Government Ruins Nearly Everything: Reclaiming Social Issues from Uncivil Servants by Laura Carno

I posted this originally a couple of days ago, and whatever I clicked a while back somehow posts all my wordpress to my twitter. Okay, odd but whatever, and could very well be something new since I last used wordpress, which was a year or even longer ago. However, today I checked my twitter and saw this message”Wow…Someone really doesn’t like freedom, choice, markets….or my book. Also why you should buy your own copy” from the ‘writer’ of that ‘book’. I wrote back, on twitter, don’t do badly written/researched books w/ ‘alternative’ facts; major in accounting minors law economics politics KU so no spend $ on trash — then went back to my goodreads and my amazon and changed some things, adding in quotes from what she had written me on twitter. I also stated that had rated 3 on amazon so rating 3 on goodreads, due to the difference in meaning on gr THEN wrote *EDIT changed to one due to being crapped on via twitter with that message from the ‘writer’  — so evidently because I used kindle unlimited, which she signed on for, to read the book, and didn’t like it and have different opinions than her, I don’t have the ‘right’ seemingly according to her to have a differing opinion, or her stupidity in not having the intelligence to write a real book as well as to not be able to tell that the bottom portion is the very condensed entire posting was the same person that had posted the review{s} on amazon and goodreads under my full actual name, but still doesn’t make her any less of a narcissistic ignorant moron.

Note: at the bottom, below the ******* is a very condensed version used for the book review, if you want to just hit the very condensed version, although of course am very fond of the full version myself.

Had entered a goodreads contest to win this book {hard copy} then realized it was on ku, and while can’t keep it that way vs the ebook can actually read it {vision issues} much easier.

The needs {and rights} of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I do think that certain regulations and definitely certain amendments to the Constitution are needed. There are certain people, on various political sides and whatever else, that do believe they know what is best for us all, meaning all as in lumping us all together. Religion, as written by Jefferson, should not enter in to government; his quill holding hand nor his lips stuttered on this point. Regulations for labellings, environmental, and other issues obviously have to be done, for the protection of all, as is attested by Flint Michigan and other issues. Whether and how a female has rights to her own reproductive issues, the sexual preferences of 2 consenting adults and the right to marry, etcetera, are also rights for all that have to be protected by law, regardless of some individuals’ religious or other beliefs. No, it doesn’t matter if it ‘morally offends’ them; I find their taking offense at others’ rights to be offensive. What it all comes down to is that certain things do not affect their life in any meaningful way, so no, those few of the many should not get more {unequal} say especially not in something that does not even affect them, although for some reason it seems to morally offend them. They have a right to be morally offended, but they do not have the right to push their own beliefs and ways on others that do not believe that way. One point that was said, though, I definitely do not agree with; republicans are constantly saying {although not particularly acting} that they want smaller government control, until as was said, they want to infringe on others by passing certain laws or having those revoked.

And, yes, government can ruin things when the legislate, but that is often because they are either not truly looking out for the vested interests of the citizens or else are caught up in political ploys that change wording or add addendums or clauses to bills that basically change the intent and meaning of the original. The problems with government is not so much too little or too much, but instead the problem of those who wish to see laws that we should all act and think the same on the same issues. This, of course, was why Jefferson said separation of Church and state and wanted individual rights and protection of those rights. That includes making sure those rights, religious or otherwise when those intertwine with the political side, are protected, which should include teaching creationism as an unproven THEORY, evolutionism or that type taught as proven, and also the mix where certain biblical facts are put in to show why those are or could be believed, all without bringing religion in to it in any major way. The general social issues, even ‘hot’ topics, should by popular vote, as was intended {as representatives are supposed to be just that}, made in to law {such as Roe VS Wade} and then left alone; there are other issues to fix, move along and do your actual job. This goes for a minimum wage law with real actual cost of living increases with the minimum for the country although states should have the right to be higher but never lower. There are protection and hunting guns versus what is considered military hardware which is obviously not needed for self defense. It is not an attempt to set someone’s personal values, it is supposed to be an attempt for everyone to have their rights, as long as they don’t impinge or violate others’ rights, it is pretty much that simple. That goes for not, as the writer claims, less government re abortion and lgbt issues, but for each state to recognize and follow the laws and amendments which give the right to CHOOSE under the laws, not to be hampered or discriminated against in doing so, so doesn’t see how that example applies, as it goes not under keeping the government out but more to already being law so others should not be allowed to break it without penalty. Every citizen is entitled to the ‘safety net’ of social programs, that is what they are for, and protecting the aged, infirm, disabled, etcetera, is what the laws were made to do.

