Quote of the Day

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me - not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenge of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence, nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, "This, with God's help. I have done." All this is what it means to be an American."

I have seen this attributed to Ezra Taft Benson, who said it in April 1969.
It was original to Dean Alfange, published in 1952, and many that quote him remove his references to God.
And I also see a variation attributed to Thomas Paine's Common Sense, though they are mis-attributed.

And here's my political commentary. My rant:
I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. I love the high ideals of both, and think that a balance between them will always be necessary.

I do not like the practices of either, the focus each politician must have on getting reelected, on raising money, and the necessity of selling ideals to earn a place in committees. Compromise must always be; but the compromise should build and create; not break down.

I love the ideals of small government, low taxes, minimal intervention. I recognize that government must provide for roads, schools, military protection, regulation, and safety. We need police, courts, standards, and protection. We need some consideration for the disabled and the aged. We need some regulation to provide an even chance for any American to make the most of this life.

I see such contradictions in both sides. One cries for minimal intervention, small government, yet seeks to prohibit personal choices. They say, "anyone can achieve," yet they promote a system wherein you must have wealth to increase wealth. The other strives for the rights of individuals, working so hard to promote the comfort and well-being of the "underprivileged" that they discourage the poor and uneducated from striving for anything more.

I suppose the only efficient government is a new one. I would love it if the impossible were possible: to reduce the expense and waste in government and to remove programs and functions of government. Then we might have the resources to satisfy some of the high ideals of both parties.