Unbridled freedom is something that I believe the human society can never handle. We’re too unstable psychologically and we have the unique knack, more than any of Earth’s other species, of fucking up a wet dream. We’re the only breed of mammals, when faced with a new environment, that will attempt to change the environment instead of adapting to what’s presented. I’m not sure if that makes us resilient or just stupid – regardless of how we look at it, we tend to be better at destroying than creating. And no, this isn’t a plea for Greenpeace or any tree-hugging group… like I said, this is an exercise in logic.

Although it’s in our Constitution that any single person has the right to bare arms, a citizen has to get a permit before s/he can do so. In fact, there’s a limit to what types of arms any single person can bare; ask anyone if they can pick up a thermonuclear device at a local gun shop.

Although it’s in our Constitution that we have the right of assembly, a citizen has to get a permit for assembly before s/he can organize in a public place.

Although any citizen in the United States has the right to own property, s/he cannot build a structure on such a piece of land without obtaining the proper zoning and building permits.

Although any town resident can get a fishing rod and reel from a local K-Mart and cast off into a fishing hole, s/he had best have a license and not be fish for any out-of season swimmers.

What do these four things above have in common? No, this is not an SAT question – it’s an exercise in logic. Above are four things that we are either given rights for certain thing, either by government doctrine or physical ability (any yuts in the world can attempt to fish,) and yet these rights are commuted by other rules and regulations. Unbridled freedom is something that I believe the human society can never handle. We’re too unstable psychologically and we have the unique knack, more than any of Earth’s other species, of fucking up a wet dream. We’re the only breed of mammals, when faced with a new environment, that will attempt to change the environment instead of adapting to what’s presented. I’m not sure if that makes us resilient or just stupid – regardless of how we look at it, we tend to be better at destroying than creating. And no, this isn’t a plea for Greenpeace or any tree-hugging group… like I said, this is an exercise in logic.

One of things I’ve never understood in our nation, is our drinking age laws that have evolved over the last two or three decades. A person can be drafted into the armed forces to physically defend our citizens and borders, help select our government officials, legally own their own domicile and free of parental consent, yet, they can’t imbibe alcohol. Um, ok. Does this sound like a ridiculous notion to anyone else? I understand the worries – kids (and I’ll use that word for a reason) under the age of 21 might not be able to handle the effects of alcohol – mentally or physically – and as the age group of 18-21 tends to think of themselves as “immortal”, things could be very dangerous. Cars, job performance, blah, blah, blah. What the law makers don’t understand is that not everyone between the ages of 18 and 21 is a kid. There’s been some cases when the 18-21 age group has acted more responsibly than a 30+ crowd. And besides which: 18-21 is when most people do the bulk of their drinking. So why is that? Simply put, they are not supposed to. In my experiences, shortly after a person turns 21 or gets out of college, they stop drinking to excess – the illicit thrill is gone by then (and hangover as more problematic.) It becomes common place and boring.

And who says everyone has the right to drink? The three-time DUI offender still gets served at a bar, once he gets outta jail. Does he have a right to drink in public? One DUI can be misjudgment. Two DUI’s can be piss poor judgment and possibly prevented. By the time you’ve hit your third, you’ve proven you won’t learn… do the community a favor and revoke his right to drink. That’s not covered anywhere in any of our political doctrine. Better yet, make people get licensed to drink. We do it for car driving, we do it for fishing, we do it for haircutters… why not for drinkers? A simple and short class, and you get authorized on your license. Drop the drinking age to 18, too. Or raise every other right (voting, draft, smoking, etc.) up to 21 which is stupid, given how advanced people in that age group are. Right now the disparity is asinine, given that going to war and cigarettes are no less dangerous than drinking. No, you should need a permit to buy and imbibe alcohol in a public setting. 99% of the bars in the states have a credit card machine – they get a similar reader for the license and *zoop* you can check the barcode. Simple system really, and totally legal no matter what the ACLU says; Constitutionally, nothing is ever mentioned about controlling substances. How else can they current prohibit drugs and have had Prohibition in the past?

