Society – Page 3 – 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.

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.

Separation of State and Everything

How often have you heard people complain about religion in education, or business in politics? Do complaints about government being too involved in your personal life, or the media having too much influence over politics, sound familiar? It is because many of the problems faced today are caused by permitting or even demanding these institutions exert control over one another.

Here are what I consider to be the biggest institutions of society:

Religion – Education – Business – Government – Families – Media

The media is a mess with their entanglement with political parties. Schools have lost the focus of teaching and are a battleground for theology and politics. The lines between business and government are getting blurrier each day. Science has been rocked by the scandals of political influence. Even the definitions of marriage and family are being defined by the courts and voters.

Please take a moment to consider smaller connections between these groups as the path to follow. The old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups commercial with the line, “You got peanut butter in my chocolate? Hey, you got chocolate in my peanut butter!” ended with a delicious treat. When this same event occurs in society, we often end up with something that tastes nasty.

A sure way for things to get messed up is when any of the major institutions exert too much influence over any of the others. Each institution works fine by itself, when focused on its own area of expertise. It’s when these groups blend and mesh together that society goes haywire. They each perform best when they aren’t interfering or interfered by other institutions.

The economy is a mess, and much of the mess can be attributed to the government/big bank entwinement. Both exert too much influence over one another. The banks shouldn’t be coming to the government for loans, and the government shouldn’t be telling the banks to whom or how to loan money. Each side claims to have been seduced by the other. Wouldn’t we be better off if the two had never slept together in the first place?

The news media is another mess. There isn’t a whole lot of news covered in the news, but there is a plethora of political discussion. I’ve watched Mike Huckabee on Fox News–a combination of religion, politics and media. Being a pastor is a good thing; governors provide good public service, and a journalist discussing political issues is an important service. But these are three distinct positions. The flip side of Huckabee is Al Gore: Vice President, filmmaker and author, and environmental preacher. Separately each can be beneficial, but the resulting mixture of religion, politics, business, and media muddies the water, providing less news and more polarized viewpoints.

Some of the problems facing education can attributed to the distractions caused by external influences. Should schools be involved in leading prayers or used to teach tolerance? Schools are there to educate children with the tools they’ll need to survive as adults, and not to change the shape of the next generation’s society. They shouldn’t be used to install patriotism or environmentalism because that’s not their role.

The list goes on and on how each group causes problems for the others. This isn’t a left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative problem; it’s a problem with our society as a whole not enforcing boundaries. Each institution resents it when the other institutions cross the boundaries, but unfortunately the resentment they feel towards external influences doesn’t stop them trying to manipulate other groups.

The principle of I can’t be free unless everyone is free needs to be applied here. For each group to be free to achieve their goals, they must be willing to give up the influence they exert on each other. They have to be willing to clean their corner of society instead of trying to clean up society as a whole.

Separation of State and Everything

Here are what I consider to be the biggest institutions of society:

Religion – Education – Business – Government – Families – Media

Local News should have Safety Tips for Voters

BBC One show Rip Off Britain had a show about convenience stores charging more than grocery stores. It seemed odd to me to have a show on the subject, because who doesn’t know a convenience store charges more? Why waste time warning people about something they learned as kids? How do you follow up a report like that? A story about fire is hot, fire burns?

I don’t mean any offense to the UK. The show Rip Off Britain is not a reflection on the intelligence of its citizens. In the US, almost any nightly newscast will have parental reminders along the lines of reminding you to put coat on because its cold outside, or too much sunlight will burn your skin.

Still, there were probably a few people out there that benefited from the show pointing out convenience stores charge more. Its just as likely someone benefits when they are reminded to use suntan lotion or put a coat on.

The political events of the last few years have had me wondering basically the same thing about politics. Do people need to be continually reminded about how politics work? Is a story about government incompetence news? Maybe people should be reminded from time to time about the dangers of politics.

