Grains of Sand

Hello friends,

I've received the impression lately that many think me an extremist for voicing my views so adamantly.  The vehemence you hear in my voice is fear.  I'm scared.

My fiance and I entered a discussion tonight that began with the powers of public school administrators and ended with the way citizens are treated each time they step into a courthouse, regardless of guilt.  He likened the little, bureaucratic chips that have been taken from our rights as free Americans to grains of sand.  I'm afraid of being buried under the sand.

The government would not dare stand up to its citizenry and openly say, "We are going to make it legal for the states to issue you citations that you cannot fight in any court.  You will pay these citations or you will go to jail."  However, it exists in the form of red-light camera tickets, and the people who receive them every day pay them without a second thought.  *chip*

We have become careless with our rights, people.  It's not a malicious plot by some cartoon villain, cackling as he twists the ends of his mustache and plots the oppression of the American people.  It happens in many ways every day- bureaucrats trying to make their lives easier or people who justify whittling away rights "for the greater good".

The red light tickets are an example of a bureaucrat creating a highly efficient ticketing system.  It says on the ticket that it is not fightable in any court, and I wish you luck trying to fight it.  Even if it was clear from the picture that the camera malfunctioned or that it was not your car, you would have to fight it through at least two levels of civil court just to begin to see a change.  That would likely lead to the correction of your ticket, but not to the amendment of the system to restore the people's rights. 

It should be a ticket just like any other, only the evidence is your summons.  It's difficult to stand in front of a judge and say, "Yes, that's my car, and yes, the picture clearly shows me running the red light, but I'm going to plead 'not guilty' anyway."  If you have a defense for this, knock yourself out.  The Constitution guarantees your right to due process, which includes a trial by a jury of your peers.  In most states, if a police officer were to pull you over for speeding or running a red light only to discover you were rushing a bleeding pregnant woman to the hospital, he would not only forego the ticket but offer you an escort.  If this was the case, only instead of a cop it was a camera, you should be able to plead this case in front of a judge and jury.  As it stands, though, you do not have that option.  *chip*

The government would never come out and say, "We are no longer required to obtain your consent to perform medical treatments on your children.  We may treat them for mental illnesses at our discretion, and such treatment will be part of their record."  Yet this happens every day.

My future step-son is a genius (literally), and his mind allows him to discuss topics academically that many would consider highly emotional.  One day he was discussing suicide on the school bus; he was 6 years old.  The bus driver notified the school, who then scheduled a psychiatric evaluation for Sebi.  The bus driver mentioned it to Rob's ex-wife, and Rob went to the school to stop it.  They informed him that they did not have to notify the parents to perform any type of evaluation, physical examination or treatment during school hours.  This is justified by playing on our desire to stop abuse.  I don't mean that to sound malicious, but it's as if there could be nothing in this world worse than an abused kid.  It's terrible and heartbreaking, and we should all keep our eyes open to stop it, but that does not mean there's nothing worse.  An innocent boy who has never been harmed by his parents and who has no desire to kill himself does not deserve to be interrogated for hours, stripped and examined physically, and possibly treated for depression without any advocates.  Yes, some abuse cases are caught this way, but how many parents find out their kid has been in therapy because they come home with a new prescription?  What gives the schools the right to act as judge, jury and executioner?  *chip*

There are little things that add up everywhere.  When did we forget that people paid by tax money are public servants, not supreme authority figures?  At what point did we decide to accept a complete lack of respect for our positions as citizens?  Why are people who go to court automatically treated as criminals, even if they are there for civil proceedings?

In the courtrooms now, they even take away your biological rights!  You may not go to the restroom or you will have to reschedule your hearing.  You may not read.  You may not eat.  You may not do anything but stare straight ahead and wait your turn. You may not even stand in the back of the room but instead must be seated within 3 inches of the person before and after you.  You may only leave with the permission of the court. *chip*

I am afraid.  This country changed somewhere in the last century.  We decided that we do not value the rights granted us by The Constitution.  We decided we'd rather try to wipe out poverty or have an efficient process than preserve our rights.  We decided that convenience is more important that freedom, that safety is more important than liberty.  *chip*

Please start paying attention.  Please start screaming at the top of your voice that you are outraged, indignant, and terrified!  Please start telling your friends and your family about the days when this truly was the land of the free.  Please don't let me be a lone voice in a loud market.

Until tomorrow,
MK

Amendment # 2: Protection From Tyrrany

Hello friends,

I write today in hopes of clearing some confusion regarding our second amendment rights. Many believe this is an outdated portion of our Constitution, a throw-back to a lawless time when it was every man for himself. I would like an opportunity to set the record straight.