The arguments against obama care also are one sided and incomplete. School Charter system has also likewise been a proven failure as well as discriminatory. This is a broad comment, lumping all the school ties together, and assuming knowledge the writer probably did not have about a full government push for only or mainly charter schools recently. There have been some good parent run and/or specialty schools of this type, but overall they do not work, and with the recent push they only work to the detriment of the public school system instead of trying to fix what was broken with the Core crap, The main republicans do not want to follow law in regards to the abortion and lgbt simply because they do want to impose their religious rights on others which again is only a right when it does not impose. That is part of a party throwing a temper tantrum because they can’t have their way, just the same as wanting unlimited weapons for ‘protection’ including semi and fully automatic military grade guns and other weapons which is ridiculous. As far as ‘independents’ percentage, I would not hesitate to say that in certain states this is totally skewed, as to vote in the general election in most cases one must be registered as either a republican or a democrat, and in other states {caucus ones in particular} I am more than merely unclear whether the writer thinks ‘obama care’ was good or bad, in part or whole. Charter schools have little to no oversight, and their claims and grading systems are highly suspect; the way to get better schools is to pay staff better and to quit messing with a teaching system that has rapidly gone downhill with ‘Common Core’ where the students understand even less than they used to, and the parents have no clue in the newest messed up ‘teaching’ ways. Also, again, it’s not gun control in total that is or should be the issue, but instead reasonable licensing and other checks, plus a limit to the type of weapon someone claims they need for protection or hunting; no one actually needs a semi or fully automatic weapon for personal protection, much less even more military grade ones. On the subject of the VA, the medical care issues overlooks the real world government run institution and lack of several major needed points, so since the VA is an organization within an organization, really does not apply to any arguments for or against ‘obama care’. Of course there needs to be less government intrusion, but without a framework of laws the individuals’ rights would suffer, very tragically in many cases. The fact the writer mentions that no one wants to overturn Roe vs Wade is also not quite true; some do, and others to corrupt the intent of the law and the ability to actually get one {locations available, wait times, permissions, clinic equipment laws, restrictions on availability of birth control, including mostly republican attempts in various states and areas at defunding Planned Parenthood, etcetera ad nauseum}. This is not a mistaken belief, it is fact, and more of a side not mostly because the book was written before these came to the forefront more and more, as the book was published in April 2016 and not sure when was actually being written up. The real reason that they don’t have counselling centers that can provide room and board and shelter, etcetera for the pregnant woman is because once the fetus is born, republicans mostly but others as well, do not want to have any social programs to help the child or the mother. The amount of foster children and children at risk even to the matter of school lunch programs bears this out as fact.

Enforcement and the making of checks and balances of gun laws do help, as it cuts down on mentally unstable and others who are not fit to have guns, and makes it harder for those people to get guns, although not totally impossible but that is as with anything. Making very large basically military grade gun magazines illegal and not available at all in some cases would help solve that problem, although not eliminate it totally as there would still be previous ones out there, but along with restrictions on who could buy and sell those it would help to a great extent. As for visible law enforcement deterrents, that goes back to government funding on a country, state, and city level. And then we are back at the laws, reasonable laws that are made with thoughts to the legal and the illegal and how to protect the citizens, and that means concealed and unconcealed weapons but wielded by those who have taken decent gun training. I0wa allows even the legally blind to carry a weapon with the right permits; think about that one.

Shopping for a school in a voucher so called free market place is also not the answer, because it is not ever truly a free market for that. A richer family will still have more discretionary income for transportation and other costs, so also location and more choice in schools. Charter schools may or may not get the same funding, I do not know and have not researched that part, but I do know that they are given more laxness on standards in too many of them and it was recently stated by the new head over that department that they should not be held to the same standards, no matter what. As the writer said, “The public coffers should be blind to its delivery, as long as the chosen school meets state-mandated sanctioning requirements.” That is not what the new Secretary of Education says; Charter schools should not be held to the same standards and requirements of other funded schools, regardless. Having said that, if a parent wishes to send their child to a Charter school and that school is religious in nature, as long as the school is teaching a reasonable amount of actual non religious studies, there should be no problem.

