Come on man.

So for this post, I'm totally stealing Chris Carter's "Come on man!" shtick from ESPN. The post may cause a little outrage for some, a lot for others, but the hope and intent is to air some of the grievances and toss my small opinion in to the wave of voices. I don't really know that I'll change anyone's mind, and would be open to anyone trying to change mine. If anyone feels like commenting, please keep it civil and focus on the ideas, not the individuals. If you don't want to read anything charged or bent then please skip this and enjoy this wonderful video or this one (heck I think you should watch them anyway cause puppies).


Duck Dynasty
Okay, let me start by saying I've never seen an actual episode of the show. I've seen their merchandise all over the place and apparently they are a thing. I'm not a huge fan of "reality" TV, but apparently enough people are that the patriarch of their family was featured in GQ magazine (though judging based on his appearance alone, I have no idea why they would care to talk with him). He apparently made some comments that the folks at A&E weren't thrilled with and felt didn't reflect their values and beliefs.

I'm not going to address his actual comments but what I want to address are all the comments I'm seeing all over the place about this being a first amendment (freedom of speech) issue. No, it's not. This man has the right to say whatever he wants, provided it is not designed to cause actual physical harm, and the government cannot put him in jail or deprive him of his property. I'm pretty sure that he has not been arrested or charged with anything. If that has happened, please let me know, I'll be happy to join the protesters out in front of his jail cell. We don't, and should not, lock people up because we don't agree with their point of view, regardless of how vile some may perceive it to be (note, we should lock them up if their point of view manifests itself in to harmful action, but as the old saying goes, sticks and stones.....).

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech. Mr Robertson is welcome to have views which a large portion of this country find offensive and hurtful. He also has a great number of people who clearly agree with him. A&E is a business. They want to project a certain image and they want their employees, and most especially their television programming to align with that viewpoint. Now they appear to be happy with zombies, and meth dealing history teachers, but draw the line at redneck duck hunters with unpopular opinions. Does this make them hypocritical? Maybe. Does this mean they shouldn't have the right do determine who/what represents their viewpoints. Of course not. If we changed the context and Mr. Robertson were suspended because he decried meth dealing zombie educators (clearly going against A&E's beliefs) would there be the same outcry? I kinda doubt it, but the group he "attacked" (I don't really think he attacked them based on the article, but I'll stipulate to that one) is one that is often protected (where are the pro-zombie groups these days?) and that's where the real issue comes in. People who agree with his viewpoint feel like they are being silenced. People who disagree feel like A&E did the right thing and this person should be silenced. Well, you're both right and you're both wrong. If Mr Robertson wants to stand on a corner and proclaim his feelings regarding homosexuality then lucky for him, in our country he can. If A&E doesn't want to associate with people who decry homosexuality, then again, lucky for them they can.

All in all, please stop trying to make this in to any kind of first amendment issue, or persecution issue. It's one rich redneck, who got in "trouble" for saying something that a bunch of people found offensive. It's not like he's going to have a tough time getting meal, heck he can go duck hunting if worse comes to worse.

Religion in US
Which kind of leads me in to my next topic of annoyance. Religion is both a wonderful and terrible thing. Many wars have been fought because two groups of people couldn't agree on what God's word really was. I haven't spent a great deal of time in church, but I have spent enough time in enough of them to notice a particular pattern, which sickens me. This little rant is something I want those who are hoping to teach the truth to others will take a moment and think not only about what their message is but how that message sounds.

For one thing, you can have the deepest and most sincere conviction that you are right. That your chosen religion is the correct one, that your interpretation of the Bible is 100% accurate and right and good. And frankly I think that is awesome. I think its amazing that you've found an inner peace with the world and your place in it. That you've found the answers that many other people still haven't found. What I don't think is OK is for you to belittle, demean, or condemn others for not having the same beliefs and convictions you have. The real way to convert someone, or get them to come around to your point of view, isn't to bludgeon or hate them, but to love them. To walk the walk, and show them a person who is so full of goodness and love that they can't help but ask "why?" when they see you. If you've really got the answer, then believe me people will come to you and ask you what you know. You won't have to stand at the top of a hill and shout about how right you are. People will come and ask you.

It's also important to realize that you might be wrong. My mother-in-law once lent me a book call "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis (yup that lion witch wardrobe dude). It was a quick read and I pretty much cruised through it in a single afternoon. There was a particular part that really struck me as ringing true, even today. If you grow up in the church (I'm sure it's similar across faiths, but my experience has been in Christian churches so I'll only really speak to them), you'll be indoctrinated in to every nuance of your churches belief system. You might understand the significant difference between a Baptist and a Lutheran and a Catholic. If that's you then wonderful. But for people who are seeking answers, it can be more than a little off putting when they start to ask questions and are told how this is the absolute right answer and there can be no questioning it. Denominations (and wow there are a ton) within the religion don't 100% agree on everything.  To an intelligent person it seems like there is at least room for discussion, and maybe acceptance that an alternative viewpoint has merits. Sure the Baptist could be 100% right and the Lutheran is only 95% right and that 5% might be the biggest most crucial thing in the world, but remember, it's not your place to judge or condemn. You should embrace the opportunity to defend your beliefs with sincere, open communication. Through that you might not only convince someone else, but you'll be on even firmer spiritual footing in the end.