First, let's start by quoting the famous document that so many of us hold dear to our hearts. The second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please note that this begins by establishing that a militia, or armed populace, is necessary to the security of a free state. This is my very point. The right to bear arms is not a matter of pride or a leftover from a bygone era; it is a means to ensure the government does not over-step its bounds and enslave an unarmed populace as well as giving the people the right and ability to defend themselves against foreign tyranny.

It is my personal belief that every household in America should have a gun in it, and that the residents of those homes should be trained to use their firearms. There are many things to be gained from arming the public.

First, the crime rate was actually lower when criminals were reasonably sure their opponents were armed. At one point in time, nearly every man and woman on the streets was carrying at least one weapon. People were politer in those days. The connection is not a coincidence. If the vast majority of the populace is armed, well, the chances of a successful mugging go down a bit, don't they?

People used to sit at home with their doors unlocked. Why did that change? These days, particularly if you live in certain places where gun ownership is severely restricted, criminals know that very few people are well-armed, even at home. Once upon a time, people sat as families in the main room of the house. In that room, there were likely to be several guns, and Pa was likely to have at least one on his person. People didn't live in fear of what would happen if someone entered their home; forced entry just meant the door was busted up before the invader was shot. I personally don't worry much about home invasion. Aside from the protection of my two dogs, I am rarely more than 10 feet from a pistol or revolver when at home. I feel sorry for the invader of my space who does not sit quietly and wait for the police once he realizes how heavily armed I am. By the by, have you ever heard of a glaser round? The gun doesn't have to be large to do real damage.

Disarming the populace makes it easier for criminals to do their jobs, and it makes the population wholly reliant on the government for its security. This should not be so! If Bin Laden rallied troops and marched on North Carolina, there is at least one home he would have difficulty taking: mine. He would also have difficulty taking the land of any farmer with a shotgun. If we know he's coming, everyone with a gun could meet him on the docks or wherever else he chose to make his entrance. The point being, folks, that the military does not have a patent on some miracle drug that makes a person capable of wielding a weapon! Step up to the plate for your own safety.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of gun safety. The most frequent arguments I hear against owning guns are accidental firings and your gun falling into the wrong hands. First, a gun is a tool. Cars don't kill people; people driving cars kill people. Your car is a far more dangerous weapon than your gun, yet you don't worry about it accidentally going off in the garage. That's because it requires keys and someone pressing the brake in order to start. But wait- many cars today have remote start options, so that's not even true anymore. So why do you not worry about the 6,000 pound vehicle capable of doing over 100 miles per hour and loaded with highly combustible liquid? It's sitting in your garage, just waiting for the right conditions...

You don't worry about it because it's always there. It is a tool that helps you go from point A to point B with air conditioning and a lemonade in the cup holder. The kids know the car is not a toy; you've taught them that. They don't get to play with mommy's keys; you've taught them that. You make sure the parking brake is on or that the keys are out of reach before settling in for the night. This is all just part of the daily routine.

Yet people worry that a gun sitting in a drawer will somehow go off the moment a 3-year-old walks within 5 feet. If you're familiar with guns and how they work, you know this is untrue. For those unfamiliar, I'll digress long enough to go through some basic points about gun safety. First, if the gun uses a clip, then someone must rack the slide before it will fire. I can tell you from experience that this takes far more strength than a small child possesses, even on a small-caliber weapon. Second, if the safety is on, the gun will not fire. Guns come with many different safety mechanisms. Some just have a single switch; some (like my Bersa) have a key lock, a safety switch, and a clip lock, meaning the gun won't fire without the clip, even with a round chambered. Some guns, such as my JA .22, come with a trigger lock; mine came with one that covers the entire trigger area and is difficult to disable. If you're worried, use the safeties. In our house, we don't have children and want our weapons to be ready when needed. When children stay with us, the first safety we use is height. Guns on top of bookcases and such are much harder to reach, especially when you're only 3' tall. Finally, guns without bullets are harmless. If you have small children who can get into the guns, make sure they can't get into the ammo.

More important than all of this, though, is to know how to use the weapon. If you learn about guns and you teach your children how to handle them respectfully, you have introduced an extremely helpful tool into the household. I fully intend for my children, as teenagers, to be able to defend their home, even as I pray they will never have to do so.

