Topics – Page 2 – Zombies Uncensored

Does a gay bar owner have the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?”

Rand Paul Defends His Views on Civil Rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI3c7Yj8lYg&playnext_from=TL&videos=KWPbcjnzJhQ

Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964) SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

This issue is a real test to find out just how much someone believes in the principle of liberty. The reason this is a sensitive issue is because fortunately, the majority of those in the US find the idea of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin disgusting.

Legally permitting this type of discrimination as they do in Japan seems inherently un-American. When I mention to others that Japan has these signs the typical response is “What the Hell? That’s just wrong!” The existence of the signs gives the impression that the country of Japan as a whole is a racist nation, and Americans would not want this country to be perceived in the same light.

It’s still an important question to ask if the Civil Rights Act went too far by not allowing a privately owned business to ever discriminate based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. The flip-side of the argument is America the type of country that forces people to provide service for others they find morally repugnant? Is America they type of country that forces people to associate with other they believe are inherently evil?

Rachel Maddow’s asked Rand Paul the question “Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?” Here is a likely hypothetical situation which reverses the roles of who the public sees as having the moral high ground in these debates.

Suppose Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church decide they aren’t getting enough publicity picketing funerals. They decide to branch out and adorn themselves with “God Hates Fags” or biblical quotes against homosexuality t-shirts and head down to the local gay bar.

The Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the Civil Rights Act from being denied service based their religious beliefs. The owner of the bar would be required to serve them, all while the Westboro groups blames the owner and patrons of the bar of all the problems of our nation.

If the owner chose not to serve Fred Phelps, they would be subjected to a lawsuit and would probably lose. The law clearly upholds the right of all persons without exception to service and has no place for any consideration of the owner of the establishment rights not to be subjected to the humiliation of being forced to serve someone they consider to be Satan incarnate.

With the roles reversed, it’s clear the owner of a public establishment civil rights are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Back to Rachel Maddow’s question: Do you think a gay bar owner has the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?” They currently don’t have the right, but they should.

Fear is getting too expensive

When Franklin D Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself,” Roosevelt was referring to the depression and turning the U.S. economy around. The biggest reason to fear is fear; fear causes growth of government and fear is expensive.

Opinion news is loaded with stories of what we should fear and calls for the government to ‘do more’ to protect us. There are an endless amount of editorials about how ‘fill in the blank’ will destroy America, which elevate concerns to comic book level scenarios of doom and call upon government to protect us.

Here is a list of Super Villains the DC Hall of Justice is on the lookout for:

Terrorist – foreign and domestic
Climate Change
Illicit Drugs
Rogue States
Health Care costs
Recession or Depression
Excess body fat
Eco-Terrorism
Big Banks – foreign and domestic
Patriot Groups
Illegal Immigration and Arizonans

And that is the short list,–there are a host of other things we are supposed to be afraid of that, as George Carlin said, “could infect your mind, curve your spine and lose the war for the Allies.” In all the above, the underlying argument often used is leaving them unchecked will lead to the eventual destruction of America.

Its debatable if any of the above issues might actually lead to our demise, but its’ not debatable the price for all our fears is expensive because people look to government to calm their fears. As long as we’re cutting back on things in general, consider cutting back on fear and fear mongering.

It’s fine to express concern; but save the annihilation analogies only for things that actually cause total destruction, like a huge asteroid hitting earth. Lots of things could harm our country, but the list of things that could destroy the county is a lot less than we’ve been led to believe.

Thoughtcrimes: Smoking and Abortion

State to force stores to post graphic signs vs. smoking (boston.com)

Massachusetts is poised to become the first state in the nation to force retailers to prominently display graphic warnings about the perils of smoking right where cigarettes are sold — at tobacco sales racks and next to cash registers.

Images of ominously darkened lungs, damaged brains, and diseased teeth could start appearing before the end of the year in more than 9,000 convenience stores, pharmacies, and gas stations, if a proposal by the state Department of Public Health is approved as expected. Other posters would direct smokers to where they can get help to stamp out their habit.

This story has been described on the blogs as another nanny-state proposal. The proposal does seek to control behavior through punishment, but that’s where the nanny analogy ends. In real life, eventually you outgrow a nanny, a nanny can be fired, or you can choose not to pay for an unwanted nanny.

Nannies don’t try to prevent children from doing things they are allowed to do, and they don’t punish children following rules. Nannies can’t force you to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines for not complying with their wishes. Nannies can’t force businesses to post images in an effort to drive away customers.

“If somebody is trying to quit smoking and they go back to the store and they’re tempted — oh, just one pack — we hope this will help them make a different choice,’’ said Lois Keithly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program.

