Politics – Zombies Uncensored

Churches Banned within a 1000 Feet of Strip Clubs

I was discussing with my brother the new law in Missouri that bans strip clubs from being located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks or homes. My brother posed the question, “Why aren’t there any laws banning churches within a thousand feet of a strip club?”

I was embarrassed I hadn’t thought to ask the same question myself. In assessing any legislation, it’s a good rule to ask how would this law work if the roles were reversed. Evidently I need to remind myself to ask the question more often.

My response at the time was, “Strip clubs aren’t as popular as churches, and that’s how laws like that get passed.” I failed to consider what would happen if the majority view changed–what would happen if someday strip clubs become more popular than churches?

These types of zoning laws are the modern day version of segregation of what the majority finds morally repugnant. The laws are akin to the early colonies laws which fined, banished, and imprisoned those who did not follow the religious tenants of the colony.

The more I thought about it, the more I began to see more of these domes and bubbles of moral purity.

The FDA’s thousand feet ban on cigarette advertising near schools.
Firearms within a thousand feet of a school.
Smoking bans near the entrances to buildings.
Sex offenders banned from most of the city.
Needle exchanges within a thousand feet of schools.
Medical Marijuana dispensaries withing a thousand feet of schools.
College campus bans which have included military recruiters, medical marijuana, hate speech, and credit card offers.

The zoning bubbles are all around us and, the bans are rarely questioned for having the ability to ban a legal activity from within ones eyesight. As an individual I do not have the right to ban what I find offensive or fear from my field of vision or near to my home, so why should some groups have this right?

I can understand a parents desire to protect their children from dangerous influences, as in banning the Jonas Brothers and or Britney Spears concerts from within 10,000 feet of their children, if simply to protect children from crappy music. As individuals, we do not have the right to ban what we find offensive, because an individual’s rights ends where another rights begins.

The group for the liberty minded/libertarian/non-authoritarians to fear the most is not among smokers, gun-owners, sex offenders, drug addicts or even racists. Underlying all these laws is the same tyrannical group–the majority. They’re the ones you’ve got to watch out for.

Not Allowed List: Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, Gay Marriage

As an American, I’m proud that there are no religions banned in the US. Other countries do not hold the same respect for freedom as Americans. In Singapore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, and in China, Falun Gong and Xiantianism are banned.

It only takes banning one religion to destroy freedom of religion. As soon as one religion is banned, two lists are created: the banned religion list, and by default, all the religions not on the banned list in turn become allowed religions.

The act of adding just one religion to a banned list tuned over authority of choosing a religion from the individual to the state. Even those who would never consider becoming a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falun Gong had their freedom of religion taken away, because the right to a free choice was taken away.

This is not to say that America fully supports freedom. There are several lists of non-violent acts banned in America which in turn have created several lists of state approved activities. Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, and Gay Marriage are on separate banned lists in the US.

Alcohol, tobacco, betel nut, and caffeine product are the state approved lists of recreation drugs. Marijuana is on the controlled substance list along with heroin, ecstasy, LSD and…i’ts a long list.

Smoking Ads are the only product banned from TV in the US; alcohol ads are allowed as long as the alcohol isn’t consumed. Everything else falls into on the approved list of advertisements created by the FCC.

Gay marriage is on the banned list along with polygamy, and incestuous marriage. Proponents of gay marriage would like to see it moved from the banned list to the allowed list which includes heterosexuals.

Rather that argue over what belongs on the banned or allowed list, we should just do away with the lists. Take away government’s power to approve what we do with our bodies, our minds, and how we choose to freely associate with one another.

The only list that’s really needed is one for government’s role. Approved activitiees for government should only include protecting citizens from violent acts; everything else should go on the list of banned government activities.

Not Allowed List: Marijuana, Smoking Ads on TV, Gay Marriage

Groups Granted Rights Superior to Individual Rights

I discovered groups have more rights than individuals from my experience in the public school system. In junior high school, I was required to shower after gym class. The shower was akin to a lawn sprinkler, a pole around 6 feet high which sprayed water in 360 degrees. Prepubescent boys forced to shower together in a circle.

Psycho — Memories of junior high showers

My personal modesty made showering after gym class a horrifying experience. I had no desire to be seen or see my classmates naked. When I and others challenged the need to shower, we were told it was a health issue and important for hygiene.

There was one kid that wasn’t required to shower, because Islam forbids public nudity; he was not forced to participate in this dehumanizing ritual. My own individual beliefs were not held in the same regard as his religious beliefs. Finding the showering akin to being forced to participate in a pedophile’s daydream was simply irrelevant.

I found the public school’s Christmas program personally offensive, because I felt it violated the separation of church and state. I had developed a religious respect for the Constitution at an early age, and deemed the lack of cognitive dissonance from those at school to be hypocritical and disgusting.

My individual view that being forced to participate in the Christmas program was repugnant and immoral fell on deaf ears. I was fully aware at this point that group rights were protected, so I asked my father, who is Jewish, to get me out of the Christmas program. Unfortunately, the answer was a swift “‘No,” because my mother had raised me as a Christian Scientist. My attempt to religion-shape-shift to a different protected group had failed.

My mother, being a Christian Scientist, did not have a problem with using religious exemptions; she asked for and received a religious exemption for my vaccinations. Looking back, I now see how unequal and unfair it was to parents concerned about the safety of vaccinations to have their individual beliefs ignored.

