Undoctrination.org

Every day it becomes more apparent that the more laws and regulations government bestows upon us, the less productive we become as a society.

Now before anyone gets their panties in a wad – I am NOT an anarchist – I certainly understand why it’s important to protect children and the elderly from anyone who might take advantage of them in any way. But those laws fall under the category of “crimes against others,” which in any case regardless of age, we should expect some protection through the law from those who might want to harm us. And anyone who chooses to cause harm to another – regardless of the victim’s ethnicity, age or sex, should expect to be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law.  A crime against another includes rape, destruction of another’s property or life, theft of another’s property, invasion of another’s property, physical or sexual abuse, assault  and battery,  murder, and kidnapping.  To protect the citizenship is the primary reason why these laws exist. These are the laws that make the USA a “nation of laws” – laws that give equality to all of the citizens.

But how far do we need to go? Why for instance, was it deemed necessary to create a new category of laws called “hate crimes?” Aren’t ALL crimes against another easily defined as “hate” crimes? And if not – why not?  Well, from my perspective, it’s become crystal clear, and quite frankly I’m beginning to realize that it really matters not who we elect to represent us in our various forms of government because all politicians have become complicit in forwarding this agenda.

The agenda I speak of is the polarization of the people.

Politicians have figured out that they need to write laws that disenfranchise certain groups to create new sects of victims, so they can write new laws to protect those victims, thereby garnering more votes and obligation from the previously disenfranchised group of people. Got it?

Gay Rights. Why? Affirmative Action? Why? Minimum Wage? Why? The Americans with Disabilities Act? Why?

Under the US Constitution, there is no distinction when it says “ALL men are created equal.” So if the US Constitution is enforced as intended, the “need” for special sets of rights for special sets of people becomes nonexistent. What a special set of rights or regulations does do is create polarization among the citizenry.  

Affirmative Action: I watched a “documentary” a few months ago on the history of “Black Hair” narrated by Chris Rock. He explored the notion  and fascination of hair “straighteners” (a potion of chemicals that seemed rather toxic), weaves, and such – and interviewed several salon owners and clients about their weaves and straightening efforts. He even interviewed “the reverend” Al  $harpton – who wasted no time in bringing up the fact that (gasp!) Asians have moved into this “Black” industry and are destroying opportunities for black entrepreneurs. Yep – good old dependable Al just had to throw the race card on the table. Except – Al kinda sounded just a little bit racist himself, from my perspective…. I mean, c’mon – free enterprise is a concept that allows opportunity to ALL, if you have the desire, the capital, and the idea to succeed. And if someone figures out a way to do it bigger, better and cheaper, then that someone wins (see Sam Walton, before the corporate suits took over his wonderful idea and company and turned it into a fine example of corporate fascism).

There are several Black scholars (Walter Williams comes to mind, for those who demand substantiation of fact) who hold the opinion that affirmative action has actually been detrimental to Blacks. But Race Baiters like $harpton and his crony Je$$e Jack$on see Affirmative Action as their own opportunity – to enrich themselves in the name of “equality.”

ADA: I had a friend in New Mexico who was in an auto accident. It left him paralyzed from the waist down so he was confined to a wheelchair. There was a bar and restaurant in town that was in the basement of a building, and there was no elevator. If my friend wanted to join us at this place, we carried him and his chair down the stairs, and then back up again when we left. He never ever bitched and moaned about access – to anywhere. Why? Because he was handicapped (not “handi – capable” – handicapped , and Ray would have HATED the term “handicapable”) – there was a limit to his capacity as a functioning humanoid that he not only understood, but lived with every day. He would never run in a 10K, or ride a bicycle or hike a mountain trail, and he accepted that. He understood this, and dealt with it as best he could. He never expected anyone to offer him special consideration, as this was before the ADA forced handicapped parking and other access  upon retail outlets, so he parked where he could find a spot, rolled out of his van and rolled on up to the store. It was no big deal to him. He dealt with the cards that were dealt him. I respected him greatly for his attitude, too.

 I also rode to high school every day (before I got my driver’s license) with a history teacher who was paralyzed from an auto accident. He lived across the street, and he gave me a ride to school and once there, I got his chair out of the back seat and opened so he could slide on into it. NO big deal. He dealt with his condition. He parked in the teacher’s lot, too which was first come first served – no one made sure he got a special parking place.

Today, I drive into any parking lot on any given day, and there are always – without FAIL – dozens of empty parking places with blue handicapped parking signs attached, nearest the entrance to the building. Sometimes, I see people who appear to be quite ambulatory walking to their car parked in one of those spots, and their car has a blue tag hanging from the rearview mirror. It makes me wonder if they have a handicapped person in their household, or what exactly gave them this privilege.  Or maybe they’re the same people who grab one of those “rascal” riders in the store because they’re simply too fat to walk the aisles (if obesity is apparent).  

