Most of you have probably already been emailed the “Bill of non-Rights” (BNR) before; but it makes for some good reading on Monday morning. The BNR is commonly attributed to Mitchell Kaye, a Georgia state representative. In reality the original author is one Lewis Napper a 2000 Libertarian Senate candidate. In my years with an email account I have seen several different versions (the one below is the original) including such issues and English as the national language and Christianity as a core American belief. Overall, its something more Americans probably need to read.
- ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
- ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyoneย not just you! You may leave the room, change the channel, or express a different opinion, but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
- ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
- ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
- ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
- ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
- ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
- ARTICLE VIII:
You don’t have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
- ARTICLE IX:
You don’t have the right to a job. Sure, all of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
- ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness ย which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
I especially enjoy #8. ๐
Was waiting to hear from you about that one. lol That said the point being made was against non national defense situations (like Rwanda and Bosnia.) There are many people that believe that Iraq was not in the interest of our national defense; but there are many that do.
Bobby
The thing that\’s sad about this is that it uses oversimplification to make you want to jump on board with a \”right on\” without examining the underlying beliefs it\’s based on. It\’s a fundamental question of values, what you do and what you don\’t. And, the result of those values is the answer to the question, what kind of world do you want to live in. I guess I\’d rather live somewhere where people would watch my back when I can\’t as opposed to a world where people are so self interested thaey\’s just look at me and pull an annoying Simpson\’s bully \”HA-HA\” + pointed finger. The problem is that (thank you maslow\’s hierarchy of needs – among other things) many (or most)people do look out for number one – which leads you to decide whether or not to inact rules that lead us towards that nicer world or not. (As a side note, not everyone only looks out for number one, and I wonder why…and I wonder why we idealize those people – comics are a great example, and if we idealize them, does that we strive to be like them and then what does that do to our argument, maybe most people don\’t look out for number one, maybe they\’re just bad heroes…) Bob, I know we\’ve had this conversation a hundred times and we usually end up in the same spot, namely I\’m nice and you\’re nice but not eveyone is and when you\’ve got to force them you can never really do it well, which doesn\’t necessarily mean you shouldn\’t but it also doesn\’t mean that you shouldn\’t spend some time asking yourself why people are that way in the first place. (how\’s that for being convoluted? ๐ ) If only we lived in a vaccuum… so much of this would be easier……
I think it\’s pretty clear based on the missing 380 tons of explosives – that have been used to bomb our soldiers – that went unguarded, while the Iraqi oilfields WERE guarded, that this war was not about security, it was about profit. Anyone continuing to delude themselves about that should read the news. The world may very well be more secure now, but that is a happy side-effect, not the main goal of the Iraq invasion. And if we\’d really wanted to make the world more secure, we would have put our money where our mouths are – and where the oil isn\’t – and invaded North Korea. I would have supported that war from the git-go.
News yesterday was the the 3rd armored division was the first to take the bunker and both the soldiers and the embedded reporter with them say they saw no UN seals. So unless some new information comes out, the explosives were almost assuredly moved before the invasion. There are many ways to show that the Bush administration failed to adequately plan for the war. That argument was not one of them.
Bobby
Actually, it seems like the white house can\’t make up it\’s mind WHAT happened – and, as usual, the facts contradict Bush.
One website says the explosives were never there.
Another website says Saddam moved them in march, specifically to hand them over to the insurgents. I\’m not sure how that works, but OK.
Another website says the Russians took them to Syria. Huh?
And we\’ve got Rudy Guiliani saying it was the troops fault the weapons weren\’t guarded, because hey, the orders were for the troops to guard the oil, not the very explosives now being used to kill them: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/saintrudy.wmv
Rudy says: \”The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn\’t they search carefully enough?\”
And they have the balls to say Kerry is betraying the troops?
But wait, there\’s more!
See, an embedded TV crew has fact. And – shocking surprise – the facts contradict the Republican sleaze-spin:
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
Sorry, Bobby, but you\’re wrong. This is gross incompetence on the part of the White House, and if you cannot see that a) they can\’t even get their lies straight and b) the evidence flies in the face of everything the White House has said, then I\’m sorry – you\’re deluding yourself, plain and simple.