Thought police or thoughtcrime are more descriptive terms for what is taking place here. If you even think about smoking, you can be punished with unpleasant images or your crime. The “crime” being consideration of a legal action that is not governmentally approved.

Massachusetts is not alone in forcing adults to think state-approved thoughts before performing a legal activity. Oklahoma passed a law that requires women seeking an abortion to see a vaginal ultrasound of the fetus and to hear a description of the fetus.

To those who endorse using the government to force others to think the thoughts you’ve chosen for them: How would you feel about an image of big brother right next to your own on your drivers license, or how about big brother posted right on your front door?

Thoughtcrimes: Smoking and Abortion

State to force stores to post graphic signs vs. smoking (boston.com)

Massachusetts is poised to become the first state in the nation to force retailers to prominently display graphic warnings about the perils of smoking right where cigarettes are sold — at tobacco sales racks and next to cash registers.

Images of ominously darkened lungs, damaged brains, and diseased teeth could start appearing before the end of the year in more than 9,000 convenience stores, pharmacies, and gas stations, if a proposal by the state Department of Public Health is approved as expected. Other posters would direct smokers to where they can get help to stamp out their habit.

“If somebody is trying to quit smoking and they go back to the store and they’re tempted — oh, just one pack — we hope this will help them make a different choice,’’ said Lois Keithly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program.

Ethnicity: Another Reason for Private Competition in Public Schools

These two racially charged stories of government involvement in the public school system make a another good argument for getting government out of the public schools. It’s unfortunate that what brings these stories to the public’s awareness in the racial element, because the underlying problem of forced political education is obscured.

Arizona governor signs bill banning ethnic studies (rawstory.com)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district’s ethnic studies program, hours after a report by United Nations human rights experts condemned the measure.

State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district’s Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.

Michigan Grade School Ends Black-Only Lunch Group (npr.org)

“Lunch Bunch is no longer,” district spokeswoman Liz Margolis said in an e-mail to AnnArbor.com. “It will be discussed among staff and some parents and be reworked. It has a valuable goal of assisting children who are not performing well on the MEAP, and this effort will continue.”

Dicken Principal Mike Madison drew criticism from parents following his decision last week to take members of the African-American Lunch Bunch on a field trip to hear a black rocket scientist at the University of Michigan speak. Only black students were invited on the trip.

In the United States there is a commonly held value of respecting other opinions; this respect is not present when it comes to educating the youth on issues dealing with race and ethnicity.

If there were respect for opposing views, there would be open competition among public schools and the force of government would not be used to teach community standards on racial issues.

The issue isn’t about how Arizona or Michigan chooses to teach students on issues of race; the problem is ignoring that parents can not choose how their children are taught. The choice for parents is to either pay for private schools or move to another school district.

It does not matter to me if you are for or against how either of these states handles race in schools. If it were left up to me, I would not have the subject taught at all–not use the force of government to see that my view was forced upon everyone.

If there were private competition of public schools, there would still be schools that teach racial issues like the ones in Arizona or Michigan, but it would also open the doors for schools focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic instead.

A free market for schools would allow parents to make the decision for themselves, there would be an open market for schools teaching parents version of political correctness–and, more importantly, a market for schools NOT teaching political correctness.

Another Supreme Court Nominee, Another Political Spectrum Debate

With Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court we have to live though a plethora of opinion pieces trying to define this nominee on the political spectrum. The same questions come up each time, are they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, left or right.

As a libertarian, I’m all too very familiar with the annoyance of having others summing up my views as either left or right. Watching Supreme Court nominees go through the process always brings out empathy for the nominee because labeling is something libertarians constantly deal with.

There is no absolute mutually agreed upon scale to sum up political views. Labeling the political philosophy of others is relative to the philosophy of the one offering the opinion.

Bill Ayers sees President Obama as a moderate and Ann Coulter sees John McCain as left-wing. Europeans see most of American politicians as being conservative and the reverse is true that Americans see European politicians as liberals.

Summing up all a person’s views as either being left or right isn’t very informative. From what’s floating around the blogs, Elena Kagan is not liberal enough for endorsing the Bush administration’s category of ‘enemy combatant’ and too liberal for kicking military recruiters off a college campus.

Not that my opinion of the next person on the Supreme Court matters, but instead of applying a label to their views, please list the view in question and then explain the view relative to well known politicians views and spare me the labels.

Quality of Life comes with Consumer Choice

John Stossel – Big Government Bullies Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED94grKcVfU

In this segment, John Stossel interviews Spirit airlines CEO, Ben Baldanza. Spirit airlines is known most recently for charging carry-on baggage fees. Ben Baldanza defends the practice of charging for carry-on bags and states something insightful about capitalism and consumer choices.

