Politics – Page 11 – Zombies Uncensored

The Threat Children Pose to Liberty

An Illinois National Guard soldier has been charged with possession of child pornography over snapshots of a 4-year-old niece in a swimsuit. The story is important to mention because when the subject of children is thrown into political debate, liberty is thrown out the window.

The emotional strings pulled by playing the “children card” trump all reasoning. In the overzealousness to protect children, free speech and civil rights have been unintended victims. The story of this National Guard soldier illustrates the potential harm of protecting children at all costs.

What happened to this soldier could happen to anyone. The family photo albums of the when the kids were toddlers has to go in the trash. Do not dare take pictures of your own kids at a park. The 1978 version of Superman should be destroyed because it shows baby Clark Kent’s weenie. Anyone could potentially be charged as a child predator.

This isn’t about hatred for kids, but about not being blinded by the natural instinct to protect children. Playing the children card has been used in the war on drugs, war on poverty, censorship, smoking and gun control. Here are some examples when children are brought in the rules completely change.

Protecting children seems to supersede the US Constitution. Sex offenders can be held indefinitely in jail.

We have a National Sex Offender Registry but not a a murderer registry–at least not yet, although some have proposed a murderer listing.

Some states have proposed defining “smoking around children” as child abuse. So would it be an assault to smoke near an adult?

Many countries have internet censorship to protect children from harmful material. Free speech doesn’t apply if little ears are present.

SCHIP’s (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) get passed into law without the same amount of controversy health care reform has generated.

More often than not, the “protect the children” argument is thrown in simply to win the debate. Using children in politics is just a way of saying, “If you don’t agree with me, you hate children.” The people that support censorship would still support censorship, even if it were impossible for children to ever see a pornographic image.

When the children card is played, ask yourself, “Is the intent to protect kids, or is it really about controlling other people?” After asking this question, you’ll often see people who are promoting their own version of morality and aren’t interested in protecting children or liberty.

War on Drugs – the GOOD kind of Socialism?

Fark.com – Seattle’s new city attorney dismissing all cases of pot possession. Conservatives outraged, saying that expensive, bureaucratic, pointless lawyers and jail cells are the GOOD kind of socialism (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The headline is funny because its true; liberals and conservatives both suffer from “its not socialism when we do it” blindness.

It is socialism, because the mindset behind the war on drugs and health care reform are one and the same: creating a better society through force of government. It’s saying individuals don’t own the right to choose their actions if their actions don’t benefit society as a whole.

The definition of socialism is ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. When you can force your neighbor to follow your ideas of what is good for them, you are in essence claiming ownership of your neighbor’s morality and following the philosophy of socialism. You don’t own your neighbor. You are not your neighbor’s authority. You don’t own their thoughts, or the right to determine which actions are to their benefit.

Its a good thing to want to be part of a beneficial change. America is a society rich in morality. It comes as no surprise there are large numbers of people speaking out on issues that need improvement. Improving America’s society through force damages that source of morality, free people choosing to do the right thing without the intervention of others.

The way to achieve a better society is through persuasion and reason, not force. To those who embrace these socialist principles: the next time you see an evil in society and want to take a some action to improve the situation, speak up about it. Let others know how you think, explain your reasons for supporting or opposing an action. When reason fails to persuade and doesn’t change views , you should MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT! Listen to the objections to your view, and use the feedback to craft a more persuasive argument.

Using force solve the problems in society is cowardly, because if you really believe in the logic and morality of your view, you’ll let the view stand on its own. If the change you seek really is beneficial, then it’s inevitable and predictable the change will come about, even if you take no action at all. Promoting a principle through force bastardizes the principle; a good principle doesn’t require force for others to adopt.

Using force to solve the problems in society is shortsighted. Force is only effective while force is present. When an authority isn’t present, people will do what they want to do. Forcing anything, even a good thing can cause people to reject it, because it’s natural to object to someone else running your life. The best society possible is one where people of good conscience act to the benefit of themselves and others by their own choice.