So that was a lot to say a little, but please remember that it's more important to love and welcome each other. I don't remember many verses, but I do remember Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you really believe that to be true, shouldn't you embrace your fellow sinners? Remind them that we all are such, and tell them to listen to God and ask forgiveness? Aren't these the accepted practices for dealing with sin in most of the denominations? From a religious point of view, does it really make a difference what the sin is? I know there were 7 deadly ones (mainly from Se7en, but hey you get what you can) so those might be worse, but I don't think any of those were "homosexuality" (unless you just go with lust, but shouldn't you approach it from the lust angle, not the object of the lust?). I think too many people have decided that, rather than showing love to every person and leaving the judging to the appropriate deity, they take that upon themselves, which smacks of pride, another one of those sinful things.

So that was a really long way to say you'll win more people over by living "right" and sharing wisdom when asked, then you will by condemn another person's actions or feelings because they don't agree with your own.

Politics in US
Which leads me in to the final rant of the night. Politics. I've got friends who lean right, and friends who lean left. I used to think I was pretty conservative. Then I moved to a more conservative state, but went to law school, so I'm still a little on the conservative side. That being said. In the upcoming elections I am voting straight up against incumbents across the board. I think the last 13 years have been truly disgraceful. We've had our entire federal government controlled by both parties, with sprinklings of a mixed bag in-between. What does this tell me? They are both horrible at their jobs, and the system is a mess.

If you're a "right winger" then I challenge you to show my how exactly Obama is so much worse than the second Bush. If you're a "lefty" then I'd like to hear how Obama is so much better than the second Bush. I don't think either side can make a reasonable case. Obama is closer to our minds now, with the health care mess, and other recent scandals. The congressional branch of our government just allowing things to be "shut down" simply as a bargaining chip was despicable. I think it's safe to say that any of the current folks involved should be canned. They've done a horrible job. We all know it, we all see it and we all suffer for it. Whenever they try to address a serious problem the infighting over getting funding for this pet project, of ensuring that lobbyist Y (who gave me lots of money) is the company we choose has destroyed our governments capacity for governing.

So how do we fix it?

1 - Politicians - You're all fired. We're done. You've had your go. Yes, I realize there will probably be a few "good" ones who get swept up. If they really are good, they would understand the need for it and be willing to kill a political career anyway.

2 - Term limits across the board. Remember in the early part of our nation, congress was thought of as a civic duty. I'm not saying that people performing that duty shouldn't be paid, but it shouldn't be a life-long career. Three terms in congress (six years is plenty) and two terms in the senate (seriously, it's 12 years). Fresh blood and fresh ideas would be welcome. I know there might be the problem of "lame duck" politicians, but isn't that better than corrupt ones who dance in the grey areas of the law?

3 - 60% majority on all new laws. Basically, it should be a little harder to change things. If it's really that awful, than it shouldn't be too hard to get to 60%. Straight majority rule is just mob rule. We should be better than that.

4 - Make a freaking budget. I'm not one of those people who thinks running a country is like running a household budget, but you need to have a budget. We've gone way too long with this fast and loose borrowing with no sign of how it will ever be paid back, or even when it will actually stop. I don't expect the country ever to be "debt-free" as it's not necessarily even a good thing to strive for. I do think we can account for how our money is being spent though. It seems like there are way too many entitlements and other programs sucking money away. (see below)

5 - Make tough cuts - I'll use SSI as the perfect example. The initial intent was to protect people who couldn't save for retirement. It's pretty much impossible to save for retirement when you're living paycheck to paycheck. It's purpose isn't to supplement the income of people who don't need it. Yes I get that you paid in to it for all those years so you feel like you should get something back. But let's keep in mind, when they set up SSI the average American was living to about 68 years old, so it was really only going to be three years on retirement. That's not too hard to maintain. But we're living longer, people with ages of 80+ not really being all that remarkable any more, it should be relatively easy to see where that could cause a major strain on the system. I'm not saying you can't retire at 65, but why should the system be stuck supporting you for another 20+ years, when it was designed to support you for three?

We can also make it income based. If you've got the resources where the SSI money isn't going to make or break you, then you simply don't get it. The money you paid in is gone, consider it a tax on making lots of money and enjoy your jet ski. At some point this situation is going to become unsustainable. It seems to make sense that spreading the pain around would be better than just waiting till the bubble pops and hoping for the best. We have a hundred little crisis that are all going to start bursting one day (don't get me started on higher education and student loans, I'll need another post for that). We need to be more proactive and try to cushion the blow when these things start to happen, otherwise we might find out that the US isn't necessarily "too big to fail".

I don't think those will fix all the problems. But it seems like a good way to start. There are tons of areas where cuts can and should be made. Often times it's a matter of using resources more efficiently. Hopefully the next group will be better than the last and work with that civic duty in mind, rather than just grabbing what they can while they can do it.

Okay I think that's enough for one night. I'd love to hear your thoughts, comments, or feedback on any of these (or other topics really). Please just keep it civil. Simple rule, attack ideas not people. Defend attacks on your ideas by attacking the other persons ideas and assumptions. There is no need for personal attacks.

Hope everyone has a safe and happy holiday season.