Why this rant? Why do I carry on so about guns and their usefulness? An armed public is a scary thing to a government. It is then a public who can stand up to the armies of the institution and say, "NO! We will not allow this!" It is a public who does not rely on the police and military to defend it, which often cannot arrive in time to avoid real harm. Ask the old man whom my fiancé saved from losing his car and possibly his life by interrupting a car-jacking. The police took several minutes to arrive, but because the event took place in front of my concealed-carrying sweetheart, he was able to stop the thief before he could beat up the elderly driver and take the car (without firing a single shot, I might add).
A well-armed public can defend itself against threats, both foreign and domestic, as our forefathers intended. We hold the keys to our own security, and we should no longer rely on the government to protect us. If we do, we are trusting that we will never need protection from our government, which history teaches us is naive.
Until tomorrow,
MK

Let's Have a "Bye-Partisan" Party

Hello friends,

I write tonight with an unorthodox notion: let's throw out our parties.  I don't want to get rid of the bi-party system; I just want to make sure we have the right two parties in power.

Here's my suggestion: we hold a run-off where every party that wishes to participate, regardless of the current number of supporters, can.  We put up a website where each party gets a page to display its values, goals, leader biographies, and other relevant information.

During the initial period, citizens can vote for the parties they would most like to see in power based on the descriptions online.  There should be zero campaigning on television, radio, etc, during this time so that each of the parties has the same opportunity to garner the public's attention through the website.  At the end of this initial period, the top ten parties would continue to round two.

During round two, citizens would submit questions online, to which the parties would respond.  This would probably be done in forum style.  The party leaders would participate in public debates, similar to those held during the presidential elections.  To ensure fairness, each leader's transportation and accomodation for the debates would be purchased by a non-partisan group using tax dollars.  These don't need to be expensive; I'm not suggesting we fly them in private jets and put them in the best suites at five star hotels.  Again, there should be ZERO campaigning on television and radio.

In the final phase, America would choose its new leadership.  Each citizen of legal age votes for the party they most wish to see in power; the top two win.  It's that simple.  No electoral college.  No delegates or super-delegates.  No campaigning.  To put it simply, we put the power to choose the government back in the hands of the people.

Once the parties have been chosen, the American government processes would go back into effect.  The parties would put forth their candidates for elected seats, and the public would vote.  We can only hope for new laws governing campaign finance and such between now and then, but that's a separate topic.

To ensure that we don't face the same issues of power corruption and dissociation in a hundred years, we would repeat this process every fifty years.  Fifty years is plenty of time to accomplish major goals, and our society tends to change dramatically in its needs and values in that time.  Doing this too often could be expensive, but there should also be a process in place for the public to force a "special election" or recall, as it were.

This is the central issue we now face.  In order for a new party to gain a place on our ballots, it has to receive a certain percentage of the vote.  However, most people feel voting for a new party is a waste of their vote as only a Republican or Democrat has much chance to win.  We don't have a practical mechanism for throwing out the parties, even though studies have shown that most Americans fully relate with neither party.

This is the best plan I can see, though I'm certainly open to other ideas and suggestions for modification.  I often wish I weren't a small voice in a large, noisy arena.  I would love to see this plan in action, though I have little hope that anyone powerful enough to implement it will risk ceding their power in this way.  I guess this all makes me an idealist, but I've been called worse.

Until tomorrow,
MK

Socialism as Philanthropy

Hello friends,

I recently found myself in a conversation where one of the participants threw out an interesting concept I hadn't previously considered: socialism as philanthropy.  He said that he believes we have a large portion of wealthy, 'liberal-minded' individuals whose idea of charity work is to vote for laws to "end poverty".  I put "end poverty" in quotes because I don't believe it's possible, but that's a discussion for later.

As he expounded on his theory, I listened in wonderment.  I imagined wealthy Senators saying to themselves at night that they didn't need to volunteer at a soup kitchen or donate their money to the local free clinic because they had voted today for universal healthcare.  I could picture in my head all the good it would do if these wealthy individuals gave a fraction of what they say middle America should give, and I remembered that their vote not only states what they believe we should give, but it makes it law through allocating our tax dollars to these causes.  It also forces us to give more as we raise taxes to cover these programs.

I would like to see us go back a century or two.  At one point in time, we remembered that philanthropy was a private act.  Bill Gates, our modern Rockefeller, does more good with his money each year than the entirety of our tax dollars can manage.  Just like John D. Rockefeller, a single wealthy person who gives to charities can accomplish far more than bureaucracies.  There's a reason we name hospital wings and city plazas after these great people; they directly improve the lives of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people.

Government is not a charity organization.  It is there to serve two purposes: wage war and protect the macro-economy.  The first of these is self-explanatory; the second refers to regulating business by just enough to keep any one company from overtaking the country through monopolies or to stop unfair trade practices across state lines, and to the workings of the Treasury to produce a widely accepted legal tender.

The role of government is not to "end poverty", protect us from ourselves, nor regulate what we do in our homes.

