Hereditary Bondage

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." Thomas Jefferson

Mixed Message

I read an article on FoxNews.com this morning on how recipients of the BP oil spill money may have to pay taxes on it. As is to be expected when a disaster of this proportion occurs, emotions are high and the politicians are using them to further their agenda (never waste a crisis, right?). This kind of issue typically turns in to a tangled mess via the perfect storm of victims pleading for help, media sensationalism to grab ratings, and politicians trying to channel energy into popularity increases and maneuvering room for their greater plans.

Let's look at them one at a time.

"If they're going to pay you a lump sum, like for a year, then bam, take the taxes out of the check," said Pellegal, of Boothville, La. "But a little bit at a time, they shouldn't."

There are many individuals who will be impacted by the oil spill. All those you would think of (and the media is focused on), such as oil workers, shrimpers, and deep sea fishing charters, and many more you would not think of. I am not indifferent to this, but neither am I consumed by it. We all have to be aware of our vulnerabilities and WE should be responsible for our own preparedness. If you live along the Mississippi, you need to be prepared for the likelihood of floods. If you live in the Midwest's Tornado Alley, you should prepare for tornados. Upstate New York, heavy snow. California, earth quakes. Gulf coast, hurricanes, and obviously oil spills. It is a simple concept, yet so many don't get it. Why don't they get it? That is a long story, but basically they have been taught to not get it for generations now. We have been taught to make decisions about our life assuming that the future will be what we want it to be. Good examples of this idea and the potential harm of subscribing to it are seen all the time if you look (bankruptcy, the mortgage crisis, the dot com bubble, social security, most debt). The only problem is how we are encouraged to interpret what we see when we look, which brings us to the media and the politicians (not much difference anymore).

President Barack Obama said BP would create a $20 billion disaster fund and provide another $100 million for oil workers who lose their jobs because of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The media wants a scoop, a hook, a headline, an exclusive, something to make you choose them over their competitors. This isn't all bad, I am a big fan of competition, but I am a bigger fan of not being a fool, and anyone who watches ANY of the media and accepts it as fact is a fool (yes, that includes FoxNews). The media wants you to accept them as an exclusive source of the truth, but it is rarely so. I don't claim to know why it is so, but these days the media seems to be nothing but progressive liberals. The media can still ask the hard questions, they do it all the time for conservatives (just like they should), but they have forgotten how to ask a progressive liberal a hard question (they are too busy experiencing a thrill up their leg I guess). This wouldn't be so bad except that the masses of dumbed down "useful idiots" believe everything they see on TV, then they turn around and regurgitate it as if they figured something out. Question the benefit of their favorite entitlement and they will quickly brand you with one of the slurs taught to them by the media. Entitlement mentality is the polar opposite of being responsible for yourself, which brings us to the politicians.

"I haven't even thought about taxes. Wow. That makes me mad," said Edwards, who has one child in college and another in high school. "I'm already losing money, and now I've got to figure out how to hold back money to pay taxes?"

Now I know what you are probably thinking, progressives are Democrats and conservatives are Republicans, but that is just not so. Both parties have done their share of increasing the public addiction to the opiate of entitlements. Many Republicans will pay lip service to reducing entitlements, but when faced with the prospect of an electorate irate from withdraw, they soon abandon the notion in favor of their own, "more restrained" entitlements. This is one good reason for strict term limits, to help end the cycle of "re-elect me so I can give you even more!" That must be why they can't believe that their progressive saviors want their cut of the BP payments, but this is just too big of a win to let them keep it when there is SO MUCH MORE the progressives need to fund. Not to worry, according to the article, the same happened in 2007 for folks who received money after Katrina. Once the complaining got loud enough congress disallowed the tax, so crank up that temper tantrum about how unfair it is to pay taxes on your...err...income.

This guy, who is he? Where did he come from?

In response to his successful bid to win the nomination to run for a South Carolina Senate seat, many are suggesting Alvin Greene should be disqualified.

Why do they want him disqualified? Well, the most sited reason is he is out of bail after being charged with felony obscenity, but he has not been proven guilty. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, when I hear him interviewed, I have no reason to think he will do a good job as South Carolina's Senator, but I feel that way about many seated Senators. Furthermore, soliciting women, or for that matter men, by Senators, or even sitting Presidents, is hardly a rare event. I am not excusing immoral behavior, if he did what he is accused of I hope he is convicted and sentenced.

"He's been paid to stay in it, by somebody," Clyburn said. "I just think this is a ploy by someone to dishonor and embarrass the Democratic Party."

The difference between Mr. Greene and many others who have "served" in federal government, is class, not behavior. I have no doubt that were Mr. Greene a rich lawyer, doctor, or businessman who was presumed to have the ability to pull more federal money into the state or expand the Democrat parties influence, he would be defended by the very people who now attack him now (with the exception of Camille McCoy, the 19-year-old chemistry student at the University of South Carolina who reported him to the police). Mr. Greene does not come from the right class though, he is unemployed, he does not inspire confidence, and he doesn't appear to have a grasp on the issues.

"Alvin Greene has made himself an issue by running for office." - Susan McCoy (mother of the student Alvin Greene is accused of harassing)

I in no way support Alvin Greene. I do support our system of electing our representatives and the responsibility that accompanies it. It is interesting that now, after defeating the presumptive favorite of the Democrat party Vic Rawl ( a state legislator and former judge), cries for Mr. Greene's withdraw and federal investigations abound. The fact is that the Democrat party has nobody to blame but themselves in this, after all, it was their primary, and they approved Mr. Greene's application to participate. Registered Democrat voters decided to vote for Mr. Greene, so he ought to be their candidate no matter how distasteful the party higher-ups find it.

Just in case you think I feel this way because I like the idea of an easy victory for Mr. Greene's Republican opponent, let me clarify. I find it completely plausible that the same situation could happen in a Republican primary, and if it did, I would feel no different. Both parties have become focused on political strategy at the expense of principled service. Our elected representatives are to lead via public service, not attempt to dominate by political maneuvers and media misinformation. I am willing to abide the occasional Alvin Greene in order to ensure that all citizens, regardless of class, have access to serving as elected officials.