The political conundrum

Effective this past June 1, I can't go to my favorite watering hole and smoke a cigarette anymore. I can't do that because the Unicameral passed a state-wide no smoking ban for any establishment open to the public; except for the cigar smokers who enjoy a special exemption for who knows why.

Most people blame this new law on the Democrats who want, they think, to control every aspect of our lives but the truth is that far more Republicans were in favor of this ban than Democrats were in this Republican dominated state. This is curious because the essence of the Republican Party has historically been, "the less government, the better."

But most of us know that's not always true, especially in certain areas. The Republicans want to control and limit the choices that we make, they want to control and censure what people do in the bedroom; they want to control and specify who gets married to whom, and they want to control and or eliminate any behavior that runs contrary to their particular moral stand.

I was raised by a loving, caring extended family to believe that one can't have it both ways; you're either for something or against it but that particular perspective doesn't hold true in the political arena. Republicans are against big government and the government telling people what they can and cannot do unless they happen to be in favor of those prohibitions and restrictions. Then it's okay.

The smoking ban, for example, is supposed to be a public health issue but if it is, how can the legislature make an exception for cigar bars? And even if it is a public health issue, how can our government tell those people who invested their own blood, sweat, tears and money to build their business that the rules have changed? Before the law was passed, every Nebraskan knew the places that allowed smoking and didn't allow smoking. It was then their choice to patronize the establishments that best suited their needs and desires. But the government intervened, spoke out for that subsection of the population that opposed a particular behavior and passed a law banning it.

I doubt there's anyone in the world who would suggest that smoking is good for a person; certainly not me. But there's supposed to be something about America that sets us apart from all the other countries in the world and that something is Freedom. Freedom to do as we please; freedom to go where we want to go; freedom to live our lives as WE decide to live them, regardless of whether those choices are good or bad, rather than having our choices imposed on us by the government. But those days are rapidly coming to an end and, in many cases, HAVE come to an end.

Many people know that the statistics released by the American Cancer Society are greatly exaggerated when it comes to deaths known to have been caused by either direct smoking or second-hand smoke; just like the statistics released by MADD about deaths caused by drunk drivers is exaggerated as well because of the selective statistics used to support their cause. But because the American Cancer Society and MADD are heavily financed interest groups that impact directly on public policy, just like the NRA on one side and the tree-huggers on the other, hardly anyone ever checks the real data; we just believe what they tell us.

Just like we do when we listen to or watch only Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly on the right or Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow on the left. I've listened to or watched all of them occasionally but none of them regularly because they ALL present only half-truths, prejudicial to their own particular political perspectives.

I understand I'm in the minority because the only organized group, and I use that word loosely, that still seems to understand the concept of personal freedom are the Libertarians and they can't get enough people together most of the time to fill a phone booth. In fact, their Vice-Presidential candidate in the last election was a guy named Wayne Allyn Root, who has been a professional gambler and television and internet handicapper for the past twenty years. Even though that shouldn't necessarily prevent someone from potentially being elected to the second highest office in the land, it's something the Libertarians conveniently left out of their campaign literature.

We're now exposed every day to the "greening of America"; the need for fuel-efficient transportation that lessens the damage we do to the atmosphere than the gas-guzzling automotive throwbacks we now drive as well as solar and wind-driven energy to promote a constantly decreasing dependence on electricity as we now know it. We're encouraged daily to eat healthy, work out regularly, and avoid anything that might possibly impact negatively on our own or other people's health and safety. We see cities and towns regulating the amount of carbon dioxide that a place emits or the cholesterol level of foods that are served or the caloric content of anything we choose to consume.

And yet, amazingly we will all still die. Personally, I'm not looking forward to living long enough to be warehoused in a "total care" facility and forgotten by those few people still alive who know me, to play in a rhythm band like I did in the fifth grade or to be crowned King of anything when I'm 90 years old.

New Hampshire's official motto, "Live Free or Die" is the only admonition that makes any sense to me as an American.

But that's just me.