Tag Archives: privacy

As If Traveling Weren’t Bad Enough Already

Leave a reply

The Department of Homeland Security is looking into requiring all airline passengers to wear a special bracelet that would allow the crew of a plane to cause an “electro-muscular disruption” (EMD) to immobilize disorderly passengers.

What about people with pacemakers? What about the small percentage of people with undiscovered conditions who may be killed by such a device? And who decides the sufficient level of disorderliness to justify the use of EMD? What about particularly paranoid airline crews? What happens if somebody is immobilized and mass hysteria breaks out among the paranoid passengers, who then beat the living daylights out of the immobilized person, causing severe injuries or even death? And if you’re worried about terrorists on airplanes, does this just invite them to figure out a way to immobilize people easily to avoid another one of those “Let’s roll” incidents?

As the legal threshold for government detainment and infliction of force against citizens seems to be falling, things like this do not bode well for freedom.

Is Discrimination Always Wrong?

5 Replies

In response to Gutter Ball Master’s post, “Dr. Paul May Do Harm“, I offer the following article as rebuttal. I do not claim to be in total agreement with it, but I present it as an opposing viewpoint.

I Favor Discrimination

“If ever anyone wants to discredit me, he can cite the title of this article. I am giving it away on a silver platter in order to make one point: Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination is nothing more than making distinctions and being selective. Without discrimination, freedom to choose is an empty exercise. I favor the freedom to choose. Therefore, I favor discrimination. Not only do I favor discrimination, I discriminate constantly. And so does everyone else.”

It should be noted that the good doctor rejected the law on privacy, federal ineptitude, states rights, and constitutional authority grounds. Here’s his defense in his own words, emphasis mine (Fedora Tip to Chronicles of Dissent).

Continue reading →

Dr. Paul May Do Harm

5 Replies

On 21 May 2008, “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” became law. Essentially, the act prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage to someone with negative genetic makeup. This law is good legislation since it guarantees that everyone has the opportunity to enroll in or buy into health insurance to help improve or save peoples’ lives no matter what their genes may predispose them to.

If the legislation did not pass, many people with genetic issues would have to live without health insurance or live on the emergency room system (the general public). In addition, parents with children with negative genetic makeup would be forced to drop their children off their insurance. Some parents would probably even be forced to abort their children so they (the parents) could have insurance. (So much for safe and rare.)

97% of the US House voted for the Act. Ron Paul, a doctor, was part of the 3% who voted against it. Why would a doctor vote against it? Yes, with this Act the government is interfering in private industry, but with life and death issues, the government must intervene.

FD has suggested to me that the Act may be seen as another affirmative action law. I disagree in part. Yes, it says that the disadvantaged gets special treatment; in affirmative action law, minorities get to get into college. However, with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the disadvantaged get to live. Insurance companies should not dictate that part of society at large must die to win a heavy bottom line (with blood).

What do you think of the Act? Why do you think Dr. Paul voted against it? (I thought he was OTAAC, or pro-life.)

Attention Attraction for the Attention Deficient Generation

6 Replies

Andy Warhol famously quipped, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” His appraisal of the fleeting nature of fame was mostly right. However, he said that before the advent of repeated episodes, re-run and syndicated series, reality TV, blogs, and social networking. Had he seen these, perhaps he’d have suggested “15 episodes”, “15 seasons”, “15 posts”, “to 15 people”, “15 words”, or “15 seconds at a time”.

Continue reading →