As a linguist and writer, I oppose the dreaded SSP (Single Sentence Paragraph).  However, the sentence is important enough to warrant it and to warrant repeating.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO END POVERTY, PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES, NOR REGULATE WHAT WE DO IN OUR HOMES.


As support for this statement, I'll drag up that tired, old document, The Constitution.  This is at the heart of America, and NOWHERE does it say that we have an inalienable right to see a doctor.  Doctors are trained professionals for hire.  What's next: universal plumbing? 

Think about it.  Sewage leaks spread disease and cost Americans millions of dollars each year.  If you cannot bathe because you don't have running water, you are far more likely to contract any number of infections, and it leads to social disability when your stinky self must interact with polite society.  Should we socialize this industry too?  We're already well on our way to socializing both the auto and banking industries.

Let's start accepting that life and the world are not fair, that not everyone gets nor wants the same things.  If you want to feel better about yourself when you go to bed, do something productive with your day.  Feed a homeless person; give a few bucks to your local free clinic.  Voting for a government-regulated medical system isn't philanthropy; it's forcing others to give their hard-earned dollars to your charity of choice.

Until tomorrow,
MK

A Defense of Second-Class Citizens

My fellow Americans,

In honor of the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, I am writing an extra post this week to talk about civil liberties.  The revered reverend spent the mid-twentieth century fighting for the civil rights of his brethren.  Many at the time thought it was fine to have 'separate but equal' institutions.  Many thought it was progress that we allowed African Americans to be "free", even though segregation and racism abounded.  I am grateful every day that many more fought for true equality, that we stood up as a nation and said, "this is not acceptable."

Today, we face a different prejudice: homophobia.  I'm glad that I'm not writing about how my fellow citizens face heavy discrimination based on race.  Yes, racism is still an issue, but the major battles have been won.  Prejudice in education, housing and marriage are minimal.  The things that make a person whole are generally not kept to 'whites only', as many signs used to read.

Today, we deal with a large group of American citizens who are denied basic human rights: marriage and family.  No, people are not denied entry into colleges nor restaurants because they are gay.  However, they're denied entry into that most basic of institutions: wedded bliss.

"Civil unions" are an insult.  They are not equal, anymore than "black schools" were equal to "white schools" in the 1960's.  Most government and private institutions don't recognize civil unions.  A civil union doesn't make two people next of kin to each other.  Why is this a big deal?  Imagine if your spouse was in a car accident, and you couldn't see them because you weren't their legal next of kin.  Imagine if you didn't automatically have medical power of attorney or if you had to jump through major legal hoops, drawing up contracts, to make sure your spouse could continue to live in their house upon your death.

In addition, most states will not allow a homosexual person to adopt a child.  Now, I have issues with adoption laws as they're written anyway, but let's look at this closely as it relates to gay couples.  First, many gay couples currently have to accept that they must move to complete their family.  This is particularly true for male couples, as female couples can at least undergo artificial insemination.  In states that don't allow homosexuals to adopt, though, the children only have one legal parent, even though two people are raising them.  That means that grandparents and others can step in if the worst happens and the "legal parent" of the child dies.  There was a famous case many years ago that was the basis for the TV movie "What Makes A Family", starring Brooke Shields.

In my opinion, denying a group of people the right to marry the person they love is denying them their civil liberties.  Denying people the right to adopt and raise children is denying them their civil liberties.

This is a heated issue, and many people feel very strongly one way or another.  I'm vehemently pro-gay rights, so I would like to ask those opposed to answer the following questions.  For those who say that being gay is a choice: at what age did you decide to be heterosexual?  For those who say civil unions are a fine substitute for marriage: what if homosexuals could marry, but heterosexuals had to make do with civil unions?  For those who don't think homosexuals should raise children: what if the majority were gay, and heterosexuals weren't allowed to raise the children they created?  Finally, for those who think it's inappropriate for me to consider this a civil rights issue: are you saying it's ok to deny some groups their rights, as long as it's not your group?

Even if you consider this a 'moral' issue, the governments job is not to determine morality, but to enforce the contracts into which we enter as free citizens.  Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force the churches to perform the ceremonies; churches today can deny marriage to whomever they choose, regardless of sexuality.  Many would consider it immoral for two complete strangers to marry, and yet they legally can enter into the contract and obtain all the rights, priveleges and penalties that go with it.

I've heard the argument that legalization would diminish the sanctity of marriage between men and women.  Seriously?  In a country with an astonishingly high divorce rate, where we give away husbands on television and mock the marriage process with shows like "Bridezilla", they're concerned that allowing gay couples to marry will diminish the institution?  I'm sorry, but I've known some incredibly devoted, loving gay couples who I believe would make great role models for some of the carelessly married hetero couples.

