steven n fettig's Jitterin' Thoughts

    I finally was able to get around to posting some info, both senseless and sensible, to Thees (a friend from Hamburg, Germany) online forum, thees.licentia.net. One had to do with Pancakes and the other with stupid commentry. Oh well. Sometimes you have to release your stupidity into a public forum.
    Another thing I was doing was my Sunday perusal of the news. One thing that really struck me was in FAZ.net (the German newspaper called the Frankfurter Allgemeine) regarding demonstrations in Europe against a possible war in Iraq. I stand on the fence myself regarding what we should do in Iraq (which I will get to in a moment), but what amazes me is how loud the left is when it comes to things that they don't agree with. Why is it that us conservatives/classical liberals have such a quiet voice? I was sickened by something I saw on Fox News out of Chicago -- they regularly broke up the shows playing for "Breaking News" showing what they claimed to be 500 demonstrators demonstrating against globalization. Aside from the fact that I feel like these people have no clue how globalization effects their life in a positive manner, I don't think that the group shown (from the helicopter pictures) was 500 - it looked more like a mass of about 300 people. Yes, I know that is not a huge difference, but it goes to the ridiculous way in which the news media over-inflates numbers regularly - as if the truth is not "real" enough. The reason, however, why this made me upset, was not because it was showing a group of people who I felt are wrong, but it was the realization that any demonstration with so few people regarding pro-life, supporting a war in Iraq, supporting lowering taxes, etc. would have never made it into the news, let alone become breaking news. I was at a demonstration in Washington, D.C. in 1997 or 1998 with well over a million attendees, and because it was a conservative demonstration, the numbers in the media were always half of what were really there. Plus, that demonstration didn't get half of the news coverage that the recent one in Chicago received. That is sad - not because I am for or against any of these causes, but because the news in this case is so obviously biased one way or the other. Regardless of your political ideology, biased news is not good. Would one claim that the news in China is "well reported" because they are socialist? I suspect that the only people who would answer yes to this question are those that feel that freedom of thought and speech is trumped by a higher ideology they belong to. Even if I feel that the people at the anti-globalization rally in Chicago are wrong (or idiots), it still does not stop me from wanting them to have the same freedoms I enjoy - i.e. those of free speech.
    I think this is the big difference between those of us who support consistent freedom from government intervention and coercion and those who don't - I believe in freedom because it allows me to lead my life in the way I see fit and allows my fellow neighbor to do the same, regardless of whether or not we agree. Yes, government is absolutely instrumental in keeping the peace between foes, but it should not be instrumental in tipping the balance of power to one faction or another. To me, that is the slippery slope that leads to Tyranny, Dictatorships and the Communism we witnessed in Eastern Europe, Russia/USSR, North Korea, Cuba and China. You may think that government has the right and the task providing for people, but I believe that this is exactly the kind of thing with which government often does more harm than good. By taking from me (without my direct consent) and giving to others, you do not allow me to choose in helping other people and you do not make those on the receiving end responsible for their activities. The government by definition ought to be blind to peoples' ideologies and lifestyles as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others - BUT, by giving people money, they automatically are required to look at their lifestyle to make sure that money is not being thrown away or used for purposes other than for which they were intended. It is much more efficient to allow me as a volunteer or philanthropist to do this - i.e. make sure that the money I worked for is going to those who are going to use it in a meaningful manner - than for a blind beaurocracy to do so.
    The original intention of this latest rant was to point out that while those who believe that the government is responsible for providing all for all and believe that it should come from those who have something to give, are the same people who think that no responsibility should be taken on the part of the individual to conform to a normalized and agreed upon code of conduct. And these are the people with the loudest voice. It is time for that to change. The opposition to this ideology should be more conscious of voicing their opinions and not hide behind the shroud of "do as thy pleaseth". Where are the 500,000 people marching in Europe or the US demanding that Saddam take responsibility for the agreements he signed 10 years ago and allow unlimited access to his country by weapons inspectors? (See FAZ, Über 500.000 demonstrieren gegen drohenden Irak-Krieg) Why do we need another consensus on whether or not Saddam has done something wrong, when it is obvious that he has broken prior agreements and is doing things with weapons that was forbidden through prior agreements? When is Saddam going to be held responsible for the terror he has put his people through? When are dictators like Castro going to be openly discredited for their lies and propagandistic news? Where are the demonstrators against these types of atrocities? To me, the freedom-fighters of the 60's and 70's have simply become the right hand of the so-called socialist regimes who are so blind to the disgusting horrors committed by those governments because they "like" the ideology behind what those leaders support. Fight for what you originally were against with thought and contemplation. Blind passivity towards a Saddam-like regime is simply another way of supporting what a dictator like Saddam does to his people.