CommenTerry

What Will Bloomberg Ban Next?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now pushing for a ban on the sale of sugary sodas and fruit drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces in his city. This is just the latest installment in Mayor Bloomberg’s quest to become the health nanny of our nation’s largest metropolis. He has previously succeeded in banning trans-fats and public smoking from New York City. If he is successful in his attempt to ban super-sized sweet drinks, what will he ban next?

Here is a list of things I that believe Comrade Bloomberg might soon attempt to banish from Gotham City:

1) Hamburgers

2) Hot dogs

3) French fries

4) Ice cream

5) Video games

6) DVDs

7) Cable/Satellite TV

8) Charcoal

9) Whole milk

10) White bread

11) Pork/ham/bacon

12) X-rays/CT-scans/MRIs

13) Plastic bags

14) Disposable baby diapers

15) Gasoline engines

16) Elevators/escalators

17) Pesticides

18) Aerosol spray cans

19) Copying machines

20) Matches

Oh, but there are at least two things he’s guaranteed to never try to ban, even though they are as much of a risk to public health as (if not more so than) the items listed above. They are alcoholic drinks (because he probably couldn’t imagine life without his liquor) and gay sex (because that would be too politically incorrect, and we all know that political correctness is far more important to him than public health, no matter what he might say).

If Only Our Founding Fathers Could Have Foreseen

As I often shake my head in disbelief at some of the stuff I hear in the news on a daily basis, I can’t help but wonder what our Founding Fathers would think if they could see the condition of our nation in the 21st century. I’m sure they would be rolling over in their graves.

Yes, they were keenly aware of the flaws in human nature, and the created the Constitution accordingly. But perhaps they would have written it differently if they could have foreseen some of the changes that were coming down the pike over the next 230 years of history.

Listed below are a few things I think they would have taken into consideration and sought to head off, if only they could have known:

1) Two major political parties becoming so dominant that those who are not members of those parties have little chance of winning an elective office higher than local sheriff.

2) The supremacy of money in all major political campaigns.

3) The demand by many (with concurrence of the courts) that abominations like abortion and homosexual activity be considered civil rights.

4) The ever-increasing power of the federal government and the ever-decreasing power of the states.

5) Governments at all levels taking on the role of wealth redistributors and fairness police.

6) The nanny state that attempts to protect us from everything – including ourselves.

7) Presidents and Congresses using wars and other times of national crisis as justification to suspend civil rights and suppress the free market system.

8) U.S. Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen becoming career politicians with bloated salaries and large, lifetime pensions.

9) Our elected representatives being more loyal to lobbyists and corporations than to the people who actually elected them.

10) Out of control federal deficits burying our nation deeper and deeper into debt.

Do We Need Affirmative Action at Police Academies?

The writer of a recent editorial in my local newspaper complained about the lacked of diversity in the graduating class at Virginia’s state police academy. She pointed out the fact that this class consisted of only a handful of women and minorities. However, to my knowledge, there have not been any recent complaints about discrimination at any of Virginia’s police academies.

It is their duty to provide everyone, regardless of gender, race, ethnic background, or religion, an equal chance at admission and graduation, and I believe they do an excellent job of fulfilling this duty. However, they are not responsible for piquing anyone’s interest in becoming a police officer. It is not their task to go out into the highway and byways of our society to beat the bushes and compel people to come in.

In addition, their objective should be to produce the best possible police officers for their states or communities, regardless of any demographic characteristics. That goal should not be affected by social engineering. If they happen to produce officers that are mostly of one gender and one race, then so it. Provided the process is the color-blind, gender-blind, ethnics-blind, and religion-blind, what should anyone have to complain about?

More than 80% of all NBA players are black. Is that a result of discrimination on the part of the NBA? Of course not, it just so happens that most of the top basketball players these days are black. Most people accept this fact. Likewise, we should accept the fact that our police academies strive to turn out the most highly qualified police officers, even if that means diversity has to take a backseat. We do not need affirmative action or any kinds of quotas at our police academies.