Please, folks, let's support the fight in the courts to legalize gay marriage.  Let's make sure that we extend the rights and liberties to all our fellow citizens.  None of us is truly free until all of us are free.

Until tomorrow,
MK

Socialized Healthcare: Is It Really What We Want?

Hello friends,

I come today with a question raised by a recent news article: if the debate over socialized medicine is so heated, and the congressional votes are so tight, is it really what we want?

The question arose over President Obama's involvement in the Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown (R) and Martha Coakley (D).  It appears the President is concerned that the seat might go to Brown, who has said he will vote against the healthcare bill.  This would deny its supporters the 60th vote necessary to push the bill through the system.

I agree with the question this raises, though: if the voting is this tight, shouldn't we take it as a sign that we (the people) are not really behind this bill?  I would much rather see us continue to debate the issue until we come up with a plan that we can support rather than push through something we don't want just because we're tired of the argument and can get the votes.

Even though I vehemently oppose socialism, if you could show  me that the majority of the population were behind this bill, I'd say, "Go get 'em, Coakley."  Setting aside for a moment that most people don't even understand the legislation, those who do and have an opinion are not rallying in support of it.  I refer not only to republicans, but to members of all parties, including Libertarian and those unaffiliated with any political group.

At what point do we say we shouldn't do something and insist our Senate reconsider, even if they can get the votes, because the people are not really behind it?  I leave you to think on that, my friends.

Wishing you a peaceful Sunday,
MK

Wow, what a week

Boy, getting this rolling is much harder than you'd think.  Tonight I'm doing a "filler" post.  First, my sincere apologies for the distinct lack of posts this week.  I've had the good fortune to receive an interview for gainful employment.  Between preparing for that, getting a flu shot and being ill, I haven't spent much time on the computer since Tuesday evening.  Nevertheless, here I sit at 2am, trying to post something slightly entertaining or informative for Thursday.

Perhaps we'll go for entertaining tonight, digressing completely from politics and government.  I have a house full of pets; there are seven, if you count the fish as a collective pet.  A couple days ago, my fiance came home to discover one of our parrots chasing a dog around the livingroom, a la Pepe le Pew.  The dog would run to the couch, and the bird would walk or fly to him.  He would then leap from the couch to slide under the coffee table, only to have Violet (the parrot) flutter down next to his head.

When the animals realized my fiance had come into the house, Suka (the two-year-old husky) started bouncing up and down, wanting to greet his "dad" with a toy and collect his pettings.  Unfortunately for Suka, the 2 pound bird with the sharp beak was standing in the way, looking very proud of herself.  My honey had to collect the bird before the 50 pound dog felt safe enough to relax.  A brief inspection of the dog revealed no wounds.

Since this incident, the bird has spent an inordinant amount of time preening and generally fluffing herself, and the dog lays in the floor with a beaten look that says, "I got my butt kicked by a 2 pound chick."  I think we should all take a moment of silence in honor of his fallen dignity.

...

I'll try to make up the missed post tomorrow, but it might fall to later in the weekend if I continue to be ill.  I hope you understand, and please take heart: I made a list of topics for the coming weeks.  I hope to provide stimulating topics for discussion and the occassional fun antidote.

For now, I say goodnight.
-MK

Rawr?

'Cougars,' 'cubs' unwelcome on Carnival cruises :: WRAL.com

Hello friends,

First, I've decided to cut the blog down to three days a week (Tuesday through Thursday) for a little while. I'm working on two major projects right now (finding a job and starting a small business), and I've found that my Mondays and Fridays tend to be overwhelmed by related tasks. Once life settles down a bit, I'll be happy to expand this back to five days a week if my readers are interested. I'm sorry for not mentioning it last week, before my little disappearance.

Now on with the show! I'm sharing a link to an article about how the Carnival Cruise Line will no longer welcome parties with a "cougar" theme. In case you've somehow missed it, the terms 'cougars' and 'cubs' refer to women who date younger men and young gents who date older women. A notable example is Courtney Cox-Arquette and David Arquette.

I'm sharing the article because it caught my interest as a business actively choosing the atmosphere it offers its clients. They're not saying they won't allow older single women or younger single men to book trips on the cruises; they're just saying they won't let travel organizations book parties specifically targeting cougar life to their liners. As mentioned in the article, a party booked last month drew approximately 300 guests; I imagine this would be a noticeable group aboard the ship.

Over the next few months, I imagine people will come out of the woodwork either praising Carnival's family values or decrying their closed-mindedness. I will do neither here; my personal opinion is that they can do what they want with their business. Whether you agree with the policy or not, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, Carnival offers a luxury product, not a necessity. Second, they by no means have a monopoly. Third, they are a "private" business; the stock is publicly traded, but they are not a government organization.

