E Pluribus Unum

Ever notice all those “poor” people that keep appearing on TV whenever tragedy strikes? They are really annoying to all us normal folks. I think we oughtta pass a law, you know, let’s just eliminate poverty. Pass a law that makes it illegal to be poor and that would fix everything up for sure.  I mean that’s pretty much what we are doing  with everything else so why not? Everyone who is not rich is an ipso facto victim. So if we eliminate poverty we will fix everything.

Here’s what I see in the news today.

College students are victims of predatory lenders

Veterans are victims of predatory lenders

Homeowners are victims of predatory lenders

Uninsured people are victims of the society they live in

Women are the victims of Republicans

Minorities are the victims of the emerging minority of “non-minority folks”

Maybe it should be in the form of an 11th constitutional amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging the public’s right to be non-poor. Maybe it’s just that simple

I will volunteer to own the laws name, let’s call it PT’s Law: and when you drill it down you will find at its core this simple concept, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. “


10 Responses

  1. PT’s Law it is!

    > “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. “

    Yes, we MUST stamp out the creeping Communist menace! Where better to start than with one of the core tenets espoused by Marx in the Manifesto: free public education! I am NOT a Marxist!

  2. Wait SC first you have to PASS the law, then you get to find out what’s in it. That’s the “new normal”.

  3. PT…your final statement is…socialism personified. I have a sneaking suspicion that is not what you intend 🙂 I confess I did have to laugh while reading this post. I could literally picture you quietly seething 🙂 I think you did an excellent job of illustrating what you believe is wrong. And your comment…we have to pass PT’s Law to find out what’s in it had me rolling in the aisle. Hello, Nancy Pelosi 🙂

  4. “I have a sneaking suspicion that is not what you intend”

    OMG you mean there could be unintended consequences of passing more laws ….just never occurred to me

  5. Now I am truly cracking up. You, perhaps more than many, may appreciate the situation I currently find myself in. I am serving on an ad hoc committee to revise the Animal Control ordinance, specifically as it refers to tethering animals. My fellow members want to ban it. I’ve talked myself blue in the face about why that won’t work. Both my objections and those of the professionals on the committee fall on deaf ears. They want to do what’s “good” and “right”, not what’s workable In fact, they consider that a badge of honor. Never mind that the professionals say, if you are successful, you will only drive it underground so to speak. People will start keeping their dogs in the garage, or tied to a stake deep in the woods where we can’t see them. Their response is to say that enforcement is not their problem. Because you know, they are the”good” people. They cannot concern themselves with petty details such as unforeseen consequences. I have now become one of the “bad” people. It’s as if I’ve become lumped with the cruel abusers. You’d think that I myself have been tethering a dog outside its whole life, and starving it. I’m still in a state of shock over it. The professionals get a pass, because after all they are just bureaucrats and I, as a citizen should know better.

  6. FN now you are thinking like a Conservative……..it’s not fun is it, to be conceived as the heavy because you want to think through the full implications of lawmaking? LOL

    Thomas Sowell Once said that most liberal arguments/proposals would pale in the face of these three questions. I have determined to keep them forefront in my thinking

    1 as compared to what
    2 what data do you have to support that
    3 at what cost

  7. I’m going to have to remember that 🙂 I keep trying to tell people I’m not really a liberal. But it is an unaccustomed position for me to be an outcast. And yes, it is no fun. I think the most important point Sowell makes is the first one. As compared to what? And the third one—at what cost. That is the heart of the matter–not the cost monetarily, but the cost in terms of freedom,.

  8. I just know that we humans are an ornery bunch. We may not even WANT to do something–until you ban it. I keep trying to tell these people that if you put enough restrictions on tethering, you can make it functionally difficult to do without an outright ban. So what is important here? Being right and good, or actually helping dogs? And here is an actual quote from the majority “ringleader”: The committee should not waste any more of its valuable and limited time discussing whether a ban on tethering is posssible or desirable. Okay, great. Let’s just focus on the impossible, shall we?

  9. I try not to let myself become too emotionally invested in these things, but I have been so angry for the last week that it took me until yesterday to respond to that.

  10. “committee should not waste any more of its valuable and limited time discussing whether a ban on tethering is posssible or desirable. ”

    Yes we all know that to find out how it works you have to pass it first.i.e you have to pass it to find out whats in it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: