My fiance and I live in a relatively low-class area. This is not because we have no class, but because we don't have much money. (Har har.) Given that the area is populated largely by low-income people, there are a lot of establishments that are owned by or pander to people of various non-white ethnicities, mostly Latinos and Arabs.

My fiance went to go look for a new job yesterday becuase her current job is not assigning her many hours. She went to several convenience stores owned/run by Arabs (there are a lot of them near our apartment complex). None of them hired her; most said they weren't hiring, but one actually told her that he wouldn't hire white people.

The leftist dogma that only whites can be racist is a flat-out lie, of course. We all know this. But it is rare to actually encounter evidence on a personal level, so I was rather surprised.

I immediately began to wonder what might occur if I were to report the establishment to whatever government entity around here handles workplace discrimination. Would the store be shut down? Would the owner be fined? Or would nothing happen at all, since only whites can discriminate?

I'll never know--though the thought of getting the racist Arab in trouble does amuse me, I'd never actually attempt to make it happen, for two reasons. One is practical--it'd probably never happen anyway. But the other reason is tantamount, and that reason is that I believe in freedom.

Including the freedom to be racist.

We don't have Thoughtpolice here, and that's a good thing. In my view, if Joe Blow down the street or Ramesh Patel at his convenience store want to be racist, that's their business. As long as they're not actually violating anyone's rights, it's no one else's concern. There is no right to not be hated.

I detest Affirmative Action laws. I don't even really like Equal Opportunity Hiring laws. Why? Because I don't think the government should have any hand in how citizens live their lives or run their businesses (again, as long as no one's rights are being violated). If some guy wants to open a business and only hire one particular type of person, or exclude one particular type of person, let him. Capitalism may eventually shut him down because of his discriminatory policies all on its own. Not many people would be happy to patronize a place they know institutes racist hiring practices. And if no one buys anything from him, his business fails, and he's the one who suffers in the end. And if it doesn't actually matter and his business succeeds anyway? Great for him. Either way, no one's rights are violated.

"But what about the people he doesn't hire because of their race? What will they do?" you ask. Well, presumably, they'll go find a job somewhere else. If they have the merits and the willingness to work, they'll find something.

Freedom means dealing with people who will have different views from your own. It's a small price to pay, in my opinion--the alternative much worse. Sure, no one would ever be offended, but no one would be allowed to think for themselves, either. 

I have not yet decided who I'm voting for in the Republican primaries. It's a difficult decision. Well, a couple of them are easy to eliminate--I won't be voting for Giuliani: the man is practically the walking definition of RINO (well, most Republicans are nowadays, it seems); McCain's out too: McCain-Feingold showed a complete disregard for the First Amendment, and even after years of McCain being in the public eye the only value of his I'm relatively sure of is his pro-war stance. I admire the man for a number of reasons, but presidential material he is not.

No, they're the easy ones. Where I run into trouble is with Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Being a libertarian, my instinct is to favor Paul, and for the most part I do. Lower taxes, dismantling the Department of Education, etc.? Hell yes, I'm there. The man says nearly all the right things and has the voting record to back it all up. My sole problem with Dr. Paul is the Iraq issue. His stated policy of non-interventionism strikes many thrilling chords within me, don't get me wrong. I love that.

But the current situation is that the US is at war right now, and this is a war we need to win. And I don't know what Dr. Paul actually plans to do about that. The best policy in my view would be to give this thing our all and do what it takes to win and get things in Iraq settled as best and as quickly as we can. Then begin a non-interventionist policy. Withdrawal is not such a great idea. We simply cannot afford to lose in Iraq. We cannot let Islam see that they can wear us out.

As for Romney and Huckabee...I'm not as excited about either of them. And part of the reason for that is that I have yet to see any real key differences between the two policy-wise. There's a lot of mudslinging going on in the blogosphere against both of them, and I don't know who to believe. I've seen more anti-Romney material than anti-Huckabee, though--claims that Romney is hiding behind his religion, and that he's a liberal in disguise. There are those saying that he enacted a number of very liberal programs and laws while governing Massachusetts, and then there are those who say he didn't, or that he just couldn't muster the votes to stop those policies.

If the allegations of RomneyCare, pro-abortion* and pro-gay programs** are true, my vote likely won't be going to Romney. I still don't know enough about Huckabee to give a verdict yet.

But these are most of my concerns. I'm not focusing on the Democrats right now; I already know none of them are getting my vote. I'm trying to work out who's the best choice on the Republican side. And "most likely to win" is not a qualification in my mind--if it were I'd be voting for Giuliani. I don't care who's most able to stand up to Hillary and I'm through with that sort of thinking. I'm voting on principles this time. Sadly, that may mean staying away from the polls when the actual election day arrives. If my choice is between Giuliani and Clinton, why bother voting? They're just two sides of the same coin.

*While not my chief concern, abortion is a big issue with me. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of murder. Justify it all you want, it's killing a human being. It's a common libertarian stance to be pro-choice, but I don't see what's libertarian about ignoring the rights of infants.

**I don't care much either way about homosexuality; in the past, I was very against gay marriage. Now? I don't care. I really don't. But I'm not favorable to actively pro-homosexual agenda. Let them be, let them do what they want, fine. I'm all for tolerance (in most cases). But I'm not for forced acceptance.

Global warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

Quick, everyone! STOP BREATHING!