09.17.07
Posted in politics, life, education at 8:04 pm by Brandon
Okay, this is the last tax post for a while, I promise. But I did a little research and dug up some numbers which seem to really support my hypothesis that Michigan really is a low tax state in comparison with the rest of the country.
In Michigan in 2007, the federally defined level of poverty for a family of four was $20,650. If one lived in any of the 49 other states or Washington D.C., one would pay the following income tax rates based on that salary (please don’t let the lack of alphabetical order throw you):
State Tax Rate
Alabama 5%
Arizona 3.05%
California 4%
Connecticut 5%
Florida 0%
Hawaii 7.6%
Illinois 3%
Iowa 6.48%
Kentucky 5.8%
Maine 8.5%
Massachusetts 5.3%
Mississippi 5%
Montana 6.9%
Nevada 0%
New Jersey 1.75%
New York 6.85%
North Dakota 2.1%
Oklahoma 6.25%
Pennsylvania 3.07%
South Carolina 7%
Tennessee 6% (Taxes only on dividend and interest income)
Utah 6.98%
Virginia 5.75%
Wisconsin 6.5%
Washington D.C. 7%
Alaska 0%
Arkansas 4.5%
Colorado 4.63%
Delaware 5.2%
Georgia 6%
Idaho 7.4%
Indiana 3.4%
Kansas 6.25%
Louisiana 4%
Maryland 4.75%
Minnesota 5.35%
Missouri 6%
Nebraska 5.12%
New Hampshire 5%
New Mexico 5.3%
North Carolina 7%
Ohio 4.083%
Oregon 9%
Rhode Island 3.75%
South Dakota 0%
Texas 0%
Vermont 3.6%
West Virginia 4%
Wyoming 0%
Washington 0%
That’s right, at the poverty level, 34 other states (and Washington D.C.) are charging their residents MORE income taxes than Michigan.
Furthermore, at several states (who have graduated income tax rates) individuals earning median income levels pay more income taxes than we do here in Michigan! For example in Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Arizona one would pay a greater percentage of their income in income tax than in Michigan if one earned a median income for those states.
That makes 38 states and Washington D.C. that expect their residents to pay more than Michigan expects its residents to pay.
We are a low-tax state. It is catching up with us.
Permalink
09.13.07
Posted in education at 5:11 pm by Brandon
If you hadn’t heard, Michigan’s budget is currently in the crapper. If you live in Michigan, I’d encourage you to write your senator or representative and tell them to fix Michigan’s budget problem. Also, if you’re interested, here’s a countdown clock to the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Below is a letter I’ve written to my state senator. If you find it persuasive, I would encourage you to write in to your representative (if you’re a Michiganian) and ask that they solve the budget crisis without slashing funding to education.
Here’s how you can contact your state representative.
And here’s how you can contact your state senator.
Dear Senator Hardiman,
My name is Brandon. I am writing to you to urge you to do all in your power to ensure the passage of a balanced budget before October 1st.
As you are no doubt aware, the state of Michigan is facing massive budget shortfalls. And, as you are also no doubt aware, the state of Michigan has significantly cut funding to programs such as higher education as well as K-12 spending—even since Governer Granholm has taken office. Some estimates place the projected shortfall of Michigan’s budget at around 1.7 billion dollars for the upcoming fiscal year.
Who is to blame? Frankly, I think this question is pointless. The more pertinent question, now, is what do we do going forward? I am sure that you value education like I do; we cannot continue to cut educational spending and expect a long-term solution to our economic difficulties as a state if we do not set education for our citizens as a priority. The bottom line is this: One way or another we need more revenue.
I like to pay taxes just about as much as the next guy: Not at all. However, we face a crisis. Either we raise revenue in some way, shape, or form or we will face disaster. Unfortunately this disaster is not a nameless, faceless disaster. No, this disaster will be immediate, this disaster will be discriminatory (it will affect our poor and vulnerable with less impunity than it does our wealthy), and most ominous, this disaster is but a few short days in our future.
On September 30th, I will become a father for the first time. The next day, a budget must be in place. If you do not find some way to fund the state of Michigan my life will be impacted in the following ways. My wife is a teacher in the public school system. She teaches English and Journalism. She’s a good teacher and she cares about her students. My wife’s superintendent has already issued a warning that her school may not be able to make their October 21st payroll obligations if you do not pass a budget. This would leave my family (with less than a month-old child) to survive on my salary alone. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University. I make approximately $17,000 in salary per year. Assuming that Michigan State could still afford to pay me (which is a big assumption given the loss of funding to education after a failure to pass a state budget) this leaves our family to subsist on about 1,300 dollars per month.