I love older buildings. I think they’re cool. But if you ever want to renovate one, you need to make sure the restrooms are handicap accessible, and if there is more than one story, you’d better factor an elevator (wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair) into your project costs today, thanks to the ADA. So, many older buildings get razed because it’s cheaper to build a new building with all the ADA requirements than it is to upgrade an existing building. But even then, it may not be good enough:

A company I worked for several years ago was building a new restaurant. A few days before opening, a city code inspector came out and tagged our handicap ramp because it was “off” by a few degrees, so we had to tear the ramp out and re-build it, at our expense. That same inspector also tried to force us to drop a section of our bar top to be wheelchair accessible. Now, understand – every table in the place was the proper height for wheelchairs. But that wasn’t “good enough” for this idiot. And I had to make a call to someone MUCH higher up than him to get him to back off. And he did, once the Office of the Lt. Governor called his supervisor… geesh .. isn’t it a sad state of affairs when one has to resort to those kind of remedies just to open a new business, hire people, and pay taxes …?

Now before anyone starts in on my callousness and total lack of regard towards handicapped people – please understand that I have the utmost respect for those who have physical and metal disabilities, and feel very inferior towards the ones who rise above their limitations and shine. I am a supporter of Special Olympics, and think “Murder Ball” (wheelchair basketball. Kind of..) is an amazing display of tenacity among paraplegics.  I also think its way cool to see amputees snow ski. Those are the folks who have decided that no one owes them anything special, and they’ve decided to not allow their physical or metal disability hinder their quest for a fuller life. But the ADA has forced many of these people into a box that demands them special treatment. Many I know feel resentment towards anyone or anything that treats them any differently than what they are – handicapped. But there are some who have figured out how to play the system (rascal riders for fat people in big box stores) and have no problem throwing the “victim” card on the table if they’re given special consideration. Sorry – I have no time for those people.

Gay rights:  I feel that if two people are in a committed relationship, they should be entitled to the same benefits REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation. Survivor benefits, dependent insurance, joint ownership  -  ALL of it. WHY have we gotten to the point of debating this issue?  The US Constitution should have made this a non-issue decades ago, because as pointed out earlier – the Constitution doesn’t make any distinction,  so no one else should either. Here’s a little heads up for some of you. Just because someone is “gay,” does not automatically make them a sexual predator, or a pedophile, or a pervert. There are probably far more “hetero” people who fall into those classifications than gays. Gay “rights” should have never become a political hot button, if our politicians and judges had had a better understanding of the US Constitution. But – some saw this as an opportunity to pander to a special interest group, and this “non-issue” became a flamethrower (pun intended). Moralists use this as a “family value” issue. Gay activists use it as a political football to advance their various agendas. And both sides need to step back, take a deep breath and realize that no “law” is really required to give gays the same equal treatment as anyone else. Because the US Constitution already does, if properly enforced by our judicial system.

Minimum wage: Seriously? Do you really want to be limited to what you can earn - by a government mandate? In many places, minimum wage is all but non-existent, because a viable and dependable workforce is a premium that demands to be paid much more than the government mandate.  Small towns and resort communities come to mind. So employers are in competition with ONE ANOTHER to hire the best and brightest. And – this isn’t just in “corporate” America by the way. Restaurants (non-server positions), retail outlets and tourism establishments often pay far more than “minimum wage” to the employees that prove their worth. Oh, sure – you may start at, or around the government mandated wage – as a test. But within a very short time, if you show up for work, do what you’re supposed to do and show some initiative you’ll be making more, because the employer knows if he doesn’t pay you more, someone else surely will.  As a server in a restaurant, if you’re good, you can make $100.00 (or more) per shift through tips, so restaurants are exempt from paying minimum wages to food servers – but in some places, the local laws have forced minimum wage on everyone, including the restuarants, and the servers are no longer making the same level of tips they used to, so their wages went DOWN because of minimum wage mandates. Thanks, government …

 Many teenagers can’t find jobs today because of minimum wages of over $7.00 an hour. Who wants to hire a teenager who may or may not have a work ethic - at that wage scale, when there are some adults who will do the job? As a teen, I had several part time jobs. A few paid minimum wage (around $1.25 an hour at the time). But a couple paid over $5.00 an hour, because I had proven myself to be dependable, reliable, and a fast learner.  And the employer was willing to pay it to get that level of employee.

I have one question for those of you who are proponents of a minimum wage: How much is enough?  And before you answer, keep in mind the cost of consumer goods will rise accordingly. So it really boils down to “how much are you willing to pay for goods and services to insure a “livable wage” (one of the most laughable terms to ever some out of a politician’s mouth)?”

But again – the politicians saw this as a way to polarize the Sheeple. Make it look like you have their best interests at heart, and damn the unintended consequences. Minimum wage laws pit employers against employees (a lot like the unions do), by giving the employers a set amount they “have” to pay an employee, which creates resentment when the employee can’t get a raise. Why should an employer -who has an abundant workforce pool (larger cities, for instance) pay more than what the government tells him to pay? So the politicians can then call for an even higher minimum wage – a “livable wage” (there’s that term again) which creates even more resentment – and often opens the door to the labor unions to come in and force even more wage and benefit demands down the employer’s throat – to the point of driving the employer out of business. Who won that battle? The politician is the only winner in that mess, because he gets re-elected on the façade of being a man (or woman) for the people.

So let’s focus on reducing our laws – not writing more. And, let’s elect people who are willing to serve in that capacity – for a term or two – and then go back home to their occupation or business, instead of career politicians who find ways to polarize the Sheeple and keep special interest groups beholden to them.

If we don’t fix this, there won’t be anything left to fix …