A mind by any other name
I picked up the latest issue of The Telescope today and after briefly glancing over the front page an article caught my eye. It was in the Op-Ed category and was titled "Government should stay out of our lives." I assumed this would be just another case of some liberal student writer wasting paper, but I was shocked to find out what a real gem this article actually was [note: BLATENET sarcasm] This article was written by Robin Schramm (direct quotes from the article are in quote blocks). Ok, so here goes.
I'm sure the smelly dogs line was meant to be funny, but it comes off as silly and immediately gives the whole article a childish tone. And right at the end of the first paragraph (you know, where the thesis of the article is placed) we read, "I'm not sure government is great at all." Yep, you've hooked us now, Rob.
Silly tree-huggers want to take tons, literally tons, of money away from people and use it to cure the environment or something. They want to take away about 15 tons in $100 bills. To put things in perspective, a giant redwood tree weighs about 8 tons. I suppose it's no coincidence that these tree-huggers use the tree as their mascot...
See Robin, I can make pointless comparisons using meaningless values too.
How dare the Occupational Safety and Health Administration tell my boss what to do for his employees! What happened to the good old days when workers could lose limbs on the job and get nothing for it?! Hasn't anyone here read The Jungle? I LOVE books with happy endings!
Oh, and this is my favorite part: "...and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms keep us from having fun..." This article is definately picking up momentum for a big finish, I can feel it.
So it's pretty obvious that this guy(or girl) isn't a socialist weasel, in fact he(she) sounds a lot like a libratarian. I guess you don't HAVE to be a liberal to critisize the Bush administration, though it usually helps. This article is, however, a perfect example of how dullards with poor writing ability need no party affiliation, there are more than enough on both sides. I mean honestly, I expect this level of writing from The New York Times, but not The Telescope! At least the usual religion-bashing articles of the emperical fascists that I've become accostomed to in The Telescope are well-written, even if the level of content is about the same.
Politicians love making grand speeches about saving the nation and uniting the country. I hope they never succeed. I don't think I want to be united with several of my neighbors or their smelly dogs. And yet reporters chase after these politicians as if they rediscovered the wheel. You've seen this before: the reporter with the "professional" demeanor introduces a senator as if he or she might walk on water. What gives? What's so great about government? I'm not sure government is great at all.
I'm sure the smelly dogs line was meant to be funny, but it comes off as silly and immediately gives the whole article a childish tone. And right at the end of the first paragraph (you know, where the thesis of the article is placed) we read, "I'm not sure government is great at all." Yep, you've hooked us now, Rob.
The government requires tons of money, literally. The federal government alone had a budget of $2.6 trillion for 2005 - 20 percent of the entire U.S. economy-that's about 22 tons of $100 bills. To put things in perspective, an elephant weighs about 4-6 tons. I suppose it's no coincidence, then, that President Bush and the current Republican Party - the biggest spenders since Lyndon Johnson - use the elephant as their mascot.
Silly tree-huggers want to take tons, literally tons, of money away from people and use it to cure the environment or something. They want to take away about 15 tons in $100 bills. To put things in perspective, a giant redwood tree weighs about 8 tons. I suppose it's no coincidence that these tree-huggers use the tree as their mascot...
See Robin, I can make pointless comparisons using meaningless values too.
Worst of all, the government is arrogant. The government is always telling us what to do and how to do it. The Food and Drug Administration tells us which drugs we can use; the Federal Communications Commission tells us which television programs we can watch; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration tells our bosses we aren't safe at work; the Internal Revenue Service exhorts us with 17,000 pages tax code; the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms keep us from having fun; and the repository for all these regulations, the Federal Register, is more than 75,000 pages and climbing.
Does anyone need this much help from the government? Wouldn't it be easier if we did these things for ourselves?
How dare the Occupational Safety and Health Administration tell my boss what to do for his employees! What happened to the good old days when workers could lose limbs on the job and get nothing for it?! Hasn't anyone here read The Jungle? I LOVE books with happy endings!
Oh, and this is my favorite part: "...and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms keep us from having fun..." This article is definately picking up momentum for a big finish, I can feel it.
Maybe I'm being unfair. Government does some things well. Police, firefighters, and our military protect us from bad guys. Courts help us keep the neighbor's smelly dog out of our yards. Roads are convenient and practical (when they aren't clogged with traffic and littered with potholes). That's five good things.
It just seems wrong to pay so much money so that other people can feel important, churn out second-rate products, and tell us what to do.
But if you're from the IRS and you're reading this, I take it all back: taxes are low and intuitive, politicians are eloquent and insightful, and I'm glad the DEA is "winning" the war on drugs because I really need to cut back.