I have lived in Michigan for many years. I like it here. To be frank, my wife and I are highly educated and highly trained; I am pursuing a doctorate and my wife holds a Masters degree in education. If Michigan hopes to retain highly educated and highly trained people, it needs to start funding the things highly educated people care about. I find it highly unlikely that my wife and I would choose to raise my child in a state that slashes funding to K-12 education, cuts care to poor and aged populations, and otherwise puts our most vulnerable populations out to twist in the wind.
We have cut too much. The same classroom that my wife taught in 6 years ago which held 25 students now holds 35 students—although, there’s not enough money to get each student a place to sit. I wish I could say that I don’t care how you get a balanced budget, but the fact is I do. We need more taxes, we need them now. We can’t afford the cuts any longer.
Thanks for your time,
Brandon
Tags: michigan budget, letter to representative, politics, michigan politics, michigan, budget crisis, michigan budget crisis
Permalink
10.24.06
Posted in politics at 10:01 pm by Brandon
If you’d rather not read the rest of this message, here’s the punchline: Vote “no” on proposal 2. Now, go tell your friends to vote no on proposal 2. Okay, you’re now free to go about your business.
Okay, now that we’ve gotten those only mildly committed to reading the drivel I, seemingly semi-annually, toss out into the great wide open of cyberspace, I can have a heart to heart with the rest of you. At least the rest of you who live in Michigan or care to hear about a Michigan election issue.
Perhaps some folks have heard of Proposal 2, perhaps not. This proposal has been titled the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.” Sounds great, right? Civil rights, freedom from oppression, social justice, well, that’s what they’d have you think anyway. What the Michigan “Civil Rights” Initiative is about is abolishing affirmative action.
…*silence*…
What’s that? You don’t like Affirmative Action?
Well, first let me dispell a few myths about affirmative action:
1. Affirmative action was first coined by Kennedy in 1961 when he said that government funded entities who were recieving federal dollars because they claimed to value diversity should be making affirmative action toward finding, recruiting, and retaining underrepresented groups (including women and minorities).
2. You heard me right, it’s not all about black vs. white. Women–well, white women anyway–were actually the first real beneficiaries of affirmative action. Of course, the truth is the workforce (males included) benefitted from greater female representation in the workforce–so to say that women were the first beneficiaries of affirmative action is incomplete.
3. Affirmative action affects government funded entities. All those horror stories you’ve heard about a black high school student getting into Harvard with a 22 ACT score–whether it’s true or not, it has nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with affirmative action. Harvard is private.
4. Affirmative action does NOT support the hiring of unqualified candidates just to make a quota. If you’re a white man and you’ve been told by an employer that you weren’t hired in favor of a lesser qualified minority or woman just to make a quota, either you’ve been lied to or the employer didn’t understand affirmative action.
Affirmative action IS about seeking to actively create a diverse environment through open and affirming hiring practices.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative seeks to ban any affirmative action program. The law of the state of Michigan as set forth in the Michigan constitution allows for discrimination with regard to race in order that a reasonably valid going concern is met by such discrimination. That is, if we use race to increase diversity–which shows all sorts of benefits to things like cognitive complexity and decision making–it has to be because it does show a reasonable number of these benefits.
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
•Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
•Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative seeks to ban any racial preferences EVEN IF THEY PROVIDE FOR BENEFITS TO ALL OF HUMANITY. This is stupid.
There is bi-partisan agreement that this initiative sucks ass. Even Republican man-lover Dick DeVos (Michigan Gubernatiorial-unlikely-but-hopeful) says that this initiative sucks. And Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has agreed that we should all VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 2.
Please vote no on 2. But, more importantly, tell your friends. Send them here if you have to do so. If a George Bush-loving Republican can agree with his Democratic opponent (in an election year, no less) that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is no good, IT REALLY MUST BE NO GOOD!
Tags: Proposal 2, Michigan, Elections, Politics, DeVos, Granholm, Affirmative Action, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative
Permalink
09.27.06
Posted in politics, fun at 8:51 am by Brandon
So, quite often on my way in to school, I listen to NPR on the drive. I’ve rather come to enjoy it (although, this morning Johnny Cash was riding shotgun with me). Anyway, before I switched over to Johnny Cash, I heard an NPR reporter utter something like this (don’t quote me on the content, I don’t remember it exactly. But, this is the jist):
[…]when responding to critics President Bush would argue that the situation in Iraq isn’t as simple as they cast the situation. President Bush would say that [the situation in Iraq] was much more nuanced (emphasis mine).
