Smoking Bans in Bars Simply Not Necessary

I'm having lunch at Manly's Irish Mutt. It's a little pub on the east side of Indianapolis. Nice place. Traditional bar/pub menu, but with a little bit of an Irish twist. Over 21 only. No smoking allowed.

No smoking because they want to be no smoking. Not no smoking because a law mandated it.

Great crowd at lunch. I got here about 1:00 and the bar rail was packed and several tables sat, as well.

A lot of people will tell you that smoking bans for bars are necessary in part because bars can't realistically go smoke free and keep their business if the bar next door allows its patrons to light up.  Bull.

This is my second visit to Manly's. It's been packed both times. Evidence, I submit, that there is sufficient demand to have both smoking and non-smoking adult establishments.

Let the business choose their environment, don't mandate it with laws that only strip our liberties.

The Fall of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Great news for the homosexual community in their battle for civil rights. After a surprisingly little amount of debate (relative to what we could have expected only a half-dozen years ago), President Obama today signed into law the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Most people think that DADT was horrible, and it was. But let's not forget that DADT, when first put into effect, was a step in the right direction. Previous to DADT, a person was asked if they were homosexual while signing up for the military. If you said yes, you got axed right there. DADT stopped the military from asking the question, so you then only got axed if you announced your homosexuality or were otherwise outed. Literally, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The only problem I have with the repeal of DADT is not with the repeal itself, but with the way it was repealed. The President campaigned on his intention to repeal DADT. For his first two years in office, he and others (mostly Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans) had more than enough votes to eliminate DADT immediately. Instead of acting immediately on the issue, like someone would if they were truly passionate about it, they put it off. For more than 18 moths after Obama'a inauguration the repeal of DADT was hardly mentioned by those with the power to repeal it.

Instead, Obama and his cronies put DADT on the back burner, and brought it to the forefront only as we entered the midterm election season. The repeal of DADT was used as a way of exploiting the homosexual community for political gain in an election year. A wonderful civil rights accomplishment was twisted into something disgusting. And Obama slamming his fist on the bill after signing it and proudly exclaiming, "It is done!" What a joke. He had no passion for this issue just a handful of months ago.

My complaints about how DADT came to an end, though, are heavily outweighed by the sheer importance of the fact that it finally did come to an end. This is a day that the advocates for not only homosexual rights, but true civil rights in general, will hail as one of the most important steps of our time. I hope that today can be used as a stepping stone towards our one day accepting our homosexual friends as equals in all areas of our society and in all areas of our lives.

Term Limits? Maybe not as good an idea as it sounds...

Term Limits may sound great to you. Have you considered, though, that they essentially create Senators & Congresspeople that are lame ducks for years at a time? If we were to elect any legislator into the last term they were constitutionally eligible for, they would have the same lame duck lack of responsibilty to constituents as those voted out of office have for a couple months at a time today.

Can you imagine the attitude our legislators would have about which laws to pass if they had no one to answer to for two or six years? A SIX-YEAR lame duck Senator? I cannot fathom the number of laws that would be passed favoring our Senators and Congresspeople instead of favoring We, The People.

Yes, our efforts to decrease political nonchalance could actually increase political corruptness. Surely that's not what anyone wants. There's a good article here from the great people at United Liberty that discusses a couple reasons why we should not want term limits. It also address some alternatives to term limits that would help put the power of Congressional decision-making back into the hands of the people. Check it out, and leave a comment with your thoughts.

Sink-Burris Clearly Wins Indiana Senate Debate

It is obvious. Libertarian Rebecca Sink-Burris is the best candidate in Indiana's race for the U.S. Senate.

The first of three debates between the three candidates recently took place. Throughout the course of the debate a few very obvious and very predicatable things happened. The candidates from the two major parties routinely avoided questions when the opportunity to turn to mudslinging presented itself. In the few instances where mudslinging was not a top priority, being a copy-cat seemed to be. (On more than one occasion, one of the two major parties candidate responded to a debate question with an answer that nearly duplicated the response of Libertarian Sink-Burris.)

The simple fact is that, while the other parties were busy avoiding the topics in lieu of a little mudslinging, Rebecca Sink-Burris consistently remained on-topic and answered the questions that were presented. And she did better than simply answering them - she provided the most well thought out explanations of the three candidates.

If you're looking for a reason to believe that the Libertarians are worthy of your consideration, you are very likely to find it here: First of Three Indiana U.S. Senate Debates

The Democrat Rates Sink-Burris Rather High

The first of three debates between the three candidates for U.S. Senate from Indiana was a couple of nights ago. The writers of the Indy Democrat wrote a blog about the debate that was, for the most part, rather predictable.

As you might expect, the blog tore the Republican candidate apart.

As you might expect, the blog gave too much praise to the Democratic candidate.

What you might not expect was the Indy Democrat's response to the Libertarian candidate, Rebecca Sink-Burris. Although the blog declared the Democrat the winner, the actual writing in the blog clearly states otherwise. It is obvious by reading the post in the blog that the writer felt the the Libertarian Sink-Burris outperformed both of the two major party candidates.

It is obvious the supporters of the major parties consider the Libertarians, and specifically Rebecca Sink-Burris, a respectable and viable candidate. Check out these links to see if you do, too.

Indy Democrat praises Rebecca Sink-Burris' Performance

First of Three Indiana U.S. Senate Debates

The Mosque Issue

No matter where you stand on the issue of the Islamic Center they want to build near Ground Zero, I'm sure of one thing: You are sick of hearing about it. Me, too.

I have to admit, I do find the choice of location for the Mosque to be suspicious. Under no condition do I believe that such a suspicion equates to a valid reason to prevent the building of the Center.

First, the Islamic Center does not wish to build at Ground Zero. It wants to build a couple blocks from Ground Zero. Close, to be sure, but not at the site of the World Trade Center buildings themselves.

Second, if you disagree with the choice to build the Mosque at this location, you have every right to have your voice heard. If you have no opinion either way, you have every right to have your voice heard. If you fully support the building of the Center, you have every right to have your voice heard.

Third, no matter what your opinion is about the building of a Mosque or Islamic Center (or whatever it is going to be called), the fact is they have every right under the United States Constitution to build it there. No matter if you or anyone else finds the building offensive, it is a matter of their First Amendment rights to build the Mosque at this location or any other. The completion of this building does not in any way infringe upon your rights, and thus should be allowed as a requirement of the Free Speech and Freedom of Religion guaranteed to us by our Constitution.

Lastly, preventing the building of the Mosque means that, to some degree, the terrorists that designed and carried out the 9/11 tragedy win. By using that event as an excuse to not allow freedom in our Great Nation you have allowed those terrorists to have caused us to change how we run our country. Isn't that what they wanted, us to change our ways? Well guess what...if we do not allow this building to be completed, we've changed our ways.

Don't let the terrorists win. You don't have to be in favor of the Mosque being built at this site. That is your right. But I say let them build it anyway. That is their right.

Republicans should Favor Online Gaming

Forbes recently published an article expressing that Republicans on The Hill should be in favor of allowing internet gaming to clearly be legal. I fully support this.

The freedom to make this adult decision should be left to us as adults, and not to the government. Putting in place clear and concise law that defined the parameters of online gaming would also help make sure that only those of legal age are participating in the gaming.

Such laws would also put in place safe and realistic regulations to guarantee that all players are not being cheated by a shady offshore company. While many of the companies currently offering internet gaming from offshore sites are perfectly legitimate, the regulations that would come with clear legalization of it would force the companies that do act shady out of the picture.

Check out the Forbes article here.