So it's pretty obvious that this guy(or girl) isn't a socialist weasel, in fact he(she) sounds a lot like a libratarian. I guess you don't HAVE to be a liberal to critisize the Bush administration, though it usually helps. This article is, however, a perfect example of how dullards with poor writing ability need no party affiliation, there are more than enough on both sides. I mean honestly, I expect this level of writing from The New York Times, but not The Telescope! At least the usual religion-bashing articles of the emperical fascists that I've become accostomed to in The Telescope are well-written, even if the level of content is about the same.
posted by David at
11:58 PM
7 Comments:
rrwawrr *snort*, ggraggwrarr oof *pop* gggrrr *wheeze*... Oh sorry, that was just me descending to the level of this argument and giving it a reasoned response... but I'll translate:
This was a great article...FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Great post Dave, I genuinely laughed my ass off a couple times there.
By
Donald, at October 27, 2005 8:47 AM
This article is a classic example of why Einstein said, "There are two things that are infinite: The universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the former."
I too was laughing out loud throughout most of your commentary. Donald's response is also very amusing. Thanks for sharing.
Dustin
By
D.R. Steeve, at October 28, 2005 12:02 AM
In my article I made three points.
"It just seems wrong to pay so much money so that other people can feel important, churn out second-rate products, and tell us what to do."
Did you disagree with these points? Amid all the sarcasm, laughter, and intellectual condescension, I failed to see any points of your own.
By
Anonymous, at November 11, 2005 10:52 AM
I get the point you were trying to get across, but relatively speaking we don't pay all that much money (if you're talkin about taxes), especially compared to European countries (not that I agree with anything Europe does).
My only point in being blatently critical of your article (and if I really offended you, I'd like to apologize) was that there didn't seem to be much logical substance to it. I'm all for ranting on the government, but only when there's something specific to rant about. Simply claiming that all politicians make us pay them lots of money to make themselves feel important isn't much of a point, and you didn't really give any evidence to back up the claim (except that reporters tend to treat them with respect [which isn't even true most of the time]). And if I'm not mistaken, isn't the point of government to tell us what to do? Not in a totalitarian sense, but after we've elected the men and women into office who we think will do the best job of telling us what to do. And if they tell us to do things that a majority of us don't approve of, we remove them from office. This may be a democracy, but the purpose of government is still law and order.
And as for the third part, the post office is actually VERY efficient (not to mention cheap), considering the enormous task they perform. And I almost always have a good experience at the DMV when I make an appointment ahead of time. And then of course there's social security, which may need reform now, but for the past 60 years it has been the most efficiently run organization in the country.
In any case, I don't mean to demean you personally, but I took issue with there really being any point to this article being written in the first place. On a positive note, I enjoyed your article more than anything Donny Boyle has ever written. :)
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate hearing from people, especially people on the opposite side of an issue. And just out of curiosity, are you a libratarian? :)
By
David, at November 11, 2005 2:19 PM
I think the point of government is to protect our lives, property, and to resolve contract disputes. No one should be in the role of imposing his/her cultural values on the rest of the nation (i.e. telling us what to do).
It sounds like we've had different experiences with the post office and the DMV. Both generally have crummy service when compared to their private counterparts, fedex and AAA. I wouldn't have a problem with the Post Office if their free market counterparts were allowed to compete on an equal playing field. Unfortunately the post office restricts certain areas of parcel delivery only to itself.
As far as social security is concerned, I wonder how you define "efficient." If you mean that citizens recieve their social security checks on a regular basis, then yes, it is efficient. However, the yields from social security are always lower than their private market counterparts.
Last, saying that our government is not that big compared to European governments is not really an argument. In absolute terms, do we need this much government? Would we be better off with less? I think less would be much better.
Thanks for reading my article. The "sillyness" of the article is my own way of not letting politics frustrate me by taking it too seriously. I tend to be a Libertarian, though I like to think of myself as just a plain old Liberal (in the old Jeffersonian sense of the word).
I may have another column coming out this week. Cross your fingers. :)
By
Anonymous, at November 14, 2005 7:10 AM
Any particular reason you prefer to call yourself a liberal? I know today's liberals tend to favor big government, and libratarians are considered far right.
As a conservative, I'm certainly no fan of big government, so I actually get where you're comming from, I guess I was just playing devil's advocate. I look forward to reading your next article. Thanks for the comments.
By
David, at November 14, 2005 11:14 PM
The word "liberal" has undergone a gross transformation in the past 100 years. Originally, to be a Liberal meant to be in favor of individual rights, liberty, and that you were generally skeptical of concentrated government power.
Modern liberals, however, have come to mean exactly the opposite of what Liberal originally meant. You can read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).
It wouldn't really be accurate to call Libertarians "far right." Libertarians favor economic and social freedom. For an illustration, check this out (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php).
Well I guess I didn't make it into this week's paper. Maybe next week. Cheers.
By
Anonymous, at November 15, 2005 6:17 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home