A vexatious question

Cindy Simpson
The State of Hawaii is currently considering legislation that allows requests of citizens deemed "vexatious" to be ignored.  Without discussing the subject that these particular requests under Hawaii's Freedom of Information laws concern, it is important to note that a branch of government, in this case the Health Department, which was purportedly created to serve the people, is being given the authority to refuse to accommodate particular citizens it feels are annoying.

Is this a slippery slope?  I once had an argument with a moral relativist on whether "slippery slopes" exist, but I'm sure many readers who have slipped on one, at least in their Christian walk, can speak for their reality.  Lately, the liberals in our government (which was supposedly created "of the people, by the people, and for the people"), openly ridicule and consider as troublesome, the Tea Partiers, whose primary platform is a reduction in government services.  For the most part, these liberals cozy up to citizens who ask for more "rights", services, and programs.  These politicians love to bring home the bacon, apparently without concern, as they slide down the mountain of Socialism, of who is actually paying for it.

As more and more programs are created and expanded, will the government, which apparently now considers itself "over the people," seek the authority to subjectively determine which citizens it deems unworthy of receiving or participating in them?  Under Obamacare, when the services could actually be a matter of life or death, this question may be especially "vexatious."

 

 

The State of Hawaii is currently considering legislation that allows requests of citizens deemed "vexatious" to be ignored.  Without discussing the subject that these particular requests under Hawaii's Freedom of Information laws concern, it is important to note that a branch of government, in this case the Health Department, which was purportedly created to serve the people, is being given the authority to refuse to accommodate particular citizens it feels are annoying.

Is this a slippery slope?  I once had an argument with a moral relativist on whether "slippery slopes" exist, but I'm sure many readers who have slipped on one, at least in their Christian walk, can speak for their reality.  Lately, the liberals in our government (which was supposedly created "of the people, by the people, and for the people"), openly ridicule and consider as troublesome, the Tea Partiers, whose primary platform is a reduction in government services.  For the most part, these liberals cozy up to citizens who ask for more "rights", services, and programs.  These politicians love to bring home the bacon, apparently without concern, as they slide down the mountain of Socialism, of who is actually paying for it.

As more and more programs are created and expanded, will the government, which apparently now considers itself "over the people," seek the authority to subjectively determine which citizens it deems unworthy of receiving or participating in them?  Under Obamacare, when the services could actually be a matter of life or death, this question may be especially "vexatious."