Hate Groups Receive High Marks from the Better Business Bureau While Legitimate Businesses Struggle

America's most well known business reporting agency, the Better Business Bureau has come under fire after a 20/20 report revealed questionable practices on the part of the agency. It appears that the Arlington, Virginia based non-profit group should take a good look at their own "Standards of Trust" that they require their accredited members to follow.

The 20/20 investigation found that such well known names as The Ritz Carleton, Wolfgang Puck, and Disney World have received the lowest rating offered by The BBB, an F. None of the three are accredited (paid) members of the BBB.

The 20/20 report came after business owners complained about questionable practices buy the consumer watchdog group. Just one example of the "pay for an A" ppractice was allegedly video taped by 20/20. Liz's Antique Hardware had a rating of C when she was reportedly told that it would not be changed unless she became an accredited (paid) member. According to 20/20 she gave them her credit card number and within 24 hours she had a rating of A+.

The BBB claims that not just anyone can be an accredited member, accredited members are by invitation only and must agree to uphold the highest standards of business practices (and pay the membership fee).

Angry business owners, with the help of an anonymous blogger, submitted Hamas and a racist website, stormfront.org and payed the $425 fee for accreditation. Using Bill Mitchell, president of the L.A. BBB and Aryn Whiting as the business owners along with fictitious address, the two businesses received an A- and an A+ respectively.

After watching the report I decided to search the BBB website and see what other colorful businesses would turn  up with good ratings.

It took me about five seconds to find the  Ku Klux Klan with a B+ rating. The KKK's business type is listed as general membership and lobbying. According to the BBB they have had no complaints filed against them and the BBB has no information regarding any government actions against the KKK.

A few minutes later I discovered the  American Nazi Party, self described aryan revolutionaries, sporting a impressive B rating. Once again the BBB has received no complaints and is aware of no government action against the ANP.

I need to point out that neither of these organizations are accredited (paid) members of the BBB. It appears that if they would pay their membership fees they could easily have an A+ by this time tomorrow.

I am sure I am not the only one who has a problem with the idea that hate groups enjoy B-A ratings while many legitimate businesses have to struggle with a C and pay to receive an A+.

In the heading of the BBB website it says  "start with trust", perhaps the American trust has been misplaced when it comes to the BBB.

Are the Second Amendment and Gun Control Compatible?

The debate over gun control and the second amendment has gone on for years. Ultimately, the interpretation of the second amendment and the rule of law regarding the possession of firearms depends on who you ask.  It seems that those on both sides of the debate take an "all or nothing" point of view.

If you ask an opponent of gun control they would most likely say there is no debate, after all, the second amendment is quite clear.

Those in favor of gun control will have no trouble citing countless cases of innocent bystanders and victims of violent crimes being injured or killed as a result of the lack of gun control and thereby make a compelling argument that guns should be outlawed.

Is it possible that both are, to some degree, right? The second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When I read this I have to ask myself one question, has the wording become outdated as it applies to the modern world? Our founding fathers had no knowledge of the evolution of firearms or of America and our military power.

They could not have foreseen a time when the muskets and flintlocks of their day would be replaced by assault rifles and automatic handguns.

They could not have foreseen a time when America would be one of the most powerful countries in the world with a powerful full time military to defend us against our enemies. They could not have foreseen a time when "well regulated" militia would be represented by the thousands of reservist who serve our country on a moments notice when called upon to do so.

Is it possible that the real question is not how do we protect or eradicate the second amendment but rather how do we modernize it?

We often hear the argument that "I need my guns for hunting", or "I need them to protect my home from possible intruders". Both of these can be considered valid points, however, do we really need an AK47, Uzi, or AR15 for hunting? Can we not defend ourselves with the same shotgun we use for hunting; will it somehow be less effective than an automatic handgun?

Is their a valid reason why a honest person with a valid reason to own a firearm would object to a waiting period, background check, or a permit for a handgun? With handguns being the weapon of choice for most criminals is it possible that eliminating handguns could decrease crime by making it more difficult to conceal a weapon?

These are just a few of the points that will debated well into the future. What is your opinion? Is it possible to modernize the second amendment and find a reasonable compromise to this debate?