WikiLeaks Founder Attacks the United States

One of the “top stories” in the newspaper these days is that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, and has commenced his efforts to end the United States’ “war on whistleblowers.” He argues that the American soldier who released top-secret information to him is “a hero.” I guess that makes WikiLeaks a “double hero” for publishing to the world information that it also knew was top secret. Assange suggested that this was a freedom of the press issue and that “journalists [will] fall silent under fear of prosecution.” His own fear of prosecution, he conveniently overlooks, is for sexually assaulting two women in Sweden, and it is Sweden, not the United States, who seeks to extradite him.

Why is such tripe even newsworthy? A sex offender who defends himself on the basis that he is being discriminated against for publishing top-secret information! Am I missing something here?

Tobacco Lawyers Sue the Food Companies

Great news for the millions of victims of the food industry—the tobacco lawyers are now on your side. All the hapless people who have been eating Cheerios to keep their cholesterol in check in spite of their daily 5,000-calorie diets of super-sized double bacon cheeseburgers, french fries, and chocolate shakes now finally have a friend, a knight in shining armor to save them from themselves.

The NY Times reported on Sunday that since pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars from the tobacco companies, lawyers have been desperately searching for their next payday. So all those companies that claim their products are “natural,” “healthy,” or “organic” better take heed that if one molecule of some ingredient in their products is considered unhealthy by these lawyers or their highly paid experts, they are going to be hauled into court. They will have to defend themselves from some class-action lawsuit that will cost millions of dollars to defend and accomplish absolutely nothing—other than to make a few exceedingly rich lawyers even richer.

Does anyone really believe that a jury of 6, 8, or 12 people (depending on the jurisdiction) is able to decide what is best for the American consumer?

Same-Sex Marriage – Cluttering Up Our Constitution

The war of words is underway in Minnesota (and many other states across the country) as ballots will soon give voters the choice on whether to establish a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Most ballot initiatives go something like this: “Do you favor a constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriage?” Unfortunately, very few voters recognize this question as a false dichotomy. In other words, it's a question that has at least three valid answers but only allows two options for answering. My wife and I used to give our children false dichotomies all the time. We'd ask, “Do you want to go to bed by yourself, or do you want me to carry you to bed?” That worked really well until they were about ten, when they first recognized there was a third option we weren’t giving them – not going to bed at all.

So what are the three valid answers to the same-sex marriage amendment?

1.) Yes, I favor same-sex marriage and vote against the amendment.

2.) No, I oppose same-sex marriage and vote in favor of the amendment.

3.) I oppose same-sex marriage, but I also oppose changing the constitution.

This third group is in an unusual position of having to choose which is worse, allowing same sex marriage or changing the constitution.

Same-Sex Marriage – A Political Game

I’ve never understood why Republicans tend to oppose same sex marriage and Democrats tend to favor it. What is it in the political credos of these two parties that require them to take these positions? Actually nothing. The primary focus of American politics today is not about what’s best for the American people; it’s about retaining or gaining power. In the very troubled economic times we live in today, why is same sex marriage such a big deal that there is media coverage of the issue virtually every day? A vote one way versus the other won't give us more jobs, reduce the national debt, or increase gross national product. Why do we focus so much energy on issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the main issues of the day? The answer is simple, the politics of power.

Sure, the economy is more important than same sex marriage, virtually everyone agrees with that. But there are no solutions to our economic woes that will get anyone elected or help anyone stay in power. To solve our long term economic woes, we either have to raise revenues (i.e. more taxes), reduce spending (i.e. cut funding to all the grand entitlement programs that got most of our national leaders elected in the first place), or, heaven forbid, a little of both. No matter which side a politician takes, he alienates half the American voters, and if he’s dumb enough to advocate the one solution most likely to do good, a little of each, then he alienates everyone. Taking a stand on the economy is simply bad politics, unless all one does is talk in absurdly vague generalities.