While We're On The Subject(s)...

While we're being political and everything, here is something I wrote a while ago. Perhaps this will clear up some stuff for you. Or maybe it will just waste your time. In any event, it starts with a TV commercial and ends with me running for public office. Go figure.

So, I’m watching TV last night when I saw a commercial for “Yellow Book.” In it a guy cleans up a mess of dried cereal or dog food or something by using one of those small pansy dogs. The kind that Paris Hilton would keep in her purse. At the bottom of the screen was a small note letting the viewers know that this was a trained dog and it was not harmed in the filming of the commercial. The commercial then cleverly noted that online you were able to find a cleaning service.
Why was there a small subtitle during that commercial letting us know that the dog was not harmed in the filming of that commercial? In nearly all TV shows, movies and commercials featuring animals, there is that small tag line letting us know that no animals were harmed in the filming. This is because groups like PETA would have a cow (pun intended) if an animal was at all injured in the production of the commercial, TV show or movie. However, I think of all the action movies that have come out from The Terminator to Lethal Weapon to Die Hard and even awful ones like The Chronicles of Riddick. I wonder how many stunt men (or women - it is 2006, you know) were injured in the creation of those films. How many broken ribs or burns were endured in the creation of these films, but there aren’t any advocate groups fighting for the rights of the stunt worker. What is the difference here? Why are we putting more effort into the protection of the Taco Bell dog over the trained stuntman who destroys a cop car in The Blues Brothers? What is more important? Where is the value being placed?The only main difference that I see is that the stunt worker has the ability to reason and think for him or herself. They can choose to not do the scene while most animals are forced to do it by their owners to pull in a few extra bucks. The question still remains, is there more value placed on animals in show business over people? And it extends beyond show business. We have all heard the cries from environmentalists who are strongly opposed to drilling in Alaska or who ask for the protection of the whales while we have things like capital punishment and abortion. Things like this are not fought for by the same people who are concerned whether or not the Geiko Gecko gets a hang nail.
What is the big picture? By paying attention to groups such as PETA are we losing the value that should be placed on human life? Would PETA rather see a cow turned into hamburger or a man put to death under capital punishment? I’m guessing option B. Which is sick and disgusting. Should you decide to be a vegetarian, good for you. Congrats, you tree-hugging hippie. I don’t want to hear about it. If KFC is harming chickens when they kill them, I don’t care. They are going to be killed anyway, why should they die of lethal injection or something that is more “humane?” Look at the root word of that term - human. That is where the priorities should be.
God said, (and obviously I’m paraphrasing because I’m too lazy to look it up) “Here’s the Earth, do with it what you want. The animals, the trees, whatever - it’s yours.” Yet many fight to “protect the Earth” but don’t fight to “protect man.” If we were created in His image, shouldn’t there be more value placed on us than a cow? It seems to make sense to those of rational thought, but not to those who are animal rights nuts.
Don’t get me wrong, we need to preserve our national resources and should condemn the rape of the natural world. We should utilize all the elements of nature that have been given to us. However, we should place a higher - a MUCH higher value on human life than we do.
That’s why I vote republican. It is not because I agree with all that the republican platform stands for; it is because they are closest to what I believe. Anyone who is Christian should also vote republican. Here is my main reasoning behind that: abortion. One out of every four pregnancies is terminated by abortion. One out of every four. Every 20 seconds in our country a child’s life ends due to abortion. Imagine if in Iraq one out of every four soldiers were killed. Even Bush would have us out of there in a heartbeat. That’s disgusting! But, because the unborn do not have a voice, this practice continues in America. We claim to be a progressive human rights nation, but when we still permit this, we are not. It is that simple. Any medical professional worth his or her degree on the wall will agree that medical science has proved that life begins at conception. Yet still this disgusting practice continues. It is an embarrassment to what this country was founded upon: The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It’s right there. The first one. “Life.” Yet, it has been taken away several times while you’ve read this by those too innocent to fight back.
I, as well as many of you, know someone who has had a child born before their due date. Sometimes dangerously too soon. With modern technology those children were brought to a state that will provide them all the advantages of a child born at an appropriate time. These children could have had their life terminated at the time of their birth. Under the current law, they could be without a mother and father.
Another disgusting aspect of American culture is the death penalty or capital punishment. We are the only Western Civilization that still practices it. Yes, the ONLY country that is considered “developed” that still practices this. Along the same lines as the abortion issue, who are we to decide who lives and dies? Especially after what George Ryan did for this state. In a re-examination of 15 individual’s cases in the state of Illinois that were up for the death penalty, DNA evidence overturned and found 8 of those cases to be innocent people about to die. EIGHT! Ryan commented that MORE than a flip of the coin would have an innocent man dead. This is beyond deplorable. Who is the state - who is we - to decide who lives and dies? What if the day after a man was executed he would have found the right path to Christ and would have been saved? Yet, because of our system he was denied that right. What if he could have become a productive member of society behind bars by educating himself and helping other rehabilitate themselves or assisting the general public in some way? We will never know, because we are all too eager to pull the switch.
That is why I wouldn’t mind a tax increase to cover the salaries of appointed psychologists to help rehabilitate all prisoners before they enter the streets once again. And the same type of treatment to those that would be serving a life sentence over death. It is rehabilitation that is just as, if not more, important than the punishment to criminals.
