Why Liberals are AGAINST Equal Rights for Women

Today in the news..Hamas passes a law forbidding women from smoking tobacco hookahs in the Gaza strip because they feel its "indecent" for women. Certainly most of us in the western world, especially those who consider themselves liberals, are appalled, and they should find it appalling. I can see self-proclaimed liberals shaking their heads at what they will certainly consider a backward law. After all individual rights and personal freedoms are the basic principles of Liberalism. So any liberal worth his salt should be appalled that in some countries there are laws being passed specifically to restrict freedom. The liberals will be very self assured in their moral superiority and the progressive policies they supported in the last election.

Yet, also in today's news, the very liberal Spanish parliament joins other Liberal European nations, including France, in debating if they should forbid the full body veil worn by some Muslim women,known as the burqa, because it is "demeaning" to women. The counties who tout themselves as the most liberal, are seriously debating whether or not they should allow women to have a choice in the clothing they wear! The very same countries whose labor regulations, business controls, state controlled industries and socialized health-care systems are promoted by supposedly Liberal Americans as paragons of Liberal progressive policies, are strongly pushing to force women into clothing they do not wish to wear. To add insult to injury, they are using the same argument as the radical islamo-fascists in Hammas; women cannot wear burqas because it offends the moral sensibilities of those in power. Read that again, because the alleged Liberals in charge have their moral sense of how a woman should live, they want to prohibit women from dressing in a way that doesn't reflect their moral code. But isn't that what those backward people in Hammas are doing? Isn't such a regulation in direct contradiction to the Liberal ideal of individual rights and personal freedom? After all, don't liberals believe that a woman's body is her property to use as she chooses, whether its smoking a hookah, getting an education and dressing as she sees fit? Don't liberals believe that a woman's money is her property to use as she sees fit, whether its to buy tobacco for a hookah or to buy a burqa to wear to work? As such, no Liberal should tell a Muslim woman that she cannot wear her burqa.

But that is the way of those who claim the title of "Liberal" isn't it? They love personal freedom, so long as you do what they think you should. When discussing legalizing marijuana, most love the idea that it should be legal (and I agree with them on this) because a person's body belongs to the individual and a person is free to do what they want with their body. But that same liberal wants to criminalize a woman who exercises her rights over her body to use the body to buy and wear a burqa. A woman's body is her own, they tell you, if she chooses to have sex with another woman. But if that same woman is a doctor and uses her body to tell a patient who can't pay her "I refuse to give you medical care since you won't pay." she becomes a criminal.

To these so-called Liberals I say, "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining." You are certainly not a Liberal. The word for someone who wants to dictate how someone else lives is .... DICTATOR.

-When a Liberal sees a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, he says, "That is her right since she purchased the burqa and chooses to wear it." He does not try to legislate her behavior.
-When a Liberal sees a man refuse to sell me a house because I am Latino, the Liberal says, "I don't like what he's doing but it is his property and he can sell it or not as he decides". He does not try to legislate his behavior.
-When a Liberal sees a bank charge high interest rates on a loan, the Liberal says, "It is the banker's right to charge whatever interest he chooses as much as it is the borrower's right not to accept those terms." He does not try to legislate the banker's actions.

True Liberalism is the idea that man is, by his nature, free to act in his own self-interest. True Liberalism is the idea that no person his the right to impose his will on another, not matter how noble the intent. But clearly this is not the ideology that most so-called Liberals are advocating as they restrict the actions of one individual, whether a doctor, a health insurer, a bank president, a businessman like me or a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, in order to give an advantage to a different individual. What they demonstrate is that they are perfectly willing to use force to put one person into the service of another. They clearly show their belief that some people should be slaves!

In American politics, most people who call themselves Liberals use it as a synonym to mean "Democrat". With their history of using force to subjugate people, it is no surprise that the Democratic party is also goes down in history as the party that supported slavery for blacks.

My friend Stephanie recently said to me, "I just hate bullshit." I have to agree with her. I also hate bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and then trying to dictate what a Muslim woman can or cannot wear is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and dictating what a doctor can charge or how much interest a banker can charge is bullshit. Calling yourself a Liberal and then telling a bar-owner he is not allowed to let people smoke in his private property is simply bullshit. Let's call a spade a spade; most Liberals are simply aspiring tyrants.

No state should tell an individual what to do with his property (including his or her body) so long as she isn't harming others. Ultimately, isn't it the choice of the INDIVIDUAL?

Does Prosperity always Equal Happiness?

I'm very fortunate to have wonderful family relationships, including with my two teenagers. They often challenge me to think and ask questions; to "interrogate reality" as my boss tells me. My son and I have often debated on whether or not the adage "Money can't buy happiness" is actually true. Though I realize that, without money, one can only buy misery, I always try to show my son that money does not buy happiness. Today I found an article that highlights my point:

US Is Richest Nation, But Not Happiest

Not only does this point to the truthfulness of the saying, I think it raises the question of whether man can live a life without challenge or problems and still feel happy. I often think of Agent Smith from "The Matrix" who made this observation:

"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."

I cannot help but wonder if there's some truth to this. Do we really need difficulty and problems to give our lives meaning?

As a parent in a town where my kids mix with privileged suburban children, I have noticed that parents here do everything they can to shelter their children from anything unpleasant. Children are delivered to daycare slathered in sunscreen, crossing guards protect them at every intersection, helmets are necessary to walk down flights of stairs, Cubscout Pinewood Derby races have 3 winners, while the rest get trophies as "non-winners", child care providers are told never to use the word "no", and shocking images are hidden from view as being too traumatic. And yet, the children are no happier than I was or my grandparents were.

Young people here invent drama and problems to add to their lives, even invent stories about alcoholism and abuse in their homes. I grew up in Elizabeth, New Jersey, primarily a low income town known throughout the state for crime, poverty and drugs but I didn't know many people who had alcoholism, drugs or violence in their homes. On the other hand, my kids, growing up in a much wealthier town in a far more "sanitized" world have dozens of friends whose parents are alcoholics, or who are beaten, or who's parents are junkies, etc. In fact, one of my daughters' friends (call her Mary) played the "My Life is So Dramatic" game to such a degree that child protection services (DYFS in New Jersey) were contacted by the concerned parents of another schoolmate. When DYFS showed up to take Mary away to safety, the girl broke down and admitted that she'd made it up, something DYFS later confirmed after investigating.

And what about these Emo kids, privileged children who wear makeup and hairstyles that attempt to make them look as tragic as possible and whose most common pastime is cutting themselves to relieve their suffering while listening to music in which men talk about their feelings and the tragedy they experience. Of course the cuts rarely go deep and they live pampered lives. Now this is not to say that some of these young people don't have real problems in their home life but, statistically, kids with real problems in their homes are in the vast minority in wealthy suburban towns.

The majority of the kids in NJ who are underprivileged and have violence, drugs and alcoholism at home live in the ghettos of the state but, that's where you don't find the Emo kids. My guess is that those young people are too busy dealing with serious problems and are not interested in creating imaginary pain.

Among adults, stress is at an all time high, suicide rates don't go down, the antidepressant industry flourishes and I don't see Americans smiling any more.

So though I will continue to do my best at work, improve my credit rating and make wise choices with my investments, my main focus in life is in the challenges I put before myself on my bike, in my career and my personal goals as well as building meaningful relationships with those around me.