Reflections From a Murky Pond

Here’s a breakdown of the political views of the Liberals and the Conservatives as it relates to fish and fishing.  The axiom involved seems a good foundation for the groups’ views on intervention and personal responsibility within the constraints of political and economic power:

Conservatives’ Viewpoint:
If you give a man a fish, you feed him for one night. If you teach a man to fish, he feeds himself every night and you don’t have to give him any more of your own fish.

Liberals’ Viewpoint:
If you give a man a fish, he owes you once. If you teach a man to fish, he won’t need you any more and you can’t count on his support in the future.

LOL There’s quite a divide between the two viewpoints. This divide points out the respective political and economic goals of America’s two largest ideological meta-groups, the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Of course there are other groups and individuals who are in the limelight enough for their views to be worth looking at in the same way:

Green Party Viewpoint:
If you give a man a fish, it has to be a Fair Trade fish from a developing nation’s indigenous population. If you teach a man to fish, that man must be from a developing nation’s indigenous population. Teaching a person from a developed nation to fish causes environmental catastrophe and violates the human rights of developing nation’s indigenous populations.

Al Sharpton’s Viewpoint:
The association of fish and fishing with Black people is inherently racist and is an example of the White man’s oppression of the Black people. Black people deserve the fish and White America must give Black America fish as part of the reparations for centuries of oppression!

Libertarian Viewpoint:
If you give a man a fish, that’s your business as long as it was your fish to give. If you teach a man to fish, that’s your business as long as you don’t try to teach him on someone else’s lake, riverbank, or seashore. The man would be better off though if he learned on his own.

Cynthia McKinney’s Viewpoint:
You should only give fish to “people of color;” White people are hording the fish. You should only teach “people of color” to fish. It’s the “Joos” fault that “people of color” don’t know how to fish.

PETA’s Viewpoint:
No!  They’re Sea Kittens – it’s morally wrong to eat them or teach people to eat them. Have some kelp instead.

Rush Limbaugh’s Viewpoint:
You can give all the health-Nazi, Liberal non-meat to people that you want, or teach them to get their own as long as you don’t want to use American taxpayers’ money to pay for the teaching. Americans eat meat, not fish – lots, and lots of red meat, potatoes, and gravy. Liberals and RINOs can keep their fish.

My Women’s Viewpoint:
You’d better not give us those fish to clean. Whoever taught jonolan to fish created a monster. How can anyone sit there doing nothing for hours on end and call it a sport? How much is that boat you want!?!

Yep – fishing can be controversial alright. It must be, since the old adage about giving a fish vs. teaching someone to fish can be used without too much effort as I have just done. Hmmm…Any chance of a National Bass Anglers Association (NBASS) party in 2010 or 2012? 😆

As I had commented before, the Obama administration in the person of US Attorney General, Eric Holder had willfully chosen to violate the “rule of law” by refusing to faithfully execute and enforce the laws of America.

Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday, February 25, 2009, that he would no longer allow the Justice Department to raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama.

No, what the President said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy.

— Attorney General Eric Holder
DOJ News Conference

Well thankfully – and more than a little surprisingly – this violation of the Separation of Powers and flagrant disrespect for both the law and the Executive’s duty to faithfully enforce and defend it didn’t last very long.

On Friday, March 6, 2009 the ban on investigating and prosecuting medical marijuana clubs was – according to the LA Times – lifted.  Federal agents may now resume filing new cases, issuing subpoenas or applying for search warrants in pending cases.

Both the ban enforcing federal drug laws and the lifting that ban were handled through interoffice memos, so we’re left in the dark about the exact details of either. The official word on both topics from the Attorney General’s office is “no comment.” In fact, members of that office were instructed not to discuss the content of the orders / memos  with anyone outside the U.S. attorney’s office.

I predict that the the departure from the Rule of Law will be passed off as being failures on the part of people in the Attorney General’s office due to their misinterpretation of Holders public comments. Expect some “retirements” and reassignments among the US Attorneys Office as various people are “thrown under the bus.”

In any case, America has pulled back from a dangerous path and has – to some extent – returned to the law. That’s a very good thing, no matter the cost or reasons for it.

A lot of people – though not nearly enough – having been looking at what has been called the Stimulus and wondering how it will actually help the economy. They’re being to narrow in their thinking; there are many people who will benefit from Obama’s spending initiative.

Of course, those people most likely to benefit aren’t Americans, but who am I to quibble with the Liberals’ plan for our children’s future?

Are the inalienable rights guaranteed by, but not created by, US Constitution a Shield or a Sword? Are they negative or defensive in nature or are they positive and offensive in nature? This is the oft unspoken core of the debate in matters of healthcare, sustenance, and other perceived human rights in America. Do our rights merely protect us from the actions of others, or do they entitle us to the benefits of the actions of others?

The Right to Freedom of Speech:

I have the guaranteed right as an individual to be free to speak my mind on these issues. I even have the right speak out against the actions of the US Government. Essentially, no matter how much you hate what I’m saying, you can’t legally shut me up – though you can walk away, click on another blog, or otherwise remove yourself from my presence and my opinion.

My right to free speech is a negative  or defensive entity, my shield against oppression as it were.  It takes nothing away from any other human.

The Right to Life:

I have the guaranteed right as an individual to be alive. Nobody is allowed to arbitrarily end my life – though they are allowed to kill me in defense of their own life or the lives of other, if I choose to violate this same right of theirs.

Again my right to life is a negative  or defensive entity, my shield against being exterminated as it were.  It takes nothing away from any other human.

The above two examples showcase the perception or theory that our inalienable rights are of a defensive or negative nature. They serve solely to protect the individual from the actions of other individuals or the State. This was the most common view of our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution for much of America’s history.

In the latter half of the 20th century things changed. Some people started strongly espousing the ideology of positive or active rights. They move the concept of individual rights out of a defensive posture and into an aggressive posture that makes demands upon other individuals or the State.

The Right to Healthcare:

The concept of the right to healthcare says that I have the right to receive medical care whether I can afford it or not. Healthcare should be provided for me through some agency other than my own ability to secure it. If I cannot procure it for myself, it must be provided for me because it is my right.

This is an example of my right, not being a shield against others but being a sword to use against others. It takes the fruits of others’ labors from them to provide my entitlement.

The Right to Food:

The concept – espoused by the U.N. if not officially by America – that I as an individual have the right to enough food to sustain myself.  Food should be provided for me through some agency other than my own ability to secure it.  If I cannot procure it for myself, it must be provided for me because it is my right.

This is another example of my right, not being a shield against others but being a sword to use against others. It once again takes the fruits of others’ labors from them to provide my entitlement.

We are faced with the conflict between two diametrically opposed ideologies. One side views individual rights as a shield; the other side views them as a sword. Until we can come to some conclusion on this fundamental issue, we are going to continue to constant strife over each definition of the scope and nature of human rights.

Shield or Sword? Defense or Offense? Which should it be, and is there any room for compromise at all on the underlying issue?

Every US President in recent memory has had certain features or behaviors that have “distinguished” them. This has allowed comics and satirists easy and relatively harmless methods to lampoon the actions of these world leaders.

So – in homage to Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury – I give you Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America:

The 44th President of the United States

I admit that he’s not much to look at, but he’s a very fine speaker – and that’s what people wanted in their President after eight years of George W. Bush’s sincere but hardly well-spoken public addresses.