Stossel: What do you think of Senator Schumer saying these fees erode the quality of life?

Baldanza: Well the quality of life, I think, comes with consumer choice, to some extent.

Audience: Applause

Baldanza: To me it’s like going to McDonald’s and saying they have to sell french-fries with every hamburger. Now a lot of people buy french fries with a hamburger, but what if you don’t want french fries? McDonald’s still can sell you just the hamburger and not make you pay for the french fries.

There is a loss of the quality of life when the right to decide for yourself what you are willing to pay or not pay for is taken away. Regulations which decide what consumers must buy or cannot buy are encroachments on freedom and diminish the quality of everyone’s’ lives.

McDonald’s recently did experience regulators telling them what they cannot sell, as Santa Clara County did when they recently banned the selling of toys with meals. Deciding for others how and what they can spend their money on diminishes freedom and the quality of life.

News Journalist Grilling, Not Interviewing

Army Lt Col Birther Explains Why He Will Not Deploy (Spoiler Alert! It’s Obama’s Birth Certificate)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ujl-JjawWo&feature=player_embedded

Putting aside the subject matter and focusing on how an interview is conducted needs to be addressed. The aggressive style of interview towards people that represent unpopular views and brings higher ratings to the networks is annoying.

This is a difficult subject to write about because the people hardest to defend are the same ones most likely to get an on-air grilling. Pointing out the flaws in interviews often is misconstrued as endorsing the person or group being slammed.

There is an audience for giving those with unpopular beliefs an on-air grilling. The blogs show their support for this type of interview with comments along the lines of “Interviewer X slams the group I hate, so good job interviewer X! I’m surprised interviewer X did such a good job, because usually it’s just sucking up to that group.”

Included below are several other interviews which turn into debates and grilling of the guest. The last video on this list is an example of an interviewer keeping their cool while the person being interviewed is trying to stir a debate.

Regardless of the subject matter, I expect to be able to hear someone interviewed without interruptions, and not to hear a second question asked before the interviewee has finished answering. The point of doing an interview should be to gain insight into how the person being interviewed thinks, not solely how the interviewer thinks.

A test for any news journalist/television personality is doing an interview with someone who supports a view they personal find offensive. The test is to keep their cool, allow the person to answer and bring out the relevant facts.

Anderson Cooper failed the test and reminds me of a host of other bad interviews I’ve seen on cable news. Anderson Cooper has been added the list below in my mind.

Jeremy Glick vs Bill O’Reilly

Peter Schiff On The Ed Show

Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church on Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-STpW7jarrs

Ron Paul vs Bill O’Reilly

Wolf Blitzer keeps his cool and focus while interviewing David Duke. While no journalist/television personality is capable of doing an interview as well as Mr. Spock, Blitzer comes fairly close to that level and may just have some Vulcan blood in him.

Wolf Blitzer vs David Duke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM9WBS1q6k8

National Day of Prayer – A Deal with the Devil

Some criticism surrounding the controversy over the National Day of Prayer should go to religious organizations–for not complaining about the federal government trespassing on their territory.

Why would religion want endorsement from a group not especially known for moral fortitude? If gamblers or pornographers called for a day to honor religion, there would be massive objections. So where are the objections when the endorsement comes from a group so widely considered morally bankrupt as our politicians?

Religion is far more popular than Washington D.C.; religion being promoted by government is like iPad getting an endorsement from the Kindle. Does it hurt more than it helps?

By endorsing National Prayer Day, politicians hope to borrow some of religion’s popularity, thus piggyback into projecting an unearned sense of holiness–directly profiting off of God’s popularity in the polls. How does that promote either religion or morality?

Why do religious organizations tolerate government claiming any authority over prayer? If all the religions in the US declared their own National Day of Prayer, it would have a lot more meaning than a day declared by the government. The significance of the prayer itself should not be overshadowed by who claims they think it should be officially recognized as a good idea.

Most politicians support any position only so long as it serves their purpose. Even sincere politicians have different agendas than religious organizations; politicians can just as easily not support prayer, or endorse something entirely contradictory to a religious agenda if it get votes. By acknowledging government as a legitimate authority on religious matters, religious organizations put themselves at risk for the day when they find conflicts between their interests and government interests.

I think the Rev. Franklin Graham is starting to get the idea that politicians use religion for their purposes and it does not work the other way around.

There were millions of evangelical Christians that voted for Barack Obama in the last election. I don’t think they’ll be at the table next time. I think they’ve seen things from this administration that concern them, that worry them.

On this, federally declared National Day of Prayer: I pray for religious leaders to recognize that accepting a blessing from a politician is making a deal with the devil.