Friday, August 15, 2008
Social Security
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-democrats-celebrate-social-securitys-start/article/3283932
Social Security is now out of control and is one of the main factors in the currently ballooning federal budget. Democrats cannot be held solely responsible for this. The Republican Party leadership has abandoned their commitment to limited government and plunged headlong into corporate welfare and faith-based bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, this is a trend that seems likely to continue regardless of which party's candidate attains the presidency this year. Reversing this trend cannot be a political project alone: it requires reversing Americans' acceptance of the moral premises underlying Social Security and a return to the pride and independence which would motivate them to provide for their own future and retirement.
This is a moral crusade, not just a political one.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Diana's letter
Kern seeking to destroy protective wall
Regarding "Kern vows to fight for morals in government; The legislator's anti-gay remarks drew ire earlier this year” (news story, Aug. 6): State Rep. Sally Kern describes herself as a "cultural warrior for Judeo-Christian values.” Such claims should raise alarm bells for patriotic Americans. A free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Bible doesn't uphold capitalism, nor support our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It demands only that we suffer and sacrifice in obedience to God's will.Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment — without forcible interference from others — to survive and flourish. The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. For a government to do anything else — including promote religion — is tyranny. That's why a free society must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build "a wall of separation” between church and state.
Kern and her fellow culture warriors seek to destroy that protective wall, thereby paving the way for a repressive theocracy. In the name of freedom, they must be opposed at every step.
Diana runs the blog NoodleFood and is the founder of the Coalition for Secular Government. She wrote the letter in response - at least in part - to my posting to the OActivists List about 3 articles in the August 6th Oklahoman.
I think she did a fantastic job!
AND it proves to me that her OActivists List is an effective tool for networking with other Objectivists.
Two Governors
In fact, these laws would undermine the ability of teachers to maintain discipline and focus in their classrooms and open up local school systems to lawsuits which they may not be able to afford.
In Oklahoma, state legislator Sally Kern - who received national attention by declaring that homosexuality was worse than terrorism - managed to get her "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act", HB2633, passed and onto the desk of Governor Brad Henry.
Here is part of what Tulsa World editorial writer, David Averill, had to say about the bill:
'Antidiscrimination' act unnecessary and a bad idea
(excerpts)House Bill 2633 mandates that school districts "shall treat the voluntary expression by a student of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats the voluntary expression by a student of a secular or other viewpoint ... and may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject."
It goes on to say in the next section that "students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."
Those two unwieldy sentences can certainly be read to require that a teacher accept a students' religion- based explanation of a natural occurrence or phenomenon.
HB 2633 also includes a provision that "Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district."
What does that mean? The terms "ordinary academic standards" and "legitimate pedagogical concerns" would seem to suggest that teachers could grade schoolwork exclusively on accepted scientific explanations of how things happen. But if that is the case that provision of the bill would appear to be in conflict with the other provisions.
Here's an obvious prediction: Sorting out what HB 2633 says or doesn't say will require lawsuits.
This bill is unneeded. It attempts to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Worse, its muddy and unwieldy language is bound to cause problems for school districts attempting to implement it.
While Kern and Williamson titled the measure the "Religious Viewpoint Antidiscrimination Act," they could have just as aptly called it the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act."
Oklahoma law provides that a governor may veto a bill directly or allow it to die by simply leaving it on his desk (also known as "pocket veto"). Governor Henry - a Democrat in his second term in office - chose not only to veto the bill on June 6th, but to issue a public statement about his action:
"This is to advise you that on this date, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 and 12 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED House Bill 2633. Under current state and federal law, Oklahoma public school students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression. For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayer’s expense."
On June 16, 2008, the Louisiana Senate approved Senate Bill 733, the "Louisiana Science Education Act". It was sent to the desk of Louisiana's newly-elected Republican governor Bobby Jindal.
The (Baton Rouge) Advocate quoted bill supporter Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum:
"It provides assurances to both teachers and students that academic inquiries are welcome and appropriate in the science classroom."
In a press release announcing an open letter opposing the bill, National Center for Science Education board member Barbara Forrest - a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University - wrote,
"Governor Jindal surely knows that evolution is not controversial in the mainstream scientific community. He majored in biology at Brown University, and he belongs to a church that considers evolution to be established science and approves of its being taught in its own parochial schools. The LA Family Forum is pushing this bill over the objections of scientists and teachers across the state. The governor has a moral responsibility to Louisiana children to veto this bill."On June 15th, Governor Jindal had appeared on Face The Nation, where he was asked about Senate Bill 733:
"I don't think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. … I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning. … I don't think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent."
