Topics – Page 11 – Zombies Uncensored

In Everyone’s Best Interest

When is “in everyone’s best interest” just an excuse to have it your way?

Here are some of examples from U.S. history where individuals suffered “in everyone’s best interest:”

Sedition Act – censoring malicious writing against the government was in everyone’s best interest.
Slavery- keeping the country united was in everyone’s best interest.
Japanese, German, and Italian internment camps – national security was everyone’s best interest.
Americanization of Native Americans – “civilizing” or a standard set of cultural values was in everyone’s best interest.
Racial segregation – keeping races separate protected all races and therefore was in everyone’s best interest.
Women’s suffrage – keeping a women in her separate, domestic sphere was in everyone’s best interest.

Its easy to look back on these and see the underlying dynamic of the majority rationalizing control of the minority. Keep in mind at some point, the majority passionately defended and protected all the above laws as being in everyone’s best interest.

Here are some current issues which claim to be in everyone’s best interest that ignore the impact on individuals and minorities:

Gun Control Laws
Defense of Marriage Act
Bailouts for banks and auto industry
Mandatory Health Insurance
Sin taxes
Illicit drug laws
Deficit spending

If you can’t figure out who is, has been, or will be harmed by any of the items above, then you have fallen for the benefit of all argument. You have been blinded by the ends if you can’t see the harm of the means.

If are having trouble figuring out who has been harmed, ask yourself these questions:

When is it OK for you specifically to be forced to do something against your will by the government?
Where do taxes come from?
Has someone ever threatened your life?
Is there anything you do that is considered immoral by others?
Should the majority do anything it likes?

The phrase in everyone’s best interest is often a red flag for bad legislation; because there is little government can do that is beneficial to all without bringing harm to at least one person. Its easy to rationalize just about any action for the benefit of all, as long as you completely ignore those harmed by the benefit.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul on compromise

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are questioned by Anderson Cooper about congress and compromise.

Ron Paul “they compromise on the welfare state, they compromise on the warfare state, they compromise endorsing the monetary system”

Rand Paul “we are compromising, but we are compromising for more spending”

Congress should be willing to compromise on what gets cut from the budget, but cutting the budget should not be compromised.

Would a Politician Mind Being Slimed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QbhfbLUtQs

On You Can’t do That on Television, slime was poured whenever someone said, “I don’t know.”

Politicians have no qualms about modifying citizens’ behavior, so it would only be fair to treat them likewise. There should be a political talk show along these same lines as YCDTOTV, but with these rules for when the slime flows:

Accuse opponents of being hypocrites.
Ignores questions to repeat the same talking points they’ve already spouted.
Make appeals to popularity.
Villainize those with differing opinions.
Preach about being a better parent, citizen, student, or spouse.

Saying, “I don’t know” would be perfectly safe on the show, because it’s refreshing when politicians admit they don’t have an answer for everything.

Shaping the Next Generation

Overweight children is only one area where American parents are failing their children. With parents doing such a poor job of raising children, I think it’s time for others to follow Washington D.C.’s example and step up to the plate to help. Bastions of self control and discipline–like Washington D.C.–can’t shape the next generation alone.

Here are some suggestions where others can follow DC’s example and pitch in to help parents raise their children.

John Edwards, Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford could tour schools together and explain the importance of fidelity.
Bernie Madoff could teach the importance of sharing.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert could explain the harm caused by teasing.
Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave could warn children about sexual abuse.
Lindsay Lohan should scold children about underage drinking.
John Mayer and Mel Gibson could teach racial sensitivity.
Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears could explain the dangers of underage sex.
Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner can teach the importance of savings accounts.
A bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans could let children know the damage done by name calling.
Andy Dick could explain good touch/bad touch.
President Obama could speak about the importance of keeping promises.
Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity could explain logical fallacies, such as the Straw Man and Appeal to Popularity.
Kanye West could talk about the importance of waiting your turn to speak.

Life is Fair and Freedom Equals Fairness

Stossel – On The Road To Serfdom Part 5 – This segment of the show focuses on fairness and equality in laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b4NRNB-ujA

The eye-opening part in the video is when it shows how the U.S. Justice department sued schools which allowed students to use the Kindle reading device, because the Kindle discriminates against students who are blind. The show gives examples of restrictions put on high achievers and special rules for people with disabilities to bring about equal opportunity.

Towards the end, Chandler Tuttle says, “Freedom is not just some theoretical means to an end; it’s an end unto itself. Freedom isn’t a strategy, it’s a goal.” I’m glad this was pointed out because in most political discussions, freedom isn’t brought up as something tangible and having real value. Liberty usually takes a backseat to national security, and often is a secondary issue in less pressing matters because it doesn’t have physical properties. When this concept is brought up, the people defending freedom are usually labeled as amoral, self-serving bastards for valuing freedom over fairness.

Is it fair that some people are blind? As long as no other person caused them to go blind, yes, it is fair. Contrary to popular belief, life is fair. Life doesn’t choose one person over another, and as long as there isn’t someone deciding who is blind or tall or short or blue eyed, life is fair. The luck of the draw applies equally and without bias. It takes a conscious decision to be unfair, such as when a government puts restrictions on some and gives advantages to others.

Fairness means an absence of bias. There aren’t any people free of bias, so any system with people deciding fairness will undoubtedly be unfair. When people are free to do whatever they want with their lives and don’t interfere with someone else’s freedom, what remains are the natural rules of life, and life is fair. The freedom vs. fairness argument is a false dilemma, because in reality freedom equals fairness.