My point, dear readers, is that this is an example of the wonderful variety available in a capitalist society. If you want a family-oriented cruise, Carnival may be the way to go. If you want something a bit more exotic, you might want to check out their competitors; the article names two such companies. If the Carnival shareholders decide they don't like this new policy, they can vote to change it. If the public decides this is a big enough issue to be worth mass boycotting, we'll see it reflected in the stock price.

Perhaps there will be more to come on this as the spring cruise season progresses. In any case, I just wanted to share an example of a business exercising its right to decide for itself what it will and will not allow on its premises. If only we could make the NC General Assembly see the beauty of this idea...

Until tomorrow,
MK

No Fly Zone

Perhaps it's my overdeveloped sense of privacy.  Perhaps it's my sense of modesty.  Perhaps it's that I believe in personally assessing risks and personally taking responsibility for those risks.  Perhaps it's simply that I never wish to see a day when my body must be publicly violated (again) just to get on an airplane.  I don't like the new security standards, and I'll unhappily demand a refund for any ticket that requires me to be patted down, stripped or searched for weaponry before boarding.

Yes, flying is the most practical way to travel in many cases, but to go to extremes to make us "safe" on a plane is ridiculous.  What we're doing is creating a false sense of security, much like a gated community feels safer though it's really a bit more vulnerable than your standard neighborhood.  Afterall, no one questions you once you've made it past the gate.  Similarly, if you can make it past security at the airport, the assumption is that you belong and are unarmed.

Personally, I'll take my chances.  No, I don't want to take down the security stations and just let people walk onto planes carrying guns, knives and bombs.  I'm all for metal detectors, sniffers (similar to metal detector arches, but it "sniffs" for chemical particles in the air) and X-ray machines.  None of these devices are intrusive; none of them require physical contact with my body.

The current talk of requiring pat-downs and strip searches scares the wits out of me, though.  Short of cavity searches, you can never guarantee safety on a plane.  Even then, if you know what you're doing, you can get around it.  I won't describe how as I don't ever wish to be accused of giving the enemy ideas.  Nonetheless, I can think of two ways off the top of my head to get around even the most stringent of security measures.

That said, my opinion is that increasing airport security to a level that routinely requires physical contact with passengers' bodies does little more than routinely humiliate the citizenry.  Let's stick with the scanning technology that we have and work to develop better scanning devices.  Let's put our efforts into security measures that have a chance of stopping attacks WITHOUT violating the average passenger's body.

For my money, I'd rather get on a plane that has no security in place than one that requires a stranger to touch me intimately in public.  I realize I may be in the minority on this one, and I accept that.  I hope you will think, though: if you really wanted to get something taboo on a plane, could you think of at least one way to make it happen?  Don't worry about how extreme your method of breaking the rules would have to be; the terrorists aren't worried about extreme.

Happy flying,
MK

Tattoos and Taboos

I find it a bit bemusing that a couple was arrested for tattooing their kids in Georgia, and I think this is an odd sort of case worthy of a day's discussion. Here are the basic facts as I understand them from the news:

 

• The kids are aged 10-17.
• Each of the kids who were inked requested the tattoo.
• The youngest child in the house was not tattooed.
• At least two of the kids are not biologically theirs (meaning biologically the progeny of both tattooists; the biological mother of two of the children noticed the tattoos and reported the couple to the authorities).
• The parents used a homemade tattooing gun (with a guitar string needle).
• Neither mom nor dad is licensed to do ink.
• Tattooing a minor is illegal in Georgia; the articles didn't say whether or not a licensed shop can perform a tat on a minor with parental consent, so for the purposes of this blog, we'll assume the answer is no.
• The charges against the parents are primarily related to the illegal tattooing of minors and tattooing performed by an unlicensed person.

 

I'm not debating the arrests as improper; an unlicensed person giving tattoos in an unsterile environment using make-shift equipment is dangerous. These people are lucky the kids have not developed infections, and I sincerely hope none of them have any kind of blood-borne disease that would show up later. To me, this is reckless. If they wanted to tattoo the kids, they should have taken them somewhere that allows underage tattoos with parental consent so it could be done in a hygienic environment by a licensed artist.

The debate arose the other night, though, over whether or not parents should be allowed to tattoo their kids in the first place. My personal belief is that yes, in general, you should be allowed to tattoo your kids in a safe way. As I quipped Monday over burgers, you should be able to stamp a barcode on that baby's foot the minute it’s born. I won't recite the debate, but I'm curious to see the reactions. People view children very differently in different cultures, and I have the feeling I view them differently than many of my peers.

