The whole country is in an uproar about whether or not professional athletes should be forced to stand at attention when the national anthem is played before their games. Certain players and teams are refusing to do so as a protest again what they see as racism in the police force and other institutions in the country.
I think the whole thing is a manufactured issue, that the media created, to successfully get more attention to the things they are showing. Starting with Colin Kaepernick last year, the issue has simmered until last week when it exploded across the world, with Trump denouncing it, players in England taking part, entire teams not attending the anthem, and it spreading to other sports.
Mostly this has occurred as players taking a knee during the anthem, or remaining seated when the rest of the team stands. Other players have remained standing but raised a fist instead of placing their hand over their heart. The Steelers took it a step farther by not showing up on the field for the anthem. It will be interesting to see what happens next, as people try to top that move in their quest for attention. It is an increasing level of disrespect for the flag, and country depending on how you look at it. Part of the spread seems to be fueled by rebellion against the idea that certain people have been expressing: "that the players shouldn't be allowed to protest." Just because someone can do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should.
From a first amendment perspective, there is nothing that the government can or should do about it. So in that way, Trump is totally out of line, and the last person that should try to influence the situation. The NFL or individual team owners have the right, but not the obligation, to put a stop to it. The owners of certain teams like the Cowboy's have prohibited their players from taking part, while others like the Patriots have supported the protest. The Jaguars owner took part in the protest himself, while the Steelers coach (unsuccessfully) tried to pressure his entire team into taking part.
The unexpected result of this was that it gave one Steelers player the opportunity to make a protest of his own. Standing outside the locker rom at the edge of the field, the former Army Ranger stood at attention during the anthem, in a move that implicitly protested the ongoing disrespect of the flag and country. Now the one standing apart and getting attention is the one doing the normal thing, which becomes counterproductive for those trying to point attention where they want it, so that might be the key to ending the issue. It is not a protest that is sustainable or scalable. Once entire teams are doing it, it becomes the new normal, and no one is getting special attention, and people stop talking about it.
I think the entire issue is a good highlight to the general public of what the first amendment does and doesn't apply to. People care far more about sports than I think they should, but if that interest motivates them to examine this legal issue closer than they otherwise would, so be it. It should help them understand that the first amendment only protects them from the government punishing them in disapproval of their free expressions. Other people are free to express counter opinions in response, or even to terminate their relationships or employment with them (Within certain parameters). This is similar to the dancers who didn't want to perform at Trumps inauguration, they have a right not to, but at the expense of their jobs. It will be interesting to see if this grows into a conflict between people who do have authority to change things (the league and owners) and the players. Because up until now, nothing of any consequence has actually taken place as a result of the entire thing. And I am not sure how much of anything positive really could, given the broad nature of what they are protesting.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Confederate Monuments and Other Historical Memorials
The debate about Confederate monuments has expanded since my last post, and now has begun to include anyone who owned slaves, or is perceived to have held racists views. Since pretty much everyone prior to the twentieth century held racist views, (Same as they believed smoking was good for you, and all sorts of other things) that pretty much provides a wild card to justify attacking any part of America's history or heritage. Even Abraham Lincoln, famous for fighting to end slavery, still expressed extremely racist views by our modern standard. Instead of that fact providing people with a little more perspective on the realities of the past, it led someone to deface (literally) a statue of Lincoln in Chicago. There are people calling for changes to Mt. Rushmore, because it honors people who were "racist" (all of them) and slave owners (Washington and Jefferson). ESPN even removed a sports commentator to avoid offending people who might be bothered that his (Asian) name is Robert Lee. Seems kind of racist to me to remove someone from their position due to their last name.
Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing. But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone. But let's examine both sides of the original issue:
There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists. Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage. They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today. So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left. And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes. If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed? Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end? As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans. Who are we to "unforgive" them now? Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations. While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War. The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost. But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.
The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery. While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective. And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home. I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.
The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy. Why now and not five or ten years ago? The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history? The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.
Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing. But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone. But let's examine both sides of the original issue:
There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists. Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage. They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today. So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left. And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes. If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed? Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end? As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans. Who are we to "unforgive" them now? Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations. While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War. The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost. But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.
