Hardly a foray into the mysterious world of “clucky the chicken’s” troubles as might be exposed on Fox news, or even a far more austere look into the world of a music teacher who is changing lives as one might find on some morning network program, but rather a journey into what makes Mr Jason Gillman, the mighty proprietor of propaganda for Michigan Taxes Too Much, tick.
Much of this interview might come off as possibly disjointed, unconnected, or perhaps a little unorganized. (perhaps a little schizophrenic) For that, I, and WE both (myself and I) apologize. It is sometimes hard ringing the bell, riding the horse, and answering questions.. All while trying to run a business, fend off creditors and reign in debtors. Were it so easy as the proverbial mastication of a mucilage like substance while promenading about… (chewing gum while walking)
Before I begin, I should say I wanted to set up the interview in a manner which gets the full effect and emotion from the interviewee (that would be me) with my questions. To do so, I may have to get a little rough at times and hopefully the reader understands it is necessary, and to not feel too sorry for Mr. Gillman. Having said that, I am certain we should move on, so without further ado…
Jason Gillman, you have lived in Michigan for all of your 44 years, what have you done in that time to save the world?
What? Jumped that one right out there! Is that a joke? you have the nerve to come off right away with a question like that? OK, someone turn off the..
ha ha.. It was just to warm you up.. relax
OK I thought you said.. oh never mind
Alright Jason, really the question is “What have you done to make Michigan a better state?”
Well, that’s a matter of opinion I guess. But if you had to twist my arm, I would say that I have consumed, bought a car, gone to school, paid taxes, held a number of jobs, and had children… Oh, and not necessarily in that order.
But, those are normal things that anyone coul..
Define Normal SIR!
Hey relax, its you.. um me.. take a chill… What I mean, is that those are things that anyone else in the state has done. There is hardly anything there that makes you stand out in..
In what? A state with 9 million people?
Yeah.. well, kinda.. I mean, you/I/WE have this blog, where you write about liberty, equality, rule of law, etc.. yet you aren’t even mentioning that. Do you not want to place it as something you have done that benefits the state and its citizens? Don’t you feel it has SOME positive effect?
OK.. Its like this.. I love to write. Its for me, because after several years of bad actors in positions of power in Michigan and nationally, I needed an outlet. I am a passionate individual who became tired of yelling at the radio, the TV, and generally the sycophant media which has offered up the common man as worthless, in favor of a new ruling elite who will save-us-all. I deny that any one source, including this blog will solve the issues of the day in and of itself.
So when I bring up as a solution, or what I HAVE DONE, I prefer to mark the normalcy, or what should be seen as the normalcy of everyday life. What is more wonderful than having a child born who will bear many of your tendencies, create on his or her own, and enjoy life as it is? Is there anything as unique in all of the animal world where an individual can trade with another, voluntarily, the fruits of his or her labor? What other creatures can congregate with others of a kind, and learn, expand knowledge, and discover amazing technologies as do we humans in our educational pursuits?
I think I am beginning to see..
The bottom line is that it is the “normal folks” who will save Michigan. Consumers, if they are allowed to buy what they want, pursue their interests, and deal without interference from “busy body” lawmakers and bureaucrats, they will quite naturally strengthen the financial backbone of our economy. The normal folks, who see life as precious, and thrive on the new wonders they bring to the world that will move our civilization forward with their own new discoveries and inventions.
And finally.. NORMAL FOLKS pay taxes. This is not because they like to pay taxes, but because there are some legitimate functions of government, and there must be a mechanism to pay for it.
What do you see as “government’s legitimate role?
Well it depends on the level of government you are talking about. On a federal level, it is the protection of our God given rights. That can be read as those inalienable rights gifted to us by our creator. If a person is atheist, he might view them as those rights bestowed by mom & dad. Those rights are ours. They are not for a government to give, or take away. The federal creation was that as a collective it could better preserve our basic natural rights, and allow localities to determine more minor common functions. The federal government is supposed to be our protector, and its movement into redistributing of the “normal man’s” wealth is wrong.
The State, and localities provide for the common services, such as fire, police, and local courts. And though public education is greatly flawed, it is also not an improper role in my view, but rather [at this time] improperly managed. There are basic common needs that require the presence of an impartial body, and the state and local governments should be serving that role. They should not however be offering up as reward for sloth, and failure to contribute, rewards of “general assistance.” The legitimately perpetually needy concerns should be left to the privately funded charities, and faith based institutions. While the government cannot possibly track the beneficiaries properly, private community organizations can determine real need more accurately.
What about the rights of “special groups;” gays, ethnic, women?
What about them? Why does it become a question? Their rights being the same as anyone else’, should bring cause for special treatment? Even if we acknowledge the “past 40 years” as evidence something needed to be done for racial equality issues, it was more a matter of the protections that government should have been affording those individuals in the first place, but instead was socially painting them into a corner by declaring their “inequality” with racial preferences.
Gays have the same rights as you and I. IF they bore children between themselves, why wouldn’t they be allowed to raise them? Money and benefit issues are the primary reasons they seek “marriage” provisions in the first place. Civil unions don’t carry the weight of law as marriage does in most cases where job benefit issues are concerned. And those who are left merely seek a form of confirmation that they are also “normal,” as perhaps they themselves distrust the type of relationships they seek.