This may just be a minor clerical error, or some other form of overstatement…nonetheless, this statement struck me as exceedingly odd.
President Bush would never say that the situation in Iraq is “nuanced.”
In fact, the President would probably never say anything was nuanced. He’d never use that word. I doubt he even knows that word.
Sheesh.
Permalink
07.13.06
Posted in politics, culture at 8:31 pm by Brandon
Why, friends, do we insist on labeling ourselves? Why the rigid adherence to giving ourselves an identity? I mean, I’m one of the worst; I admit it. Religious, Liberal, Religious Right, conservative, baptist, conservative Christian, activist, pacifist, Dutch, Jew, bad, good, intellectual, anti-intellectual, realist, cynic. Let’s be honest, we’ve got a love affair with putting ourselves into boxes.
To be fair, it’s sometimes a matter of simplicity. I’ve identified, here, as a liberal so that people could easily determine whether or not they’d like to read on. But, the cold hard truth is that calling myself a liberal is mostly misleading. Sure, if you’re a conservative you assume we don’t agree on politics…but if you’re a liberal, you assume we do agree on politics. And, sometimes–even a lot of the time–we don’t agree on politics. That’s ok, really. Agreement isn’t some sacred golden calf, but why should I put myself into a box.
You may say, “what’s the big deal? Who cares if you’re in a box as long as you know what you believe? What’s the harm of being in a box of your own placing?”
I’ll tell you. The harm is that you begin to associate more with the box you’ve placed yourself into than you ought. You let your self attributed categories do your thinking for you. By labelling yourself, it’s quite simple to let those labels define you. If you’re not careful, you really cease to be yourself.
People that define themselves in their labels aren’t hard to pick out of a crowd. The “conservatives” will be spouting off “Bush-rhetoric”, and the Religious Left will be off in the corner waxing eloquent about how wonderful Barak Obama is…what a man of faith.
I have a hypothesis. It’s not supported yet, but one day it might be. It goes like this:
The powers and principalities of evil want us to label ourselves, because in doing so we become so caught up in the work of rhetoricalizing ourselves against the “evil-other-side” that we forget about the work of the Kingdom.
So, friends, here is my apology to you: I’m sorry for labelling myself a religious liberal. Will you please forgive me?
Frankly, I’m tired of being one.
I’m sick of caring how the latest bullshit from the “religious right” is “ruining the image of Christianity.” I’m tired of trying to defend Democrats who are sniveling, whiny, people panderers with more concern about getting re-elected than they have any real concern about the disenfranchised. I’m really just over hearing Jim Wallis prattle on about how poverty is a moral issue–rhetoric really aimed at deflating the religious right, and not at “making poverty history.” I’m even more tired of feeling like, because I’m a “liberal” I somehow need to respond to assholes like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, do we really even have to respond anymore–I mean, is anyone who really matters listening? I’m even tired of Barak Obama and his ilk of Democrats who feel like faith is a thing to be co-opted as an instrument by which morality MUST be legislated…as if the right is any less of a faithful position.
So, I hereby un-claim any political, religious, socio-economic, or any other activist labels. They’ll no longer do my thinking for me.
Sure, that leaves the blowhards on the religious right without an answer about their contention that there’s no such thing as a progressive Christian. But, let’s be honest, who cares? Who cares if no one’s there to respond to the Brannon Howses of the world? Frankly, our response of, “Yes, there is such a thing as the religious left!!! Look we’re supposed to love the poor!!!! Jesus was a liberal!!!” is a tad sophomoric. It launches us into a bitter rhetorical battle in which the only certainty is that the Kingdom of God loses. As I reflect on this war between the right and left, I can’t help but think that old Uncle Screwtape must be ordering his victory fireworks. Powers and principalities of evil are, after all, notoriously good at the powers of distraction.
Whilst we argue and claim the moral highground–whatever our side–people continue to be ignored, hungry, hurting, and lost.
In closing, I just have to say that I really wonder sometimes, if we create the very culture-war we claim to fight. We claim to be Emergent, and fight with our elders or more conservatives. We claim to be liberal and fight with the right. We claim to be capitalist and fight with the socialists.