Now, I know what you are saying “The death penalty is something that the democrats are against and the republicans are for.” That’s right. But, I vote for the lesser of two evils. I would rather see the abolishment of abortion over the end to capital punishment. To have a man die at the hands of the state once every six months is a lesser evil than a child to die once every 20 seconds.
I have decided that should I run for political office, I will probably run on a democratic ticket. I know this would shock most of those who know me, but I am against big business, amnesty for illegal immigrants, the death penalty, guns and free trade. On the other hand, the republican views I agree with are the opposition to abortion, big government and welfare and social security reform.
Here are my views and reasons in a nut shell. No one who has entered this country illegally should be given citizenship. Mexican, Canadian, Iraqi - all should have to apply and be accepted like the rest of the immigrants. Just because they are doing remedial jobs for wages that are FAR beneath the minimum wage that assist big corporations and thus the economy does not mean that they can stay. If guns were outlawed, there would be less crime. Seems simple enough, doesn’t it? But, too idealistic, I know. That is why there needs to be limitations and restrictions placed on guns. No hand guns, for example. I understand the need for rifles for hunting. There are several families within our state who’s diet of venison is a main staple of their diet due to being unable to afford meat all year long. There should be hunters and they should be able to hunt. I have no problem with that. My problem comes with the hand gun. Who needs it? Besides, if a robber were to enter your home, the sound of a shot gun being cocked is one scary sound! Free trade has ruined this country. It started with Clinton with NAFTA. Jobs went to Mexico where their workers don’t have to be paid that much. Anyone who has ANY degree of business sense knows that the highest expense comes from the worker’s paychecks. To cut this in half or more would increase profits incredibly and to not have to pay tariffs, why not move to Mexico, or even worse - communist China like one of the companies in Effingham has done?! I say impose tariffs again and screw big business back into the good old U S of A. President Bush has a great idea for social security - investing it. Now, while this comes with great risk, a solid slow growth mutual fund base would be ideal for future generations. While we wouldn’t gain a lot on the investment, a slow exponential growth would be pretty much guaranteed. It is like investing in IBM. You aren’t going to see a huge return immediately, but over time, it will grow 2-5 % each year or two. This would not only boost our economy greatly (with the amount invested) but also provide a substantial amount of profit that would give my generation and future generations the ability to collect social security. With the baby boomers turning 60 this year (and with most of them with brains fried from the pot they did in the 60’s) we need to be thinking about this as a nation right now! One other thing that I’ve been thinking of is Welfare. This has become a huge national problem that is overlooked by both parties. It was a big deal when I was in high school and then it slipped away. The problem is multiple generations living on government hand-outs. And the recipients of welfare having children to create more income. Why don’t they just get a job and get off of welfare? It is because they would lose their medical benefits and make less money than they can receive for just sitting on their ass. We need welfare steps. To compensate for a job at McDonalds, we would still provide the medical benefits to the individual and their children and meet their previous income by giving them the difference between the two. We would do this for a year so they can become a productive member of society without giving up anything and while continuing to look for a better paying job. With each year, they would need to re-apply and prove that they were doing what they could to better themselves off of the system. It seems easy enough, right? I imagine there is something that I’m not thinking of that would make this difficult.
But, this is where I’m against big government. Democrats feel the best way to solve a problem is to throw money at it. And that has NEVER solved the problem, at least to my recollection. Look at the education system in America. It is awful. Look at how much liberal propaganda is being pushed in our public schools. It is atrocious. I went to a liberal arts college. And it was LIBERAL through and through. I went to a class called “The Radio Producer” which taught you how to run a newstalk show. The issues that would come up where primarily political. I was the ONLY republican in the class. The students would debate the issues, but mainly nit pick the platform of their beliefs without any substantial debate. They would then turn to me to see what I had to say about the issue on the floor. I would then point out the flaws in their logic and explain why my opinion was air-tight. The teacher loved me. Not for my political views, because she was so democrat she was nearly blue, but because I was willing to voice my opinion in a way that was non-confrontational and fully explained my case to the point were even SHE had difficulty diffusing it at times. When I would call the radio show she ran on WLS, I was let in EVERY time without question to debate the topic being discussed. But, that’s not why I brought up education.
You can throw all sorts of money at our education system with hopes that the future generation will be able to compete on the same playing field as the rest of the world, but it isn’t going to happen. All that’s going to do is give them better computers and better globes, which I understand is important to their education, but what would be more vital is better teachers! This tenure bull shit has got to go. Once teachers receive this, they give up. Teachers need to be evaluated by the state each year to prove that they are MORE than capable of instructing tomorrow’s leaders on the topic at hand. Whether that be history, calc or home ec. The requirements to become a teacher should be stricter as well. I know some real empty heads that are teaching in our elementary schools which scare the hell out of me. These are people who’s resumes were littered with spelling errors. If I am able to pick up on their spelling errors, it is a sad, sad day for today’s youth. I’m awful at spelling and I blame it on phonics. Arty that embodies all of them. And I see that as a good thing. It is idiots who follow one political party over another that are blind sheeple. Just because mommy and daddy voted one way does not mean that you should do the same. Think for yourself. I feel the same way about religion, but that is for another post.
Essentially what I’m saying (geez, this post got out of hand, didn’t it!) is more value needs to be placed on human life. The organizations that are pro-environment, for the most part, mean well, but must not loose sight of the true king of the jungle - man.
You would vote for me, wouldn’t you?