Sunday, October 23, 2011

Common Sense

Lately I have found myself defending my liberalism, which is fine. I understand that we are a nation of divergent opinions. What irks me are people that have stances that simply fly in the face of logic.

So in this spirit, below I will make four statements that, I believe, cannot be disputed, yet I know they will be. Because many (if not all) have been nuanced to death by those that would attempt to make people see what does not exist.

And you can take these four statements, add them up, and you get a pretty good barometer of where my mind is at. The sad truth is, in this day and age it would paint me as a fringe left-wing wacko. But to me, they’re simply common sense:

If there were fewer guns, there would be fewer gun deaths. Yep, I started off with the one issue that will likely have the most blowback. The initial reaction will be, ‘if you take away my guns only the criminals will have them.’ Well, possibly. But note how I worded it – if there were fewer guns. I am not advocating taking your gun away. The problem is, many do not have a gun...they have guns, plural, and does anyone really need ten of them?

We are armed to the teeth in this country. Sadly, Columbine-like events are becoming pretty common. In fact, I'll predict it right now: Within the next two weeks there will be a story of multiple killings by someone at a convenience store, bowling alley...or a school.

So I am sure that if we had, say, 30% less guns there would still be plenty to go around and we would be a safer country. Those that disagree will say the exact opposite – they would have us believe that more guns means a safer world, and fewer guns would make for a more dangerous world. Well, go ahead and believe that is you wish, but rationale and reason dictate that stance makes no sense. When it comes to guns, less doesn’t mean more. Less means less. It is arithmetic certainty.

If abortions were illegal, there would still be abortions. This seems to be the unacknowledged fact by those that are Pro-Life. In their mind it is a moral issue that would be fully addressed by passing a law. This is ridiculously over-simplistic. It assumes that a pregnant teenager possesses moral equivalency, and further that she would have that baby if she could not legally get an abortion. Doubtful. Improbable. She’s scared. And no amount of pleading or waiting time will convince her otherwise – you can try to fill her heart with whatever religious mores you possess, but she is pregnant. She’s not going to find God. She’s going to get an abortion.

Anyone that does not acknowledge that fact cannot see the world beyond his or her religious-tinted prism. So the difference between legal and illegal should be replaced with the difference between safe and unsafe. Again, that scared teenager is having an abortion. So the question becomes, do we endanger her health as well? I get that Pro-Lifers consider it morally wrong. But this isn’t about morality – it’s about making a medical procedure that will occur regardless as safe as possible.

Whenever I hear Pro-Lifers state that abortions should be illegal, the only question I have, which has never been adequately answered is, how much jail time should the woman get for having one? And don't cop-out and say that only the doctor would get sentenced - that's like saying only the drug dealer should get the sentence and not the drug user. You make abortion illegal and you have created a new, large group of offenders. Better keep building those jails, because they will quickly be filled with this new class of criminals.

Government creates jobs. Here it comes. I can feel it – ‘Government creates work, only the private sector creates jobs!’ Well, I am sure that policemen, firefighters, code enforcers, urban planners, teachers and social workers are thrilled to know that their careers that they went to college for or were stringently trained for aren’t really careers – they are governmental constructs.

To be sure, the country needs a robust private sector in order to push the needle and reduce unemployment – of that I totally agree. But ‘government’ jobs should not be vilified in the process. If Tea Partiers got their wish and “government” was removed from their lives, so would their safety, education, the roads they drive on and bridges their drive over. They may be free from the so-called shackles of government taxation, but the landscape they would preside over would look like Mad Max’s Thunderdome.

The free market needs regulated. Two letters: BP. Many on the right want us to believe that the reason the private sector is not flourishing is due to crushing regulation imposed by an overzealous government. Red herring. Not true. First off, the reason the private sector is not flourishing is demand is down because we are in a recession. Therefore, reducing (or eliminating) regulation will not increase demand. It will just truncate the process of getting goods that aren't being bought to the marketplace; a truncation that could possibly have disastrous results. Do we really want the FDA abolished so that prescription drugs with dubious claims can flood the market? Do we want the EPA done away with so we can return to the day when rivers caught fire? Regulations are there for a reason, very good reasons. And it is primarily this – the private sector is not interested in the public good.  It is interested in making money.

Okay. Fire away. The only ground rule is, fight logic with logic. I used it. You do the same.

1 comment:

Mike said...

Little late but I will chime in! For some reason cuz, your blog is not automatically posting on my FB anymore. So I had to seek you out...that's scary, eh?

In any event, not sure I have any true hard-core conviction on any of your topics...but can't resist the mental exercise in logic...or bantering....

Fewer guns will not necessarily result in fewer gun deaths. If the killer only has one gun, he can still kill...many times...don't think we will find many single shot pistols out there anymore. And reloading with another clip is fast and efficient. Anyway, I don't see many reports where the killer was packing an arsenal. Usually just one gun. And in those rare instances where the killer does have an array of weapons, I'm not sure more damage is done than could be wrought with a single 9mm and pockets full of loaded clips. And there is the deterent effect on crime gained by allowing responsible individuals to legally possess guns for protection--which results in more guns. The most salient reason that reducing guns might arguably result in fewer deaths is there will be less guns available for criminals to steal and put out on the street in the hands of other criminals. So when the midnite raider robs your home, he will only get one gun rather numerous guns...presuming he gets by the gun you keep stashed near the bed, in the basement or in the kitchen... for just such an atrocity .... hmmm........ maybe having multiple legal guns strategically hidden will help prevent more guns from being in the hands of criminals on the street.....

Abortions..tough one...I have never been an advocate for legislating morals...protect us but morals are better left to the family, church, spiritual advisor. With that said, there are more abortions being performed because it's legal than if abortion were illegal. There is simply a larger opportunity for a a larger number of mothers. Certainly the procedure is safer least for folks who cannot afford to pay off the best doctors or travel to hospitals outside our was happening when abortion was illegal. But just because something is legal does not make it right. Darn it, ended up back on moral grounds and already said I am not a fan of trying to legislate morals...ok,...hmmm...if cancer could be prevented 99.8% of time by taking a pill, would we not all be taking that fact the government might even spring for providing the pill...cancer, abortion...does the cause of death in any manner change the fact of death?

Ok...enuff for now.

Thanks Jerry, Keepin' comin'!