I haven't watched Zeitgeist yet...

I suppose this means that I do not really know what I believe yet. If you have not seen it yet, perhaps you do not know what you believe either. Maybe we should both go to www.thislittlehell.com/2008/07/18/friday-zeitgeist-rules-and-regulations/ to take us to a website with the link. I am anxious to begin goosestepping with the rest of the country. If you look through my archives you will notice an article titled "Checkmate in 3 Moves." Such propaganda, and the effectiveness of it, will let you know where our country is on this slippery slope.

The control of information is a very scary thing to me. Years ago, there was an incident up in the Oakley area with the Singer and Swapp polygamist clans. During the incident, from my recollection, a journalist was not following rules and felt it more important to get the story than to keep himself alive, and the altercation ended with an Officer Fred House being shot and killed rescuing the individual. I am not sure about my facts on this, but I don't really care. Research it yourself if you really care, I don't claim to be a journalist and that is what I remember! Anyway, the point is, regardless of the facts, that I have hated the press ever since! I very much hate the 'right to know' mentality. I think the greater question is if I really care to know.

I realize this sounds very callous, but why on earth should I care about some stupid people being gunned down by gangsters? Why should I care about some little kid drowning at sugar house park? Why should I care about domestic violence, divorces, drug arrests, and the ecclectic actions of movie stars? Honestly, I see most news as fodder for gossips, not of any relvance to me and my life! I can not think of the tragedy in my life or that of my family's that was reported to me by the news before it was through other avenues--or that had the details correct, or as many details. I don't watch the news or read the newspaper because, for the most part, it is irrelevant!

As I mentioned, controlling information is a scary thing and I see most journalism as a fanatacism that is 99% hooking the ignoramuses and gossips and 1% leading those who are hooked down a very scary path of misinformation. This can only be cured by people who stop drinking the Kool-Aid (that one is for you, Trent,) start reading every day to exercise the brain, and start thinking things through on their own! So fine, read this column, but then do us all a favor and think about it and argue you own opinion. This is really the first step to 'save the planet!'

Should Government PREVENT Abuse?

I don't really know. My dilemma comes from the Preamble to the Constitution, 'provide for the common defense.' To what extent should that be taken? Here are three examples, all of which I have an opinion on, I just haven't decided if my opinion is correct yet...

Example 1: A woman arrives at the Maverik gas station (which happens to be a police substation where I live) and her two children are asleep in the car. She runs in the store real quick to buy some oil. Mind you, the whole front of the store is glass windows, she left the car running so it wouldn't get too hot, and she was only in the store maybe two minutes. When she exits, the police meet her at her car and tell her that they are supposed to arrest her on the spot and take her children into state custody. These officers ended up letting her off with a warning.

My opinion on this is that the situation is ridiculous. I fail to see the abuse in this situation. However, my in-laws related this story to me with pitch forks and torches in hand, ready to march on this poor lady's house. Get a life! Mind your own business! This is not abuse and the children didn't need protecting!

Example 2: This scenario is a little more serious, but not much. A woman goes into Walmart in the winter time and leaves her nine year old in the car with the three year old, and the car still running. Some concerned citizen (in other words busy-body) calls the police and the police this time do end up arresting the lady and taking the children from her.

My opinion here is pretty much the same as before. Mind your own ____________ (this is where I have one of my friends fill in the blank for me with, what my uncle calls a five dollar word) business people. Again, not abuse. I do think that a nine year old would be just fine in the running car for the 15 minutes mom is in the store.

Example 3: My wife's aunt is severely anorexic. Both her and her husband are in denial. They have two children that, I believe are abused. Father is not around much because of work and school and doesn't seem to have the cohones to stand up to Mother anyway. Mother is completely out of touch with reality and, in an effort to be the best mom she can restricts the amount of food the kids can eat, schedules their day out in 15 minute increments, disciplines the children when they laugh out loud, and the youngest child wore socks on his hands until he was about a year old so he wouldn't grab things, and was prevented from moving to the point where an expert has been sent to work with the child because he couldn't roll over, scoot, crawl, grab things, make any sound or track anyone with his eyes. Those children are abused!

My opinion is that it is the responsibility of the family to intervene with the children. I don't ever want the state to intervene in these type of situations because I think that if anyone from the state would show up to take my children, they would be greeted at the door with a shotgun pressed up against his or her nose! I think that the parents will get their consequences later on in life and, possibly not until the next life. The problem with this opinion is that the children are still being abused. If there is no one in the family that has any clout with the mother and father (mother's mom and dad or sister--might I add, one of the same people that was ready to crucify the mothers in the previous two examples), that has the testicular fortitude to say and/or do something, do we stand by as the children continue to be abused? The phrase wicked traditions of their fathers seems very applicable in this scenario...

I do believe that parents should be punished after the perpetration. Abused children do deserve justice. If the children are left in the car and it is not running, and they have to go to the hospital, the parent should be punished. The problem is, at what point can you punish the parents in example 3?

My conclusion is that I do believe in small government, and I do believe that there are many things that I believe God will punish people for that the government should stay out of all together.

2"X4" Up Side the Head

My wife made a comment to me last night that I really like to make a very inflammatory remark and then follow the remark up with my arguments. I could not disagree. The titles and first sentences of each of my blogs seems to be a smack up side the head with a 2"X4". All I can say is that where it was unintentional and subconscious before, now it will be very intentional. I like to challenge people and their thinking, and making such statements weeds out those that are unwilling to be open-minded and think through different ideas. Those kind of people are a waste of my time to discuss my concepts with. I don't consider myself superior to these people, but Kool-aid drinkers are afraid of higher level thinking. I hate when an individual graduates from college and goes through the rest of his or her life refusing to question the things they were taught. Social studies classes are the worst for that. So here is my challenge to all of the college Kool-aid drinkers out there. Read the title, not the body of my blogs and then defend your college professor's position in a comment to me. If you struggle putting together a rational argument, then read the body of my comment. I don't care if you agree with my ideas, maybe at very least my thoughts will help you think for yourself and solidify your own opinion!