The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery. While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective. And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home. I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.
The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy. Why now and not five or ten years ago? The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history? The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Charlottesville Conflict
Last weekend's events in Charlottesville Virgnia have led to all sorts of commentary and discussion online. This is in part because the events in question (and the context surrounding them) reveal larger differences in values between different segments of our polarized culture. The actions and responses raise all sorts of important questions in a number of areas that are worth addressing.
First off we have the original issue of whether we should be removing monuments to our country's history and past leaders. And if so, who should determine which ones, based on what criteria? And how should those doing it without legal authority be treated? Then there is the issue of how should we as Christians respond to the fact that their are people openly supporting Nazi ideas marching in the streets? And how should we feel about the secretive "Antifa" that violently confronts those seen as Nazis? Should people be allowed to be armed when attending these kinds of demonstrations? What about the person running down pedestrians with a car, and killing one of them? And then there is the issue of how the president and the rest of the government should be expected to react to the events that are taking place. And should they be held in any way responsible for the fact that these events are taking place during their administration? So there are a lot of separate issues at influencing the situation, and therefore people's views on what should happen, and why.
The source issue that led to the event in the first place is the larger movement to remove Confederate statues across the country. This is a vast topic, that I will dedicate a full post to soon. For now we can just say that if the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove them, the results are simple. If we agree that some should be removed, this leads to the complex questions of which ones, and what should the process be for determining that, which I will examine more in that next post. What we have right now, are groups of people taking it upon themselves to remove or destroy statues, and should we turn a blind eye to those acts of vandalism? The only reasonable thing to do is prosecute people doing it illegally, otherwise there would be no logical arguement against burning down abortion clinics, or any other institution that some party finds offensive. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend these people and their vandalism.
The fact that there are modern people with a favorable view of the Nazi Party and their ideas does boggle the mind. But they do exist, and they are publicly exercising their right to free speech by expressing their misguided views. So would should the reaction to that be? First off, the government should not do anything beyond keep an eye on them as long they don't go beyond saying things, even if what they are saying is hateful and offensive. Individuals and private companies should be free to avoid associating with or serving or employing them. But as Christians we shouldn't hate them, C.S.Lewis addresses the proper Christian response in Mere Christianity (Bk3-Ch7 Forgiveness). We should always hope for their change of heart or redemption, even if we have to use lethal force to protect others from them. So hating Nazis just makes you more like one of them. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to make Nazis the exception to all civilized rules.
Once someone moves beyond hateful words, to hateful or violent actions, we are in a different situation, and I have no hesitation for the use of force in response. But that escalation from expressing ideas to implementing them forcefully is a significant one. Most of the violence last weekend appears to be conducted between people looking for a conflict, on both sides. The Nazis weren't the only party looking for a fight. Members of Antifa openly advocate violence as a justified response to Nazis, and anyone else they don't approve of. In my opinion Antifa seems more violent than the current generation of Nazis, and I see them as a more realistic threat to our culture, because there is no overwhelming majority actively opposing them. And Antifa operates in anonymity, like the old KKK, while the Nazis are out in the open, allowing them to be identified. Those supporting the Nazi's antagonists might want to consider that 4 years of conflict with Nazis resulted in 40 years of conflict with Communists. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend the violent aggression of Antifa's members.
Allegedly someone deliberately ran into a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring many others. If that is true, it is murder, and I am all for their punishment. but unlike the similar ISIS attacks in Europe, this seems like an impulsive act of malice, not an example of Nazi tactics that we should be concerned about. Due to Virginia being an open carry state, there were also many protesters on both sides of the issue who came armed with guns, presumably for self defense. In my opinion, this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists, and a success story for the value of having armed citizens. Hundreds of people were involved in a violent conflict, and not a shot was fired, because most of the violence was between the unarmed members. Guns raise the stakes to point where violent conflict is no longer worth the risks. (Similar to nukes in international relations) It is hard to prove that the presence of guns reduced the amount of potential violence, but since not a shot was fired, it would be hard to argue that it increased it any at all. Taking a way guns wouldn't have prevented the one death that did occur, and might have led to more, similar to Europe's current problem with alternatives to guns being used in violent attacks. (Knives, acid, vehicles, etc.) It should be obvious that guns aren't the source of the violence problem, but there are some trying to outlaw their presence, or even existence.