What if we didn’t claim to be anything? What if we just loved God and our neighbor as ourselves? It seems to me we’d rather run out of people to fight with. What a pity.
Tags: Labels, Progressive Christian
Permalink
04.19.06
Posted in politics at 12:00 pm by Brandon
I got my oil changed on Monday. I hate getting my oil changed. It’s not that I hate the inconvenience, or the price, or even being heckled by the service technician that I really could use that $850 15k mile tune-up. What I hate about getting an oil change is that on the flat-panel television in the waiting room is that Fox News blares at full volume.
On Monday, I was treated to a breathtaking treatment of Tax Policy by the “fair and balanced” Fox News. I’m not sure how a news anchor who doesn’t ask hard questions of the three Rush Limbaugh-esque conservative panelists, and one wimpy looking watered down liberal in stereotypical hornrimmed glasses all classifies as “fair and balanced” but I suppose that when you define what fair and balanced means, you can make it mean pretty much whatever the hell you want it to mean.
What really lept out at me, though, was a statement by the youngish uber-neo conservative that, “the rich did NOT get rich on the backs of the poor.” (And, this statement, of course, led to no more in depth questioning by the anchor.)
Hmmm…methinks I smell a chink in the neo-con armour. The only reason I can think of that one would make such a statement–that the rich did not get rich on the backs of the poor–is if you believe that if they did, then cutting taxes to the richest 1% wouldn’t be right. So, let’s look at that statement for a second: The rich did not get rich on the backs of the poor.
First of all, let’s acknowlege that your financial position is, in large part, the product of the past. What I’m arguing becomes apparent when you examine it in a micro-level. For example, if you make $8.50 per hour today, you’re pretty likely going to be making the same amount tomorrow. Yeah, you might get a raise if you work hard, but it’s probably not going to be a raise that makes you another, say, 100 dollars an hour. Generally speaking, also, this pattern holds intergenerationally. Your income can be, in part, determined by your hard work, but, let’s be honest–it’s also a by-product of circumstance.
Next, we need to admit that we’re a social system. In society, we’re all tied together; there are no islands. The way to make money in this country is to sell things. Bottom line: that’s how money gets made. Yeah, sure, we all play different roles in that selling–some of us by providing a service, like education, that people buy, but we all make money because people buy things.
People don’t get rich if things aren’t being purchased, goods being traded, etc. (I suppose you could make the case that government workers are often funded by tax dollars–but let’s be honest, most government funded workers (teachers, social workers, etc.) aren’t rich by most US standards (which are admittedly inflated.) So, the rich are getting rich on the backs of SOMEBODY.
Now, perhaps it’s true that the rich aren’t ONLY getting rich on the backs of the poor. I’d grant that, rich people buy lots of things. Lots of expensive things, even. Hell, they can afford them…and good for them, I say. BUT, the rich are buying things they CAN afford, the poor often buy things they HAVE TO afford. I would probably define being wealthy as having a choice about those things on which you spend your money.
So, perhaps the rich got rich on the backs of society, rich and poor together, but when rich people spend their money, there’s often quite a bit left over. They have the luxury of being able to save money, too.
Tax cuts improve the economy. It’s a fact.
When you look at GDP and standard of living indexes, MEAN levels of “wealth” tend to increase. The problem is, I think, the MEAN is often the only measure of central tendency that we look at. As long as GDP keeps going up up up, let’s stay happy. The problem is that the MODE measures of wealth aren’t improving with these tax cuts. Most people aren’t generally well effected by these tax cuts.
Let’s be honest, the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. Paying a couple extra thousand bucks out of that six digit yearly income probably isn’t going to keep you from buying the ski boat, or the trip to Aspen for New Years. At least have the courtesy to acknowlege that you (we) got where you (we) are because Johnny and Sally living down in the government subsidized housing development NEEDED to buy perscription drugs for thier kids, and had to buy food at the grocery market, and needed to pick up a pillow at the local Walmart (because that was the only place they could really afford to buy housewares).
But, you’ll probably just write me off as a bleeding heart liberal.
Remember this: We’re all connected, we’re all in the same boat. And, the same connection to the poor that made us wealthy, may, if we don’t take care of our poor, be the millstone that pulls us ALL underneath the waves.
Tags: Tax Cuts, Economics
Permalink
04.13.06
Posted in politics, life at 8:48 am by Brandon
So, does anybody think this has anything to do with this?
Turns out, it’s not just us liberals President Bush has the capacity to piss off.