Penn Jillette on Red Eye discussing Obama

Last week Jillette wrote an article on Obama’s ‘stupid’ jab at Vegas and discussed the President on Red Eye last night. Here is Penn Jillette defending Las Vegas in response to President Obama telling people not to spend money there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPZwQpe9IM

Presidential Obama seems to be unaware of the damage that can be done from the bully pulpit. Its a shame the insurance industry, police officers, overweight people, banking industry, Wall Street, talk radio, and doctors don’t have someone as funny and thoughtful as Penn Jillette to defend them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG-yhcSGGuo

Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines won’t bring Democracy to Cuba

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:152474

And if I had just one wish, just one wish in the whole world…if I had one wish, it’d be for politics to change–that good ideas weren’t so easily dismissed by demanding impossible solutions.

In this episode of South Park, Kyle’s parents don’t want him to attend a concert, so they come up with an impossible task. They won’t allow him to go to the concert until he brings democracy to Cuba.

The health care debate brought this South Park episode to mind, because objections to purchasing health insurance across state lines are met with a similar response. Create a list of impossible goals to make the idea just go away.

Objections are raised to purchasing health insurance across state lines because it doesn’t do the following:

Cover everyone
Address the problem of preexisting conditions
Cap Out-of-Pocket Expenses
100% Coverage for Check-Ups, Preventive Health Care
Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

Purchasing health care across state lines won’t do any of the above, either. It also won’t bring peace to the middle east or democracy to Cuba or cure cancer. What it will do is lower the cost of health insurance, making the goals above easier to achieve.

The truth is there isn’t any plan that can do all the above and bring down costs at the same time. Its not going to happen, because it violates the laws of supply and demand. It’s a fantasy and has been from its inception.

Purchasing health insurance across state lines has these advantages:

More people would be covered because they could afford insurance
Break up the control employers have over health care
More choices to those who can’t find coverage
The freedom for an individual to choose the amount of insurance
Not a government program which will cost billions to maintain

We have choices in life insurance, car insurance, home insurance. They don’t have the problems suggested by all the fear, uncertainty and doubt arguments made by opponents.

Its time politicians stopped playing these parental mind games, and started looking at real world solutions to real problems.

TEA Party Convention Circa 1957

The Republican Party had done enough damage by globing on to every TEA Party protest, and Sarah Palin comes along to bury what was left. What started out for some as honest revulsion to uncontrolled taxing and spending has been fully transformed into marketing endless wars.

Sarah Palin has done more damage to the TEA Party than all the media’s straw man attacks and FoxNews promotion combined. The lesson learned: any group that starts to threaten established political power will be attacked from all from all angles.

Here is a clip from A Face in the Crowd (1957) that sums up what Palin’s performance turned the TEA Party into.

Full version of A Face in the Crowd available on YouTube

The Good Kind of Big Government Solution?

“Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” That saying sums up most federal programs and departments; whatever the intended goal, in the end they’ll achieve just the opposite.

Here are some examples of the Law of Opposites at work in government.

Ethanol fuel subsidies consuming more energy than the fuel produces.

Borrowing and spending to fix an economy wrecked by borrowing and spending.

Affirmative action laws which discriminate to fight discrimination.

The scene in Ghostbusters, where Con Edison is ordered by the EPA to turn off the power to the ghost containment grid.

The list goes on and on. The law of opposites doesn’t apply to everything in government; it is a cynical view, but it often turns out to be true. Cynicism aside, it is pragmatic to question actions of government to see if they are achieving their goals and if taxes are being spent wisely.

One of the biggest examples of big government solutions achieving the opposite result has been the war on terror. This video shows a gas tanker stolen by the Taliban, which then gets stuck and latter bombed. Some of the people present were lured by the possibility of getting free gasoline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcfEibh8oWc

This video might be a worst case example in fighting the war on terror, and isn’t meant to imply every terrorist’s death carries a matching number of civilian deaths. The video is an example of the rules and procedures of a bureaucracy becoming the primary focus, and the original goals become secondary.

After 9/11, enlistment went up in the U.S. armed forces. Americans were willing contribute their time, and lives if necessary, to fight terrorism. Imagine if the people in this video had been Americans, the U.S. armed forces would see another spike in enlistment. When this video was shown on Al Jazeera, it probably caused a spike in enlistment in terrorist organizations.

It’s another example of out of control government: hundreds of billions borrowed and spent to fight terrorism, which results in growing the ranks of terrorists. It is throwing money at a problem to make it go away. And when the problem doesn’t go away, the answer is always the same–throw more money.

Questions about the war on terror achieving its goals are immediately met with accusations of hating America, being isolationists, appeasing terrorists, and waving the white flag. To those who are defending this version of a big government solution and throwing money at a problem, is this the good kind of big government solution?

What They Really Mean; Bipartisanship

After hearing several calls for bipartisanship, I thought it was time to update the list of words and phrases in political commentary and what they really mean. Politicians cry out for bipartisanship and then turn right around and debase any opposing views.

When politicians call for bipartisanship, it’s political theater to make it sound as though they are open minded and willing to work out a solution, but in reality are saying “I’ll listen to you when you stop being stupid.”

Bipartisanship – My ideas are good ones and the opposition is partisan, because they don’t agree with me.