Some how a violent riot in Virginia is being blamed on the President. While a leader is technically in charge, he doesn't control everything that happens within his domain of influence, especially with our limited form of government. But there are some participants who were quoting various things he had said, so he has had some influence on the people involved. He didn't come off very strongly against those involved, especially in his first response, but I can't fault him for blaming both sides. There are many who were offended that he criticized both sides, based on their opinion that the ideas of Antifa aren't as bad as the ideas expressed by the Nazis. But even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right, and being "better than Nazis" does not make something "good." I find it interesting that this is the issue that appears to be "sticking," more than the weekly issues of the past few months that the media has highlighted in their ongoing effort to discredit the current administration. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more events like this in the near future, as those who are trying to generate narratives like this one appear to have found a successful approach.
First off we have the original issue of whether we should be removing monuments to our country's history and past leaders. And if so, who should determine which ones, based on what criteria? And how should those doing it without legal authority be treated? Then there is the issue of how should we as Christians respond to the fact that their are people openly supporting Nazi ideas marching in the streets? And how should we feel about the secretive "Antifa" that violently confronts those seen as Nazis? Should people be allowed to be armed when attending these kinds of demonstrations? What about the person running down pedestrians with a car, and killing one of them? And then there is the issue of how the president and the rest of the government should be expected to react to the events that are taking place. And should they be held in any way responsible for the fact that these events are taking place during their administration? So there are a lot of separate issues at influencing the situation, and therefore people's views on what should happen, and why.
The source issue that led to the event in the first place is the larger movement to remove Confederate statues across the country. This is a vast topic, that I will dedicate a full post to soon. For now we can just say that if the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove them, the results are simple. If we agree that some should be removed, this leads to the complex questions of which ones, and what should the process be for determining that, which I will examine more in that next post. What we have right now, are groups of people taking it upon themselves to remove or destroy statues, and should we turn a blind eye to those acts of vandalism? The only reasonable thing to do is prosecute people doing it illegally, otherwise there would be no logical arguement against burning down abortion clinics, or any other institution that some party finds offensive. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend these people and their vandalism.
The fact that there are modern people with a favorable view of the Nazi Party and their ideas does boggle the mind. But they do exist, and they are publicly exercising their right to free speech by expressing their misguided views. So would should the reaction to that be? First off, the government should not do anything beyond keep an eye on them as long they don't go beyond saying things, even if what they are saying is hateful and offensive. Individuals and private companies should be free to avoid associating with or serving or employing them. But as Christians we shouldn't hate them, C.S.Lewis addresses the proper Christian response in Mere Christianity (Bk3-Ch7 Forgiveness). We should always hope for their change of heart or redemption, even if we have to use lethal force to protect others from them. So hating Nazis just makes you more like one of them. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to make Nazis the exception to all civilized rules.
Once someone moves beyond hateful words, to hateful or violent actions, we are in a different situation, and I have no hesitation for the use of force in response. But that escalation from expressing ideas to implementing them forcefully is a significant one. Most of the violence last weekend appears to be conducted between people looking for a conflict, on both sides. The Nazis weren't the only party looking for a fight. Members of Antifa openly advocate violence as a justified response to Nazis, and anyone else they don't approve of. In my opinion Antifa seems more violent than the current generation of Nazis, and I see them as a more realistic threat to our culture, because there is no overwhelming majority actively opposing them. And Antifa operates in anonymity, like the old KKK, while the Nazis are out in the open, allowing them to be identified. Those supporting the Nazi's antagonists might want to consider that 4 years of conflict with Nazis resulted in 40 years of conflict with Communists. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend the violent aggression of Antifa's members.
