Gettin POLITICAL all up in dis

Yes, political ghetto-speak. It should be used more often.

Anywho...here I am at the last break of yet another 8-hour stint at the 3M. Decided to get a little political in this post, seeing as a few things have been brought to my attention.

Which brings me to my first point: there are some things that are brought to my attention that I really don't feel like having to pay attention to. In other words, I don't stinking care.

Case in point: the whole stupid Paris Hilton thing.

Facts?

-drove drunk.

-got arrested(or whatever it is they do to celebrities....foam handcuffs?).

-got license suspended.

-drove twice while license suspended(took legal advice from her publicist).

-got sentenced to serve 45 days in jail.

-served three, and then was released to "house arrest" (meaning: "You're in trouble...Go to your private Disneyland RIGHT NOW!").

-judge got mad and made her serve the whole sentence.

-Paris started to scream and cry.

My take?

Holy crap, people. Worldwide, people who got arrested for driving with a suspended license are all asking their TVs the same thing:

"Where's my small army of paparazzi and helicopters?!?"

She should just have to serve her sentence just like any other bum who drove drunk and then on a suspended license. No whining, no "medical condition." Besides, I wasn't ever aware that whining and complaining qualified as medical.


The other thing that was brought to my attention was a response to an article I wrote in the Leader. First off, it wasn't an opinion piece. It wasn't really even me. It was simply a reaction piece of business owners on a smoking ban that just went into effect here in Hutch. The ban applies to all public places and requires that smokers must stand at least 15 feet away from entrances, lest they face a $300 fine and a petty misdemeanor charge. Anyways...this person started the email saying that there were things about liberty that I "did not learn in school." This person then went on to say that whenever the state is used to accomplish a goal, it is considered force. This person then gives the example of property tax, and says that if you don't pay it, you will eventually be killed.
Not really, though. The person said that if you don't follow the law, you will eventually be killed, but that argument was juxtaposed with the property tax example, making it rather interesting.
The person then goes on to give this account:

"Think about the smoking ban for instance, we have now given the police
the power to throw someone in jail because they smoked a cigarette in
their own property. If this person refuses to stop smoking the police
will eventually have to remove him or her from THEIR property. This
does not sound like the land of the free to me."

Alrighty then, let's get started.

First of all, what didn't I learn about liberty? I, unlike this person, have lived in a country with significantly less liberty than America (Singapore, for three years, cuz my Dad works for 3M). I know about liberty. I couldn't be prouder to be an American, and I thank God on an almost daily basis that He has given me the great privilege to live and serve Him in this great country. The Singaporean government works extremely well, with crime being lower than low, and most street being clean. Sure, you can't sell/buy gum there, sure, the newspaper is probably regulated a little bit, and sure, you get deported for possession of pot and executed for possession of cocaine and heroin. But those freedoms were sacrificed by the Singapore people, and their country is and has been a rising star in the global economic and social sense. I'm not saying we should start offing coke fiends right and left, but some "freedoms" may have to be sacrificed to have true, protected liberty.

Secondly, when the "State" causes something to happen, (now read this carefully), it's doing what it's supposed to be doing. What is a government for, if not to do things in the best interest of itself and it's people? Since when is using force a bad thing? If it weren't for force, the Israelites would have been wiped out by it's many enemies in Biblical times, Germany would have stomped all over the world (and then would have most likely pulled a "Fall of the Roman Empire" Part II), and a drug dealer who pulled a gun on a cop would still be in the streets killing people with guns and drugs instead of dead or in jail. Force may be unpleasant at times, (Iraq, anyone?) but it is completely and utterly necessary.

Thirdly, the property tax example was flawed. This person based it on religious principles, which property tax has nothing at all to do with. Property tax is where cities get a lot of their money, and without that money, sewers, streets, lightpoles, and even water systems would not get maintained.

Fourthly (is that even a word?), this person got the smoking ban totally and utterly wrong. It is illegal to smoke in restaurants, bars, clubs, bowling alleys, newspapers, salons, theaters, and any other public building. If someone owns a property like those and smokes on it, they face the same fine and petty misdemeanor charge that any other person would get. To say that a person can be forcibly removed from their living room for lighting up is completely ludicrous. That isn't even remotely enforceable. A person can smoke on private property, no problem.

Which brings me to my last point here on this rant: The smoking ban is a good thing. Don't you dare give me the whole slippery slope theory, saying that next we can't smoke on private property, and then cigarettes will be totally illegal (my response to that by the way: so?). The slippery slope theory is ridiculous. Think I'm wrong? Show me one example of the slippery slope theory being proved, and I might reconsider.
Anyways, banning smoking is a wonderful idea. Sure, the three bars in town may lose a little bit of their Friday night farmer regulars, but those numbers will be made up by the families who can now enjoy a smoke-free, choke-free dinner.

To wrap things up, the law is a necessary thing. Without it, we'd have anarchy and total chaos. Sure, people would be "free to do what they want," but at what cost? If Hannibal Lecter were free to do whatever the heck he felt like, he'd gorge himself on human livers.

Some freedoms must be sacrificed in order to obtain a truly free and secure society.