The Bill Board Bumper Crop

The last thing I thought about doing when I became Editor-in-chief (and sole contributor) of this lilliputian blog was hawking bumper stickers. But water often takes unexpected routes as it runs down the hill. It's a large part of the fun in doing new things, you never know where the water will lead until it gets still.

Blathering about freedom ideas is nothing new for me of course, but writing about those issues on my own blog instead of merely posting comments to others' blogs was something I never had time to try before my client, Lehman Brothers, got washed away in the financial tsunami of 2008.

Along the way this blog has crossed paths with several others. Among those is one named The Humble libertarian. (The small "L" in the title is not accidental) The editor at that site is young man who is a talented writer and an even more talented advocate for liberty- W E Messamore. Those of you who read my short essays may be familiar with him since I have written about his blog in the past. Watering the Libertree was one of those essays.

Recently he wrote a piece about a news item concerning a bill board some businessmen erected in Minnesota with a picture of GWB on it and asking the question; "Miss Me Yet?"  He thought it raised a lot of good questions and presented an opportunity to explain why no one who embraced liberty and rational government policy should actually miss Bush. Some folks argue that the current administration is a clone of his in many respects anyway.

The creative side of his nature took over and he "photo shopped" several versions of the billboard picture to make his point. All of them were good in my opinion, but one of them, featured in the right column of this page has taken off in the blog-o-sphere like a rocket after being featured on the blog of Michelle Malkin, a famous conservative author and frequent talk show guest.

Only a few days later, you can get that picture as a bumper sticker and I am going to get several, at least. The message on that sticker is timeless in my view and I predict it will  "have legs" long after the Bush billboard chatter has faded into the mist of forgotten slogans. It's not the kind of sticker that gets your car "keyed" by the lunatic fringe of the progressive "Michael Moore for President" crowd so you can probably put it on your bumper without fear of that.

You can get yours here. Alternately, I will procure a batch of them and re-sell them to you. Don't you just love capitalism? Maybe Wes will give me a wholesale price so I can begin saving up for a new laptop so the words I type don't show up ten seconds after the keys are pushed anymore. Just email me if you want to go that route.  whatwethinkandwhy@gmail.com.

Now I have some other "news" for you. My essay, Choosing Both Sides - A Super Bowl Story, which some of you have read, has been featured in an article on The Humble libertarian. The name of the piece is Socialized Medicine is Not Pro-Choice. It is gratifying to have others respect your work enough to refer to it. I'd like to think his piece and the excellent picture he made for it were inspired in some small way by what I wrote. The picture is below. My humble thanks to the humble editor of that blog. Thanks, Wes.

Choosing Both Sides - A Super Bowl Story

Assuming that there are no wardrobe malfunctions at half time, the biggest flap in Super Bowl XLIV is likely to be the controversy over an ad. The one in question has yet to be run (as this is being written) but the political sniping has begun anyway.

Tim Tebow, a college football star is making what many predict will be an "anti-abortion on demand" case  in the ad. Or at least a "please choose life" message. Naturally, that seems to demand a response from the "pro-abortion on demand" groups. (I always skip the spin descriptions "pro-life" and "pro-choice" titles of such groups in the quest for clarity.)

And so continues the debate that never ends and never will.

The interesting part in this particular round of the debate was the epiphany I experienced when the actual reason for the crumbling proposal of government run health-care became obvious to this not-so-casual observer.

It was the realization that all the people who are pro-abortion on demand, are the same people who oppose government control concerning health-care!  In a moment I'll tell you how that happened.

In the mean time, how did all the pundits miss this? I mean, simple minded folks like you and I aren't expected to make such difficult calculations, that's why we have CNN, MSNBC and FOX to explain it to us. But they didn't, so I discovered it myself while reading an article, "Planned Parenthood, Athletes Respond to Tebow Super Bowl Ad" which can be found  here on Fox news Internet site.

In that article a U-Tube video is discussed where some athletes, Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner and former NFL player Sean James, were trotted out to make the case for Planned Parenthood (another euphemism) just as Tebow was trotted out by the folks who paid for the commercial he appears in. Sean James made the case in part by saying; "My mom showed me that women are strong and wise," and "She taught me that only women can make the best decisions about their health and their future."

For his part, Joyner explains; "My daughter will always be my little girl."  He goes on to say; "But I am proud everyday as I watch her grow up to be her own person, a smart, confident young woman. I trust her to take care of herself. We celebrate families by supporting our mothers, by supporting our daughters. By trusting women."

Except, of course, in all other matters concerning their health and lifestyle choices. For those decisions his daughter, mother and all other "strong and wise women" need government employees and political hacks making the tough calls. There is no way that these people could be so inconsistent in their views, right?

So the only conclusion a person can possibly arrive at is, all "pro-choice" people, including Planned Parenthood, oppose the government plan on health-care because women want choice on all health issues, not just abortion.

And that explains everything! No wonder Obama's dream scheme to take over the health-care industry has lately turned into a political nightmare.

So in the spirit of Super Bowl and the Yes we can (have it both ways) philosophy of life, I am choosing both sides to root for in today's contest. Can't it end in a tie? Can't Peyton Manning win again while the Saints still makes history for New Orleans fans? I mean, it would be so cool to have it both ways.

I suspect that if I am ever indicted for using sarcasm, this commentary will be all the evidence necessary to convict me.

A Pro-Choice President?

Recently I was reading an article that described the President as “pro choice”. Now, of course I understood the reference was to his support for abortion on demand, but it strikes me as more than odd that an entire political ideology, not just this President, describes itself by that terminology even though its adherents are probably among the least pro-choice group in this country.
By my observations, on almost any other topic, they are opposed to individual choice.

Let’s contemplate just a few major philosophic issues of the day;

Government directed health care, which will prohibit individual care providers and consumers from exercising their right to make their own arrangements between themselves is one of the highest priorities of these “pro-choice” advocates. No choice on that one.

Government mandated retirement system, aka “Social Security”. Sorry, no way to opt out. No choice on that one.

Agreement between two parties concerning compensation for services rendered. Sorry, government will decide what is too much or too little, not the people involved. No choice on that one.

I bet you can think of hundreds of other things upon which these same folks advocate either no choice or restricted choice. The next time someone tells you they are Pro-choice, you might ask them, on what issue?

That’s my opinion on the Pro-Choice description. Maybe we should just call things what they are, in this case, Pro-abortion on demand.