When Should Governments Use Censorship?

Should Governments Use Censorship?

Seems like more and more democracies are using censorship and in some cases it’s probably justified.

But many countries are clearly going beyond national defense and are using it to control their populations.

Should Governments Sometimes Enforce Censorship?

More and more countries across Europe are now moving toward some kind of protective censorship.

Sweden is in the news now because its police are afraid to confront violent Muslims and the country is now the rape capital of Europe.

Both of the above are either kept out of the news by the MSM or are seriously played down by it due to pressure from Sweden’s hard left government.

Check out this video about Sweden by Pat Condell.

The UK has what are referred to as D-Notices which advise journalists as to certain subjects that shouldn’t be published.

Compliance is voluntary, but imagine getting invited to another press conference if you contravened one!

And during WW2 the United States even had a government department dedicated to censorship.

Obama promised transparency but keeps Americans in the dark, probably more than any previous US government.

Is Increasing Surveillance A Form Of Censorship?

The U.S. government asked Google for data on its users more than 31,000 times in 2012 alone.

The government rarely obtained a search warrant first and Google recently revealed that in nearly all cases that the company ended up turning over at least some of the data.

Some argue that heightened surveillance, restrictions on Internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to protect intellectual property rights, prevent cyberespionage, fight child pornography, and protect national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers.

So what do you think?

When should government censorship be permitted? Or perhaps there should be none?

Comments are welcome and you don’t have to log-in to post them.

Posted in internet, Law, Obama, Sweden, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Is It Time To Finally End Affirmative Action?

Is It Time To Totally End Affirmative Action In The US?

Isn't It Time We Ended Affirmative Action?

What Is Affirmative Action?

Affirmative action is an outcome of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement, intended to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups and women in education and employment.

In 1961, President Kennedy was the first to use the term “affirmative action” in an Executive Order that directed government contractors to take,

“Affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".

Affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society.

Its policies generally focus on employment and education.

In institutions of higher education, affirmative action refers to admission policies that provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities.

Fifty Plus Years Later – Should Affirmative Now Be Ended?


Megyn Kelly and Jay Sekulow (ACLJ) On Affirmative Action

Supporters of Affirmative Action Say

Affirmative action programs have resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community.

Statistics show that after California abolished its affirmative action programs in 1998, the minority student admissions at UC Berkeley fell 61%, and minority admissions at UCLA fell 36%.

After Texas abolished its affirmative action program in 1996, Rice University’s freshman class had 46% fewer African-Americans and 22% fewer Hispanic students.

Graduates who benefited from affirmative action programs say that they have received better jobs, earned more money, and ultimately are living better lives because of the opportunity they received.

The policies are necessary in order to compensate for centuries of racial, social, and economic oppression.

Critics Of Affirmative Action Make The Following Arguments

The policy is outdated and causes a form of reverse discrimination by favoring one group over another, based on racial preference rather than academic achievement.

It is likely unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Likewise, the programs may be illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. 

Affirmative action policies lower standards and make students less accountable.

Affirmative action policies do not necessarily help economically disadvantaged students and a study by the Hoover Institution found that affirmative action tends to benefit middle and upper-class minorities.

Which States Have Banned Affirmative Action?

Eight states currently ban race-based affirmative action at all public universities.

California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma all passed bans through voter referenda.

In Florida, Governor Jeb Bush issued an executive order creating the ban.

What Do You Think?

Should affirmative action be ended nationwide?

Or shouldn’t it?

Comments are welcome and you don’t need to log-in to post them.

Posted in America, Misconceptions, Obama, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Seven Year Itch? – Does It Really Exist?

The Seven Year Itch – Does It Really Exist?

The Seven Year Itch - Does It Really Exist?


Only twenty five percent of the primate species are monogamous, and less than five percent of mammals form a monogamous bond to raise their offspring.

Ninety percent of bird species team up to raise their young, but most only do so while the young are vulnerable.

Once they are grown, the pair separates.

Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist at Rutgers University and author of Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery and Divorce, told Scientific American that for several years she has been investigating whether the "seven-year itch”, or the tendency to get divorced after seven years of marriage really exists, and if it does, is there is a biological basis for it.

The Length Of Time Is Not Necessarily Seven Years

"I began by studying worldwide data on marriage and divorce and noticed that although the median duration of marriage was seven years, of the couples who divorced, most did so around their fourth year".

"I also found that divorce occurred most frequently among couples at the height of their reproductive and parenting years—for men, ages 25 to 29, and for women, ages 20 to 24 and 25 to 29—and among those with one dependent child".

"In hunter-gatherer societies, women tended to have children around four years apart. Equally, it was around four years old that the children moved on to be raised by broader community groups rather than their parents, who were then free to find new partners if they chose to. The four-year divorce peak among modern humans may be an evolutionary hangover from this time".

Helen Fisher said.

Two Different Movies

Groups who oppose divorce celebrated the documentary movie March of the Penguins, because it showed monogamous pairs of penguins lovingly raising their young, and they thought that nature was giving us a sign that we had let things slide, and were forgetting our natural obligations.

