Category: Politics

Today, one of the local cinemas had a special on for Madagascar 3:  £1 tickets.  £1…can you believe it!  Well, we went because the kids have been good (even though Lydia has been sick, she was feeling better).  That, and we wanted to get out of the house. Anyway, I enjoyed myself and the kids sat through the entire thing!  However, there was a scene (it happened twice) combined with my current reading made me start wondering about something.  Is there a double-standard?  Do some people think they are “special” and should have things others shouldn’t?

First off, I want to say that I don’t think that.  Everyone should be able to work hard and able to get whatever they want.  Want bodyguards?  Make enough to pay for them and they are yours.  Want a vacation home in the mountains?  Make enough to buy it and you can have it.  Want a gun?  Go get one.  Want an SUV?  Go for it.  Want to use a term?  Go for it.  Want a freedom?  defend it when someone else uses it.  Want a sword?  Same thing.

I’ve blogged an example of this before:  Swords or guns?  The jist of that post was to point out how I thought the author had a double standard.  How he thinks about swords is how I think about guns (it is a drop-in replacement).  But, I expect he would think it ludicrous if someone were to talk about banning swords:  after all, he seems to be fairly responsible about it.  But guns? I imagine he would be right there calling for them to be banned.

Another example came from the film.  There was a scene–two actually–where they talk about an “Afro Circus” with everyone wearing huge ‘fro wigs (some even with picks stuck in them).  Here’s a link to one of them on YouTube:  Afro Circus.

Yet another example comes from the book Game of Thrones, Fire and Ice. Last night, while reading it, I came across the word niggardly.

Now, in all three of these cases, I don’t really care.  I don’t care that the first guy wants to have swords (and teach his kids about them).  I don’t care that DreamWorks included the Afro Circus reference in their film.  Nor do I care that the author of Game of Thrones used the word niggardly.  Those are their rights and well within them.  But….

Look at the outcry against guns at the moment in the US.  I don’t know for sure; however, I expect the author of the BoingBoing post is all for regulation of them; however, I’m sure he would rant about his swords going away.  Imagine if Ben Stien had used something like that in one of his anti-evolution videos.  Imagine the outcry if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity used the word niggardly to describe a cheap person?

Now, let me transition to something real:  liberals tell me that I have to accept their positions and roll over and accept things like gay marriage or abortion.  They tell me I have to be accommodating to them.  I have to allow their positions to be taught in schools.  If I don’t, I’m a homophobe racist horrible person.  Yet they will not then turn around and accept my position that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days apx 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.  I’m ridiculed for holding that position.  They will not accept me saying I think homosexuality is a sin–just like premarital sex or adultery–yet I am told I must accept their position.  Why do they not allow Tom Sawyer and Huck Fin in some libraries yet not about the Game of Thrones book?

I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  They want total acceptance from me yet they refuse to grant the same in reverse.  My question is:  does the source matter?  Do you think there is a double-standard?

[Update 2013-01-07 06:25:10] I have another much worse (or better?) example.  Check out this blog post.

[Update 2013-02-02 19:26:06] Here’s yet another example:  The Redbull Rampage.  I just watched a video on Netflix where it showed these guys digging out “lines” for them to ride their bikes down and hacking bushes down.  Do they just “know” better or “care more” than dirt bike riders, etc…?  Stinkin liberals think they are special…..

Image from catheadsix via flickr

First off, the Sandy Hook shooting was a horrible thing.  And it seems worse because the people shot were kids.

It was over a week ago, too.  I’ve been thinking about this since then and wanted to put pen to paper and write some things down.

First, I’ve written about things like this before.  After the VT Shooting, I wrote this where I said I thought the answer was to allow CCW permit holders to carry in more places.  After the shooting in Arizona, I wrote this.  After the shootings in Colorado, I wrote this.  Currently, in the US there are two ways to approach this (I also think these are the only two options):

1. Do something but not gun control
2. The approach of everyone else that includes some form of limiting guns, magazines, or something else

The non Gun Control approach begins with the position that people have an inalienable right to defend themselves.  To do that, they have to have access to weapons.  The solution therefore CANNOT include some form of limiting that right.

The second approach is favored by just about everyone here in the UK, most–if not all–the press in the US, Pres. Obama, and Sen. Feinstein. It does NOT start with the position that people have a right to defend themselves therefore it doesn’t matter if limits are placed on it.  Banning weapons is an “easy” place to start.  It may also include thoughts that guns are “bad” or “evil”.

