Twelve Steps

Most politicians should be in rehabilitation. Clearly the vast majority of them are addicted to power and privilege. From outward observation it appears that their addictions are amazingly strong as they continue time and time again to return to the seats of power. Very few politicians are capable of defeating the addiction by their own devices. In fact, many of them feed the addiction until they become incapacitated or die while holding office. Perhaps I’m being too harsh about their addictive personalities. Maybe they are not qualified or capable of doing any productive labor. Whatever the cause of politicians seeking to hold office in perpetuity, we must find a solution.

Obviously, the best remedy for a career politician’s addiction to power and privilege is for the voters to defeat him/her at election time. We should never, though, allow ANY politician who has held office for more than eight years to run unopposed in the primary. The primary election is a vital element of the accountabile responsibility of the electorate. If the electors fail to challenge a long-time incumbent, then she/he receives the message that they may vote and act with impunity. Yeah, the odds are the challenger may lose convincingly, but the effort will pay dividends on two levels. The challenger’s campaign team will thoroughly examine the incumbent’s voting record and discover any decisions at odds with the voters of the district. Secondly, the officeholder will be forced to campaign aggressively for the entire election cycle which offers the opportunity to interact with more citizens.

Another step for diluting the power addiction in politicians is to politely challenge them at Town Halls or open forum meetings. Even if your particular representative votes totally with your preferences, he/she can be challenged to initiate legislation to repeal noxious laws or to take a more active role in the dismantling of the Nanny State. The true test of a politician’s sincerity is the willingness to pare back toxic rules and regulations that are overseen by her/his committee. “We’ll lose,” the politician may say, and you can counter with, “So what? Its lousy governance and unconstitutional. Are you too timid to attempt the difficult?” The implication will be stone cold clear: We can send anyone there to accomplish the easy tasks, but we expect you to push the envelope and upset the applecart. I love old metaphors.

Too often we allow those whom we perceive to be “good” representatives to get a pass when it comes to what is needed to preserve the republic. Even “good” office holders must do more than passively sit on the back bench while voting correctly and watching the nation disintegrate. Their pulpits are larger than ours. The editors and reporters respond to their phone calls and tweets. Passive positivism is not patriotism. Value-based voting is not enough. Right thinking politicians must journey out from their comfort zones and support those eager patriots who challenge RINO’s or progressives in nearby districts. The old rules of collegiality and comity must be discarded for the sake of the nation. If a “right-thinking” incumbent refuses to actively advance the cause of freedom, then she/he does not deserve a challenge-free path to re-election.

Voters and activists must pry incumbents from their sedentary state of comfort. They must challenge the politicians to stand for freedom and not sit for office. The politicians must be warned in no uncertain terms that the fight for liberty is an active pursuit. Placeholders are neither needed…nor desired. Never again.

Comment:  earl4sos@gmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Warped View

Idealism is the behavior or thought based on a conception of things as one thinks they should be. In other words, idealism is one’s personal construct of the way things ought to be. In theory idealism is laudable because individuals should strive to improve the human condition…you know, that rising tide, all boats thingy. In practice, however, idealism is often autocratic and tyrannical. The idealist abandons reality in order to force her/his personal picture of perfection on the rest of us. Despite our individual concepts of an ideal society, if the autocratic idealist holds the reins of power, we are compelled to follow his vision or version.

On the face of it idealism is a positive force for an aspiring group, but at its worst it becomes a rigid cage that allows for limited variety or personal preference. Many idealists appear to have their heads so high in the clouds that they cannot see the earth, or their craniums are so firmly implanted in their anal passages that they are unaware of the reality around them. In many ways Nietzsche was an idealist, and Hitler was a pragmatist who relied on many of Nietzsche’s visions for a society. The ideal was seriously flawed, and the implementation was horrific. They bring to mind the old bromide: be careful what you wish for.

The primary motivation for my position as an individualist is that I do not trust idealists.  Their reliance on human ideals often leads to inhumane actions. Their concepts of the perfect eventually morph into coercion of the people. The individualist lives life according to his own ideals without infringing on the lives, safety and property of others. The individualist may follow a vision that we embrace, or an ideal that we find repulsive. The end result is that we are not compelled to share or follow the lonely drummer. His choice is not constrained by our preferences, and our path is not dictated by the individualist’s vision.