As for women, anthropologically speaking men and women have served far different roles, and physically have developed quite differently. Nature’s Course, God’s will, species survival, or what ever you want to call it, places burdens differently where it is needed. The underlying truth is that there are things men or women can and cannot do, as statics. Politically, intellectually, there is little, if any difference, but often practicality and pragmatism must dominate as the reality in terms of the physical equality.
WOW pretty strong stuff..
Just my opinion..
Speaking of opinions, what makes your opinion any better than anyone elses? Aren’t you just a little full of yourself?
I would prefer to not couch it in that way. Much of my consideration regarding the human condition, politics, etc.., are framed in a way that does not advocate rule that will impose my will on anyone. I merely request the same of others. How could anyone argue in any logical sense that they support taking from one to give to another as reasonable. Because that is ultimately what happens in nearly any transaction either regulatory, or otherwise when government makes law. My opinions presuppose that few laws are worthy, which lay as a burden to our free exchange of ideas or commerce. Even those contemporary mandates which serve a promise of “protection” are most often unnecessary and create new problems in the stead of old problems presumably resolved.
By contemporary mandates I suppose you are talking about “global warming” initiatives?
Those, and any number of other “statist” mechanization’s which impose artificial limits on people or industry, and are handily crafted by persons who have little knowledge of the science they are following. Global protection initiatives are merely the recent incarnation of an over reaching legislative authority. They hardly know what is in the bills they sign, but tout them as solutions to our ills. We have seen bad legislation based on suspicion of effect in the change over from Freon, DDT, and now an assault on CO2 levels, of which humans have very little affect, and is now being debunked as a cause of anything, but to make plant life thrive.
OK, so now I pretty much have a good idea where you are on the issues, would you ever be interested in pursuing a public sector life? I mean would the people reading this ever see you in a bid as a candidate for elected office?
Are you kidding me? I would love to be able to affect policy in a way that restores previously held liberties, while expanding to all, the same opportunities anyone who is a legitimate citizen of this country has.
OK, I know I asked the question, do you really think you are qualified to hold a political office? What do you know of procedure, etiquette, and building consensus? It seems to me that you are often quite divisive, holding a little too steadfastly to your beliefs. How would you suppose to enact policy change if you are nothing but disagreeable most often? How could you possibly win any office?? Also, what do you mean legitimate citizen?
Ouch.. take off the kid gloves why don’t you…
Look, the founders were farmers, small business owners, concerned citizens, etc.. just common folk. It could be argued that today’s issues are far more complex I suppose, but isn’t it the legislative body which has made it so? Ultimately the defense of our country, is to hire the best guns (our veteran military) and use the best technology to squash our opponents? IF our opponents know they can be squashed, they will pose little threat to us. Dealing from strength is not a complex perspective.
Etiquette and procedure can be learned on the job. Consensus has lately been a code word for agreement with those who are your opponents. Perhaps I might be able to educate a few of the overtly big government types why their methods have historically been failing. It then changes from compromise and consensus, to a better educated agreement. And before you challenge me with a “why do you assume you are always right?” question, I should note, I would gladly bow to logic, anytime.
“Legitimate citizen” was simply in reference to the large numbers of illegals (undocumented aliens here illegally per existing law) in this country. A side issue , that I hope can be resolved.
Since you mentioned it, what about those “illegals?” Should they be shipped back to wherever they came from? What would you propose to do to create an amicable solution for all?
There are a number of problems that stem from the fact these folks are here against law and policy. I would prefer not to list them. I will say however, that I have little problem with naturalizing those who are here to grow and contribute to the great American experiment. I am not sure how best it would be done, but I have made a few suggestions in the past. Searching the blog, you might find the list. There is one particular thing that could be done however, which would make naturalization easier, and would also lend itself to myriad other advantages; English as a national language.
One last question before we break till another time, In this coming election cycle we have a number of highly qualified candidates on the Republican side for governor. Do you have a favorite?
I have three that I like and would be happy to support in the general election and a couple I would likely not vote for and might well campaign against. I suppose my opinion is that that Snyder and George both represent the current “moderate” crop of Republicans which have quite frankly lost much credibility as an opposition party to the Democrats. They a little too quickly capitulate to that side of the political spectrum that thinks government has a place controlling behavior ( such as smoking) by limiting the choice of business to operate sans oppressive regulatory rules. Sorry.. further, they have not indicated they would pledge to limit how far government will tax its citizens. That leaves the door open to further irresponsible spending, and that’s NOT conservative, and NOT what the framers intended.
My three Favorites are Cox, Hoekstra, and Land. I wouldn’t even mind throwing a lever for Bouchard, though I think he is a little late in the game, especially with such a full slate. These are pretty decent conservatives with decent records I can mostly agree with. Ultimately I would like any particular candidate to think exactly the way I do, but ultimately recognize that it around 90% is a perfectly acceptable rate. I do welcome any input, and would gladly field any input by these candidates (including Snyder or George) or others not mentioned within these pages.
Thank you for your/my time. Look for another installment soon!
