This is not about the morality of prostitution but the reality of it. We can never legislate morality. It was tried with prohibition and that failed. Sometimes it is better to tame the problem when eliminating it has failed.
Please read the full diary entry before commenting.
As we get further into his administration I'm finding that each of his actions are being scrutinized by every side with colored vision. Some people think his is trying to take complete control of the government. No folks, that was Bush and Cheney. Some people see him as a spineless sellout. No that was Clinton, the Republican's Democrat. Even if they tried everything to tank his administration. President Obama is a non-confrontational politician trying to confront the most negative opposition in recent history.
Please read the whole entry before commenting.
Apple and AT&T in the way they are handling the iPhone unlocking[i] and "jail breaking"[ii] I believe has only one precedent in commercial products and that was brought down by the anti trust laws. In this case the manufacturer Apple and the service provider AT&T are trying to extend their control of the product beyond the point where the consumer is the full and legal owner. I believe this is a case where they are outside of the law. Only the government has the right to tell people what they can and can’t do with an item they own and the government usually only exercises this right as a matter of public safety. While Apple has tried to assert that this is such a situation the facts do not agree with that. What these companies are trying to do is hold on to the revenue that the subscription to phone service and software sales generate.
Please read the rest of this before commenting!
I would argue that the Pledge of Allegiance is the wrong oath to have Americans swear often. I know the most recent arguments have been over the words "under God." My complaint is not those words. It has been common practice to swear oath to deity since ancient times. If you do not believe in God this is one of the times you have to bend to the will of the majority that does hold the belief in deity. Our constitution supports the ideas of freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. That does not give the minority the right to force its beliefs on the majority just as it does not give the majority the right to oppress the non-deity or multi-deist minorities. It is just not worth arguing about two words you can just skip when you say it. My problem is with the priorities inherent in the oath. I much prefer the early part of the military oath or the federal oath of office.
Please read the rest before commenting!