I discussed these issue with my wife, raised as a Jehovah Witness. Jehovah Witnesses didn’t have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or participate in holiday activities. It seems Jehovah Witnesses are more likely to receive an exemption from a school than atheists. Group belief systems garner more respect than the lack of beliefs.

Cool Blog Sociale - 4th December 2008 - Rebecca Romijn Mystique B — Shapeshifter Mystique had the potential to exercise every exemption and know more freedom than any human.

With the recent healthcare law, I find myself wanting to religion-shape-shift to the Amish faith for the healthcare exemption. I know that however humiliating and morally repugnant I find being forced to participate in the healthcare program is, my own individual beliefs are yet again moot.

My point here is not an anti-religion rant, it’s a pro-individual rant. Individual beliefs are only respected when those beliefs are part of a protected group. Exceptions made for specific groups by their very nature mean there will be individuals that fall outside that group, therefore having fewer rights.

These laws and rules start with the good intention of not forcing someone to something they find morally repugnant. When exemptions are only available to certain groups, there is the unintended consequence of evaluating these groups with rights superior to individual rights.

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

Saying America is addicted to oil is idiotic. If America is addicted to oil, then why do we need to hire people to clean up the oil spill? If oil is as addictive as a drug, then carpet crawling would be replaced by beach crawling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accusing America of oil addiction is offensive. The underlying sentiment implies anyone driving a car has the moral fortitude of a drug addict. I’ve never checked with the gas station attendant when they would be receiving their next shipment of Columbia made gasoline–because the best stuff comes from Columbia, you know.

pumpin it — What whoring for oil might look like

There are no oil-whores or gas-heads and I doubt Americans would ever break into their neighbors home or turn to prostitution in order to fund an oil habit. There is not and there is no need for oil rehab centers because using oil does not destroy one’s life.

The purpose of this ludicrous attack is solely political. People on the right use the addiction accusation, but throw in the word “foreign.” Foreign oil is undesirable as a national defense issue and adds to the trade deficit. If the imagined addiction was only to American oil, there would be no issue.

People on the left use the addiction attack in order to promote environmentalism. The hypocrisy of the left matches that of the right; if all cars ran on something environmentally friendly such as solar power, they would not be accusing Americans of having solar addiction.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

Political Job Offers: Abuse of Public Trust and Tax Dollars

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin — White House Statement On Romanoff Doesn’t Answer All The Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFQmdje5INg

Many have dismissed the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff job offer controversy as political gamesmanship by Republicans. Throwing mud at political appointees that each side uses to further their own goals is political gamesmanship, just as offering jobs to control who is on the ballot is political gamesmanship. There is already plenty of political gamesmanship in politics.

It’s fair game for Republicans to throw the hypocrisy mud at Obama, because Obama said his administration would be the most “open and transparent” government in history. It’s no different than pointing out the hypocrisy of congressional representative Souder having an affair while advocating abstinence.

Pointing out political hypocrisy generally doesn’t change public opinion. Supporters would say, “The higher you set you moral standards, the harder they are to live up to,” while opponents will declare, “I knew they were full of it the entire time.” Hypocrisy is viewed through the hypocritical lens of one’s political persuasion.

Unfortunately, the political gamesmanship by both sides will overshadow the issue: political appointments as a reward is a violation of the public trust. Offering jobs may be legal and therefore politicians can claim they are not improper, but that does not mean the practice is not harmful.

Elections are supposed to be about voters choosing who they would like to represent them; persuading someone to drop out of a race interferes with the public’s right to pick their representatives and is part of the reason why incumbents are so likely to be reelected.

It would clearly be illegal to offer money to a candidate to drop out of a race, whereas offering them positions paid for by tax payers dollars is not illegal. In essence, these political bribes are paid for by you and me and it’s all perfectly legal.

Then there is the damage done by these political appointments when the people appointed are not the best qualified for the job. When the “best person for the job” is determined by who best maintains political power, you wind up with an inept, ineffectual and corrupt government.

To Bill Maher: The President is the most heavily armed person on Earth.

Bill Maher Jokes About Obama Not Being a ‘Real Black President’ With A Gun In His Pants

The US Presidency is a dangerous occupation; four out of forty-four Presidents have been assassinated and fourteen have had assassination attempts and plots. It would make sense for the President to carry a gun for self protection.

If the President did carry a gun, there would be an outcry that it makes the US look uncivilized. The objection would be that a President carrying a gun sends the message the US prefers violence to negotiation.

When you are packing thousands of nuclear weapons, commander of the US military, and have the CIA, FBI, and IRS under your command, you are already the most heavily armed person on Earth and do not need to show a gun.

President Obama is not any different from previous US Presidents that threaten to use their arsenal of weapons to settle disputes, sometimes following through on that threat. When you have the power to destroy entire countries or a person’s livelihood, its unnecessary to wield a gun to make the point you don’t won’t to mess with the President.

To libertarians the only justification for violence is in response to violence. The irony is a real libertarian President probably would carry a gun–and be the least likely to use or threaten to use the violent forces of the government towards US citizens and other countries.

To Bill Maher: The President is the most heavily armed person on Earth.

Bill Maher Jokes About Obama Not Being a ‘Real Black President’ With A Gun In His Pants

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.