Does a one-legged duck swim in circles?

Where do these sayings come from? Has anyone done the research? Was PETA notified before the "scientist" removed the leg of the duck (refer to the title)? The reason why I ask these questions is because I have been hearing these for years. "Does a bear shit in the woods", "Is the Pope catholic?", "Does a frog bump his ass when he hops?" and many others. In fact over the years of having these sayings pumped into my little brain even I have been known to say them. It's kind of like a rural brain-washing. I also love trucks, chew tobacco, have an American flag magnet and wear jeans to work.

So to my next point (if there was a point in the first paragraph) does anyone else feel like they are being misrepresented by our government... For the people and by the people. In a representative democracy we choose our leaders by vote. These are the folks who are supposed to be the voice of the people. Servants of the people if you will! It might just be me but I don't feel like lying, embezzlement, racketeering, bribery, etc. are the qualities I look for in an elected official! I know, I'm crazy!

I guess this comes up because I have recently been acquainted with the "Fairness Doctrine". For those of you not familiar with the "Fairness Doctrine" I suggest you read about it if you are at all concerned about your freedom of speech. I mean are we paying these people to raise their salaries every year and continue to legislate tyranny? And this issue is not a left/right issue although the conservatives would be hurt most by the reintroduction of this "communesque" (I made that word up) piece of legislation. The right to free speech is paramount to keeping a free country.

Here is the first sentence of a description about the "Fairness Doctrine.
"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair."

Are you kidding me! Let's break this down shall we? Who determines what a controversial issue is? I picture some fat white guy sitting on a throne and the leaders of our political parties waiting eagerly for him to judge each and every issue. "I deem issue 549743 to be non-controversial... I have spoken!" And what the hell is balanced. Did Fox news start this silly trend. If something is balanced would it not reflect every aspect of an issue and every view of every American... That's friggin impossible! So balanced is out... What about fair? How can you expect someone who already has a bias to be fair. It's human nature to be more passionate about something that you believe in and people can pick up on body language, voice tone, etc. when you are trying to argue one point or another. Even more so why does everything have to be fair. I mean I could argue that I don't think it is fair that there are more Democrats in congress than Republicans or that it is not fair that there are only two political parties. Life is not fair so quit bitching and deal with it! This is so arbitrary. Can you imagine the wasted taxpayer money when we start taking "fairness" issues to court.

One more quick point on that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Constitution does say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't it? Liberty... what does that mean to you? To me it means that I am privileged to practice my beliefs, share my thoughts and voice my opinion without fear of government or private interference. In fact the government should protect my rights to have these beliefs. And don't say by being public about my beliefs that I am pushing them on you because you have every right to stop reading this. You can change the channel, walk away, voice your opposition and you can do that with the knowledge that you are protected by the constitution. Disclaimer: Remember that you are only protected if you don't infringe on anyone else's rights. So don't argue to me that I'm saying people are protected when they threaten the life of someone or spread lies knowingly (slander). Sure they are free to do it but this infringes on another's liberty and therefore the government needs to step in.

Finally what gets me, and I certainly used to be a one-sided political idiot, is that people still think that one political cult is better than the other. In theory I do have a political side but as far as I can tell Washington does not reflect my views whatsoever! And the worst part about it is that we are moving at light speed towards a bigger government who believes they know what is best for me in my life. Socialism is not good for America people. We did not ascend to a world power in less than 200 years by handing out ribbons to every citizen.

In closing I would just like to say that if someone were to ask me if I thought the current trend of lawmakers who are systematically taking away my personal freedoms and rights pisses me off you know what I would say...

Does a one-legged horse sit down?

Those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize it is never the oppressed who determine the bounds of censorship. - Aryeh Neier, Civil Libertarian

Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it - Mark Twain

In some of its more lunatic aspects, political correctness is merely ridiculous. But in the thinking behind it, there is something more sinister which is shown by the fact that already there are certain areas and topics where freedom of speech, in the sense of the right to open and frank discussion, is being gradually but significantly eroded. - Retiring Judge Neil Denison, who as Common Serjeant of London since 1993 was one of Britain's most prominent judges, as quoted by the London Daily Telegraph.