So a permit for drinking – progressive notion, eh? I go one better for ya. Require permits for offspring. “What the hell did he just say,” you’re thinking. You heard me. Permits – Licenses, whatever you want to call them. Why is it that a couple can fuck one night, and have kid, and then there’s no government retribution? If anything, there’s government assistance, which my single while male ass has to help pay for every single week. And here’s a thought – if people knew that there would be no help in the form of child care, or better yet, some type of government backed punishment, maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to fuck in the first place. If they knew that they would be solely responsible for their actions, maybe it would make people think twice about their actions, instead of “oops, well, we’ll deal with it later.” Or better yet, what about the married couples that have kids b/c it’s the “thing to do” and then have au pairs to care for their kids 24/7? Or the parents that will let their kids run amuck in Wal-Mart, tearing the store apart and causing mass chaos, because the parents “need a break”. And that includes the parents that have tacitly thought their children that they can take food off the shelf in a food store and eat it, even if they haven’t paid for it yet. This… this is madness. I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to describe it. These parents are too selfish and self centered to care for each other much less a child for the first 18 years of their lives. Who out there, when they see a pregnant woman thinks “Wow… that’s going to be 18.75 years of their life to support that kid” – I know I do, but I’m a weird and logical being. And besides, having children scares the shit outta me. That’s a living being that needs constant care for five years and then on going support for the following thirteen years and on top of that, there’s limited amount of things you can do to offer support and protection in the first place. You have to battle peer pressure, constant MTV influences, the Go-Bots, bullies, bad grades, detention, allergies to peanuts, and and and… oi. Does anyone else think about this before getting naked in the backseat of a car some Friday night after the HS football game? Better yet, does anyone else think about this before screwing in the bathroom bar on a Saturday night after getting a bit too drunk? You should be thinking. This is another living being that you’re making. Another human. For all you know, you could be creating the next head of state or life saving biological-researcher. Are you prepared to care for that child?

More or less, a permit for children is nothing more than a formality. Again, nothing in the Constitution says that all of us have a right to procreate. I checked. The life, liberty and pursuit of happiness will cover the right to have an orgasm, but it says nothing about having offspring. Look at Rachel from Friends – can we take a poll as to how long it will be before she leaves the baby in Bloomingdale’s? I figure two months. She’s not equipped to be a Mum; her child, if the show stayed on the air long enough, would be a holy terror in the real world. Rachel is too materialist and way too clueless to properly raise a child. Of course, I’ll be proven wrong, because TV script writers have more sympathy and empathy than reality does, but if it was real life the kid would be raised a faux-princess – taste of a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget – and that leads to, in most cases, a hell of a brat. Maybe, just maybe, if someone in this situation had to get educated (in the form of applying for the permit) this whole situation wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

At the end of the day, believe it or not, it’s the kids that I’m most worried about. Kids pop into the world as innocent; they never get to chose their situation and in some cases, they can’t break out of them either. Oh, it’s easy to drop to a worse situation, but infinitely harder to rise to a better situation. When parents bring a kid into the world, without a means to support’m, how is that a good thing? They start out in a “hole.” The bible thumpers will tell you all life is sacred and that the child is born, it’s a blessing. Um, no. All life is sacred, this I agree to. But if you can’t care for a child, and you could have avoided making the kid in the first place – either thru abstinence or birth control – then how is that a blessing? Giving birth to a child that you then neglect or treat poorly or abandon at an orphanage is a blessing? For who? We have no danger of dying out as a species – the archaic days of “having” to have kids is long past… no, in today’s advanced (or regressed – depends on your ideals) age it’s not that simple any more. Families are scattered all over, so an internal structure of support and care is gone. People are more promiscuous and foolish in the last 1/2 century than ever before, causing all sorts of “surprises.” It’s also a more volatile society than ever before, because for the most part, we’re all interconnected and will informed these days.

Anyway, it was an exercise in logic. This isn’t an attack single parents – not an attack at all. There’s some single moms that are better parents than some couples I know of… the child bit is for any parent that is neglecting to raise their children and besides… it’s all about the logic. Oh, I’ll get zealots that will argue with me in e-mail that from both a religious and society based background. Let me stop you right now: neither apply here. This is logical. Logically, people are having kids that aren’t equipped to have them and someone needs to stop that. Logically, there’s people at age 30 that shouldn’t be allowed to drink as they are more irresponsible than an 18 year old solider that is fighting overseas so who does age determine legalized drinking? It’s simply logical.

Ya know? Too much logic will ruin any shots I could have at a political career… So much for “Senator Rants”.