Can you post that day in the life of Joe American, story you just told on the air?

The one that lists all the good things that liberals have accomplished.

I don't know where Thom finds it, but here it is (in a form I got it from email -- it has a few more naughty words I think.)

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

The Libertarian or Objectivism positions are two things:
1) Dependent on the assumption that people will ALL "act responsibly".
and
2) A return to no civilization.

#1 is unrealistic in the extreme. It just isn't true that everyone will act responsibly if we suspend all regulation.
and #2 -- well, isn't one definition of civilization that we band together to do things for our own safety and advantage that are more difficult to do alone? Libertarianism is the assumption that if we take away civilization, people will still act civilized. This is completely crazy.
Our founders wisely put "checks and balances" into our government because they knew that there are always those people who, if you don't watch them closely, will try to cut corners, to cheat. As a PREVENTIVE measure, if we all watch each other for honesty all the time, we can do it unobtrusively and without malice or paranoia. It's akin to what we in health care call "Universal Precautions": we treat ALL patients as if they have a deadly communicable disease. This takes the onus off of everyone, no one is accused of anything, and everyone is much safer.

It is not all the people that are desensitized and do not know were their food comes from. Most people are not that stupid. I am affined by radio and TV personalities who feel that the way they think things should be are somehow more informed that everyone else. The same information that they are exposed to can be acquired by others who do not have their platform to express their opinion. Maybe some million or so people will read, saw and agree with what is presented by these personalities, the fact still remains, these only represent a small faction of the people that live on this planet.

Some varied thoughts on Thom's food topic today:

1. Are AynRandianLibertarians capable of CAUSE AND EFFECT thought processes? I mean, so what if there are a thousand "Consumer Report" type reviews of products in regards to product safety and effectiveness? All they will contain are analyses of harmful, toxic and poisonous products if we don't make sure products are safe BEFORE they reach the point of sale/purchase!

2. Two things are missing in consumer protection: 1) Criminal prosecutions of producers of harmful products, and 2) Inspections to prevent tainted goods for entering the marketplace.

3. Where is a deterrent to producers who sell TAINTED PRODUCTS!? Is there nothing to induce them to regulate themselves effectively? Unless there are laws to PROSECUTE those who FRAUDULENTLY sell products as healthful and safe when those products are actually poisonous -- the incidence of FOOD POISONING and toxic products will continue unabated. We will continue to find out about poisonous products AFTER THE FACT that they are out amongst us being consumed and used in food production.

4. And 'accidental' contamination? Accidents only happen because noone is looking at the process. The more INSPECTIONS there are, the fewer the accidents!

5. It was interesting to hear Thom's caller who indicated the difference between USDA inspections (of meat and farm animal husbandry and slaughtering) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food processing and drug formulation and their safety. However, the USDA has delivered no panacea either. They have inadequate numbers of inspectors; if they do find something wrong, they can write up the violation but usually little comes of it but a building record of violations! This is typical of the animal research industry where university research labs can accumulate stacks of violations and never correct the problems and if they pay a fine, the fine is so small it doesn't phase them. Another example of this inadequacy of MAD COW DISEASE (prion disease Thom mentioned): the USDA has not controlled the use of dead animal parts/waste products in feed for live animals even though it is PROVED that this is a way the prion disease infection is spread.

6. The food producers use that same old formula: If the fine costs less than the profit I can make, I'll violate safety rules and pay the fine out of the greater profits.

We absolutely MUST make tougher safety rules/regulations and make the fines/punishment for violations PAINFUL enough to be followed!

Of course there would be fewer outbreaks of disease if food safety were privatized. We would not have a pesky CDC to track and tell us about them! Seriously, without a central, "official" agency with the responsibility to track and, with the legal right to investigate disease, we would never hear about them.

Another point: How do you think things will work out if the private P.R. agency of an industry is quicker at getting its message out than the private inspection agency?