In other news, sorry my blog sucks lately. Hopefully I can do something about that soon.
Tags: Blogging, Bush Support
Permalink
03.29.06
Posted in politics, culture at 4:57 pm by Brandon
Believe it or not, it wasn’t the latest Worldview Weekend article that really got me thinking about immigration. I was thinking about it for a while before I even received notice that the nation’s greatest legal minds (ala Worldview Weekend) had thrown together a common sensical guide to the immigration problem.
Thank God for them.
Anyway, I’m going to take a relatively novel position on this whole immigration issue. Normally, I’m somewhat liberal, but I’ve just got to say, this immigration thing is just out of control. We need to do something, and do something soon.
That’s right, friends. I support becoming a vigilante in order to wipe out illegal immigration all together. First off, it’s the Mexicans. They come up here and they put a drain on our healthcare system, they raise our car insurance rates, and worst of all they refuse to assimilate into our holy culture…damn them. Those bastards don’t even take the time to learn our national language: English! It’s so bad that we’ve got to print anti-theft signs in English AND Spanish. If only they’d stay in their own damn country and enjoy the jobs we’ve outsourced to them. They’re so fucking greedy.
But even worse than the Mexicans, it’s the Salvadorians and the Hondurans. I mean, same sorts of problems follow them up across the border, but hell, they don’t even take good tequilla up with them.
And, while our Southern border is bad, it’s nowhere near the travesty we’ve got going on by our northern border. Those Canadians, holy hell, have they become a problem. They’re spreading their gospel of cigarettes, Tim Horton’s, potty mouthery, and curling all over our fair land. There’s just gobs of them; they’re practically stampeding over the border. Our amber waves of grain are being overtaken by Canucks. And, you should see my back yard, it’s damn near full of maple leaves.
And, their beer. Oh, their beer. Whatever happened to the good ole’ days when the Bud girls and talking frogs inhabited our television commercials. Now, we have the Labatt talking bear? Canadians and their God forsaken barley-water are overtaking our most sacred shrine to beer consumption: Budweiser.
But, if we’re really getting serious about this illegal immigration crackdown, I think we’ve got to get retroactive. Take for example Japanese Americans. I’ve never trusted them, with their raw fish and rice wine. Freaks, they are. Furthermore, what about African Americans. I mean, yeah, we brought them over largely against their will, but they’ve kind of quit serving us of late. They’re just more welfare dollars and headaches. If’n they’re not much good to us anymore we may as well deport them.
In fact, poor people must share some genetically shared trait for laziness. (Let’s just be honest, everybody could be rich if they wanted to be, if you’re not, you must be lazy.) I say, we just off all the poor people too, there’s no way they’re REAL Americans. (Also, it seems most civil just to put the poor out of their genetically predestined misery. We should probably just shoot them–thank God for the good ole’ second amendment!)
I’d go so far as to say only the native Americans (you know, George Washington, Christopher Columbus, and Rush Limbaugh and their children and children’s children) should be allowed to stay in the US. Everyone else should be deported, or shot–whichever is most convenient.
But why stop there.
Perhaps, we could restrict access to the US altogether to only allow rich white men residency. Of course we would have to allow some female prostitutes, because, after all, boys will be boys.
And all will be happy, and free, and homogenous, and Christian.
Thank God Almighty I’m a native American.
Tags: Immigration Reform
Permalink
03.07.06
Posted in politics, philosophy at 1:18 pm by Brandon
So, it would seem that not everyone agrees with my last post. Jacke, it seems, takes issue with my treatment of free speech, patriotism, and moving to China. Here’s an excerpt:
I don’t know, is it just me or does it seem like Brandon, in his attempt to accept freedom of speech and revel in the free exchange of opinion, is also attempting to demonize someone for exercizing his or her own freedom of speech by suggesting that he move to China!? Brandon wants to be able to say whatever he wants (again) but doesn’t seem to appreciate others saying what they want in return. Brandon doesn’t want it to be suggested he is less than patriotic because he doesn’t approve of every single thing that goes on in America (as if that would ever happen) but when someone suggests he move, he, in turn, accuses the person of trying to create a totalitarian regime!? Oh, my!
Honestly, I’m really only posting this here so that someone with “Jacke-translating-ability” can help me out with what the hell she’s trying to argue.
As far as I can ascertain the argument goes like this:
Brandon’s a hypocrite because…
- On the one hand he wants free speech.
- On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.
- He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.
- He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about.