Allegedly someone deliberately ran into a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring many others. If that is true, it is murder, and I am all for their punishment. but unlike the similar ISIS attacks in Europe, this seems like an impulsive act of malice, not an example of Nazi tactics that we should be concerned about. Due to Virginia being an open carry state, there were also many protesters on both sides of the issue who came armed with guns, presumably for self defense. In my opinion, this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists, and a success story for the value of having armed citizens. Hundreds of people were involved in a violent conflict, and not a shot was fired, because most of the violence was between the unarmed members. Guns raise the stakes to point where violent conflict is no longer worth the risks. (Similar to nukes in international relations) It is hard to prove that the presence of guns reduced the amount of potential violence, but since not a shot was fired, it would be hard to argue that it increased it any at all. Taking a way guns wouldn't have prevented the one death that did occur, and might have led to more, similar to Europe's current problem with alternatives to guns being used in violent attacks. (Knives, acid, vehicles, etc.) It should be obvious that guns aren't the source of the violence problem, but there are some trying to outlaw their presence, or even existence.
Some how a violent riot in Virginia is being blamed on the President. While a leader is technically in charge, he doesn't control everything that happens within his domain of influence, especially with our limited form of government. But there are some participants who were quoting various things he had said, so he has had some influence on the people involved. He didn't come off very strongly against those involved, especially in his first response, but I can't fault him for blaming both sides. There are many who were offended that he criticized both sides, based on their opinion that the ideas of Antifa aren't as bad as the ideas expressed by the Nazis. But even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right, and being "better than Nazis" does not make something "good." I find it interesting that this is the issue that appears to be "sticking," more than the weekly issues of the past few months that the media has highlighted in their ongoing effort to discredit the current administration. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more events like this in the near future, as those who are trying to generate narratives like this one appear to have found a successful approach.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Repealing Obamacare
The House passed a repeal and replacement to Obamacare last week. The first obvious question is why does it need to be replaced? The government of a free country should not be involved in providing healthcare to its citizens, but it is not realistic to move directly from where we are now, to an ideal free system. It is hard to know where to look for facts about what was actually in the bill that was passed, and there is a ton of clearly false or misleading information out there. The only source I have seen that makes any sense is this article from NPR, who I think most would agree does not have a conservative slant:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/
I agree with most everything in here, and it seems very wise. The only role the government should play in health insurance, is setting some basic framework standards, and enforcing contracts to settle disputes. Under Obamacare, heath insurance was usually treated like term life insurance, with the terms reset every year. This caused people with ongoing medical issues to be have their policies canceled when they "ended," which led to this whole issue of pre-existing conditions." Ideally, health insurance should work similar to whole life insurance, in that as long as you pay your premiums, the insurance company shouldn't be able to cancel or abridge your plan. The primary difference is that while life insurance is insulated from inflation (it effects premiums and payouts equally) health insurance is not, so it is reasonable for premiums to increase over time. According to NPR, this new bill prohibits companies from canceling insurance policies or increasing premiums for customers with higher medical costs, as long as their premiums don't lapse. This is how it should work.
It also gets rid of the tax penalties for not having health insurance, which were ridiculous. Those without health insurance should be risking high medical costs, not guaranteed high tax penalties. Foregoing health insurance wouldn't be hurting anyone else if we weren't guaranteeing treatment to everyone, which is the main problem. People aren't responsible for their own care, so Democrats had to come of with some way to force them to play along and pay into the system that was forced upon them. This is the antithesis of freedom.
Income based tax credits are replaced with age based tax credits. This would be advantageous to people like me who can't accurately predict their annual income, if I was taking those credits. But I refuse them on moral grounds, that other taxpayers shouldn't be paying for my healthcare, or any other private costs for that matter.
Cutting all of the Obamacare taxes is a good step. They are only restoring things to 2010 levels, and this whole issue just exposes one more lie in the Obamacare process. If restoring pre-Obamacare tax levels cuts $1Trillion in federal revenue, then Obamacare was a $1Trillion tax, which is one of many reasons people were opposed to it. (And because they didn't want to keep their doctor, right?)
Cutting Medicaid increases is fine, since it shouldn't exist in the first place. If we start of with the assumption that political freedom is a good thing at a moral level, we can easily conclude that government provided healthcare is a moral evil. Who ever pays for something controls it, and if someone controls your healthcare, they pretty much control your life, hence ending freedom. The only form of government healthcare I could see being justified in the US would be universal care for children up to 18, since they aren't free citizens anyway. But the problem with that is it would be establishing a habit and pattern of government entitlement from an early age, and cause more issues in society than it solves.