Local news programs should have safety tips for forgetful voters prior to elections?

Politicians promises are more likely to be broken than kept.

If they are the lesser of two evils, it means they still screw some things up.

They can’t be on your side and working for everyone at the same time.

Corruption follows power and money around.

Whatever they say it will cost should be doubled or tripled.

Contrary to what most politicians believe, not every problem has a solution.

Politicians have been known to lie.

Guilty Pleasures of Government Spending

Obama aims to ax moon mission (orlandosentinel.com)

NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

White House to Outsource Space Flight (foxnews.com/scitech)

NASA’s Constellation program should replace our aging fleet of space shuttles, which make their last flight in July. But reports indicate Obama may eliminate the program entirely, leaving the U.S. relying on Russian vehicles for space transportation.

Outsourcing space flight is a better option for the future of space travel, because it will reduce costs and spur innovation. NASA should set a price per pound to orbit, or to the moon, and let businesses compete and innovate to meet the goal. Some of the biggest innovations in air-travel were the result of the USPS using this same model to handle the costs of airmail.

That last paragraph sounds fairly reasonable, doesn’t it? But wait; there is a problem, I’ve tricked myself again. I’ve allowed myself to be seduced by the ends side of the force. If I am not careful, forever will it dominate my destiny, consume me it will..

When it comes to spending money on NASA, I usually keep my mouth shut because I like the benefits from NASA. I craftily push out of consciousness the dangers in using the-ends-justify-the-means arguments by focusing only on the good things about NASA.

NASA is far from worthless; benefits from NASA programs include –

Good Science – We have a much better understanding of Earth’s environment, and by environment I don’t mean just what happens on Earth. Our real environment is a big as the universe.

Technological Spin-offs – The Apollo program shows what happens when you have a concentration of geeks in one area; they will solve problems you didn’t know existed. Geeks are not at the top of the ego charts and work well together to achieve goals.

Survival of our species – If Earth takes a big hit from an asteroid, humans could be gone forever. The sooner humans spread out from Earth, the better the changes for our survival.

The budget crisis will continue to grow as long as we are unwilling to forgo the guilty pleasures of government spending. NASA is just one in a long list of guilty pleasures Americans have indulged in.

The love of money is facing stiff competition from the love of force to do good, as the root of all evil. The love of force to do good easily seduces the purest of hearts, who are unwilling to delay gratification of good goals.

The philosophy of the ends justifying the means is retarding evolutionary progress towards respecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe there is a yet to be discovered force of nature slowing our progress in the conquest of space, until we are ready to respect the rights of others species we will encounter.

Even when the fate of our species hangs in the balance, it’s wrong to use force to preserve our species. We aren’t a species worthy of survival if we are willing to force others to our vision of what is beneficial.

Iowa Considering Everclear Ban: Where’s the Spirit of Rebellious Youth?

(DesMoinesRegister.com) State regulators weigh ban, limits on Everclear:

State liquor regulators are putting Everclear – one of the most potent alcoholic beverages – under the microscope following a November drinking incident that nearly cost the life of a Drake University student. College students, liquor industry officials and other Iowans are debating the merits of restricting or banning its sale.

It is popular at parties frequented by young people. State records show the leading counties in 2009 for sales of 1.75-liter bottles of Everclear were Story, home to Iowa State University, and Johnson, home to the University of Iowa. The 1.75-liter bottles, nearly two quarts, are the largest available.

College students say Everclear is often added to potent punch-style drinks and sometimes other types of liquor.

“Personally, I don’t drink it, and I wouldn’t have a problem with banning it,” said Drake senior Matt Poindexter, 22, of Kansas City, who is majoring in marketing and information systems.

But Chris Donahue, 25, a Drake freshman from Norwalk who is studying health sciences, is skeptical. He believes restrictions on alcohol only make young people more curious. “I think they should do a better job of educating kids and telling them that it is not necessarily a great thing to go out and get drunk,” Donahue said.

