*
Kim's Comments
Kim Kovac

Do you need to touch the wounds?

Posted Saturday, August 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM
Comments
View 15 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Great blog Kim! Powerful stuff. Yes, how long before we step up? I wonder that myself.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sun, Aug 9, 2009, at 10:23 AM
  • *

    WOW..thinking of the story of Doubting Thomas it took me a couple of days to form a resonse. You're right. some people are going to have to physically be "touched" by these events before they understand what's at risk. Their houses will need to be foreclosed on, their jobs lost. They will have to be told by the government that their car needs to be "recycled" because it's too old and burns too much gas. (try telling the to Bazooka's wife) They will have to be face down in the gutter with their family before they truly understand what's happening. Then they will turn to the always helpful government. That is where they will learn the truth. There's no money, there's no salvation, only more pain. The current administration will tell you there is nothing left because they have spent it all on hookers and cheap beer...oops..I meant healthcare and carbon credits. There may be enough to pay you a little bit to help feed your family but not enough to prosper. The goverment will have done with the economy and social programs that it knew it couldn't do with guns and violence. It will have turned you into slaves of the state. It will own and control every aspect of your life. It will give you a pittance because they know you won't turn on them because you NEED them to support you and your family.

    The time has come people, to fight back, to take control back at the state level. To let our congressmen know THEY work for US. If they choose to follow along in typical Washington fashion they will be OUT. Politics is not a career but a calling. TO serve your fellowman and represent his voice as well as yours in the government. There should be no retirement from congress only a term or two. No lifelong healthcare. Not when a typical retiree has to pay for COBRA if he wants to continue being healthy. It's time to vote them out. To get rid of the Good Ol' Boy (and Girl)regime and get people in that want to serve the people instead of being served. We own the right to be free, god and our forefathers both agree on that. We LOAN out that freedom to be safe. We sacrifice certain liberties in order to be free from tyrany, fear and hate. We pay taxes for military, police, fire and ambulance. We vote on and allow laws so that we might be able to sleep peacefully at night.

    No where in Gods law or our own constitution does it say that we live at the will of the government. The government serves at our will.

    -- Posted by mhbouncer on Sun, Aug 9, 2009, at 4:47 PM
  • *

    Thought about it...would love to quit sending them taxes AND Social Security AND Medicare. Could think of ways to "stimulate" the economy with that money

    -- Posted by mhbouncer on Sun, Aug 9, 2009, at 10:46 PM
  • *

    SOrry Boazooka, I was speaking about an ideal world where congres took no more than they needed to provide us with security. I forgot we were supporting their lifestyle.

    -- Posted by mhbouncer on Tue, Aug 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM
  • Bazooka--

    Your last comment is so typical of what's wrong with the logic of the gun rights movement. If some country invades--such as China--you and every other gun-toting fanatic won't be able to do anything about it. The more I hear/read comments like yours, the more convinced I am that Heston and the whole NRA membership actually believe 'Red Dawn' could be reality. We would need a strong, united, Federal defense to push back against an invading power.

    You don't look to the govt. for security, huh? I would venture a guess that you also fancy yourself completely independent of the 'Feds'. What a joke! Everytime you travel to work, the grocery store, the woods to hunt, anywhere, you are driving--quite literally--on the tax dollars we legitimately pay to the government. People just don't realize we no longer live in hunter/gatherer times in which people were truly somewhat self-sufficient. Like or not, you are one of 300 million+ spokes in the wheel that make this country work, and your tax dollars are a big part of that. So, if you want to complain that the big, bad government is taking too much from you, stop enjoying all the benefits. You can't have both; it just doesn't work that way.

    -- Posted by rollman on Tue, Aug 11, 2009, at 9:56 PM
  • *

    Hey rollman, I have to disagree. Though Red Dawn was a movie, that is exactly what it would take IF we were invaded by a large standing army. We won't be though. We will be attacked just as we were on 911. The only way we would be attacked by a large army is if the messiah could get our OWN troops to attack their family and friends. Not likely to happen. I see where bazooka was going with this. If society breaks down, he is ready to defend his family and friends as well as provide sustinence to keep them fed until things change. And remember one thing Roll, our FEDERAL troops can NOT be used on our own soil without suspending several laws. The National Guard, which is a STATE militia as well as those with arms to take up in the defense of the state are the ones who will be defending you.

