Bill of Rights Revisited..(other side?)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

I think this is great! Taz

The Bill of Rights Revisited

The following was written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from Cobb County, GA.:

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

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 everyone not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., 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. All of us sure 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 - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

If You Agree, We Strongly Urge You To Forward This To As Many People As You Can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish.

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), September 17, 1999

Answers

I'll sign that.

Keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), September 17, 1999.


It's good, all right. Too bad we could never get it enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 17, 1999.

That's all great if you start at the top of the food chain, but if you start life cold, poor and hungry, and you look up at the multi- billionairs that inherited all they have and then say it's your own damn fault you are where you are, it might lok a little different.

On a purely ecconomical level, it is much cheaper to have a healthy, well educated and at least somewhat content populus than a downtrodden, hopeless one. It has been proven over and over again that programs like Head Start and Birth to Three can start life right fr those that begin on the bottom. A tiny bit of money at the beginning, a little bit of hope and a reason to be a productive member of society, can prevent a liftimme fo courts and jail time later. Why then do we keep taken money from our schools and funding more jails??? If you are concerned about the safty of both your streets and your pocketbooks, then please help convince our government to fund the programs that have been proven to work- it's not a goofy liberal idea, it is CHEAPER than jails!

-- Taina Baildon (tbaildon@yahoo.com), September 20, 1999.


Taina

I like what you wrote. It sounds like the old "Hand up, not hand out" approach. I doubt many people would object to helping someone who is experiencing a round of bad luck. We all need help sometimes. But none of that changes the original post, at least not that I can see.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), September 20, 1999.


Taina,

The best of intentions often end up doing the most damage. I am sorry but hands up approaches don't work. If there is no job at the end of that training period then it failed. People with nothing to lose who have invested time and hard work into a project only to receive nothing, do some serious damage. As to food projects, hate to tell you this but they lead to more hungry, usually.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day....teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. We need to create opportunity. We need to offer training (but not for free, folks don't appreciate anything that they don't pay for....in some way. It doesn't have to be in money). Perhaps service. We offer loans to college kids....why not others who are willing to step up to the plate.

Sorry, but I taught school in the inner cities. I have worked in the welfare office. They get pregnant, not because of accidents...not because they are uneducated....the common lines that I heard were:

"Well, it was good enough for my mother and sisters, it is good enough for me"

or

"I just want a place of my own and this will get me one."

I saw no incentive to get a job or training. I am sorry that this is not PC, but it is very accurate.

I am all for helping those less fortunate, but there had better be a payoff for them and us in the end or all bets are off. Forget what you read and are told....GO LOOK!

-- ynott (anon@incorruptible.com), September 24, 1999.



I agree about the "no jobs" problem. Environmental regulations closed most of our resource-based jobs in Siskiyou County (including the timber mills.) There is no industry. Unemployment hovers around 13% and large portion of the population is on public assistance. Some jobs were seasonal, but you would log part-year, mine part-year and trap part-year. Skills were passed through families. Now those in the one remaining "industry" (agriculture) can't get a fair price for their product. The largest employers are the State and federal government.

So, "just move to thye cities where the jobs are." (BTW, this was what the spotted owl FEMAT came up with in answer to the issue on economic and social impact - "People will just move and it won't be a problem in a year or so.") What this has actually done is torn families apart and wreaked a path of substance and family abuse throughout the most heavily affected areas. It has also hit children and local tribal peoples hard.

I wish the public policy makers would read "The Dollmaker." (Harriet Arnow, I believe - also a tv movie.) Particularly in rural areas, policy affects on culture, family and communities are key. We are tearing ourselves apart so yuppies can have their SUVs.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 24, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