It makes sense we don’t value freedom as much as Americans did after the revolutionary war, because we haven’t experienced the same loss of freedom. I’ve mistakenly believed young Americans would always be some of the best defenders of freedom, because they could remember a time would they weren’t allowed to make decisions for themselves.

Has the spirit of rebellious youth died? Mr. Poindexter has had the freedom to choose for himself to drink alcohol or not for only a year, and is already willing to go back to having someone else make those decisions for him. Mr. Donahue is only seven years removed from parental control, but seems undisturbed by parental figures forcing their advice on himself and others.

Rebellious youth are supposed to be one of the first lines of defense for liberty. Young Americans are supposed to remind others what it’s like not to be able to decide things for yourself. Being an adult doesn’t mean its your turn to start running other peoples lives.

To Mr. Poindexter – Your comments suggest it is fine for the majority to tell others what to do. That works as long as you are in the majority. What if the roles were reversed? You don’t have a problem with banning Everclear, but would you have a problem being forced to drink Everclear? From this perspective, as long as the group you are in isn’t impacted, there is no problem. Would it be OK with you to ban a different ethnicity or women from college? It’s no loss of freedom for you personally, after all.

To Mr. Donahue – Alcohol is for adults, not kids; one of the responsibilities adults have is deciding for themselves if something is a great thing or not, Mommy and Daddy’s opinion notwithstanding. I suppose it would be fine for me to better educate you to the dangers of allowing others to run your life?

To the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission – If it exists, there is a stupid way to use it. If being able to harm yourself with an object is criteria for a ban, then virtually everything would be banned! College students also do stupid things with cars, food, clothes, etc.–in fact, sometimes they do stupid things because they enjoy doing stupid things!

It is a mistaken belief that there is no loss of freedom to ban something you would never do. I’ll probably never be a Moonie in the Unification Church, but if Moonies were banned, we all lose freedom of religion.

I don’t drink Everclear, and I have a problem with banning it. I don’t think it’s great thing to get drunk, but I wouldn’t force my opinion on other adults. And as as reminder to the lost rebellious youth: there is always a loss of freedom allowing others to make decisions for you.

NASA will miss Congressional Deadline for Asteroid Tracking – no Funding Provided from Congress

NASA won’t meet Congressional orders to track most city-smashing-sized asteroids in Earth’s neighborhood by 2020, an expert panel concluded Friday, because the government didn’t provide the money to detect such Near-Earth Objects.

“because for the past 5 years the administration requested no funds, and the Congress appropriated none, for this purpose.” (blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair)

This issue is not a possibility, its a probability. Sooner or later Earth will be hit by another asteroid that will cause massive amounts of damage.

Bundle up all the things Washington protects us from into one giant cataclysmic ball and it still wouldn’t equal the damage a large asteroid will do.

The mistake is that asteroids are still legal. If asteroids were illegal then there would be ample funding to track and destroy them.

To that end, please help spread one of these rumors about asteroids –

Illegal aliens use asteroids to sneak into America.

Disaster capitalist are plotting to steer asteroids at Earth for profit.

Drug traffickers use asteroids to smuggle narcotics into America.

Global warming is caused from the friction asteroids create entering the atmosphere.

Al-Qaeda is secretly plotting to steer an asteroid into the White House.

Teenagers are getting stoned on Meteorites.

Cheech and Chong “Get it Legal” Tour on Fox and Friends

Cheech and Chong Get it Legal – Comedy tour discussed on Fox and Friends morning show.

They joke for a bit about how Tommy Chong can’t vote for corrupt politicians because of his felony conviction for shipping a bong across a state line. The scary part about the war on drugs is the built-in self defense mechanism drugs laws have. In several states, you can’t vote if you have a felony conviction. It’s a cruel trick to liberty: self-protecting legislation that takes away right to change the law from those who most adamantly oppose it.