An Assault on Private Property Rights

Over the last 50 years, private property rights have been greatly eroded in this country. There’s been an all-out assault by the federal government on the private property rights of its citizens. It doesn’t seem to matter than these rights are guaranteed to individuals by the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers have ignored the Constitution and done what they wanted in spite of it – with blessing of the lemmings who constantly re-elect them. Even when our elected representatives have stood up for property rights, they have often been overruled courts stocked with activist judges.

We used to be able use our land as we saw fit, but thanks to the overreaching EPA, we now can’t cut down a tree on our own land if a protected bird, for example, has made a nest in it. Why couldn’t the bird be relocated to tree on the property of someone who enjoys the presence of protected birds? Homeowners used to be able to decide who they rented or sold to, but not anymore. Now the government gets a say-so in this decision.

Homeowners are told that they cannot discriminate against anyone, based on race, gender, ethnic background, etc. While I believe this kind of discrimination is immoral and would never consider such a thing myself, I also believe that people who wish to do so with their property should be allowed to. But instead, they are threatened with fines and other penalties for refusing to rent a home they purchased with their own hard-earned money to certain individuals that they might object to. And that’s not to mention the lawsuits they might be subject to for doing with their own property as they saw fit.

Likewise, business owners used to be the final arbiters as to whom they hired and fired. But alas, the government has now acquired the authority to review and potentially overrule this decision well. Business owners are required to follow EEO guidelines for hiring and firing. By not doing so, they could face charges of discrimination and be subject to penalties similar to homeowners who are found “guilty” of making their own decisions about something that belongs to them. While I don’t condone discrimination in hiring practices anymore than I condone it rental or sales of homes, I say private business owners should have a right to hire or fire whomever they want, for whatever reason they wish.

Restaurant and bar owners used to be allowed to decide on smoking policies in their establishments. But now the government has confiscated this decision. In most localities, establishment owners must set aside all or most of the square footage as a non-smoking area. And they cannot designate any part of their restaurant or bar as a smoking area unless it meets strict criteria for ventilation. Proponents if such laws argue that public health concerns override the rights of property owners. But you will not find this notion in the Constitution. Here’s a thought – if someone doesn’t like to be around smoking when they are dining, let them eat at home or go to a restaurant or bar where smoking is not allowed. But the owner of that establishment should be the one who gets to decide.

It’s time we got back to our constitutional principles and began to show the kind of respect for private property rights that our Founding Fathers did.

How the Healthcare Mandate Compares to Mandatory Seatbelt Use

There are those on the left who misleadingly compare President Obama’s healthcare mandate, i.e., the law that dictates that that everyone must purchase health insurance, to state laws that require that all drivers buy liability insurance. Conservatives and libertarians correctly point out that there is no real comparison between these two mandates.

Health insurance protects the purchaser from the high cost of medical bills. Automobile liability insurance, on the other hand, protects others from any damage that the purchaser may do while driving. The former forces one to protect himself, while the latter forces one to protect others from the damage he may to them. It’s a very simple concept, yet many seem to have difficulty grasping it.

Liberals would be better off dropping that comparison and using another one that might actually point out a little hypocrisy among some conservatives and libertarians. What they should do is compare the Obamacare mandate with mandatory seatbelt use. Like the healthcare mandate, mandatory seatbelt use forces individuals to protect themselves.

Mandatory seatbelt laws are a result of people having decided to trade a little freedom for a little safety. As all good conservatives and libertarians know, that is never a good trade. However, many of the people who have been screaming the loudest about mandatory health insurance have remained relatively silent about being forced to wear seatbelts. But minus the monetary costs, the two are exactly the same. Why vehemently oppose one and not the other?

Detention of California Rape Victim Is Completely Outrageous

She’s the victim, yet she’s being treated like a criminal. A 17-year-old California foster child is being held in a juvenile detention center in Sacramento after reporting that she was raped by an older man. The prosecutor justifies her detention, which has been upheld by several lower courts, based on the fact that she has a history of being a runaway. He fears that she may runaway again and jeopardize the case against the suspect, who is believed to have possibly committed several other rapes in the area.

I think the decision to detain her is completely outrageous. For one thing, it will discourage other rape victims from coming forward, for fear of being treated like a criminal. As a consequence, more rapists will go free. But the real issue here that people who have not been charged with or suspected of a crime should never be detained or held against their will any way, shape, or form. This includes so-called “material witnesses” that are sometimes detained. That kind of thing goes against everything we believe as Americans, and is an insult our Founding Fathers.