    -- Posted by mhbouncer on Wed, Aug 12, 2009, at 10:46 AM
  • "People just don't realize we no longer live in hunter/gatherer times in which people were truly somewhat self-sufficient"

    It is amazing that people think that they live independent of all govt. They apparently think that this is some John Wayne film where they are given free reign. There are reasons that people evolved from primitive hunter/gatherers to what we are now. Hint, these changes did not occur just in spite of those who cling to the past.

    -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Aug 13, 2009, at 7:07 PM
  • I believe in minimal govt. intervention but some services simply cant be provided by the private sector adequately. National defense is the big one. The approach that you favor would be a return to that of 16th century Europe. Oh and that worked so well. The standard of living was so good. Everyone had 4 species of lice on their head and a life expectancy of 32. Hmmm... tough decision.

    -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Aug 26, 2009, at 2:06 PM
  • Providing national defense from the private sector has never worked. I challenge to prove that wrong. Again, no impassioned and inflammatory rhetoric. Show me something logical and reasoned that shows that the welfare of the whole would be protected as well by mercenaries as by the current nationalized approach. Oh but were not you employed by this at one time and you stick by it and curse me for not being patriotic. Seems a bit hypocritical.

    -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Aug 27, 2009, at 12:43 PM
  • The point is that national defense is a public good. If you asked people what they are willing to pay for it, their voluntary contributions would fall well short of what is needed. This occurs because every one has a different opinion on the level of external threat and how much it costs to prevent it. This is not because non-military types are idiots. It is called subjectivity and uncertainty. National defense being provided by the private sector would signal a return to feudal times. Now argue all that you want but that would benefit only the wealthy and lucky. Spending on defense has gone up and down since the beginning, so how is this any different? This debate has gone on since Roman times in one form or another.

    -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, at 12:07 PM
  • So as expected you dodge the issue of national defense being a public good. Would you favor the private approach? I know that 99% of most civilized people favor the nationalized approach? Mercenaries never helped anyone but their lords and themselves.

    -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 11:46 AM
  • *

    National defense as in protecting our country Twil? We have a standing army sent into foreign countries to defend our national sovreignty. We have National Guard to defend our country from within. Not to mention all the federal, state and local law enforcement. Why on earth would we need a "civilian" defense force to protect this country. Whom are they protecting us from? Did you see a raghead running down your street yelling, "Allah is great, kill the infidels"? Are there North Korean or Iranian soldiers marching on city hall to take it over? NO!! Obama wants this force of people to protect HIM. To attack YOU. People who are loyal to him. He KNOWS the military wouldn't attack Americans on American soil. He is trying to install the infrastructure so he can propogate his socialist ideals. He knows, from the response to his healthcare plan, that he can't further his plan unless he has forces in place to FORCE people to think like him. Pretty easy to see his point of view if someone is standing on front of your house with a gun.

    Remember Twil, we are CITIZENS and the government works for US. We are NOT subjects to be ruled over.

    -- Posted by mhbouncer on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 11:57 AM
  • The only point that I am trying to put across is that we are not self-sufficient, isolated hunter-gatherers. You and some others seem to advocate that we dismantle government at all levels and let society (i.e. the public sector) provide what it will. Some things that society deems important cannot be provided by the public sector. That point has been proven since the time of Rome. Now that is not to say that we need excessive govt. intervention. Markets dont always provide optimal solutions and neither does govt. intervention. The trick is finding the balance.

    -- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 9:32 PM
  • *

    Twil, I for one don't advocate the dismantling of the government. I just propose to put it back into pandoras box. What we DON'T need is a civilian defense force to "protect" us from the unseen enemy.

    -- Posted by mhbouncer on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 9:59 PM
  • -- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 12:43 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: