Kim Komando is running a poll this week concerning pending California legislation that would make the sale of adult video games to minors illegal. The poll asks if we need a law or if the industry should regulate itself, much as the movie industry does.
As of 2:22 PM Sunday afternoon, 67% believe a law is in order, 30% think the industry should be able to handle this on their own, and 3% lack the mental capacity to form an opinion. I suspect this is the same 3% who would be uncertain whether or not it might be a good idea to evacuate a burning building, but are sure that their Democratic fathers in Washington will guide them on the path to salvation.
To the 67% I ask, "What is your problem?"
If one who is presumably a functional adult lacks the capacity to decide whether a good or service is right or desirable for them, perhaps they should not be permitted to roam loose in our society. If they are unable to make that decision for their minor children, or enforce that decision within their own households, perhaps they should not be parents.
It is not the government's responsibility to wipe the butt, zip the fly, and relieve every US citizen of the burden of evaluating options and implementing choices in the living of their lives. People who advocate more laws for everything from abortion to the control of Zithromax simply want to abdicate responsibility for their own lives. That is not the mentality that built a continent spanning nation in well under two hundred years
Wake up! Seize control of your own life. Sit down with your families and make your own decisions, based on your own values, goals and ideals. It is not a crime to want something you don't have. It is not a moral injustice to seek to better the existence of you and those around you. It is not fundamentally unfair that some are not as equally successful in their strivings as others. You have a God given right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. YOUR right, not your government's right.
Yeah, I just wrote "God". You have a problem with that? Well, too bad. I refuse to be Politically Correct enough to even contemplate giving a damn.
If we don't collectively wake up as a people and reclaim our birthright, every snide comment ever uttered by an American against the despised French will apply to us more completely and accurately than those comments have ever applied to France.
One can only hope it is not to late for us. Our history since leaving Saigon with our tail between our legs begins to suggest that we are little more as a nation than a petulant, overpowerful bully. The moral vision and spirit of adventure and advance seems to have slipped through our fingers after reaching its apex at the conclusion of World War II. Those ideals and those achievements are still available.
Is our grasp up to the task?
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Kill All the Lawyers? How About Taking a Look at the Press?
By Dafna Linzer - washingtonpost.com - Updated: 11:47 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2005
The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S. officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort.
Since the U.S. officials are never identified, one can only assume they spoke on condition of anonymity. Isn't that a convenient way to get your story before the masses without having to provide objective proof of the story's veracity? Purely a personal opinion here, but individuals such as the three above really deserve to be shot, on condition of anonymity of course, for their wanton disregard and outright undermining of the national security interests of the country that is paying them.
Beyond them though, what of The Press? Why do they earn a free pass for using unnamed sources to rabble rouse, directly endanger the troops in harms way they purport to support and love wholeheartedly, and denounce before the planet the fact that Americans, in time of war, are shedding other people's blood? To read the newspaper or watch the televised newscasts, one would readily draw the conclusion that U.S. troops are doing nothing but picking off unarmed civilian women and children while facing no threat of harm whatsoever themselves. Until, of course, The Press chooses to point out how many brave and blameless U.S. men and women, children really, have sacrificed their lives needlessly in the name of the cause of the megalomaniacal madman occupying the White House.
Oops. Mustn't let factual contradictions ruin a good story. Besides, the herd of sheep known as the American public will never notice anything out of the ordinary or think anything other than what they are instructed to think.
Freedom of speech and the obligation of a free press to maintain an informed public are vital to the long term success of a free society. Reporting on some of the more grievous abuses of power committed by this and other administrations, and this staunch supporter of the current administration will be among the first to admit that such abuses exist, is a legitimate function of that free press. However, for too many in The Press, it seems the "duty" to serve the public's "right to know" has come to include disseminating information that not only do the majority of us not have a need to know but that are in fact detrimental to the wellbeing and perhaps even lives of this country's citizens when generally broadcast. Yes, as citizens we all have rights. Equally important are the responsibilities each of us bear as citizens, and those responsibilities cannot be ignored when they become inconvenient to the furthering of a particular political agenda.
Why is it though that if you use a printing press and sell to the public your demands that key government officials resign, administrations be turned out of office, and outright falsify facts to further a political objective (apologizing on page Z44 in the event you get caught) is deemed constitutionally protected freedom of the press, while if a dozen guys are found to be promulgating the same nonsense in a windowless basement they are considered guilty of treason and illegally plotting to overthrow the government?
Seems to me The Press just doesn't like the idea of regular citizen peasantry poaching the deer on their royal preserve.
The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S. officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort.
Since the U.S. officials are never identified, one can only assume they spoke on condition of anonymity. Isn't that a convenient way to get your story before the masses without having to provide objective proof of the story's veracity? Purely a personal opinion here, but individuals such as the three above really deserve to be shot, on condition of anonymity of course, for their wanton disregard and outright undermining of the national security interests of the country that is paying them.
Beyond them though, what of The Press? Why do they earn a free pass for using unnamed sources to rabble rouse, directly endanger the troops in harms way they purport to support and love wholeheartedly, and denounce before the planet the fact that Americans, in time of war, are shedding other people's blood? To read the newspaper or watch the televised newscasts, one would readily draw the conclusion that U.S. troops are doing nothing but picking off unarmed civilian women and children while facing no threat of harm whatsoever themselves. Until, of course, The Press chooses to point out how many brave and blameless U.S. men and women, children really, have sacrificed their lives needlessly in the name of the cause of the megalomaniacal madman occupying the White House.