I think I was pretty clear about my thoughts regarding my reasoning about the moving out of the country thing. It seems that most people here got it, but I could be wrong.
I defend, under the first amendment, your right to tell me to move to China (or take a jump of the empire state building, or whatever else). However, that doesn’t automatically mean that the second I take you to task about your comments that I only want first amendment protection for me. It just means I think you’re fucking wrong, and that you’re an ungrateful, ignorant prick.
I defend anyone’s (including my own) right to be an ungrateful, ignorant asshole, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like you. And, it certainly doesn’t mean that I can’t call you out, especially when I think that you’re doing a gigantic disservice to our women and men in uniform.
I wonder what it is about some conservatives that makes them think they’ve got a corner on patriotism. It’s like pointing out their hypocrisy is going for the jugular, but when the tables are turned and it’s a liberal who you’re telling that they’re not quite what the US has in mind when it thinks of the term “citizen”, well, that’s just par for the course.
Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Patriotism, Liberalism
Permalink
03.06.06
Posted in politics, philosophy at 12:52 pm by Brandon
It’s been recently suggested that I should move to China. I suppose that’s because I’m critical of the US from time to time. I do find it a little ironic that the reasons that are suggested for my move to a communist nation are that I don’t much like the fact that the US government has, of late, made a number of choices that I find to be foolish. Those choices, and my feelings about those choices, aside, I do feel that the US is a pretty darn great place to live.
I love the idea of freedom. In this country, I’m free to believe whatever I want to believe. If I decide that I should worship a bouncing superball, nobody is going to have a problem with that. In fact, if I market the whole superball worshipping religion nicely, it’s likely that I can find myself a whole host of followers who’ll worship superballs with me. I am free to worship, and to believe whatever I so choose to believe.
I love the idea of a national defense. Now, I’m not trying to pick a fight with any pacifists. In fact, in the past year or two I’ve taken some significant steps toward pacifism myself, but I really like the idea that this country can, when it deems it necessary, choose to exert military force. Yes, I’d argue that we exert military force WAY too much, spend WAY too much on that defense, and there aren’t enough checks and balances on that force; however, I love the fact that there are women and men who love this country enough to pick up and defend the likes of my freedom.
I love the idea of the free media. Any of you with a weak heart might not want to read the next sentence. I love Bill O’Reilly. I hate his show, I hate his ideas, I hate the fact that he calls what he does “journalism”, and I hate his big mouth, but I love the fact that he can say whatever the hell it is he wants to say. He’s allowed his opinion, and I love that.
I love the idea of the free press. I think it’s fan-friggin-tastic that the press can, (mostly) free from governmental pressure report on things that it sees fit. Women and men, boys and girls have given their lives in order that the press could, free from outside pressures report the facts. They don’t do it perfectly, sometimes they spin those facts conservatively, sometimes liberally, but they’re trying. For that I’m grateful.
I love that I am free to tell you what I think. Not only am I free to worship superballs, hate Bill O’Reilly, love the free press, and oppose the war; but I’m also free to tell you about it. I’m free to tell you about it just like Brannon Howse is free to tell you about it, just like Ingrid Schleuter is free to tell you about it, just like Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren, and Kirk Cameron, and the Real Live Preacher, and Greg Horton, and and even good ole’ Jerry Falwell. They’re all free to tell you whatever they like.
You can bet your bottom dollar every last one of these folks (and there’s a pile more that I could’ve listed) are free to tell you whatever they like about the way the world works. I agree with some of them, and with others I disagree.
So, while I’m revelling in the free exchange of opinion, let me offer you one for free. Suggesting that because I don’t believe in your ideals, I should pick up and leave, well, that seems, to me at least, to be a little hypocritical. It feels a little like you’re suggesting that freedom isn’t really all that it’s cracked up to be. It feels a little like you’re trying to create the totalitarian regime the likes of which you profess to despise.
And, yes, as Benjamin suggests, it feels a little like you’re trying to take a big shit on the constitution. (Which, if it weren’t for the whole ‘destruction of public property’, and indecent exposure thing, I’d defend your right to do under the freedom of speech.) And, probably even worse, you’re choosing to shit on the lives that our daughters and sons and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers laid down for the very rights you have to say what you want to say.
I don’t particularly care if you agree with every word I say here, or if you agree with none of them. I’d simply suggest that the next time someone suggests I move to China, you may just be suggesting that we make everything you hate about China happen right here in the United States.
Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Patriotism
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
