Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Politipost

While I solidly stand for the things I can believe in, I can generally see the point of my opposition, even if their point is wrong. For example, while y'all know that I am against abortion, I can understand why my opposition thinks it needs to be all legal, all the time. While I am solidly against the war on Iraqi civilians terrorism, I can understand why the opposition thinks it's a good idea. I think a mark of a good debate opponent is to know and understand the opposing argument.

That being said, there are two government practices that I have not met opposition for. I'd like to see if I can find any via the world wide web, or if any of my friends are able to argue the other side.

1. Y'all know that I believe in a welfare system. I know that some things just can't be helped and sometimes people just need a little pick me up. I believe the current welfare system is... well, abused isn't even the word, but I believe it is a necessary evil. So why is it, if most working people have to randomly submit to drug tests, why is a drug test not required for every welfare recipient? This is an issue that seems to grate everyone's nerves, and mine especially, as a friend of the family was on welfare for dozens of years and smoked weed like the very life of her children depended on it. I was working minimum wage and could barely afford food, but she hasn't held a steady job in... ever and can afford mad ganj.

2. Drinking age - 21. Required age for enlisting in the armed forces - 18 (17 in some cases). Really? A 20-year-old coming home from Kuwait can't walk into a bar and order a beer with his head held high? I also find it absurd that the government trusted me to find my life partner at the age of 20, but I wasn't responsible enough to (legally) have a drink with my husband for nearly 5 more months.

So, who believes that welfare recipients shouldn't ever be submitted to drug tests and that a soldier isn't responsible enough to have a beer?

4 comments:

Dyno-Man said...

Soldiers of any age can drink on military installations. ONLY on military installations.

Right on with the checks and balances for welfare

Melinda Barton said...

I'm a little pissed at a lot of soldiers right now, despite my military family or maybe because of it. Read this and you'll see why: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml
So, these guys and the other Abu Ghraib-type people: No beer for them! Just a swift kick in the butt for disgracing everyone, including dyno-man, who has ever worn the uniform with honor.
As for the rest, why they fight is very different from why we went to war. So, as I live near the Pentagon, they can come to my place and I will so illegally buy them beer! These guys should be able to do what they want: buy beer, get hookers, free lap dances, whatever!
As for the abortion thing: Of course, I'm pro-choice. But I'm not pro the stupid women who use it as birth control b/c they're too stupid to use a condom or the pill or the shot or the patch. I can get that the occasional unavoidable problem occurs and I can't deny the option in the case of the woman's health/life, rape, incest, etc. However, for the rest, they should get one of those little punch cards like you get at Subway. After it's punched a certain number of times, not only will they be denied any future access, we get to sterilize them and kick them in the teeth.

Melinda Barton said...

Oops, I forgot... for the baby daddies. If they've had a certain number of offspring aborted or abandoned, we get to sterilize them, chemically castrate them, and kick them in the balls.

Anonymous said...

I stumbled upon your blog after a google search, and I thought you might like to know that the original reason the drinking age was set to 21 was not because of personal responsibility but rather because that's when the liver is fully developed.