I tend to take a longer view of child-rearing than most Gen-Xers and later. I don't believe the hype that a parent can't or shouldn't ever strike his child. I disagree that we should shelter them from the whole world, stopping them from making their own mistakes. Sure, it's natural to feel guilt after hitting the child or to feel pain when they hurt because they couldn't see the bad consequences coming. It's natural to want to protect them, even from themselves and the painful parts of growing up.

We extend childhood into college now, and people aren't seen as "ready" or "capable" of much until after graduation. We view all forms of corporal punishment as abuse. We think that, if a child cries, we must go to great lengths to make sure it never feels this pain again. Sometimes, though, the child should be crying. Sometimes feeling the sting of a spanking is how a kid learns that kicking his dad in the shins isn't the best idea. Sometimes the guilt over hurting someone else with thoughtless words is what teaches a child to watch her tongue.

Not too long ago, though, our society recognized that we start becoming adults much earlier; I believe it happens right around age 14. No, you're not even close to perfect, and no, you don't really know everything you think you know. You are capable of deeper relationships, though, and of following dreams and ambitions. You can learn very sophisticated skills at this point. You're both physically and mentally about as developed as you're going to be at that point; the rest is just a matter of experience. We never stop growing, but we do reach a point at which we have to acknowledge our own abilities. As parents, people need to recognize when their children are capable of making decisions for themselves.

In undeveloped societies, children are viewed as assets, not liabilities. It is only when a family has enough money to not need the children for labor that they can afford to educate and release their children. We are extremely privileged and have forgotten that children are a renewable resource.

Yes, they are precious, our future, unique, special, and every other trite way of saying they make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We should absolutely invest in education and do what we can to make the lives of children better. We should step in to protect them when they have the misfortune to be born to parents who truly abuse them, doing permanent physical damage with malice or insanity. We must remember, though, that they are the property of their parents until they decide to live for themselves.

Now, let's be clear that I'm arguing two sides to this. This is a legal and ethical issue. On the legal side, I don't think the state of Georgia should have a minimum tattooing age with parental consent. I state this especially in light of today's tattoo removal technology, which has come down considerably in price and improved vastly in technique. My understanding is that it can be removed for roughly what it cost and with little or no scarring. On the ethical side, I wouldn't agree to sign for my kid's tattoo until they show me they are mature enough to make adult decisions. No one knows a child better than a loving parent, and it should be up to the family to decide when the time is right.

 

That's my rant for today. I hope, at the least, I've given you something to consider in the wee hours of insomnia.

 

Until tomorrow,
MK

Celebrate the Diversity

Hello friends,

Today I'd like to offer a little food for thought.  A friend recently shared with me his belief that a capitalist society celebrates diversity whereas a socialist one creates uniformity.  I spent the past few days thinking about this statement, and I've come up with the following.

In a capitalist society, anyone can make money if they have an unusual, useful talent.  I don't mean to say that any unusual talent will do; I haven't found anyone yet willing to pay me for my double-jointed thumbs.  I also don't mean to imply that a talent has to be extremely rare, though the rarer it is the more of a premium one can charge.

In a socialist society, the government provides everyone with the same standards of education, health care, etc, regardless of their employment status, talents, personality traits, etc.  Many such countries have flat tax rates, which are often extremely high to pay for the aforementioned government services.  I'm not positive of the current situation, but when I was in Vienna in 2003, the Austrian tax rate was over 70% (for everyone).  In addition, the governments often set strict 'working hours', designating evenings and such as family time.  Try shopping in most of Europe on a Sunday; you won't buy much.

Logically, then, someone with special talents can aquire far more wealth in a capitalist economy than in a socialist one.  But how does this relate to diversity versus uniformity?  I prefer to answer the question with a question.  If you have a choice between (a) studying for many years, practicing to be the best, toiling through the nights to pass exams or auditions, and (b) going through a month or a year of training to learn a common trade, which factor will be most influential in your decision?

For me, the greatest factor will be the rewards of the efforts.  If my work will be rewarded in nearly the same manner either way, I will take the easier path.  I don't live for recognition and accolades, though I certainly enjoy them when I've worked hard and deserve them.  Mostly, I enjoy that they usually come with some sort of fiscal compensation, such as a pay raise or a bonus.  Sometimes they come with additional paid time off, which is always nice.

I have yet to discover some special talent within myself that will put me at the top of a field, so I must accept that I will likely never make the kind of money that would move me into the "ultra rich" category.  Without earning that level of income, there are few differences in my quality of life once the basics are covered by the government.  Why, then, would I spend my time and energy to differentiate myself to my peers or employer?

