society – Zombies Uncensored

No Need to Fear Religious Beliefs

Today is the first day of summer, marking the summer solstice for some New Agers and neo-pagans. From comments I’ve read today about the solstice, it appears to be a good day to poke fun at those beliefs systems.

In their defense (and in the defense of belief systems in general), it needs to be pointed out that everyone operates under some degree of belief. The less popular a belief, the more likely it will be ridiculed. Popular beliefs such as love and the certainty of tomorrow are rarely ridiculed–and they are less likely to be pointed out as being belief systems.

The majority of people believe in love and consider it an important part of their daily lives–atheists love their family and friends, too. There is no empirical evidence proving the existence of love; while physiological reactions to love can be measured, there are no instruments which can detect and measure “love rays.”

It would be next to impossible to function day-to-day without some trust or confidence in areas that are unknown. Tomorrow is a belief, too. I plan for tomorrow under the belief that I will be around tomorrow. Statistically speaking, I probably will be here tomorrow, but there is no absolute certainty and it is guaranteed some of us will not be here tomorrow.

I find no reason to fear or ridicule others’ beliefs. Beliefs in and of themselves poise no danger; many beliefs like love are important and beneficial. The fear of beliefs we don’t hold exists in part because once a belief becomes popular, it has the potential to become law.

The danger doesn’t reside with the belief; the problem is the ability to force beliefs on others.

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.

Fears of US Political Violence Put in Perspective: Softcore

Warnings of political violence and domestic terrorism in America seem to be all the rage these days. Bricks thrown through windows and buses being egged–oh my!

It is just talk; for real examples of political violence, you have to look outside of the US: places like Iraq, where today suicide bombers killed 42 people. Or South Africa, where President Jacob Zuma called for unity after the murder of a white supremacist on Saturday.

No curfews in America due to riots, as there are in India right now. Police in riot gear aren’t battling protesters, but they are in the UK where the EDL clashed with police over a new mosque being built.

Below is a video that sums up the fighting being waged in America today. When it comes to political violence and domestic terrorism, I think the US might just come in dead last.

Washington D.C Monument pillow fight April 3rd 2010

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

Four Beheaded in the War on Drugs

(Reuters) -Thirteen killed in crime wave at Mexico’s Acapulco

Thirteen people were killed in and around the Mexican beach resort of Acapulco early on Saturday in apparent drug-related violence, with four victims found beheaded, security officials said. WORLD Five of those killed were police officers whose night-time patrol was attacked by gunmen on the outskirts of Acapulco, a Pacific Ocean resort popular with tourists, the security officials said in a statement. The bullet-riddled bodies of eight other men were discovered in different areas around Acapulco, and four of them had been beheaded, the officials added.

One of the reasons alcohol prohibition was repealed in the US was the public became fed up with stories just like this. How many more innocent people must die before we learn the same lesson: that drug prohibition does not decrease addiction or crime? The reason for drug prohibition was to protect innocent lives, and yet here again drug prohibition results in the murder of innocent people.

Just as banning pizza would not cause the nation to loose weight because there would still be plenty of other ways to get fat, ending drug prohibition will not lead to an increase in addicts. It will just give those with addiction problems more ways to destroy their lives. Those seeking to escape from reality will always find something that isn’t in their best interest to fulfill their desire. There has been, and always will be, a certain percent of the population that has a propensity to become addicted to something.

There are people who do not touch alcohol even though its legal, because they see it as a harm to their lives. These same people won’t be rushing out to buy illicit drugs once they become legal. If drug prohibition were ended, there are those that would prefer one addictive drug to another. They would switch from alcohol to a drug, but the number of addicts would basically stay the same.

How many more murders does it take to see the cure is worse than the disease?

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.

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

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.