They also gave states the ability to apply for waivers to Obamacare's regulations, effectively returning power to the states for their own healthcare. This is an eloquent solution to a complex problem of existing entitlements. It means that Congress won't be responsible for ending benefits in states that take them up on the offer for a waiver, but that the opportunity if there to maintain the new status quo for states that want it. It allows the issue to be settled at a more local level, where individual citizens and groups have more of a voice in the process. I am much less opposed to state funded healthcare, because people are free to choose what state to live in. I choose to live in CA regardless of its unconstitutional gun laws and other ridiculous liberal policies, but if they bothered me enough, I am free to move to Wyoming if I choose. I am not free to move out of the US on a whim, unless I find somewhere that agrees to take me. (It is not a right) So state run healthcare is still a bad idea, but a much smaller bad idea than federal run healthcare. Of course the same is true for state run education, etc.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/
I agree with most everything in here, and it seems very wise. The only role the government should play in health insurance, is setting some basic framework standards, and enforcing contracts to settle disputes. Under Obamacare, heath insurance was usually treated like term life insurance, with the terms reset every year. This caused people with ongoing medical issues to be have their policies canceled when they "ended," which led to this whole issue of pre-existing conditions." Ideally, health insurance should work similar to whole life insurance, in that as long as you pay your premiums, the insurance company shouldn't be able to cancel or abridge your plan. The primary difference is that while life insurance is insulated from inflation (it effects premiums and payouts equally) health insurance is not, so it is reasonable for premiums to increase over time. According to NPR, this new bill prohibits companies from canceling insurance policies or increasing premiums for customers with higher medical costs, as long as their premiums don't lapse. This is how it should work.
It also gets rid of the tax penalties for not having health insurance, which were ridiculous. Those without health insurance should be risking high medical costs, not guaranteed high tax penalties. Foregoing health insurance wouldn't be hurting anyone else if we weren't guaranteeing treatment to everyone, which is the main problem. People aren't responsible for their own care, so Democrats had to come of with some way to force them to play along and pay into the system that was forced upon them. This is the antithesis of freedom.
Income based tax credits are replaced with age based tax credits. This would be advantageous to people like me who can't accurately predict their annual income, if I was taking those credits. But I refuse them on moral grounds, that other taxpayers shouldn't be paying for my healthcare, or any other private costs for that matter.
Cutting all of the Obamacare taxes is a good step. They are only restoring things to 2010 levels, and this whole issue just exposes one more lie in the Obamacare process. If restoring pre-Obamacare tax levels cuts $1Trillion in federal revenue, then Obamacare was a $1Trillion tax, which is one of many reasons people were opposed to it. (And because they didn't want to keep their doctor, right?)
Cutting Medicaid increases is fine, since it shouldn't exist in the first place. If we start of with the assumption that political freedom is a good thing at a moral level, we can easily conclude that government provided healthcare is a moral evil. Who ever pays for something controls it, and if someone controls your healthcare, they pretty much control your life, hence ending freedom. The only form of government healthcare I could see being justified in the US would be universal care for children up to 18, since they aren't free citizens anyway. But the problem with that is it would be establishing a habit and pattern of government entitlement from an early age, and cause more issues in society than it solves.
They also gave states the ability to apply for waivers to Obamacare's regulations, effectively returning power to the states for their own healthcare. This is an eloquent solution to a complex problem of existing entitlements. It means that Congress won't be responsible for ending benefits in states that take them up on the offer for a waiver, but that the opportunity if there to maintain the new status quo for states that want it. It allows the issue to be settled at a more local level, where individual citizens and groups have more of a voice in the process. I am much less opposed to state funded healthcare, because people are free to choose what state to live in. I choose to live in CA regardless of its unconstitutional gun laws and other ridiculous liberal policies, but if they bothered me enough, I am free to move to Wyoming if I choose. I am not free to move out of the US on a whim, unless I find somewhere that agrees to take me. (It is not a right) So state run healthcare is still a bad idea, but a much smaller bad idea than federal run healthcare. Of course the same is true for state run education, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)