Ken Huber has some good points but his timeline seems to be confused...
"Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard?"
Yes,
when we seceded from the union (with Britain)... We have been such ever
since, regardless of who has been paying attention.
"Lets see, if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics."
Correct.
This is because we don't require Congressmen to swear an oath every
time they speak. Regular people lie all the time and it's not a felony.
You're forgetting that Congressmen are just regular people going to
work, and you seem to be under the impression that they were all
completely truthful at one point..?
"If we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, it's their 1st Amendment right."
Both of these things are racist and both of them are 1st amendment rights. There wouldn't be a constitution guaranteeing you the freedom to be a perfect person, this document would be unnecessary.
BTW, if certain people give African Americans a pass for being racially
ignorant, it's because the American double standard has shafted them
historically harder than other groups, and perhaps they actually have a
tiny reason to dislike us.
"The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims."
My
imagination isn't potent enough to fathom what it's like to have my
life so far into the gutter that robbing a liquor store seems like a
good idea... The sad truth of the matter is that we don't all share the
same morals, intelligence, work ethic, education, psychological health,
etc. etc. But if one of our worst hypocrisies as a nation is that we attempt to turn criminals into decent people.... I guess this doesn't enrage me as much as it should.
"In public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process."
But we teach that God is okay. In one form or another we all learned about the religious
freedom of America, we're just not allowed to tell kids they have to
believe in God anymore than we tell them they have to be homosexuals.
How is this inconsistent?
"You can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer."
I
don't think mass murderers have as good of a reputation as you presume.
Also, unborn children are generally thought more highly of than "it's
okay to kill them". But the reason it's LEGAL to kill them is one of the
unfortunate results of a complicated society filled with contrasting
world-views. You've had this discussion I'm sure.
"We don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them."
This
is a somewhat alarming complaint, and I'm hoping it's just the poetic
linguistics of a traditional-minded fellow. If not, let me address it
quickly. Knowledge is a constantly evolving thing. What makes a book
written in 1999 more valid than a similar book written in 2010? Because
it was here first? If the most effective form of chemotherapy has
changed over the last ten years, should the texts on chemo not be
updated? And the reason we don't burn the old volumes is because they may be useful for reference. When it comes to knowledge, less is not more.
"We got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive."
The
claim seems to be that language is being strategically used to affect
attitudes. I can do that too. Progress is being slowed down by people
renaming it the Socialist Threat. Congratulations, you're a politician.
"We are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea."
I
agree that we're spending too much money on foreign defense, although I
think this one has something to do with your Communist Threat.
"If you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right."
Seriously? You got called a terrorist for peacefully protesting? That seems extreme.
"You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas."
This
is perfectly consistent: you can have a nativity scene at home and you
can't have pornography in a public park. What's the argument here? And
just a side note, there is such a thing as non-sexual pornography, and
the idea of a living manger out-front the capitol building is probably
certain peoples' little blue pill.
"We have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people."
Huh?
I think this is more rhetorical gymnastics. If the core of this
statement is that you don't like the empathy that is given to people who
break the law, then I don't know what to tell ya. They still go to
jail, and their lives are still probably more or less empty. If you're
mad that they're still treated like human beings then I can't really
help ya on this one.
"We can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal."
They're
not live fetuses being used for research. Again, I can appreciate the
anti-abortion sentiment, as I think many people can, but there's
something not-so-sacred about incest-rape. Additionally, I don't think
the average liberal American
has a problem with using rats to cure cancer. Certain folks don't want
animals mutated to test our style products. Don't confuse a vocal
minority for a majority.
"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work"
Literally
speaking, this is probably way less common than you'd expect. Do you
think the average beneficiary of unemployment really WANTS to pad their
resume with years of wellfare?
Maybe some, but the bigger social issue here is that unexceptional
people are having too many babies, creating large quantities of unexceptional citizens.
"We all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology."
Good point, this is also nothing new.
"We still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct."
False.
Politically incorrect people still have freedom of speech, they just
don't like having to deal with the non-legal consequences of their
words. You can lose your job for something you say, but you're
forgetting that a job is a privilege, not a constitutional right.
"Parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games."
Once again, too many unexceptional parents.
"The land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs."
Vote.
"The similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help."
Fair enough.
And
how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a
committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a
law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get
back to their reelection campaign.
Duh.
"What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?"
This
is from a song. There are still brave people and free people living
here. But the reason those lyrics are popular in song form instead of document
form is because they're intended to get you emotive about a vague
concept, rather than particular about specific concepts. To ask "What
has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?" is to ask a
rhetorical question for the purpose of making a broad statement: "I
don't like the way my country is behaving as of late". But the
hypocrisies that you're dealing with here are remarkably consistent with
the hypocrisies we've always had. The only difference LATELY is that
your fellow voters have been disagreeing with you about the details.
You're mad at your government but the folks you should really be mad at
are the voters who have a different outlook than you.
What
you're probably MOST upset about, is that non-religious people have
different values than the faithful. You are unable to see religious
dogma as subjective truth. And I don't blame you, because what use would
religion be if it WAS seen as subjective? I don't know how to help you
reconcile this, other than to tell you to keep on voting and hope for
the best. Progress and entropy are more or less two sides to the same
coin. One of these (entropy) is inevitable by definition. If that's the
idiom you subscribe to, then we're already doomed. If you see social
movement as progress, then this is NOT inevitable, and there's hope for
you. Only problem becomes dealing with the reality that you're rooting
against progress. You can look at the public moving away from religion,
towards humanism and see it as entropy or progress. But you can't call
it neither. Or, shouldn't.
My friend, you're a man
without a nation, and this is going to sound odd and strangely
anti-American to say, but if this stuff is really important to you,
you're best bet is to join the Tea Party and start planning which mesoamerican
states are going to be fenced off for the REAL America to begin. Only
awkward thing is that you're going to lose the name America and the
songs and flags... Can you reconcile fighting for your secession
(which you WILL win, because if there's one thing your Tea Party
friends will have, it's lots of guns--and if there's one thing godless neo-liberals
don't have, it's willingness to fight and die for anything) when after
the dust settles, you'll have your perfect set of small-government laws
but a less traditional flag to wave, different songs to learn, and a
whole new set of patriots to start idolizing? Boy it's gonna be wistfull, but at least things will be back to the way they.... (were?)