There is no good kind of socialism. Individuals with free will, reflecting principles of morality, own the means and production to a better society.

Poll: Who or what is really to blame for the disaster in Haiti?

There has been a lot of political discussion about the tragedy in Haiti. Below is a list of several possible explanations, gathered from the internet and TV. Please vote for what you believe is the most likely cause of the disaster.

[poll id=”3″]

Gasoline Meet Fire, Fire Meet Gasoline – Government Conspiracy to Fight Conspiracy Theories

“Conspiracy Theories” by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule is making the blog controversy rounds.

Background – Cass R. Sunstein is Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. The paper was written two years ago, before Sunstein became the Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator. It’s unknown if Sunstein still holds the views in this paper, but it’s fair to ask if Sunstein still holds these views.

The two lines in the paper that have set people off: (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. The paper discusses these options, but does not conclude to follow either of these options.

The paper does, however, conclude the way to combat groups formed from conspiracy theories is by the government infiltrating the groups to break them up–In other words, a government conspiracy to fight conspiracy theories.

Half the paper dives into the psychology behind conspiracy theories, or as Ric Romero would say “people hold beliefs that are not based in fact.”

The other half of the paper weighs how governments should deal with conspiracy theories, and some of those suggestions are just like pouring gasoline on conspiracy theory fires.

Excerpts from the paper –

Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.

When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.

Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.

(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.

(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.

(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.

Conclusion – Our goal here has been to understand the sources of conspiracy theories and to examine potential government responses.

Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them.

We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.

The underlying argument in the conclusion is akin to declaring war on war, but not calling it a war. To support fighting the cognitive dissonance of conspiracy theories with cognitive infiltration requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

My favorite part of the paper – What causes such theories to arise and spread?

Trickle Down and Around Taxation

Trickle down taxation is when business push higher operation costs onto their customers. John Stossel’s article, “Obama: I Will Tax You to Punish Banks,” expresses the idea that taxes aren’t really paid by business–all taxation eventually trickles down to customers:

“In other words, the Obama Administration is going to punish those greedy banks by making it more expensive for you to borrow money. This is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with a point made by Jamie Dimon, CEO at JP Morgan Chase: ‘Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea…All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers.'”

And from TheOneLaw on Trickle Down Taxation:

“Taxes on corporations are just passed on to the customer that purchases the products of that company. If that customer is another business it adds on its taxes and passes it along until it gets to the final consumer of the product.”

I agree with both of these articles, but want to point out not all the additional taxes are paid by customers. With high unemployment, businesses have the option of passing some of the tax burden onto their employees. Several companies have stopped matching 401(k) contributions and unpaid overtime is on the rise. Keep in mind the banking industry is regulated by Washington DC as to what they are allowed to charge customers. The taxation can be passed along with new hidden fees, but don’t be surprised to hear bank employees complaining about benefit and wage cuts.

With each new tax, sooner or later the tax shifts its way to the bottom, to the person that has no power to pass the tax farther along.

Scott Brown Defends Role In Romneycare – Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1sLegdL4EQ

Scott Brown is running in the special election to replace U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy next Tuesday.

Scott Brown voted in favor of health care for all (Romneycare) in Massachusetts.

Here is Neil Cavuto questioning Brown about the vote to pass Romneycare. Listen for the Freudian slip at the very end of the clip.

“People have lost face in the process”

Republican Scott Brown having to own up for supporting failed government mandated health care has lost face in the process.

Big Pharma Pushing Hard For Health Care Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5809Xe9-pg

Big pharmaceutical companies are donating heavily to Martha Coakley. If Coakley wins the special election to replace U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Tuesday, Coakley will vote for the passage of the health care reform bill. Pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be backing Coakley if they didn’t stand to gain from passage of health care reform.

Words and Phrases in Political Commentary and What They Really Mean

Don’t take political commentary at face value. This list explains the code for commonly used words and phrases in political commentary and what they really mean or are trying to say.