However, if they viewed the movie called March of the Mallards, they would have seen ducks mating in what amounts to an orgy, involving males who rather than being faithful had a good chance of going on to perform necrophilia.

Seven Year Itch Or Four Year Itch?

Humans are not overly consistent in any of their actions throughout a lifetime, and according to the business site Fast Company.

"The median number of years a US worker has been in his or her current job is just 4.4".

Do You Have A Secret?

If you’ve been married for four or seven plus years and still enjoy or even yearn for sex with your husband or wife, and still can’t wait for them to walk through the door, then please share the secret and maybe help others.

Comments are welcome and you don’t need to log in to post them.

Posted in evolution, family, family planning, infidelity, jealousy, love, Misconceptions, parents, Relationships, Sex, urban legends | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Shopping – Out Of Town Shopping Centers Destroyed Local Communities

Shopping Out Of Town Is Destroying Local Communities

Shopping - Out Of Town Shopping Centers Are Ruining Communities

The growth of large hypermarkets and cash and carries, and especially those that are often 15-20 minutes from town centers has become very controversial.

Their impact on traditional local retailers has been hotly debated and America’s experience with Wal-Mart is often used as a prime example.

Proponents of the centers argue they offer shoppers better prices and choice and also generate development and investment in the local area.

Opponents maintain however that they destroy town centers, degrade the environment and erode local communities.

Saving Some Money But Ruining A Life Style

It’s perfectly normal if you do a lot of your shopping at hypermarkets and cash and carries, but how do you feel when another local store closes its doors?

There was a time not so long ago when people might spend half a day traveling from a small village to a town to buy a pair of shoes or whatever.

But the time spent was probably well worth it.

The traveler would be greeted and most likely known by the seller and the two and perhaps others would discuss all the local news.

The purchase might take a couple of hours after which the buyer would return to his village and tell others about his shopping adventure.

Now, shopping is mostly an anonymous experience with forced smiles and ‘Have a nice day".

Shopping For Bread And Tasting Jelly

Just fifteen years ago I lived in a place in the south of England that was the size of a large village or a small town, and I spent about a year there.

An example of one of the joys of living there was going to buy bread.

The owner of the store would chat to me and maybe ask me if I had tried Mrs Finlay’s new gooseberry jam, and if I said that I hadn’t then I’d be offered a small spoon of it to taste.

Does the bakery still exist? Does Mrs Finlay still make jelly for the locals?

I don’t know, but probably not :-(

Huge Chinese Stores

An additional thing now is the appearance of very large Chinese stores in many small and larger towns.

They have huge inventories of all kinds of things and sell at lower prices than the locals.

I don’t know how they manage to pay the rent on the stores or perhaps they are owned.

It seems very likely that the stores are rented or purchased by big manufacturers in China that use them as an outlet for their products.

And it seems unlikely that the Chinese that work in them for about sixteen hours a day, seven days a week are the owners.

The Clock Can’t Be Turned Back

I realize that we can’t ban out of town shopping or big Chinese stores and a great many people wouldn’t want to.

But is there a way to stop the decimation of small towns and villages?

I didn’t think there was, but maybe the out of town mega-shops will fail because of online shopping?

Comments are welcome and you don’t need to log-in to post them.

What do you think?

Posted in economy, environment, Uncategorized, Work | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Electrocuted? Can You Be Killed By Peeing On The 3rd Rail?

Electrocuted? Can You Be Electrocuted If You Pee On The Third Rail?

Can You Be Electrocuted By Peeing On The 3rd Rail?

On July 8 2013 Matthew Zeno aged 30 was said to have been electrocuted because he peed on the third rail of the G train in Brooklyn.

And his death renewed a long standing debate as to whether you can actually be killed by peeing on the rail.

A MythBusters test appeared to indicate however that it was next to impossible unless you stood just inches away from the rail.


A later report in the Brooklyn Paper reported that Zeno was drunk and jumped down onto the track with a friend so they could urinate.

I can’t imagine however, even when drunk, why a person would climb down onto electric train rails to relieve himself?

So Did Zeno Jump Down And Then Get Electrocuted?

Both the Manhattan Transportation Authority and law enforcement officials denied a "whiz-3rd rail connection" in the Wall Street Journal.

Rats Walk Along The Rail And Don’t Get Electrocuted

It is not the voltage of the third rail that is deadly, as anyone who has seen a subway rat run along the rail unharmed can attest to, but it’s the current that flows through a completed circuit which is lethal.

For example, the circuit completed by a human being standing with one foot on the rail and one foot on the ground, or with both feet on the ground and a urine stream from the rail to the body completing the circuit.

Just 100 milliamperes of current is sufficient to cause ventricular fibrillation and death!

So what do you think?

Is it possible to get killed by peeing on the rail?

Comments are welcome and you don’t need to log-in to post them.

Posted in dangerous, death, electric shock | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment