THE GOOD OLD DAYS WERE NOT THAT GOOD

A certain segment of the American population appears to want to turn back time. Many appear to believe the founding fathers created a system that should never have changed. I could not disagree with them more. In fact, if I could turn back time, I most certainly would NOT do it. Here are just a few reasons I think we are living in the best of times.

Health-care

While I support our nation's recent health-care reform and regret that a public option was not also included, current health-care reform is not my predominant reason for believing we live in the best of times from a health care perspective. Medical treatment is better than it has ever been. Many previously fatal disease types have been all but eliminated through vaccines and improved lifestyle. Those that have not been eliminated, such as cancer and heart disease, are fatal less often in many cases, and medical science promises to improve on our current statistics.

Medical knowledge has led to increased understanding of the causes of many disease types, focusing more and more on prevention. We now know reduction in body fat, regular physical exercise and an increased intake of fresh fruits and vegetables in our diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers. We are aware that consistent fitness programs can slow down the aging process, and add energy, alertness, and years to our lives. Our life expectancy has increased, and with it our productive and healthy years are expected to be much longer. In the "good ole days" the life expectancy was about 40 for adult males; however, many mothers and babies were lost in childbirth. Other children were often lost to disease before they reached adulthood.

In the "good ole days" there was no treatment for mental illness or drug addiction. People who suffered with psychological disorders were committed to "insane asylums" for life, with little chance of ever regaining their freedom. Twelve step groups for drug and alcohol recovery did not exist at the time our country was founded, nor skilled nursing care for detox purposes.

Human Rights

The founding fathers owned slaves. For all practical purposes, they also owned their wives and daughters. Women were not allowed to own property in the "good ole days," thus leaving abusive relationships was not possible. Young women who were orphaned could only hope to work as prostitutes in many cases, as respectable jobs were not available to them. Most young women had little choice about who they married. Perhaps that is why people have assumed for years that women have a less strong sex drive than their male counterparts. Apparently, in the "good ole days," the pursuit of happiness did not extend to black people or females.

Education

Not only was there less to learn in "the good ole days," but fewer people had the advantage of learning what was known. Slaves were forbidden to learn to read, and girls were often not taught skills that could be used outside of the home. Young boys often had to drop out of school to work in the fields or go off to war. Today, it is not uncommon for a person to have a college education, while in the "good ole days" only the wealthy enjoyed such privilege.

BIG Government

Today, many people object to what they refer to as BIG Government, usually pointing towards social programs and the creation of federal jobs produced for the purpose of jump-starting our failing economy. The same people never appear to have a problem with government that is big enough to legislate morality, forbidding behaviors they feel to be morally wrong. The same was true in the "good ole days" at the time of the Salem Witch Hunts of 1692, when countless women were burned at the stake for being suspected witches. Many of these women were mentally ill, or simply lived in a manner not consistent with mainstream society.

Recently, a conservative candidate stated he did not feel women who were "having sex" with their boyfriends while single should be able to work as school teachers, yet ironically, nothing was said about men who had sex outside of marriage with their girlfriends or others. The war rages about whether or not homosexuals should be permitted to marry. Is a government that makes use of sex police to control the behavior of its citizens not a big government? Which is bigger? A government that imposes taxes on the rich to feed the poor, or one that tries to police what its citizens do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Add to the list a government that is able to enforce anti-abortion laws. Would it not require a big and intrusive government to do this? Still, everything from the enforcement of anti-abortion laws to the burning of non-Christian holy books has been advocated by those who claim to support smaller government.

Thanks, but no thanks. A government that can force all women of childbearing age to prove they are not pregnant on a monthly basis is no small government, and neither is one that can question anybody with brown skin without cause on the streets of Arizona, or burn Korans because it deems itself to be a Christian Nation. It seems conservatives do not actually want a small government, only a big government that enforces their narrow views on the rest of us. Thanks, but no thanks to the sex police, the book burners, and the true advocates of big government. I reject "the good ole days" and big government, for one that supports the poor, feeds the hungry, and provides health-care to those of us who can't afford to pay for it.