" . . . when my kids go to schools, when they go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to be able to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data. I personally think that the life, human life and the world we live in wasn't created accidentally. I do think that there's a creator. I'm a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth, but mankind. Now, the way that he did it, I'd certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don't want them to be--I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness. The way we're going to have smart, intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science and let them not only decide, but also let them contribute to that body of knowledge. That's what makes the scientific process so exciting. You get to go there and find facts and data and test what's come before you and challenge those theories."
On June 25th, Governor Jindal signed Senate Bill 733 into law. He issued no public statement.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Your Right to Your Life
"It is time to revive the moral argument for protecting a woman's right to choose: Abortion is about the value of women's lives."I agree with this as far as it goes while contending that it does not go far enough: "a woman's right to her own life" means that a woman's life is that woman's property. This is what ultimately must be recognized: that property rights are the foundation of all rights.
The left has been unwilling to do this because of their antagonism towards property rights in general and the individualism they imply. This is why they base their argument for abortion on a right to 'privacy' instead. They also have failed to capitalize on the bankruptcy of the right's blatant evasion of the existence of the mother.
The right professes to be pro-property rights, while being unwilling to examine the full implications of such a position. A truly consistent defense of property rights would require recognizing that a mother's life is her property. When the government tells a woman what to do with her body, isn't that a kind of eminent domain?
I hope to write about this at length in the near future.
McCain and Russia
This is the best analysis I've seen so far of the situation in Georgia. Myrhaf sets the military action taken by Russia in context by reminding us of the circumstances of the long-standing dispute between Russia and Georgia. How dare Georgia stand up to Russia's economic sanctions - and succeed!
None of this makes me more inclined to vote for McCain, however.
No, I'm not going to elaborate on that.
Yet.
(As for Andrew Sullivan: he's a religionist, therefore I dismiss him.)
Most U.S. Corporations Pay No Income Tax
Sigh.
Well, here we go again.
The income tax is immoral and the fact that corporations have to pay income taxes is immoral. That won't stop the left from indulging in the same old corporation-bashing and the right from making the same old weak, impotent apologies.
This state of affairs will continue until the moral case has become accepted in mainstream American culture for - not merely Capitalism as such - but for Capitalism's moral base, which is rational egoism.
NY Times comes out in favor of performance-enhancing drugs
"It’s possible, of course, that gene doping or other techniques could turn out to be much riskier. But is that a reason to ban them? Society has always allowed explorers and adventurers to take risks in exchange for glory. The climbers who died on K2 this month ascended it knowing that one climber dies for every four who scale it."
Let the Games Be Doped
Monday, August 11, 2008
ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EVIL
I'd thought the premise of Igor seemed intriguing, based on what I'd seen in the trailer: apparently it involves some kind of competition between mad scientists. But a cartoon that actually rejects the idea of Original Sin just might be worth paying to see in a theater.
The movie comes out September 19th.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Raymond Niles
Niles has his own blog at http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com, where you can read even more about his article.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Ultimate proof
I've decided it might be worth composing that letter anyway, just for the practice. In thinking about what I would put in it, one of the things that struck me since I first read the piece by Michael Gershon this morning is that some of his statements regarding the meaning of Christianity might constitute proof at the most fundamental possible level that the United States is not a Christian nation and was not founded on Christian principles.
Arguments regarding the Christian status of the country have tended to center on such things as the Founders' supposed religious beliefs or the wording of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
But what if it could be shown that the individualism implied by America's founding documents in fact ran counter to Christian morality?
In Gerson's op-ed - at http://newsok.com/gods-love-enough-to-scare-us/article/3279451 - he writes: " . . . the highest ideal is suffering for others . . . "
If Christianity's "highest ideal" is voluntary enslavement to mutual suffering, then why does the Declaration of Independence state that "all men" have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
For the record, the other 2 articles are at
http://newsok.com/culture-wares-faith-can-sell-in-public-square/article/3279443/?tm=1217988589
and
http://newsok.com/kern-vows-to-fight-for-morals-in-government/article/3279587
When I've finished my letter I'll post it here.