Do you see the difference?  The starting point makes all the difference.  Just like the “right to free speech” in the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment simply recognizes a right that people have.  It doesn’t grant it.  The people in the first group want to solve the problem while not infringing on people’s rights (and remember, they have those rights simply because they are people…not because the government says so).  The second group sees the document as “granting” the rights.  If something (or someone) has granted a right then the right can be restricted.

I currently live in England.  England where you can’t own more than a .22 and you have to get permits out the wazoo to do that.  I don’t really care what people here think we should do.  I don’t care what the French think we should do, or the Germans, or the Chinese, or the Russians, or anyone else.  Can their media report on the problem?  Sure.  Why not?  But–wow–their bias shows through in the reporting.

Next, how do you think total gun bans happen.  It starts off with “reasonable” limits placed on things.  Then, in 10 or 20 years, more limits seem “reasonable” so they are put in place.  That is exactly how the UK ended up so its Olympic Pistol team can’t even practice here.  Heck, they had to pass a special law so the Olympic pistol events could be held here.

And finally, why does everyone think that criminals will respect the law?  The kid at Sandy Hook didn’t (it is already against the law to 1)murder and 2) have a gun on school grounds).  Criminals, by their very nature, break laws.  That is why they are criminals.  Could we make the society safe if 100% of the guns would go away?  Not really because then the criminals would use knives or baseball bats.  Are we going to outlaw them as well?  Where does it end?

Oh, just in case you needed help, I’m in the first group.  We MUST find a solution that does not infringe on people’s rights.  There have been enough of that already (The Patriot Act limiting free speech is a good example).  Just because someone has done it in the past doesn’t make it the right action.  And frankly, the US Federal Government has way way way overstepped its bounds.

[Update 2012-12-26 09:41:42] I updated some links that changed when I moved the website.

Image from paljoakim via flickr

…that these people win their fight.  I don’t think they will win; however, their actions should be covered under freedom of religion.  What am I talking about?  This article on the BBC where 4 christians are taking their cases to the EU version of the US Supreme Court.  In two of the cases, people were fired for wearing crosses to work and two were fired for not wanting to perform same-sex marriages.  Here is a summary from the article:

Nadia Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, who was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross
Devon-based nurse Shirley Chaplin, who was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons
Gary McFarlane, a Bristol relationship counsellor, who was sacked by Relate after saying on a training course he might have had a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples
Registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London

I, again, want to say that I think that what these people did should be allowed under freedom of religion.  I think they should win their cases and the employers should have to make “adequate” adjustments for that to happen.  But, I think they’ll loose.  Why?

Well, the cases have been lumped together by the court (they all applied separately) but they are totally different.  In the first two, Nadia and Shirley are trying to equate wearing a cross to the sikh turban or muslim hijab.  I think the court will see through this.  Why?  

Well, because in the other 2 religions–Sikh and Islam–the following of the rules is salvific (it brings about salvation…as defined by that religion).  The muslim MUST keep her “modesty” to be a good muslim and the sikh must also keep his hair covered while in public.  But, the Christian can point to no such requirement to wear a cross.  In fact, the Bible says that works–such as that–won’t bring about salvation.  I don’t have a good argument in favor of it, at the moment; however, wearing a cross should be allowed (except in certain jobs where jewelry in general is disallowed for safety…like welding).

The other two have a better case.  They can point to where the Bible identifies marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman.  They can show that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin (no different that adultery, murder, or lusting after a woman in your heart).  Their argument is one similar to what pharmacists should use in performing an act that they have a moral problem against.  If these cases were heard by themselves, they would probably win.  People should not be compeled to do things they have moral problems with.

I’m posting this to say that I hope they win.  Christians have rights that need to be protected just like anyone else’s.  I don’t have a great argument for one of them…perhaps someone will comment and I’ll get a better more firm argument through the discussion.

[Update 2012-09-06 06:21:58] Here is an article in the Telegraph that describes how the arguments went before the court yesterday.  All I have to say is …wow.  I can’t believe a government that makes so much of multiculturalism takes such anti-Christian positions and arguments.  Well….unfortunately, I can.

Image from john h wright photo via flickr

This year, 2012, is an election year in the US.  We elect the President/Vice President, all of the House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate.  There’s also loads of local and state elections.  That means everyone in the US is being bombarded with political ads trying to get people to vote for the “best” candidate.  I’ve thought about this whole process and have come to the conclusion that…..

What I would like to have candidates focus on more than what they will “do” is what they “think” and what their principles are.  What do I mean?  Well, instead of listening to candidate A say they will cut the budget deficit by 1/2 or candidate b say that they’ll extend unemployment benefits, I would rather have them tell me that they have lived their lives guided by the principle that one shouldn’t spend more than they take in.  Or say something like I believe life begins at conception.

