We all know the difference between sticks and stones and words. Or at least we all should. A Milwaukee man said two words on a bus and got slapped with a $500 fine. What are swear words? Why are they offensive? Who are they offensive to? Whose quality of life goes down when they hear a word?
What are words? Words are letters arranged in a way as to express a meaning. Inherently words are neither good or bad, they simply are. Words can only be bad or good if we assign that meaning to them. We own the words, the words don't own us. Words aren't dangerous. Censorship of certain words isn't meant to prevent certain words from being said, it's to prevent certain ideas from being expressed.
In a supposedly free society, why are certain words taboo? The Bible, a book many tout as holy and infallible, uses "damn" and "hell." Yet when used in other settings, those two words can be offensive. The definition of "sex" is the same as the definition of "fuck," and yet one is taboo. According to some sites, the three most offensive swear words, in order of decreasing severity are: cunt, motherfucker, and fuck.
We've discussed "fuck." In meaning, it is as harmless as the word "sex." I don't understand why "motherfucker" has such a negative stigma attached to it, I mean, all fathers in heterosexual relationships are motherfuckers, and more than likely proud of the fact. Cunt means the vagina, and only those who are intimidated or incapable of respecting women would consider that word offensive. Life springs forth from the vagina. Ok, maybe it doesn't spring as much as it squeezes out in a bloody mess, but you get the idea.
Examining these words one wouldn't think they were offensive at all, and in reality they are not offensive. People mistakenly believe these words are offensive because of superstition. Profane means something outside the church. By that definition child molestation is not considered profane, as long as it occurs within the church. If these words don't differ at the base level from accepted terms, how could they possibly harm anyone's quality of life? Words are words. If someone calls you a name, it doesn't make it true. Superstition grants power to certain words which on their own are harmless. Superstition has no place in our society.
Just as people used to stop dead in their tracks if a black cat crossed their path, some people to this day turn white at the mention of one word. If you break a mirror you will not have bad luck for seven years. If you say fuck in a group of people, those people aren't going to turn into homicidal maniacs. Grow up people.
Do you realize that as a culture we burned people we thought were witches? We did that because of superstition. Luckily we learned how terribly we were mistaken. How many people died for that superstition?
As for the undercover officers on the bus, the word police and thought police, I have a message for you: motherfuckers fuck cunts, it's just what they do. Don't use my tax dollars to stick the proverbial soap into the mouths of citizens. Instead, take the money you've wasted on undercover thought cops and buy some copies of the Bill of Rights. Pay close attention to Amendment I.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never fucking hurt me.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Showing posts with label bill of rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill of rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The New Slavery of America
The thirteenth amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” While the stereotypical slavery of plantations and railroads ended with the passage of this amendment in 1865, another form of slavery was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935.
The form of slavery introduced by FDR is technically called involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is when a person labors against their will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. By law, I am mandated to pay into the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, commonly known as Social Security. A portion of every paycheck goes towards Social Security. Every paycheck, some elderly person receives 6.20% of my earnings. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson added Medicare to FDR’s Social Security program. By law, I am mandated to pay into Medicare. Every paycheck, 1.45% of my earnings go to a sick, elderly person.
Social Security does not benefit me, nor does Medicare. Both of those programs benefit others. I work for money, and part of that money is stolen from me and given to people who didn’t plan for their retirement. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to plan for all of our retirements? Lazy, leecher-like greed and a sense of entitlement is the only justification for Social Security and Medicare. In 2009, the United States government made $121 billion dollars from Social Security, and that’s after they made all the payments to the recipients.
You would think with a surplus of that much money we would see a break on our taxes, or a reduced deficit. What does the government need $121 billion for? Maybe the government wants to buy up car companies, banks, and other private businesses? What if we don’t want Social Security or Medicare benefits? You can opt-out of receiving benefits, but you’ll still have to pay into the programs. After all, a tax is a tax.
If we do not pay taxes, the IRS gets upset and we get in trouble, possibly fined or jailed or both. How’s that for coercion?