While it might not technically be unconstitutional, it should be. It defies the spirit, if not the letter, of our Constitution principles and ideals. We should immediately get to work on crafting a new amendment to forbid the detention of anyone, for any length of time, other than someone who has been convicted of a crime, charged with a crime, or is justifiably suspected of having committed a crime. This is America, not Communist China, for cripes sake. Let’s live free or die.

How to Curb Sexual Harassment in the Military

While we’ll never be able to completely end sexual harassment and assault in the military, there are steps that can be taken to curb it significantly. But we’re going to get anywhere as long as we keep denying the fact that most men are attracted to woman and that many of them cannot control their urges in certain situations. The focus should be on keeping them out of these situations as much as possible, instead of lecturing men about controlling their urges then punishing them when they don’t.

One thing that should be done is to keep men and women in separate units and not have them working together on a daily basis. Some people might say this is impractical, but it must be done if we are serious about curbing sexual harassment and assault in our military. This cannot be compared to racial segregation, which is inherently unequal and immoral. We utilize separate facilities, such as restrooms, showers, and dormitories, for men and women in all aspects of society already. And there are such things as all-male and all-female schools and colleges – where, not coincidentally, sexual harassment is almost unheard of.

The other important step would be to forbid fraternization between men and women of the military at events or locations where alcohol will be served and/or consumed. The only exception to this rule would be a married military couple. We all know the dangers of alcohol and what too much of it often causes people to do. A significant portion of all sexual harassment and assault cases involve alcohol. Either remove the alcohol or remove the opportunity for undesirable sexual behavior.

What Could Obama Do about High Gas Prices?

Many people (especially partisan Republicans, but some independents) are blaming President Obama for the high gas prices we currently have to put up with. But is it his fault and what, if anything, could he do about it? I’m not saying Obama has a whole lot of control over gas prices (I don’t think any politician does, as they are mainly controlled by speculators), but higher gas prices are exactly what Obama and his radical environmentalist friends want. Many of them are cheering right now.

They think the current situation will get us off of fossil fuels quicker. But they’re misguided. Good alternatives won’t be ready for years into the future. For now, we need oil and we need it without being so dependent on the OPECkers and radical Islamists of the world. If we were to demonstrate a true commitment to drilling for oil in our own lands, I believe the speculators would panic and the bottom would drop out of oil prices. Good for us, but not so good for the oil companies. And too bad about the radical environmentalists.

Why I Favor Income Inequality

Recently, presidential candidate Rick Santorum has come under criticism in the media for saying income inequality is a good thing. I think he is absolutely right. I’m all for income equality. That’s because the opposite of income inequality is socialism.

If everyone had an equal income, there would be little motivation for anyone to excel. For example, why would anyone want to put in the time and work necessary to go to medical school and become a physician when he or she could just drop out of high school, go to work on an assembly line and make just as much money? Besides, people who achieve more deserve more. That’s a law of nature.

While I believe everyone should have the same opportunity to succeed, I realize that not everyone is going to succeed. As a nation, our focus should be on equal opportunity for all, but we should forget this whole idea of equal outcome. For one thing, it ain’t ever gonna happen. For the other, outcome is up to the individual and therefore none of the government’s darn business.

Christie Made Wrong Call on Flag Displays

I have a lot of respect for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and I agree with him on most issues. However, I believe he made the wrong decision in ordering all flags in his state to be flown at half staff to honor the late pop star Whitney Houston. Some believe that this honor should be reserved for military heroes, but I don’t buy that argument. Contrary to popular belief, the military does not own the U.S. flag. It belongs to all Americans, regardless of whether they have ever served in the armed forces.

However, the honor of having the flag flown at half staff should be reserved for only those Americans who have made great and lasting contributions, military or not, to our nation. I do not think Ms. Houston met that criteria. Besides, considering her self-destructive lifestyle, I do not think she set a very good example for America’s children. There are numerous ways that are appropriate to honor Whitney Houston’s many accomplishments in the world of entertainment. Flying flags at half staff is not one of them.