Don't Back Down

I heard an interesting piece on Marketplace yesterday afternoon. It was about the proliferation of cell phones that come with built-in cameras. A fad only a year or so ago, they are now everywhere. There has been more than one suggestion of banning the devices. While I can see a certain logic to that, it seems that there are some flaws to the logic.

For instance, the article mentions that someone could be on the phone while in reality they are taking a lewd photo. I don't know about you, but to me a lewd photo probably involves actions that aren't going to happen in a place where someone on a cell phone might just happen to be standing around. If they do happen, those people probably don't mind being observed and/or recorded.

It may make sense to ban the phones in places like locker rooms, but you and I know that even if such a ban is ever implemented, there are bound to be violations. If camera phones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have camera phones and all that.

Admittedly, this might curtail your freedoms somewhat if you like to run around the locker room (or your front yard) naked. Of course, that's only if you mind being photographed without your clothes and a few million of your closest friends having access to the pictures. On the other hand, it may lead to an entirely new attitude on even being naked.

Can such a device be abused? Sure. But so can the telephone. If that's not true, why is there such a fuss about the do-not-call list? Why do we have caller ID? Why are there unlisted numbers? Abuse is not device-dependent.

For 40 years or so, with the exception of a five-year gap in the late 70s/early 80s, American citizens haven't been allowed to travel to Cuba. It's not bad enough that the government takes our money and spends it with abandon. They have to make up rules that govern our choices, too. And if we don't play along? We get fined.

Apparently the Cuba travel ban holds an average penalty of $7500. For going on vacation. Who in their right mind thinks that this is a good idea? Even if you don't want people to travel to someplace you don't like, you're expecting to engender the support of the people with threats like this?

Now I realize that the current government didn't put the ban in place. But our president has every intention of trying to keep it. He's even threatened to veto the decision to end the ban if it should come across his desk.

At least there are finally some light bulbs coming on somewhere in Washington, as today the senate has voted to stop funding the program. I know, that sounds backwards. Remember we're talking about the government of the United States here. Everything is backwards.

See, the current plan requires funding to make sure no one travels to Cuba. So the senate votes to stop providing funding, which in turn ends the program, because they don't have any money to make it work! Only in Washington.