Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those militia types, nor do I believe in most of the various conspiracy theories without proof (although I think a few talking points in some of the theories are worth investigating, but I digress). And I don't believe we've become a totalitarian regime, my primary evidence being the fact that I can write what I write without fear of being hauled off in the middle of the night.

But I believe...no, I KNOW, that some anti-government fear is justified at its inception. Sadly, many in the American public have mistakenly begun to view government's responsibility as that of creating a "utopia" where crime, death, homelessness, poverty and various other social ills are unknown.

Not only is that beyond the scope of possibility for government, it would be ethically irresponsible and morally reprehensible if they could. For instance, William Bennett made the comment (and received a LOT of flack for it) that an irrational argument could be made that aborting black babies would decrease the crime rate. Walter E. Williams expounded on Bennett's comments and explained how the same statistics could conclusively show that aborting all MALE babies would decrease the crime rate even further. Both made their comments not to advocate for such a position, but to show how we can't misuse statistics to further our agenda (Bennett's comments were in response to a caller who claimed that the increase in abortion was responsible for the social security crisis).

The problem is, much of our legislation has been made on the backs of such misused statistics that are not necessarily connected. I remember when I was in high school being shown how statistics could be misused by the illustration that we could PROVE ice cream causes drowning deaths using the combined statistics of both ice cream sales and drowning deaths increasing in the summertime. While this illustration is a tongue in cheek look at the misuse of such stats, we have too many elected officials on the "ban ice cream" bandwagon because they have allowed themselves to fall into that trap.

Because of these overly zealous officials and a misguided public who increasingly vote them into office, often on the basis of flowery rhetoric rather than substance, we have legislation that has made our government into something that we are justified in fearing, especially if we belong to ideologies opposed by many in power within the government. And it has made us weaker as a society.

As I write this, we are mulling over allowing our daughter to participate in a local "charity" event intended to give children from lower income homes the opportunity to shop for members of their family with money donated from area businesses and individuals. This all sounds well and good until we notice that the state Department of Health and Family Services is one of the agencies that is coordinating this event.

Now, it may be entirely possible that this is a completely altruistic effort on the parts of the organizers. It is also entirely likely that it BEGAN as an altruistic event and was coopted by certain government entities that have an agenda that is suited by the nature of this event. But it seems extremely odd that we would be chosen, as our annual income approximately equals the median income of our cash poor region, and that of the three children of age to participate in this event, the one who is at the age to be most easily manipulated would be the one selected. It is possible in this case that a cigar is just a cigar, but I have seen abuses of power by "social services" in various areas, and I have DOCUMENTED these abuses in some cases. Such research has left me naturally skeptical of anything the "government" offers (while this is not a "government" program, government agents WILL BE active participants).

Frankly, I'm in a quandary. I'm tempted to offer a polite "no thank you", but if I'm right, this will cause even greater suspicion on the parts of those involved. If I'm wrong, however, then I am denying my daughter the opportunity to do something based on my own fears. Frankly, if it wasn't for the presence of government agents whose job it is to remove families from their homes, I wouldn't think twice about it. But the fact that they are there in "official" capacity gives me great cause for concern.