Day: February 9, 2012

Contraception

From the VOMITORIUM

I was not going to post on the latest crap coming out of Washington and the MSM……but they will not let it go and enough is enough!  Religious stuff is between the individual and their God….but when these same individuals want to impose their will i get a bit miffed……

Sen. Cronyn (?)…..said that when the government intrudes in a persons life it is time to stand up…..when it imposes its will over the objection of the people…it is time to act……so I ask….when does it become an intrusion when the same sex marriage is banned even though a majority has no problem with it…..we could talk about abortion but that would then take on a life of its own and that is for others to carry that torch……

My point is that since there is not much primary news for the next 2 weeks…the MSM will stretch this out as long as possible…..and politicians will use it to focus the attention of the voter on anything but their dismal approval rate…..

This whole thing started when some Catholic bishop wanted to grab a little headline and apparently has an axe to grind……..I mean this is the same religion that seems to have no opinion on priest that are raping young boys….this yahoo is making this an attack on religion….the more I hear from these religious types the more I agree that organized religion is more a problem than a solution….I mean this issue somehow tears at the fabric of the moral teachings of the church and yet there is no such tearing when priests are raping…..why is that?  When it comes to chest thumping about moral behavior, mybe the church needs to remain silent for their record is not so good anyway….

Basically, this is a fine example of the MSM driving the news……and the American people are falling for the diversion…….they are arguing over something that they are not educated enough to argue……

Here is a suggestion………church stays in its sphere and politics stay in its…….I believe that was what the founders had in mind….but when has that ever gotten in the way of these asshats?

On The Social Contract

College of Political Knowledge

Note:  This post was to be posted yesterday, 08Feb12, and I chose the wrong draft….NEVER post before caffeine!

During the campaigns on the GOP side we keep hearing about  “smaller government” and so far I have NOT heard a good definition of what they mean….other than less spending and tax cuts for the wealthy…..is that all there is to the smaller government concept?  Maybe they are still grasping at the disproved “trickle down” concept.

To explain maybe we should start with the “social contract”…….answers.com

Simply,  it is an agreement or covenant by which men are said to have abandoned the “state of nature” to form the society in which they now live. The theory of such a contract, first formulated by the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. Locke made the social contract the basis of his advocacy of popular sovereignty, the idea that the monarch or government must reflect the will of the people. Like Locke, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, found the general will a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a basis of the state. Similar ideas were used as a justification for both the American and the French revolutions in the 18th cent. Thomas Jefferson held that the preservation of certain natural rights was an essential part of the social contract, and that “consent of the governed” was fundamental to any exercise of governmental power.

While some say that it is an antiquated theory for today’s political world.  I disagree…..we pay taxes which is our cost for the protection of the state….from crime, enemies and the preservation of the idea of equality.  The state protects us and in doing so we have certain obligations to that state….some of these obligations are voting, taxes…….

When conservs say they are for a smaller government, what do they mean?  Libertarians think the only thing government should be involved in is the defense from the boogey man, but what the the Tea Party……..they think that a large government is unconstitutional….but few can elucidate why…….and then there is the GOP which basically is a small government party, but never seem to reduce the size of government when in power.  Small government conservatives seem to be all talk with absolutely NO action once they are at the rudder of the ship of state.

So far it appears to be a slogan to win elections and that is as far as it goes…..and it seems that small government means benefits for the wealthy and the wealthy only…….all this means that a vast majority are the ones that the social contract is paid for and a very minor amount of people are allowed to participate on the benefits of the social contract…..and this brings a new economic dynamic……plutonomy!