
  • medical malpractice insurance
  • facility rent
  • medical equipment
  • lab work
  • the debt created by taking on Medicaid and Medicare patients
  • medical disposal costs (there’s special ways – that all cost money – to dispose of various things)
  • billing staff, especially if the patient didn’t say he was cash-only and pay up-front.
Cost of care in other countries
Meanwhile we have experiences or hear stories of cheap health care in other countries. A friend of mine recently went to a hospital in Asia and paid $5.  Reviewing the list above of what has to be paid for, did the hospital really provide all those services for $5? That would be less than 50 cents for each item on the list. $.50 for the receptionist, $.50 for the medical assistant. $.50 for the doctor. $.50 for lab work.
No. The doctors are not living off 50-cents per-patient. The medical bills are just being paid for by another source, and the patient has no idea what the actual cost-of-care was. In many countries, that payer is the government.
  • The government decides what treatment you can have.
  • The government decides when you can have the treatment.
  • The government simply raises taxes to pay for the treatment.

This then makes a legal requirement that someone else pay for your medical expenses. When it’s all paid for through tax revenue, the implication is that tax payers are required to give their hard-earned money to pay for your medical bills. If they don’t? They’ll take away the tax payer property, or take the money forcibly from their paycheck, and in some countries put the citizen in prison for not paying their taxes.

The demand that someone else be required to pay your medical bills or go to prison is immoral.

International Medical Tourism

But what about all those people going to other countries for health care? What about Americans going to Canada for prescription drugs?

I used to live minutes away from the border of Canada. We took trips to Canada to buy certain things cheaper, and my relatives in Canada took trips to the US for certain things that were cheaper. Not only that, but it is normal behavior in Canada to go to the US if you need better or faster health care, and the Canadian healthcare system routinely sends patients to the US. American health care is part of the Canadian health care system, because America does certain things better/faster. It goes both ways.

Americans are traveling to India, Thailand, and other countries for significant medical treatments that are too costly in America. This is simple economics. Trousers in India may be significantly cheaper than in America. The cost of living is lower. They may have less government regulation to comply with. For various reasons, economies are different, and this has no necessary connection to the quality or accessibility of health care. Or pants.

These are the real problems with American health care

I do think America has the best health care – at least better than any other place I’ve had medical care, which is only about 5 countries on 3 continents. Here’s what the basic problems are that could be fixed very quickly:

  1. It’s easy to sue doctors. This means the cost of being a doctor goes up to may for malpractice insurance. This also means that doctors frequently do more tests and treatments than are necessary as an attempt to prevent a lawsuit claiming they didn’t do enough.
  2. It’s easy to collect big bills and then go bankrupt. It is the law that no hospital can turn a patient away. A Physician Assistant I know told me about working in a New York hospital where the same drunk homeless men would come into the E.R. complaining of chest pain every night. They were legally required to give a lot of costly treatment when the guys just wanted a warm place for the night. Others aren’t homeless, but purposely avoid paying for health care to later declare bankruptcy or otherwise avoid payment. This is equivalent of shoplifting, not paying for what you’re taking, and our legislators are the enablers. On the medical side, it’s costly to collect money that hasn’t been paid, and can take years.
  3. Insurance billing is screwed up. The insurance has a set dollar amount they’ll pay the doctor, but the doctor is still required to bill them with a dollar amount. The only reason why the doctor needs to bill a dollar amount is so the payer (government or insurance) can try to under-pay the doctor if the doctor pays less than the agreed payment amount. If this was not the arrangement, doctors and hospitals wouldn’t have to sky-rocket the list price of services, which is what causes people to stress about the cost of care.
  4. We need to take personal responsibility. I ought to be responsible for figuring out how my medical bills are paid. I ought not be responsible for figuring out how yours are paid. The majority of uninsured people already qualify for government insurance, but have never taken responsibility to sign up for it. We have a total aversion to personal responsibility and rejoice when we only have to pay $5 for a doctor’s visit. We’re simply rejoicing that we’re making a sucker of someone else who will be suck with the bill.
  5. Government regulation costs money. And everything medical is regulated. While payments to doctors aren’t increasing, regulations on medical practices increase ever year.

 

 
 

Good Earth FriDay: Religions in Conflict

22 Apr

Today is the observance two observances.

Christians today commemorate “Good Friday” – the day in which we remember the crucifixion of Jesus (regardless of what day of the week he was originally killed).

Today is also the annual observance of “Earth Day.”

Both focus on commitment to an entity bigger than ourselves, both focus on personal action and commitment.

Yet only one is religious. Right?

