Sep 152007
 

Legalized abortion continues to be a hot political topic in the United States more than 30 years after the Roe V. Wade decision, China’s (failing) one child policy has been in place for more than 25 years, and according to Reuters

The governor of a central Russian province urged couples to skip work Wednesday and make love instead to help boost Russia’s low birth-rate.

And if a woman gives birth in exactly nine months time — on Russia’s national day on June 12 — she will qualify for a prize, perhaps even winning a new home.

Leaving aside the benefits of zero population growth (of which I’ve been a strong supporter since the mid-1970s), is giving impoverished people a new refrigerator or car really going to help solve any problems in Russia? According to the article-

Russia wants to reverse a trend in which the population is shrinking by about 700,000 people a year as births fail to out pace a high death rate boosted by AIDS, alcoholism and suicide.

So, they’re going to solve the problems of AIDS, alcoholism, and suicide which are decimating their population by encouraging people to get drunk, have more sex, and make more babies to suck off the government teat? Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant plan! It’s amazing the Soviet Union ever achieved Superpower status.

Sep 102007
 

According to Reuters, a woman in Beijing was “fired for talking back to her boss.” Why, exactly is this news? Why don’t we have news reports about the millions of other people who were fired today?

What’s that? You say, it’s a stupid reason to fire an employee? Possibly, but if that’s the case then the business will suffer for it and, ultimately, fail unless they change their ways. Hmm? It’s not fair? Why not? We’re talking about a private business voluntarily spending their money to employ this woman. She’s voluntarily accepting their money in return for doing what they ask of her. She refused to do that any more (by violating the policy against “talking back to superiors”). There is no reason she should keep her job.

You want to know why I’m not standing up for her Freedom of Speech? Of course, I support her right to Freedom of Speech, but that’s not really relevant here. Again, this is a private business. by entering their private property you agree to be bound by their rules. No one prevented her from speaking her mind, her employer just exercised their right to revoke her employment privileges.

This is really simple, people. When she accepted the position she accepted the terms of a contract. She would be paid X amount in exchange for following the rules the company laid out. She breached that contract by violating its rules. Since contract law is the only legitimate law, she’s the ‘criminal’ here.

Sep 072007
 

According to Reuters, a woman in Beijing was “fired for talking back to her boss.” Why, exactly is this news? Why don’t we have news reports about the millions of other people who were fired today?

What’s that? You say, it’s a stupid reason to fire an employee? Possibly, but if that’s the case then the business will suffer for it and, ultimately, fail unless they change their ways. Hmm? It’s not fair? Why not? We’re talking about a private business voluntarily spending their money to employ this woman. She’s voluntarily accepting their money in return for doing what they ask of her. She refused to do that any more (by violating the policy against “talking back to superiors”). There is no reason she should keep her job.

You want to know why I’m not standing up for her Freedom of Speech? Of course, I support her right to Freedom of Speech, but that’s not really relevant here. Again, this is a private business. by entering their private property you agree to be bound by their rules. No one prevented her from speaking her mind, her employer just exercised their right to revoke her employment privileges.

This is really simple, people. When she accepted the position she accepted the terms of a contract. She would be paid X amount in exchange for following the rules the company laid out. She breached that contract by violating its rules. Since contract law is the only legitimate law, she’s the ‘criminal’ here.

Aug 162007
 

Last week I reported on the New Zealeand Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages refusing to allow a couple to name their child 4Real. Well, today Reuters brings us even more governmanent name shenanigans. This time from China-

BEIJING (Reuters) – A Chinese couple tried to name their baby “@,” claiming the character used in e-mail addresses echoed their love for the child, an official trying to whip the national language into line said Thursday.

While “@” is familiar to Chinese e-mail users, they often use the English word “at” to sound it out — which with a drawn out “T” sounds something like “ai ta,” or “love him,” to Mandarin speakers.

Li told a news conference on the state of the language that the name was an extreme example of people’s increasingly adventurous approach to Chinese, as commercialization and the Internet break down conventions.

Another couple tried to give their child a name that rendered into English sounds like “King Osrina.”

Li did not say if officials accepted the “@” name. But earlier this year the government announced a ban on names using Arabic numerals, foreign languages and symbols that do not belong to Chinese minority languages.

“Most Favored Nation” or not, China’s never been known for granting its people many freedoms, but the frightening thing is how easily this sort of thing could slip into American law. The big stick the immigration advocates are waving these days is that we’re losing our “cultural identity”. Isn’t that the same reasoning the “evil communist” Chinese seem to be displaying when outlawing Arabic numerals, foreign languages and symbols from people’s names?