While I recognize that there is a difference in keeping 30% of $100,000 and 30% of $50,000, you have to look at the overall difference in quality of life.  In a capitalist society, we suffer the consequences of our choices.  Theoretically, we each try to make the best choices we can so we can lead the best life available to us.  Some people will never try, no matter what carrot you dangle in front of them, and that is their choice; the consequences should be theirs, too.    In a socialist society, we only suffer some of the consequences of our choices.  If you don't work as hard or your job doesn't pay as much, then you have less money to spend on certain things.  Your overall quality of life, though, isn't much different than the guy who busts his tail all day or the lady who can do a job only 5% of the entire world's population can even understand.

In short, I agree with my friend.  It is always easier to do something that has been done a thousand times before, so if the incentive to differentiate is reduced, people will naturally take the path of least resistance toward conformity.  In my opinion, that is a great loss for this old world.  It is the unique potential of each human that makes us a special species.  Each person holds within himself the seed of greatness, but without the proper encouragement, it will never grow.  Water your seeds, friends, and put them under the light.  You might find you have a special talent, and then you might find someone willing to pay you for it.  Ask yourself this: would you tell them you'll only take 30% of what they offer?

Until tomorrow,
MK

No Smoking- Screw Your Property Rights

Welcome back from the holidays, fair readers.  We're in the first full week of 2010, and the year holds many great promises for the optimists among us.  It also holds many scary possibilities and the potential for a whole new set of violations to our civil liberties.  This brings me to today's topic.

As of this past weekend, NC law prohibits smoking in restaurants and other "public" places.  Why do I put public in quotes?  The law isn't addressing public buildings, such as government entities where tax money pays for maintenance and the services provided therein.  This law bans smoking in privately owned and operated facilities.  In my humble opinion, this is obtrusive and anti-American legislation.

Today I feel more like a ranter than a writer.  No, I'm not a smoker, before I get a barrage of comments saying that a non-smoker wouldn't care about the ban or that it won't kill the smokers to go outside, etc.  I am concerned about the rights of neither the smokers nor the non-smokers, which are irrelevant here. This post is about the rights of the property owners and their lessees, which this law thoroughly tramples.

At what point do we draw the line on dictating what people can and cannot do on their own property?  Are we going to follow in the footsteps of New York, which is now legislating the types of fat you're allowed to consume in the state?  Why don't we go as far as California in one step, instead of piece-meal banning smoking?  The anti-smoking laws on the 'left coast' are so prohibitive that I've heard people jest you're only allowed to smoke in your own house with the windows shut while hiding under the bed and provided no one under the age of 25 is within 100 yards of the property.  People there accost smokers on the street, threatening to call over a cop for "smoking in public".  I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting lung cancer from second-hand smoke inhaled while walking outdoors.  I digress, though.

The new NC law is an atrocity that dictates what property owners can do on their own premises, regardless of their rights or the public safety.  I disagree with the proponents that second-hand smoke is the greater threat here; I don't believe anything is worse than legislating against the rights of individuals for "the greater good".  This law does not affect any buildings that are required for the citizenry.  I have no issue with the ban on smoking inside public buildings such as court houses; an individual may have no choice but to visit these places and should not be subject to smoke while conducting business there.

When it comes to restaurants, though, it should be at the owners' discretion as to what they allow.  Very few places lacked a non-smoking section, and many had already switched to being completely smoke-free before the law was in the works (e.g. Red Robin).  If you're allergic to smoke, eat at places that don't allow it or that manage the smoke well.  If you don't like smoke, do the same.  Vote with your dollars; don't patronize places that allow smoking if you're vehemently opposed to it.

People do not have a 'right' to eat wherever they want smoke-free; this is a privelege granted by the new law at the expense of others.  The property owners have a right to decide what they will and will not allow on their own premises.  The rest of us have a right to analyze the circumstances and decide where to eat based on our own preferences.  Like the food but not the smoke?  Two words: take out.

The new smoking ban is just one more example of big government coming to save us from ourselves.  I have a message for you, NC legislators and Governor Perdue- I'm a big girl, and I can decide for myself whether or not to eat, drink or work at the smoky bar.  I thank you for your concern, but you can rest easy that I won't sue the state if I get lung cancer.  I will consider how you voted on this issue when you're up for reelection, though; you can be sure I'll vote for your opponents.

To my NC readers: I'll look for a list of how the legislators voted on this bill, and I'll post it in the comments section to this entry when I find it.  Governor Perdue is in favor of the new law.  I know it's unlikely we can repeal this one, but let's not continue to elect leaders who trample the rights of the citizenry.  Even if you're in favor of this law, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll work their way around to trampling your rights eventually.  Try not to think on it too much, though; you might find yourself wanting a cigarette and with nowhere left to smoke it.

Until tomorrow,
-MK