Previous

Contents

Next

Harsh Words
by Sean Gangol
[email protected]

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

A Few months ago, I submitted an article titled "Where is the Outrage?" where I not only blasted the perverted security tactics of the TSA, but the cowards who supported their measures. Recently I emailed the article to my grandmother who didn't seem to understand why I thought it was wrong to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of every passenger. Now, let me give you a little background information on my grandmother. She is a staunch democrat that broke the party line only twice when she voted for Barry Goldwater (she couldn't stand LBJ) and one other time for Richard Nixon. For the most part she has sided with the democrats on every issue. There are times I wonder if she even thinks the democrats could ever do wrong.

Ever since I became a member of what I like to call the Freedom Movement, my views have usually run contrary to hers. My grandmother seems to have absolute blind faith in the government, just as long as it is run by the democrats. When George W. Bush was president, she constantly complained about how he was turning America into a police state. Not to say that her criticism was unwarranted, since it was the Bush administration that gave us The Patriot Act and institutionalized torture. My problem is that she doesn't seem to judge the Obama administration who has continued these same policies, by the same standards. She just seems to believe that police state tactics are okay as long as they are carried out by the democrats, which may explain her response to my article.

She said that the measures were necessary and that most people wouldn't want to take any chances whenever they needed to fly. As much as I love my grandma (I usually call her Grams), I have a hard time comprehending how anybody could possible think that it is necessary to take pornographic pictures of a toddler or fondle some twelve-year-old kid. Seriously, what planet do you have to be from to find this behavior acceptable or necessary?

As for the part about people not wanting to take their chances with their safety, I have one thing to ask them: why do you even bother waking up in the morning? Every time you get out of bed, you are basically taking a chance with your life. There are number of things that can happen to you through out the day. If you decide to drive, you have a better chance of getting into a fatal car accident then being killed in a terrorist attack. Statistically speaking you have a better chance of being struck by lightening, then being harmed by a terrorist attack. Once again, I have to paraphrase the late great George Carlin "So what are you going to do? Stay home and eat at Wendy's for the rest of your life?"

Like I said before, safety can't be guaranteed, especially if it is insured by government bureaucrats. When was the last time you heard about the government preventing the hijacking or an attempted bombing of an airplane? The government had prior warnings about the so-called Underwear Bomber, but they let him on the plane unmolested. So how can anyone expect these same clowns to do any better just because the measures are more invasive?

My grandmother told me about her experience in a West German airport, where she was fondled by a security guard. She said that there was some terrorist on the loose at the time, so the measures were justified. I wanted to ask her if they ever caught the terrorist using the same measures. The answer most likely would have been no. Better yet, I could have asked her what was accomplished by molesting an American woman, the person that was the least likely to commit an act of terrorism? How did it make anybody safer? Of course I never did ask any of these questions. I have seen how ugly political arguments can get, even with the people you love and respect. I am afraid that it could end up like the episode of Boston Legal where William Shatner and James Spader ended up shooting each other with paintballs when they got into a heated argument over Obama and McCain. Not that we would ever shoot each other with paintballs, but I don't want to get to the point where we feel more like enemies then family.

I do feel that I have to respond to those who justify these blatant forms of oppression. Whenever I point out that these measures violate our basic rights, they usually say something along the lines of: "I believe in our rights, but I don't think they are absolute?" Then what is the point of even having a constitution that protects them? That is like saying that you believe in the Constitution, but only when it's convenient. If the Constitution doesn't apply in good times or bad times, then it isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.

If freedom scares you that much, then I suggest one of two things. You either grow a stronger backbone or find a nation with less freedom to live in. Please don't ruin it for those who don't take their natural rights for granted. For those who would ask: "Don't I have a right to feel safe?" Sure you have a right to feel safe, along with the right to have free healthcare and the right not to be offended. Let us not forget my right to have a threesome with Katherine Heigl and Sofia Vergara from Modern Family. What's that you say? That last one is not an actual right? Well, I hate to break it to you, but neither are the other three that I just mentioned.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: