A San Antonio man feels he’s been discriminated against because an apartment complex didn’t want to rent to him based on the fact that he has lots of tattoos.
Frankel e-mailed us a statement saying his apartment complexes do, in fact, “reject prospective tenants who have… tattoos exposed on the neck, head, hands and wrists, or large tattoos that cover over 40% of the lower or upper arm.”
Frankel says, “We do not discriminate. The above applies to persons of any race, color, gender, etc.”
I have to side with the apartment complex on this one. Dude, you CHOSE to get ink up and down your arm. That was a market decision. If you don’t like it, go buy your own apartment building and require all applicants to have a sleeve of tattoos before you’ll rent to them.
Think that will work? Probably not–the market won’t support it.
If they were denying people based on the fact that they have large birthmarks it would be different, but c’mon.
The Carrillos were also upset that the manager refused to refund their full $70 application fee. But mostly, they feel the policy is discriminatory.
So give them their money back and let them dry their tears with the check.
He said Bollinger’s comments included “insults” and false claims, and flew in the face of an environment that’s supposed to let people speak their minds.
This was Ahmadinejad’s response to the introduction given by Columbia University’s President, Lee Bollinger, where he also called Ahmadinejad a “petty, cruel dictator”.
Ahmadinejad is dead wrong, and his response shows exactly why it is ridiculous to try to build
democracies constitutional republics in the Middle East where ideas of tolerance of opposing opinions and free speech can’t be comprehended. This is exactly what free speech is all about–I call you a lowdown dirty scoundrel and have facts to back up my claims. You then respond with a defense or retaliate with facts that show otherwise.
These ass clowns are under the illusion that they can come here and exploit our tolerance for free speech (they have no such tolerance) to get their message across without question. They have no inkling that it flows both ways. That’s why I don’t have a problem allowing him/them/anyone else I disagree with have their say.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–the best way to confirm that someone is an idiot/jerk/ruthless dictator is to give them an opportunity to prove it in their own words.
Can’t wait to check out the entire video. I’ll be watching cnn.com for more info this afternoon.
I’m in wait and see mode on this one, but I’m a little surprised at what I just saw.
I’m at work and don’t have a chance to watch the coverage, but I just returned from getting a cup of coffee and got to catch a glimpse of Columbia’s President evidently ripping Ahmadinejad a new one on Iran’s violation of civil rights, free speech, etc. and challenging him to address them.
It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.
I came upon this story by way of Reason. I’m no fan of the ACLU, mostly because they are very selective about which civil liberties they choose to defend, but I have to be cheering for them in this case, where a truck driver was forced to turn over $23,700 for no other reason than he had an amount of cash greater than $10,000. No drugs, no drug paraphernalia, no probable cause.
DEA agents told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he’d have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales.
Wasn’t the whole issue of search and seizure addressed a while back? At least that’s what I remember from my learnin’ in public schools.
The lawsuit said Prieto does not like banks and customarily carries his savings as cash.
That’s great and all, but the fact is, he doesn’t have to explain it. According to the Houston Chronicle article, he was actually nice enough to tell the police that he had the money and give them permission to search his vehicle. He could just as easily refused to allow them to search without any probable cause. That’s what I would do.
“The government took Mr. Prieto’s money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night,” Simonson said. “In fact, being robbed might have been better. At least then the police would have treated him as the victim of a crime instead of as a perpetrator.”
The scary part is, I’ve transported over $10k in cash (obtained legally, btw) on at least two occasions. Good thing I didn’t have a break light out. I’ll definitely be watching my back if my dreams of winning a big poker tournament ever come to fruition. It would suck to have it confiscated before I was able to pay the outrageous taxes on my winnings.
FladaBlog has an excellent post on public school socialism:
Letâ€™s consider an island with one family with children and one childless couple. Does the family have a right to force the autonomous couple to contribute to the education of their children? Most rational people will agree that they do not have such a right. Additionally, the childless couple does not have the right to force the other family to let the couple dictate how the familyâ€™s children should be educated. Does adding another family with children change the underlying principle of rights? Again, most rational people will agree that it does not.
So the question is: at what number of families does it become moral to force the childless couples to pay for the education of the familiesâ€™ children? At what number does society gain the right to force families to start allowing the society to educate their children? Is 100 the magic number? 1000? 1,000,000?
Read it again, substituting “education” with “health care”.
Again, this time with “retirement”.
Again, this time with “cable television”.
Again, this time with “reduced rates for energy” (corporate welfare).
Again, this time with “watermelon”, or “hair brushes” or “tire guages” or “jock straps”.
Of course, we all have the right, and I believe responsibility, to choose to contribute at any time. The question is, at what point do others have the right to force us to contribute?
Doug Mataconis points us to the report by Americans for Tax Reform that declares today the day of economic liberty in the United States. That’s right–beginning today, and every day for the rest of this year, every dollar you make actually belongs to you! This is very exciting. It’s a Festivus miracle!!!
It now only takes a little over half a year’s worth of work to pay your share of the bountiful gifts of government. Here are just a few examples of the wonderful things you have earned from your toils this year alone:
Failing education for all the kids in your neighborhood, whether you have any or not
A nation building project, err “war” that you probably don’t support
Housing for homeless alcoholics (offer good for Seattle residents only)
A fat pension for your former sheriff (Knox County residents only)
Substandard healthcare for wounded servicemen
A bankrupt government pension retirement fund–a.k.a. socialist security
Countless government subsidies for private industries–a.k.a. corporate welfare
Good job! I think you deserve a raise!!!
The idea that Americans should have to work more than half the year to pay for the state should be offensive to anyone. Instead we all just seem to blindly accept it.
I’m watching a program on the History Channel that documents the non-smoking laws/rules instituted by Hitler in the 1940s.Â Apparently German scientists figured out that smoking was bad for you (duh?) about a decade before anyone else.Â Hitler banned smoking in his presence, as well as on public properties.Â There was also quiet a bit of propaganda against smoking.
The Nazi view was that a German’s body belonged to the State, and that polluting or abusing it was damaging public property.Â Individual rights be damned.Â I’m sure glad that kind of thing doesn’t happen here.
Last night I recorded this program on PBS.Â It is a nice warm-up to the debates tonight.
I’ve often wondered what Thomas Jefferson would think about our current situation, but this program makes me wonder what Hamilton would think.Â Hamilton pushed hard for a strong central government, but I wonder if he would have wanted it this strong.Â Would he agree with the current “aristocracy” that is running our governement?
“It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.”
Is that what we have now?
Reason tells us about raids in Georgia, North Carolina, and some especially dangerous card sharks in Dallas.
I don’t get to play as much poker as I would like, but luckily, I’ve never been involved in a home game that was broken up by a S.W.A.T. team.Â I’d like to believe that this is mainly due to the fact that our state and local law enforcement realize it would be a stupid waste of time.
However, I fear that home poker games will be next on their list, as soon as they can rid us of the social scurge that is cock fighting.
From the KNS:
”As the U.S. Surgeon General said last year â€” the debate is over, the science is clear. Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults,” said Conte.
That statement is certainly true, and I’m not contesting it.Â However, there is one small detail to this issue that proponents of smoking bans overlook–the freedom to choose. Continue reading “Do Smoking Bans Cause DUIs?”