Strangely some very religious-sounding language is used by environmentalists and specifically the EPA’s website.  Here’s a few examples:

  1. Belief.Faith is not believing something without evidence, but is believing in something that you can’t see or prove. People can have faith, for example, in the reliability of a friend – this is not to say there’s no evidence, but it cannot be proven that the friend will come through, even if they say they will. Christian faith is strongly based on evidence of the authors of the Bible.  Environmental faith, as Al Gore explains in this video, is based on the beliefs of Al Gore and certain holy writings which consist of select research that Al Gore canonized based on whether they agree with his opinion:
    YouTube Preview Image
  2. Repentance.Repentance speaks to the change of one’s mind that is reflected in a change of behavior. When Christians talk about repentance, they typically mean stopping harmful behavior and committing to healthier, holy, behavior. Here’s where the EPA falls with repentance:

    Earth Day Repentence: Choose at least 5 actions you'll commit to. Use less water and electricity, commute without polluting, reuse and recycle, and more.

    Repent! Repent! Then participate in the 5 sacraments of environmentalism!

  3. Personal Commitment.The Bible speaks to the need not just for one time of belief or a period of repentance upon belief,  but personal, daily commitment to wrap your life around Jesus. The EPA uses the very same language encouraging all to “Make a personal commitment to make environmental protection a part of your daily life.”

    Make a personal commitment to make environmental protection a part of your daily life

    Read your Bible, pray every day? No! replace that commitment with making environmental protection a part of your daily life.

  4. Daily devotions. Many church kids grew up singing songs like “Read your Bible, pray every day!” There’s a general encouragement to be exposed to and affected by the Bible every day. There’s even daily text message services to get you a daily Bible verse, which is similar to what President Obama says is the extent of his worship. The EPA has an equivalent, and you can sign up to be notified every day with new instructions of how to be sanctified in their eyes.They’ve even got an alternative podcast to keep sermons in your ears!

    Learn a green tip every day: Sign up to get a daily email tip during Earth Month in April.

    Daily devotions in text and podcast from the EPA

  5. Community. Christianity cannot be practiced alone. The Bible  speaks of groups of Christians as a body, both connected to and supporting each other, and urges Christians to meet together. The first thing on the Earth Day web page of the EPA is a link to find a church.. er… environmentalist events in your area to keep you involved in the faith.

    Make every day Earth Day and help protect health and the environment throughout the year.

    Get plugged into a community of those who share your beliefs and live them out every day, all year. Christianity? Nope. Environmentalism.

  6. Evangelism. Even if a person has believed in Jesus, repented, committed, exercised daily disciplines, and is involved in community, they aren’t really a disciple of Christ unless they are also a disciple maker, spreading the word to others. The alternative is true as well – once you’ve committed your life to environmentalism, you must be an environmental evangelist to “spread the word” to get others to believe, repent, etc. Here’s my final clip from the EPA website:

    Teach others about the Environment: One of the best ways to spread the word on environmental protection is to teach a class at your local school

    Curiously, they've even capitalized "Environment" in the title but not the other words, similar to how Christians capitalize "God."

 

The EPA isn’t all. Earthday.org says you need to pledge, volunteer, evangelize, and even tithe… er… donate to the cause.

My purpose in highlighting the religious nature of environmentalism this Good Earth FriDay is not to say we should abuse the earth. That idea seems so absurd I’m not sure who thinks we ought to destroy our home, and normally when that claim is made, it’s simply to end the discussion by name-calling.

We ought to be responsible stewards of the earth. We should also recognize that environmentalism as it is being pushed by our government and others today is structured in a way to be opposed to other systems of truth claims, such as Christianity.

 
 

Bugs or babies?

12 Apr

Bugs or the babies: which deserve more rights?

According to the United Nations, led by Bolivia, bugs and beetles out value our babies.

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

Bolivia recently passed the legislation on the basis of religious worship of the earth deity, “Pachamama.”

Ought wasps have the same rights as women?

This legislation is immoral. When there’s a total moral equivalence between a baby girl and an earwig, how can there be real respect for life? At minimum the conclusion is that it’s a toss up as to which life is worth compassion. Choosing between the life of a mother and her birthing baby is a moral dilemma. This legislation makes killing the mother the moral equivalent of stepping on a spider. In fact, killing a spider and it’s eggs would be a greater moral crime than killing a human mother and her unborn child.

The Judeo-Christian world view argues in the contrary that humans are unique and have both unity and distinction with nature. According to the biblical narrative, humans are created from the dust of the earth and as he breathes his breath, or spirit, into them, they are created in the image of God. Human life is sacred. Our responsibility to both dominate and care for the earth is also a sacred responsibility.

Yet there is a repulsive reaction to Judeo-Christian values in world government, this animistic theology is welcomed. This should bring clarity – religious values are shunned if the United Nations is opposed to the ideas, and embraced if the ideas help the UN achieve its goals. The problem for those seeking greater centralized government power is not religion – it’s certain values that they will reject whether religious or not.