Oops. Mustn't let factual contradictions ruin a good story. Besides, the herd of sheep known as the American public will never notice anything out of the ordinary or think anything other than what they are instructed to think.
Freedom of speech and the obligation of a free press to maintain an informed public are vital to the long term success of a free society. Reporting on some of the more grievous abuses of power committed by this and other administrations, and this staunch supporter of the current administration will be among the first to admit that such abuses exist, is a legitimate function of that free press. However, for too many in The Press, it seems the "duty" to serve the public's "right to know" has come to include disseminating information that not only do the majority of us not have a need to know but that are in fact detrimental to the wellbeing and perhaps even lives of this country's citizens when generally broadcast. Yes, as citizens we all have rights. Equally important are the responsibilities each of us bear as citizens, and those responsibilities cannot be ignored when they become inconvenient to the furthering of a particular political agenda.
Why is it though that if you use a printing press and sell to the public your demands that key government officials resign, administrations be turned out of office, and outright falsify facts to further a political objective (apologizing on page Z44 in the event you get caught) is deemed constitutionally protected freedom of the press, while if a dozen guys are found to be promulgating the same nonsense in a windowless basement they are considered guilty of treason and illegally plotting to overthrow the government?
Seems to me The Press just doesn't like the idea of regular citizen peasantry poaching the deer on their royal preserve.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
My Boss In My Private Life? Not Necessarily a Bad Deal
Weyco, Inc., in Michigan wants to be in their employee's lives on a 24x7x365 basis. Their strict no smoking policy extends to what is supposedly the employee's "personal time". If my employer is dictating what legal activities I may or may not engage in on my own time, then it is no longer my time.
I don't necessarily have a problem with this though. The minimum wage is $5.15. That's $41.20 for an eight hour day. At time and a half, the remaining sixteen hours of the day are worth another $123.60. That's a total for the day of $164.80.
No, we're not ready to buy the vacation home on that amount just yet. However, since there is no personal time, that pay is earned all seven days of the week. $1153.60. Getting better.
At $59,987.20 per year, minimum wage becomes very livable indeed.
Now, I do believe that Weyco has the right to impose their no smoking policy as a condition of employment for any employee hired after that policy is announced. It is inherently unacceptable to unilaterally change the rules in the middle of the game. For those already employed, the policy should have either been waived or an obscene severance package paid to those who were fired.
In lieu of a satisfactory severance package, Weyco should be sued out of existence by the fired employees. And the plaintiffs should prevail.
If this is permitted to proceed unchallenged, what else will my employer have the "right" to control in my private life? Diet? Sexual practices? Marital partner?
No thanks.
I don't necessarily have a problem with this though. The minimum wage is $5.15. That's $41.20 for an eight hour day. At time and a half, the remaining sixteen hours of the day are worth another $123.60. That's a total for the day of $164.80.
No, we're not ready to buy the vacation home on that amount just yet. However, since there is no personal time, that pay is earned all seven days of the week. $1153.60. Getting better.
At $59,987.20 per year, minimum wage becomes very livable indeed.
Now, I do believe that Weyco has the right to impose their no smoking policy as a condition of employment for any employee hired after that policy is announced. It is inherently unacceptable to unilaterally change the rules in the middle of the game. For those already employed, the policy should have either been waived or an obscene severance package paid to those who were fired.
In lieu of a satisfactory severance package, Weyco should be sued out of existence by the fired employees. And the plaintiffs should prevail.
If this is permitted to proceed unchallenged, what else will my employer have the "right" to control in my private life? Diet? Sexual practices? Marital partner?
No thanks.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Get A Freakin' Grip People!!!
What more can possibly be said than that?
The following story was posted on Friday, February 4:
______________________________________
DURANGO, Colo. (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts.
The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day.
Taylor Ostergaard, then 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitte, 18, paid the judgment on Thursday after a small claims court ruling by La Plata County Court Judge Doug Walker, a court clerk said on Friday.
The girls baked cookies as a surprise for several of their rural Colorado neighbors on July 31 and dropped off small batches on their porches, accompanied by red or pink paper hearts and the message: "Have a great night."
The Denver Post newspaper reported on Friday that the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing and drinking.
It reported that six neighbors wrote letters entered as evidence in the case thanking the girls for the cookies.
But Young said she was frightened because the two had knocked on her door at about 10:30 p.m. and run off after leaving the cookies.
She went to a hospital emergency room the next day, fearing that she had suffered a heart attack, court records said.
The judge awarded Young her medical costs, but did not award punitive damages. He said he did not think the girls had acted maliciously but that 10:30 was fairly late at night for them to be out.
The following story was posted on Friday, February 4:
______________________________________
DURANGO, Colo. (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts.
The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day.
Taylor Ostergaard, then 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitte, 18, paid the judgment on Thursday after a small claims court ruling by La Plata County Court Judge Doug Walker, a court clerk said on Friday.
The girls baked cookies as a surprise for several of their rural Colorado neighbors on July 31 and dropped off small batches on their porches, accompanied by red or pink paper hearts and the message: "Have a great night."
The Denver Post newspaper reported on Friday that the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing and drinking.
It reported that six neighbors wrote letters entered as evidence in the case thanking the girls for the cookies.
But Young said she was frightened because the two had knocked on her door at about 10:30 p.m. and run off after leaving the cookies.
She went to a hospital emergency room the next day, fearing that she had suffered a heart attack, court records said.
The judge awarded Young her medical costs, but did not award punitive damages. He said he did not think the girls had acted maliciously but that 10:30 was fairly late at night for them to be out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)