Those explosives our killing our soldiers. And all we\’ve got to show for it is a bunch of rich oilmen.
More evidence: the IAEA seals, confirming that the weapons were in fact there:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1
I\’m surprised you actually believe anything coming out of the white house these days.
Both of your points would qualify as “new” information from when I posted my comment . I realize how much you hate and distrust this administration (God knows I was this bad during the ’96 election.) I don’t trust the Bush administration just like I didn’t trust the Clinton administration, just like I wouldn’t trust the Kerry administration… they are politicians and everything that come out of their mouths has to be places in that context.
When it comes to these explosives it seems there is little doubt that there was a mess-up. But that is war Jason. About 5,800 troops died because of bad administrative decisions on D-day. That didn’t prove that Roosevelt was incompetent and I don’t think that this particular instance show that the Bush administration is incompetent. Especially considering that 380 tons is less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the explosives recovered and destroyed by troops in Iraq.
My point is that there is lots of proof of administrative incompetence in Iraq. I am not, and have not, tried to say otherwise. But this issue (or more accurately the extent to which this has been blown out of proportion) is more of a political maneuver than it is a legitimate complaint against the Bush administration. If you don’t realize that then I’m sorry – you’re deluding yourself, plain and simple.
And for the love of God Jason, I was not even planning on voting for Bush. I don’t like Bush, I don’t support Bush. I do, however, support the war and will continue to support the war regardless of who is president or how many explosives are missing. I also support the decision to guard the oil wells . And while I may not support him I am capable of evaluating is actions clearly enough not to believe he is the great universal evil that many of the left have painted him out to be.
Bobby
In the light of how this discussion proceeded, i find it odd that neiher one of you commented on my comment.
I guess the size of meta and micro all depend on your vantage point.
Actually I was just re-reading your comment in light of where this discussion has gone. What makes this discussion more convoluted is that we (the American people as a whole that is) seem to be spending more of our time concentrating on the ideals of a given political party than the realities on the ground.
For instance the Republicans seem to really be getting behind Bush with a fervor that I have not seen sense Reagan, but in many ways this president is the most Liberal Republican in recent memory. Fiscally and militarily this president is a disgrace to Conservative values, but Democrats seem to hate (and Republicans seem to love) him even more.
What is more Clinton (especially after 1994) became one of the most Conservative presidents in recent Democratic history. Much more conservative than H. Bush. Yet to this day he tops the list of most despised Presidents by Republicans.
So it seems that, more so than ever, the values we want to see reflected in our president are our moral values and not our political values. I even have a co-worker in my class that supports the Republican political agenda almost 100% but hates the Republicans because he fears their moral agenda.
No, the more I think about it the less I am convinced that our political party system bears any reflection to peoples ideas of the place of government. The political parties themselves are simply artificial categories created for the purpose of organizing.
Bobby
I know Bob, I\’m just getting scared. I\’m trying not to pay attention to polls anymore.
But, at this point in 2000, Bush was polling 52% and Gore 39%. So who knows? ๐
Okay, I just wrote a nice long screed and Mozilla made it disappear. That\’ll teach me to be long-winded.
I\’m just going to go ahead and say that I don\’t like the implication that we fight oppressive governments to \”soothe an aching conscience.\” In fact, I can think of plenty of times during which our consciences SHOULD have compelled us to act (Sudan, for instance) and we didn\’t, and plenty of times during which we acted purely for selfish reasons. I\’m hard-pressed to find an example of us dismantling an oppressive governments purely because it was the moral thing to do.
Which is sad, if you think about it.
And one more thing (for now):
Surely you don\’t agree with everything on this list, Bobby. Aren\’t you anti-death penalty?
Holy Crap!! Its Angela… you are alive. Hey sexy, how you doing? And ya I have always been anit-death penalty. It puts me in with all the popular people here in Oklahoma ๐
Bobby
Yeah, I\’m alive, and sick of this effing election. Please feel free to email me and we can debate politics.