As for the same sex wedding cake refusal of the bakery that was cited, while the couple may have picked the shop for that reason {I don’t remember now} the point is the intent to discriminate, not why they were picked, which if for that reason would have been to show that a public business does not have a right to discriminate based on whatever they don’t like. Again, it is not as much about government interference as it is about necessity to have laws that must be followed so there is no discriminatory behaviors toward the public, as a business is for all the public not just which ones you agree with or whose skin or gender or whatever, and that is why we have had to have laws for such things as disability, because otherwise businesses have shown they would not comply. Chick fil a have discriminatory practices and religious observance does not mean that they don’t have that personal right, but they do not have that business right to be discriminatory, period, and yes while it has affected their business and sales it has not shut down the business totally.

With great freedoms comes great responsibility. Sometimes that has to be governed or legislated to protect those who would otherwise be discriminated against. You run a business that way, but you still have the personal freedom to think and act pretty much how you want, just not to the point of infringing on others’ freedoms of the same kind. That is a question and difference between company/public actions and rights versus private ones. Just as governmental ‘interference’ in marriage was mostly with a view toward protecting any offspring as well as trying to ensure their support from both parents. Does not a government agency, in this case Department of Education, trying to mandate only or primarily charter schools not an issue? Of course it is, but not covered, although again that could be due to the writing period and publishing time of the book, before the more recent developments. That also goes for independent and not government regulated i.e. laws on such things as water and drugs.

Is it supposed to be worse to be offended versus being offensive and even discriminatory? That is why the government has to, in some cases, step in and make laws. There are too many that see even laws as something to sidestep, so think what no laws on the matter{s} would mean to all the rest.

******* {book review way edited version}

Had entered a goodreads contest to win this book {hard copy} then realized it was on ku, and while can’t keep it that way vs the ebook can actually read it {vision issues} much easier.

The needs {and rights} of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I do think that certain regulations and definitely amendments to the Constitution are needed. There are certain people, on various political sides and whatever else, that do believe they know what is best for us all, meaning all as in lumping us all together. Religion, as written by Jefferson, should not enter in to government; his quill holding hand nor his lips stuttered on this point. Regulations for health, environmental, and various social Constitutional issues obviously have to be done, for the protection of all, as is attested by Flint Michigan for example and various amendments. No, it doesn’t matter if it ‘morally offends’ them; I find their taking offense at others’ rights to be offensive. You can’t run a business that way, but you still have the personal freedom to think and act pretty much how you want, just not to the point of infringing on others’ freedoms of the same kind and not in a place of business. Is it supposed to be worse to be offended versus being offensive and even discriminatory? That is why the government has to, in some cases, step in and make laws, because there are too many that see even laws as something to sidestep, so think what no laws on the matter{s} would mean.

The arguments against ‘Obama Care’ and the school charters are outdated and one sided and do not account for many factors including financial nor updated information. Independents’ percentage does not take in to consideration the states that one must register as either one of the main parties to even vote in the preliminary election nor any of the ‘caucus’ states’ rules and ways. It glosses over the issue and problems with the foster care and adoption systems. There is too much to go in to here for those bits. As far as republicans, they don’t want smaller government, only less laws for things they don’t like and more for the ones they do, regardless of anyone else’s actual rights or wishes on the matters. Yes, government can ruin things when they legislate, but that is often because the politicians are either not truly looking out for the vested interests of the citizens or else are caught up in political ploys that change wording or add addendums or clauses to bills that basically change the intent and meaning of the original. The problems with government is not so much too little or too much, but instead INTENT and actions thereof. Even when laws have been passed, there are some that try to twist or argue the meaning{s} and pervert the original intent including having those laws hobbled or made basically useless, although their intended job which they are far overpaid and otherwise compensated for is supposed to be representing the ENTIRE public and ALL the states so yes laws for minimum wage and so on are needed as are guns/weapons {enforced and with proper training and screening mandated and no military grade hardware is obviously not needed for self defense, and an aside that Iowa allows even legally blind people to get a gun license so think about that one}, and the other non-discriminatory laws already in place but not necessarily followed. States should NOT be allowed to go against or otherwise attempt to circumvent the federal laws, and it should not take a state nor federal supreme court to have to remind them of this, and is why we have so many laws on so many things in most cases due to the blatant attempt to disregard the will of the nation as a whole. The laws are to protect everyone, and especially those who cannot protect themselves, and the right of choice within the law, and why we have to have so many laws.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s