Social Security isn’t our money, it’s my money and it’s your money being used for others. In 2017 Social Security will start running on a deficit, and will continue downward after that. I won’t be retired by 2017. It is incredibly probable that I will never see a dime from Social Security, and yet I am forced to pay for the program. If people want to retire, they should start their own savings account. The government has no business enslaving all of us to pay for others. I am my only responsibility.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
The form of slavery introduced by FDR is technically called involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is when a person labors against their will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. By law, I am mandated to pay into the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, commonly known as Social Security. A portion of every paycheck goes towards Social Security. Every paycheck, some elderly person receives 6.20% of my earnings. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson added Medicare to FDR’s Social Security program. By law, I am mandated to pay into Medicare. Every paycheck, 1.45% of my earnings go to a sick, elderly person.
Social Security does not benefit me, nor does Medicare. Both of those programs benefit others. I work for money, and part of that money is stolen from me and given to people who didn’t plan for their retirement. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to plan for all of our retirements? Lazy, leecher-like greed and a sense of entitlement is the only justification for Social Security and Medicare. In 2009, the United States government made $121 billion dollars from Social Security, and that’s after they made all the payments to the recipients.
You would think with a surplus of that much money we would see a break on our taxes, or a reduced deficit. What does the government need $121 billion for? Maybe the government wants to buy up car companies, banks, and other private businesses? What if we don’t want Social Security or Medicare benefits? You can opt-out of receiving benefits, but you’ll still have to pay into the programs. After all, a tax is a tax.
If we do not pay taxes, the IRS gets upset and we get in trouble, possibly fined or jailed or both. How’s that for coercion?
Social Security isn’t our money, it’s my money and it’s your money being used for others. In 2017 Social Security will start running on a deficit, and will continue downward after that. I won’t be retired by 2017. It is incredibly probable that I will never see a dime from Social Security, and yet I am forced to pay for the program. If people want to retire, they should start their own savings account. The government has no business enslaving all of us to pay for others. I am my only responsibility.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Friday, June 11, 2010
Warning Labels
Warning labels are not a rare occurrence in today's society of lawsuits. If you order hot coffee you can expect to see a warning label informing you the beverage may be hot. There are warning labels on electrical cords, telling you not to cut the cord with a scissors while it's plugged in. When you buy a candy bar, there is a warning that it may contain nuts. And on top of that, there are a wide array of products known to the state of California to cause cancer, which range from shampoos to fertilizers. The latest item to make this list? The Constitution of the United States of America.
According to a FoxNews.com article, A&D Publishing and Wilder Publications have released a printed version of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that contains a warning stating, "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" (Wilder Publications, 2007).
What is completely mind-boggling is that I can buy a copy of Mein Kampf and there is no warning label to be found. At the school library, children can check out copies of The Stand and other books with questionable subject matter. But now the founding documents of our country come with warning labels? Is there anything offensive in the Constitution? Only if you hate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why, then, are these warnings put on these documents? The simple answer is that it is not politically correct to be American. And why isn't it politically correct to be American? The answer for that is jealousy and equality. The government, mostly liberals, have decided that our Constitution means that everybody in the world should be equal, in much the same sense that they believe every child in school should learn at the same pace. They are trying to institute a No Human Left Behind act. Other countries are jealous of our freedoms, and the politicians don't want to offend anybody, so they have to tone down how great our country is. What the politicians don't realise, is that America should be what other countries aspire to. Jealousy is good. If we can show the world how truly awesome capitalism and democracy are, then eventually everybody will have freedom. We undercut our status as a role model when we start talking about political correctness and when we start worrying about offending people.
Do I care that Mexico is a third world country? Not until Mexicans start illegally immigrating to the US and start feeding off of my tax dollars. Would I like Mexico to be a decent country with decent freedoms? Yes, of course. However, that is not my responsibility, nor is it your responsibility. Are countries like Mexico jealous of the United States? Of course they are. Does that jealousy sometimes lead to hatred and attacks against our country? Yes, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are prime examples. The difference between the two, however, is political correctness. World War Two was not fought with political correctness in mind. Our war on terror is a politically correct war. We are tying our military's hands by telling them they can't bomb a hospital full of terrorists for fear it would look bad on the news.
