Civil Liberties vs Public Health *ding-g-g*...

In THIS caw-NAAAHR…
Weighing in at 230 years, the People’s Favourite, Civil “I-Wanna-Keep-‘Em” Liberteezzz!

In the opposing caw-nahr…
Weighted with political and corporate interest, THE Cha-Len-jherrrr, Public “We-Gotta-Save-‘Em” Health!

Okay, the reader may have already noticed a slightly prejudiced tone from the writer. Better believe it. I’ll do my best to stay fair, but I can’t make any promises.

Here’s a pattern I notice – everyone, anyone, who’s ever had an idea that something was ‘wrong’ somehow, develops a cause, sometimes gets momentum behind it, gets some (usually good) changes done, and then wants to stay in the game because there’s always more to do. Either that or the game’s been so much fun that the ones that started it don’t want it to stop. In fact, there are often other players who’ve joined that don’t want it to stop either. Everyone’s having too good of a time to let it go! Well, that is of course, for the side that was originally challenged.

The challenged side may eventually take a whooping, or at least got a lesson taught it, but then at some point just wants to call it a day and go home. “Oh NO!” cry the new winners. “You can’t leave now! We’re not done with you yet!”

They beaten side at this point acknowledges (however hesitantly) that it’s lost the game and so now wants to go on about its business. “But that’s just IT!” cry the new winners. “If you go off about your business, you could come back and challenge us. Better you should stay here in this yard, continuing playing this game and trust us, you’ll like it better this way!”

I came up with a saying that’s not exactly true, but it gets my point across; 'the last time I believed the words "trust me" I lost my virginity.'

So now here’s a concept, very much related to my previous post on the concept of Pro-Choice as a political party. Our laws should be focused on preserving the civil liberties of every individual, especially in the face of ANY entity that insists it is doing something that benefits the public good.

A somewhat recent (and in my opinion, particularly bullsh*t) piece of legislation regarding ‘public good gone bad’ is with the issue of Eminent Domain. In New London, Connecticut (Connecticut! one of the original 13 no less), it was ruled just peachy to clear out some neighborhoods to allow private developers access to it because it would generate income and improve the economy of the city, enhancing the *public* good. Go to CT General Assembly and search for Eminent Domain 2005 (tried to link to it, but it wouldn't let me; hmm)

Uh; huh. Would you like fries with that bridge I just sold you?

Let’s be honest now people, do you really trust the government, any government, to act in your best interest? Do you believe that any kind of entity larger than your neighbourhood deli, hardware store or public library really has your best interest in mind?

No, nor should it. Corporations have their own interests to take care of. Government is supposed to represent the will of the people, yet if the only ‘people’ they hear from are corporate or special interests, why should you be surprised that legislation is continuously passed in their favour? Especially if you thought that any interest or entity you had a part in promoting was going to ‘take care of you’ somehow. Hell, that’s one of the reasons some of our founders weren’t too keen on a big centralized government, or political parties for that matter.

Recently, one of the regular commenters from The Rest of the Story blog provided this link to an article on Reason Online regarding “Eroding the distinction between public and private health”.

Scary reading - and I think important.

Sometimes I write things in the comments on that blog the things I mean to write in here. I’m including the following comment of mine in full as I give myself permission to do so. I’ll get this latest entry up quicker that way...

"First, thanks for the description of the air flow in plane cabins. I find that the easier someone can explain something complicated, the better that person knows it. (I have yet to get to that level) Obviously you know your sh*t pretty damn well.

Second, bravo with the letter! Well done. I was LMAO. Something else occurred to me while reading it. One of the things people seem to always forget is that the things we consider ridiculous or oppressive now were originally the only hope a population had.
It never happened in a vacuum.

In brief terms:
Communism/Socialism was the resistance to Imperialism (whatever form it took)
Unions were the resistance to Capitalism.
Liberalism was/is the resistance to Conservatism.

The inverse can be said of all those as well. Yet, whether you turn left or right on any issue, push hard enough and you wind up where you were again. For instance, once we broke up huge monopolies, now we call it 'globalization'. Hence the saying about 'good intentions'. It appears that good intentions don't know where to stop!

Something else people tend to miss - no matter how much we prepare for it, we cannot escape life. We keep thinking we're eradicating disease and then disease comes back stronger.

It’s one of the reasons I prefer organizations like LiveStrong (Lance Armstrong's charity) or Planned Parenthood (which is NOT about 'abortion' btw). They do not advocate for one policy or another. They do not function (so far) to police or direct people's choices.They provide services to people who are living in and struggling thru the today. They stay the hell away from politics as much as possible to keep their missions focused. Their service isn't in telling people what to do; it's about supporting people to live their own lives the best they can.

You know, like what this country's founding principles supposedly originally were."