Human nature seems to reveal that despite our similarities, each of us possesses a nugget of uniqueness. To expect all people all the time to conform to an ideal that has been germinated by one person or group is folly. We are not automatons even if some special interest groups behave as if they were. When individuals choose to exercise their minds, they often find that their preferences differ from those of others around them. Individuals are the generators of innovation. Individuals nourish the creative impulse that is available to each of us. Idealistic communities, on the other hand, discourage individual experimentation because it disrupts conformity.

When politicians, academics or others from the self-appointed elite disparage individual freedom and expression, it is usually because the individual’s ideal differs from theirs. Despite their high-minded protestations, collective idealists resent alternative visions. Their rock-solid belief in the superiority of their own positions will not allow them to tolerate any point of view that differs from theirs. Their arrogance and sense of self-importance drive them to dismiss other ideals as unworthy, and hence, other idealists whose dreams are not compatible with theirs as contemptible. The elite idealists are convinced that their structure for humanity is far superior to any conceivable option. Their passion for their vision is cult-like and unmovable. Individualism is not encouraged, nor is it tolerated. Individuals must be marginalized in the collective ideal.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

Sporting Necessity

Firearms are not magical for me. Although I have hunted, I have no passion for it even though some members of my family do. Target shooting is not a pastime that I pursue with any vigor although I have engaged in it in the past. Truth be known, I have killed more deer with a Buick Century than I have with a Remington, a Winchester or a Savage. I do not fear guns, but my testosterone does not flow more freely when I embrace them. No, the reason that I own firearms is that I consider it a necessity to do so.

As many friends and acquaintances have informed me, since the passage of the Ohio Concealed Carry Law, criminal activity has been on the decline. The data indicate similar results wherever CCW has been implemented. So, is my sense of necessity misplaced? Am I overreacting? Am I paranoid? Not really, because I believe they really are trying to get me. Although I am more than forty-five (45) years old, I still consider myself to be a member of the regular militia. No, not in any formal or organized sense, but as a patriot who is committed to the defense of my nation, my state, my community and my home. Several years ago I concluded that if I were to take my defensive and protective responsibilities seriously, then I needed something more lethal than spitballs or sticks.

When considering options for personal defense, I briefly toyed with deploying claymore mines in strategic locations around our property. Upon reflection, I decided that the minefield solution lacked mobility, and thus, didn’t satisfy my requirements. In a similar fashion I discarded the moat and crocodile remedy because the nasty beasts wouldn’t survive the Wood County winters, and I wasn’t too fond of spending weeks shoveling the necessary trench. One other negative factor impacted the two previous solutions: either one would have caused lawn mowing to become a high risk adventure.

So far this article may seem to be a rather flippant analysis of a serious issue, but I am attempting to illustrate that those who would restrict my right to own firearms would force people like me to explore ludicrous alternatives for self defense. If I am to fulfill my responsibilities as a husband, father and citizen, then I must have a reasonable method for doing so. Some have suggested a baseball bat as a logical alternative. Well, if one wishes to get within forty inches of an intruder and prays that he isn’t armed with an illegally acquired weapon, then perhaps, maybe, possibly a baseball bat might be somewhat effective…then again, perhaps not. A knife has similar concerns. One must be close enough to feel and smell the breath of the unwelcome visitor. Too close for comfort.

Yes, I can dial 9-1-1, and hope that I can stall the interloper for the requisite seven to eleven minute response time as we wait together. Maybe we could enjoy a glass of sherry or some warm bagels while awaiting the local constabulary. The bottom line is that as someone who is committed to the defense of my family and my country, firearms offer the best and most reasonable option.

Comments:  earl4sos@gmail.com       or       www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

Cooperation or Coercion

Those of us who are skeptical of a large federal government usually prefer our public affairs to be conducted locally. Tyranny is tyrannical no matter the source, and we find that many local governments and their “cooperative” offspring are trampling our freedoms with the same level of gusto as “Big Brother.” Cities, villages, townships and counties have become obsessed with micro-managing many aspects of their constituents’ lives. Add to their growing interventionism the reality that many local governments find themselves in dire fiscal straits. My observation is not uniformly true. There are a number of local political entities who practice restraint, but their numbers are dwindling as urban, suburban and rural areas pattern themselves after one another.