America exists because we had a problem with what England was doing, and we fought for our sovereignty. Our founding fathers were out-numbered, out-gunned, and out-matched, but we won. In my opinion, any citizen of Afghanistan is equally responsible for 9/11 as the terrorists who carried out the attack. Our strategy should have been, bomb the temples, bomb the hospitals, cripple their country and bring them to their knees. If we did that, they wouldn't want to attack us ever again. Look at Japan. How much trouble have we had with Japan since the end of WWII? Zero trouble. We took the fight out of them. It is more advantageous for them to be friendly with us, than it is for them to be our enemy.
I'm not advocating we bend every country to our will, or that we go around the world as a 'police nation.' I'm just saying that war cannot be politically correct. If we are attacked because of our morals and values, then it is our duty as free citizens to defend our rights, our country, and our lives. Fighting a war half-heartedly, politically correct, only fosters more hatred. War is about showing the enemy that they don't ever want to mess with you again. If you can do that, you can prevent more wars in the future.
Being American isn't about warning labels. Being American isn't about political correctness. Being American is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being American is defending our country against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Our country was not founded on political correctness. We fought a king and his army to gain our freedom. I will be damned if warning labels convince me to be politically correct. I am American. No apologies.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
According to a FoxNews.com article, A&D Publishing and Wilder Publications have released a printed version of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that contains a warning stating, "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" (Wilder Publications, 2007).
What is completely mind-boggling is that I can buy a copy of Mein Kampf and there is no warning label to be found. At the school library, children can check out copies of The Stand and other books with questionable subject matter. But now the founding documents of our country come with warning labels? Is there anything offensive in the Constitution? Only if you hate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why, then, are these warnings put on these documents? The simple answer is that it is not politically correct to be American. And why isn't it politically correct to be American? The answer for that is jealousy and equality. The government, mostly liberals, have decided that our Constitution means that everybody in the world should be equal, in much the same sense that they believe every child in school should learn at the same pace. They are trying to institute a No Human Left Behind act. Other countries are jealous of our freedoms, and the politicians don't want to offend anybody, so they have to tone down how great our country is. What the politicians don't realise, is that America should be what other countries aspire to. Jealousy is good. If we can show the world how truly awesome capitalism and democracy are, then eventually everybody will have freedom. We undercut our status as a role model when we start talking about political correctness and when we start worrying about offending people.
Do I care that Mexico is a third world country? Not until Mexicans start illegally immigrating to the US and start feeding off of my tax dollars. Would I like Mexico to be a decent country with decent freedoms? Yes, of course. However, that is not my responsibility, nor is it your responsibility. Are countries like Mexico jealous of the United States? Of course they are. Does that jealousy sometimes lead to hatred and attacks against our country? Yes, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are prime examples. The difference between the two, however, is political correctness. World War Two was not fought with political correctness in mind. Our war on terror is a politically correct war. We are tying our military's hands by telling them they can't bomb a hospital full of terrorists for fear it would look bad on the news.
America exists because we had a problem with what England was doing, and we fought for our sovereignty. Our founding fathers were out-numbered, out-gunned, and out-matched, but we won. In my opinion, any citizen of Afghanistan is equally responsible for 9/11 as the terrorists who carried out the attack. Our strategy should have been, bomb the temples, bomb the hospitals, cripple their country and bring them to their knees. If we did that, they wouldn't want to attack us ever again. Look at Japan. How much trouble have we had with Japan since the end of WWII? Zero trouble. We took the fight out of them. It is more advantageous for them to be friendly with us, than it is for them to be our enemy.
I'm not advocating we bend every country to our will, or that we go around the world as a 'police nation.' I'm just saying that war cannot be politically correct. If we are attacked because of our morals and values, then it is our duty as free citizens to defend our rights, our country, and our lives. Fighting a war half-heartedly, politically correct, only fosters more hatred. War is about showing the enemy that they don't ever want to mess with you again. If you can do that, you can prevent more wars in the future.
Being American isn't about warning labels. Being American isn't about political correctness. Being American is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being American is defending our country against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Our country was not founded on political correctness. We fought a king and his army to gain our freedom. I will be damned if warning labels convince me to be politically correct. I am American. No apologies.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)