Two Bolivian women. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America

The values pushed by giving the earth spirits rights is simply another way to push for stripping people of their rights. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America. The land is rich in natural resources, so business has been clamoring to come into the country. This legislation will stop work, stop jobs, and increase poverty. This is what the legislation is doing in Bolivia; this is what the UN is pushing for.

The UN isn’t interested in the planet, and they aren’t interested in Pachamama worship. This is, in the end, simply a power grab by governments. The legislation “establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.”

That’s right – the whole idea is that what the state says now becomes a matter of rights. To go against the government is a rights-violation issue. This turns the idea of rights on it’s head, taking rights away from people and giving them to the state in the name of ‘mother earth.’

Even in Bolivia it’s clear that this is primarily about governments accruing more power over the people, as the Bolivian president has been declaring for years that the first step to save the planet is “to end capitalism.”

The environmentalist movement is being used in an effort to strip you of your basic human rights and freedom. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon that provides the opportunity to escape from freedom, there’s a better approach.

Rather than basing our ideas on fear (that the earth is about to die) or hatred (of those evil capitalists), we should be basing our ideas on facts. Christians ought to be taking care of the planet in ways that are effective because it is a sacred responsibility; because it is God’s creation; because it is our origin. Much of the specific ways to be “environmental” are agenda-based to gain votes or reward certain companies and industries for political support. A healthier and more effective approach requires better self-education and less readily adopting political and cultural trends.

 
 

TSA Procedures are not about safety (Part 1)

01 Dec

(I’ve thought about blogging on the Transportation Security Administration’s new procedures, but every time I start another news story hits. At this point, there’s too much for one post, so I figured I’d get started.)

TSA PatdownThe Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented new procedures which include a special type of full-body X-Ray whose radiation is absorbed into your skin and the tissue just under the skin, to produce a naked image of the passenger, and/or the passenger must be patted-down including the passengers sexual organs.

One basic question about this is:

What’s the point of these new procedures?

Napalitano and the TSA says its necessary for safety.

For safety? Airport security was dramatically changed after 9/11. In the last 9 years, how many commercial plans have been successfully used in terrorism? 0. That means whatever’s been going on has had a 100% success rate.

“BUT THERE’S BEEN ATTEMPTS!” Certainly, there was the shoe bomber (Episcopal, right?), and now we take off our shoes to go through airport security. There was also the failed underwear bomber (Presbyterian I think?).  There’s real questions about whether the new procedures would have even detected the underwear bomber’s device.

Further, these devices and pat-down-feel-ups will not detect anything hidden inside of one’s body.

So, as far as any information the public has, these new techniques will not improve on the 100% success rate we’ve had for 9 years without them.

Perhaps the government has other information that hasn’t yet been published on wikileaks. Perhaps we are under imminent threat by terrorists who will use on-the-skin devices to try to commit terror. Perhaps the only way we will be safe from known threats is to hit the terrorists with these new procedures. These new procedures were in place just in time for the busiest travel day of the year. If there’s ever times to use heightened security, it’s when there’s evidence of a threat at a specific time, or the busiest travel days of the year.

What better time to want to blow up a plane than when more people are flying, lines are backed up, everyone is stressed out and in a rush. It’s then that one would most easily slip through undetected.

And it was on the busiest travel days of the year that the TSA played a very sly hand and didn’t enforce the new procedures to deflate the threat of “Opt-Out Day” when many people were going to refuse the scan. When the threat was greatest, they stopped the procedures they said would keep us safe.

And no planes were used to crash into buildings. The standard procedures continued to be 100% effective.

I’ve heard Michael Medved and others write off concerns about this – it’s not that invasive, it’s not that embarrassing. But those aren’t the point. The point isn’t that you or I feel embarrassed, the point is that there’s constitutional issues here about unlawful search. The point is that the government is lying and in the name of security they’re testing to see how much freedom we’re willing to give up when promised safety.

Are you willing to take off your belt and your shoes? Yes.

Are you willing to have your bags x-rayed? Yes.

Are you willing to go through a metal detector? Yes.

Are you willing to be splashed with radiation that will increase your rates of infertility and cancer and/or be subjected to sexual assault by government employees?

Are you willing for your children to be splashed with radiation that will increase their rates of infertility and cancer and/or for your children to be subjected to sexual assault by government employees?

We do not forfeit our rights when we fly on a plane. The purchase of a product or service from a private company does not cause your civil rights to be terminated or suspended.

Clearly the issue is not about security. The TSA was very clever in playing up the concerns and then yanking out the rug from under”Opt-Out Day” so now everyone believes this was just media hype. In the process, the American people have agreed to submit themselves to sexual abuse by the government.

I thought we were supposed to be proud of the call “Give me liberty or give me death,” but instead we together chant “Give me liberty or take it away but tell me it’s for my own good.”