The growing power grab by local government is exacerbated by another development….the proliferation of regional “authorities.” Local entities band together for oversight and services or form new governmental agencies to administer interests that cross political boundaries. Some examples might include a park district, water board or scenic river administrative unit. This expansion of government administrative authority may, at some level, appear to be a beneficial development for the citizens who are affected. Cost savings may occur because of consolidation of redundant services, yet the mere creation of a cross-boundary entity generates more power for the new agency. Though the regional administrative agencies lack legislative or executive power, they do employ varying elements of regulatory coercion. Some of the regional cooperatives can preempt personal property rights of citizens within their jurisdictions, and others can implement rules and regulations that require citizens’ compliance. There are agencies that oversee waterways and shorelines that are shared by various jurisdictions, and in some cases the cooperative district can restrict a property owners rights if the property abuts the water. In essence, this becomes a de facto eminent domain issue without compensation for the property owner.

One huge political benefit of the cooperative entities for local politicians is that they can figuratively “wash their hands” when a noxious ruling is promulgated by the regional authority. The buck doesn’t stop with the politician’s accountability. The buck becomes vaporized with no discernable accountability and no clear pathway for appeal. When a regional body implements an egregious ruling that negatively impacts citizens, the politicians can deny responsibility and deflect criticism. Typically the only remedy available for the aggrieved citizen is via the courts…a potentially costly and lengthy process.

When one examines the federal government and its misuse of power, the focus may be on the various agencies, departments and directorates that appear to operate with impunity as they trample the rights of citizens. The cooperative and regional alliances that many local governments have formed can function similarly to the federal bureaucracy with minimal accountability and limited restraint. From the perspective of a citizen, local government is more accessible and more responsive than are the federal or state governments. The model becomes distorted, however, when government at any level becomes too large and unwieldy. Big coercive government is the antithesis of freedom….no matter where it is, at home, in Columbus or in Washington D.C.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com               or                          www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

   

Double Down

Let me begin this column with a disclaimer: a member of my family has been actively involved in the pharmaceutical industry for more than a quarter century. Given my personal background, I want to address the senseless murders that occurred in Tucson. Jared Loughner is mentally ill, a nut, a loon, crazy, and overwhelmed by bats in his diminished belfry. While the progressive lefties rush to their various podiums and microphones to blame the rhetoric of Tea Partiers, talk radio and anyone else that they choose to demonize, the fault is Loughner’s and the failed social policies of the twisted left.

In harsher times people who were diagnosed as potentially dangerous to the community or themselves were institutionalized in order to remove them from the general population. Along comes do-gooder social policy that emphasizes “mainstreaming” people with mental disabilities by means of behavior modification medicines. At some level I agree with that policy because as long as progressive statists control the social discourse, I know that I may be assigned to a re-education camp by some well-meaning federal czar because of the metaphorical incendiary language that I use from time to time. The flaw in the feel good argument for medication rather than incarceration is the assumption that the deranged individual will be diagnosed correctly and will diligently take his medications. Clearly it seems that it is more humane to require a pill or two per day as opposed to a lifetime of semi-vegetation in a cell block.

The fact that Loughner was allowed to roam freely even though many people were aware of his twisted anti-social proclivities is indeed an indictment of liberal social policies. Progressive statists engage in continual legislation that purports to protect society from every imaginable harm yet their misdirected priorities incrementally increase our exposure to danger. They allow the Jared Loughners to move about unfettered. They subject us to a multitude of devastating side effects by their reliance on drugs as a means of control. Progressive statists appear to have a compulsive need to overlook the foibles of those who have demonstrated an unwillingness to conform to social norms, and at the same time, they continue to squeeze and limit the freedoms and opportunities for the rest of us. It’s as if they believe the circus should be solely populated by the freaks and clowns.

Progressive statists will renew their efforts to limit our ownership of firearms. They will seek to restrict our speech, and they will move to increase regulation on broadcasting and the internet. Meanwhile the crazy loons will continue to float freely as our liberties are assaulted again. As an individualist, a Libertarian, I am suspicious of any effort to broadly define what proper behavior is for the body politic. On the other hand, Natural Law and God’s Law establish parameters of civil interaction that do not require additional tweaking by an overzealous state apparatus. As an individual who cherishes my personal freedom, I resent and abhor any attempt by the state to legislate or regulate in response to the civil outliers. The anomaly, the aberrant and the deranged should not represent the standard for constructing our social and legal contract. The event in Tucson was a horrifying one, but it cannot be used as an impetus for further erosion of our liberties.   

Comment:  earl4sos@gmail.com or  www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com