Biased – Holds views I would never entertain for a second.

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

Brainwashed – Fundamentalist views different from my own fundamentalist views.

Change – From a politician, it means, “I’m not an incumbent.”

Code for – I take nothing they say at face value.

Conservative – Somewhere to the right of my views.

Cover-up – Not emphasizing what I think is important.

Democracy – My opinion is in the majority; in this case its OK for 51% of the people to tell the other 49% what to do.

Disinformation – You should listen to my bias, not the other side’s bias.

Extremist – The views farthest away from my own, and I consider them dangerous.

Face value – I’m about to take what they said and change it into something completely different.

Fascist – Picks on different groups than I pick on.

French – Effeminate.

Fundamentalist – They have strongly held, opposing views I consider dangerous.

Hates America – Political opponent pointed out something negative about America.

Ignorant – Prefers a different flavor of propaganda.

Indoctrination – They teach kids things I would not.

Informal – Secret.

Liberal – Somewhere to the left of my views.

Parrot – This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this and disagreed with it.

Profit – From liberals it means bad vs. from conservatives it means good.

Racist – An opponent who made any reference to race.

Radical – The views farthest away from my own.

Regular American – People that think the same way as I do.

Seems to suggest – Like the definitions on this list. I heard what they said but I know its code for.

Selfish – Not giving me what I want.

Serve the people – Should be doing only what I want.

Socialist – Somewhere to the left of me.

Spam – I didn’t agree with that the first time I heard it.

Stratigist – Bullshit artist, spin doctor.

Wingnut – Views so far from my own, I can’t discuss them and will instead call them names.

Zombies Fed up with Discrimination

The latest round of race relations being discussed in the news has created a flurry of emails from zombies reminding me of how poorly they are treated in society. Zombies face an abundance of ignorance, intolerance, and hate on a daily basis. This is a summary of the most common racial intolerance zombies face.

Zombies are upset about the insensitive comments made towards how they stink, talk funny, are stupid, and are slow.

Zombies are tired of hearing , “All you zombies talk funny; it’s brains, not ‘braaaaaaaaaaains.’ Get a job, deadbeat zombie. Go back to Hell, where you came from. Kill a zombie for your mommie.” Humans can’t seem to say zombie without saying “stupid zombie.”

Backhanded compliments from humans: “You have nice skin, for a zombie. You are smart, for a braindead zombie. At least you aren’t French.”

There are no laws to protect zombies from discrimination. Zombies are barred from voting, jobs, homes, marrying, education, and police protection. Zombies are only protected while in a grave, and even there they have to defend themselves from necrophiliacs.

There is no double standard in the news where Zombies are concerned because there is only one standard. There aren’t any networks or news shows with a zombie bias. News programs don’t have hours of debate when a human makes a racially charged anti-zombie comment. No one has ever been asked to resign because of an off-color remark about zombies.

Hollywood clearly has an anti-zombie bias. Other undead creatures like ghosts and spirits are treated as heroes. How many love scenes have you seen between a zombie and a human? There are zero romances with zombies, but Vampires get laid all the time.

Zombies are racially profiled without fail. Humans don’t stop and ask themselves before chopping one in half, “Maybe this one isn’t a bad zombie?” If a human dare speak out in defense of zombies, they are quickly labeled a zombie-lover.

Just because they are Life-force challenged is no reason for the unequal treatment zombies receive in society.

Poll – Which Science Fiction Evil Computer Best Represents Washington DC?

What would things be like if congress were replaced with liberty-minded people? Would it do any good? It seems the bureaucracy has achieved a consciousness of its own, like a computer run amok in a Science Fiction story. Is anyone in Washington still in control? Can anyone pull the plug?

[poll id=”2″]

The list isn’t complete because computers controlling humanity is a common theme in Science Fiction. Please add any evil computers or thoughts on which computer best represents Washington DC in the comments section below.