Why do I think this is needed?  Well, everyone knows that politicians lie.  When people hear anyone say “I will do XXXX” they know it isn’t going to happen.  Why?  Firstly, whatever it is, it has to pass the congress.  What happens when it doesn’t?  How will this particular individual respond when their first plan doesn’t work?  What ideals and principles guide them behind that.

Image from mtsm from flickr

Now, I’m sure there is still room for laying out a broad “In my 4 years as President I will introduce a bill to XXXXX” or “If I’m elected to the House of Representatives I will write and introduce a bill to XXXX.”  But if they focus on guiding principles and explaining who they are, I think people would be better informed and able to make a good decision. 

…and since when should the First Lady have any influence on policy?  See this article in the Telegraph.  Now, certainly, a man’s wife has considerable influence over her husband…even world leaders…I’m not trying to nock that.  But do we really want her sitting in on meetings with the President?  I for one don’t think so.  Her job is wife and mother NOT playing government leader.

Image from ann althouse via flickr

Pres. Obama’s jobs bill didn’t pass the Senate.  Actually, it didn’t even come up for a vote.  But not because of Republicans.  Nope…in the house of government controlled by the Democrats (53D and 47R, currently) the bill only got 51 votes.  Looks like Pres. Obama needs to have the “pass this bill” speech with his own party.

Image from shay haas via flickr

…and say that everything in Washington is royally messed up.  You know all of these cuts they are talking about?  Well, they aren’t real cuts…they are simply cuts in the rate of increase.  ARG! Tonight, I wrote my Senators and Representative and urged them to vote NO on any debt ceiling bill that does not call for REAL cuts in the budget.  I urged them to support the Connie Mack Penny Plan.  1% real reduction in the federal budget!  1%.  1 penny on the dollar. In summary, here is what it does: Reducing overall spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years. Setting an overall spending cap of 18 percent of gross domestic product in 2018 The Penny Plan balances the budget byCutting total federal spending by one percent each year for six consecutive years If Congress and the President are unable to make the necessary cuts, the bill’s fail-safe triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to ensure the one percent reductions are achieved. Image from The Suss-Man via flickr

[Update 2013-01-09 07:10:07] I just noticed this is post 1776

One of the blogs I read fairly regularly is BoingBoing.  Usually, they have one neat post every other day or so.  Sure, they are liberal (boy that’s an understatement) but I find the trade-off worth it.  Last week, they made this post comparing the protests in Wisconsin to the protests in Egypt.  I let it slip by, but as the week went on, it nawed (knawed?) at me.  I’ve come to the conclusion that they are not the same thing and I’ll explain why.  However, I do think these protests are like other protests…I’ll also explain this.

First, let me say that I am assuming the protests in Egypt were to overthrow an oppressive government as reported by the media.  I know there are people who think otherwise, but the democratic revolution idea makes sense to me since Egypt didn’t let the people govern themselves.

Is the government of Wisconsin oppressive?  Does it need democratic reform?  I don’t think so.  Heck, they just had a free election in November.  From what I can tell, the protests in Wisconsin are against a bill submitted by the new governor there.  The teachers unions are upset that the bill would remove most areas covered by collective bargaining.  The governor is saying these cuts are necessary because his state doesn’t have money to continue this.  To me, it looks like the unions are wanting to keep getting their “fair share” (as defined by them).

It sounds like the protests in Wisconsin are more like the protests in Greece 2 years ago.  Or the student uni fee protests in London 2 months ago.  Similar protests also happened elsewhere in Europe last summer.  In these cases, the governments have had to make cuts because money simply doesn’t exist.

I think Greece (and the other PIIGs protests have finally come to the US)

So, what do you think?  Which is it?

Image attribution:
Top image from wxmom via flickr
Middle image from messay.com via flickr 
Bottom image from RobW via flickr 

First off, I’m not taking a stand on whether or not Mubaric should go with the picture on the right.  I was just looking for a graphic to represent the current situation in Egypt.  I do; however, think that people everywhere should be free to govern themselves.  Self-determination.

If you want to watch live coverage on what is going on but aren’t near a TV, the BBC is live streaming their coverage.

Image from sierragoddess via flickr

…the government doesn’t have the money!  Where’t it going to come from?  They could stand to cut the budget by 1/2 (keeping just the military and some other essentials.  They could get rid of worthless government programs like the Department of Education and Homeland Security).  And I’m talking about real cuts…not these cuts that are real increases but simply cuts to the proposed budget.

Image from curtis gregory perry via flickr