One of my favorite argument on behalf of gay marriage is to point out that it is essentially sexist to forbid gays to marry.  The argument goes like this:  Women are permitted to marry men, but men are not.  Men are permitted to marry women, but women are not.  I see no rational foundation for offering men and women different privileges in the eyes of the law.

By a similar argument, I am vehemently and angrily opposed to those who would rescind a woman’s right to have an abortion.  An individual’s body belongs to themselves.  No one, NO ONE, has any business at all telling a person what they may or may not do with their own body.  It offends me to my core as a human being that someone might even suggest that I seek their permission or sanction to do as I want with my own body.

That goes double for those whose bodies might be dependent upon my own.

It is unconscionable, outrageous, offensive, evil, sick, and wrong that people suggest that a non-person such as a fetus has any claim on any woman’s body, least of all its host’s body.

If we allow fetuses, non-persons, to make that claim, what hope do we have of preserving our rights to our property? Our right to have sex with whomever we please?  Our right to get tattoos and piercings?  Our right to get jobs we enjoy?  Our right object to the actions of our government and military?  Our right to speak our minds?

As a man, I see this fight against abortion as a fight against my own life as well as the lives of women for whom I care very deeply.

So, I urge you all to pledge some money — even a dollar — to support Diana and Ari as they fight on this issue.  They’re fighting for your lives as well as their own.  Even if you don’t think abortion is a good choice for your own life, fight for your rights.  FIGHT!

I can’t remember if I’ve said this before, but the Tea Parties make me extremely uneasy, which is why I have been so cautious about saying anything positive about them.

When they first started, I was equal parts hopeful and skeptical that in spite of being a mixed bag of Christian Fundamentalists, libertarians, and even some Objectivists, that the tea parties as a movement would turn to be explicitly and properly dedicated to promoting the defense of individual rights.

As time has passed, it seems to me that the tea parties (I think there are several by now) have been moving to meet my worst expectations.

This afternoon, though, I stumbled across this quotation from Ayn Rand:

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

Are the tea parties going to become the new Libertarians for Objectivists?

I just saw this quote:

A strong middle class equals a strong America. We can’t have one without the other.  This Task Force will be an important vehicle to assess new and existing policies across the board and determine if they are helping or hurting the middle class.  It is our charge to get the middle class – the backbone of this country – up and running again.

Instead of working to make everyone part of the middle class, why aren’t these alleged do-gooders working to make us all part of the upper class?  I mean, judging from their actions and words, they don’t just want to lift up the poor, but they want to knock down the rich and just mush everyone into the middle.

It’s like an legislative orgy of mediocrity there in Congress.

It also strikes me as patently foolish to regard the “middle” of this relative hierarchy as some how a clear-cut objective goal for our economy.  If we want to drag more people up to where the middle is now, shouldn’t we do things to let the upper get even higher? And don’t tell me those folks don’t know that the hierarchy of incomes is relative because they’re constantly looking at how poor the poor are versus how rich the rich are.

Isn’t it clear that this obsession with the middle that so many in Washington have is actually fueled by malice and disdain for Americans both rich and poor alike?

Look at this:

And she didn’t post that with any apparent irony.

Rachel Maddow’s treatment of Rand Paul has been making the rounds on a number of blogs in the past day or so.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I have a hard time listening to Paul because his accent and his slow, trippy speech patterns are absolutely grating on my ears. (I did make it through for the sake of this post, though. I suffered just for you!)

Paul has made is very clear that he thinks racism is wrong and that the government should not be permitted to discriminate against people. No one misunderstands that. What he keeps trying to dodge is being forced to say that he believes private citizens should have the right to discriminate if they please. Rachel Maddow rightfully confronts him on his attempt to skirt and obscure this fact saying, “But isn’t being for civil rights but against the Civil Rights Act a little like saying you’re against cholesterol but for fried cheese?”
But even so, Paul kept dodging around the point of the question. Paul does eventually make a semi-clear statement about his view, but falls back into obfuscation about two seconds later. Maddow absolutely dominated him in this discussion and he came off looking like a total ass.

He absolutely should have given a clear, succinct statement that he does think private people should be permitted to discriminate. He’s a Libertarian like his father, so even though lots of people have expressed shock over this viewpoint, it’s not actually as unusual as Rachel Maddow seems to think.

Anyway, today, he’s turned around with this:

Aside from him stating clearly that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, I think it’s particularly telling that he now states that he does think the government should intervene in situations like civil rights. He fudges and says he’s for that only in “extreme” situations, but what on earth does that mean?

More importantly, exactly what are Rand Paul’s principles now? It used to seem like he was a unwavering defender of private property rights even into “extreme” situations like the institutional racism of Jim Crow South. But his most recent statement sounds more like he’s a pragmatic defender of “small” government. What standards is this man using to make decisions?

I can’t say that this is typical of Libertarians, but it’s pretty typical of politicians. I’m mostly surprised that he was so inept at dealing with the situation and that he’s buckled so fast.

I wonder what Ron Paul has said on this topic.

Take a drink every time someone says “sustainable.”

Democrats usually use this to refer to Green technologies while Republicans seem to use it a lot to refer to economic policies. In neither case are they genuinely concerned with the welfare of human individuals, though.

Enjoy!

I woke up this morning and turned on HLN to watch Robin Meade (since I cancelled cable, I only get my Robin fix when I’m on trips ) and they were talking about the Health Care Debate.

This point should have occurred to me sooner and it’s probably occurred to others already, but I recall Democrats responding to Republican criticism with the question, “Well, what’s your plan?”

The idea here is that “everyone” knows that health care in the US is broken and “everyone” knows that the US government needs to step in and do something about it.

On that second point is exactly where I disagree.  I do believe the health care market in the US is deformed, but it’s deformed due to government intervention.  So, obviously, the only action the government should take is to stop doing everything it’s already doing.

But the question “What’s your plan?” presupposes the statist mindset.  And you think the Democrats are the bad guys in this story, just look at the Republicans scurrying around to come up with an alternative.

Republicans are losing the health care fight.

Perhaps it’s because my political views are so radical and my views on any particular issue may be in incidental agreement with those of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, I find conversational partisanship extremely annoying.

Here’s an example from Passive-Aggressive Notes:

Although, in my direct, personal experience it is more common for Democrats to cast about this sort of generalized, ignorant, snot-nosed, insulting non sequitur, Republicans get their digs in, too.

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”

She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea
what to make of your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Democrat.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME to solve your problem. You’re in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow now, it’s MY fault!

My apologies for not pulling up an example of something a bit more commonplace.  This blog post is inspired by an IM conversation I had this weekend with someone, a Democrat, who does this sort of thing constantly, and then that post on Passive-Aggressive Notes.

The annoying thing about the person with whom I was chatting this weekend is that he is constantly arguing that I should be more open-minded.  I have no capacity for open-mindedness in the sense that he seems to mean when I ask him to explain it, but it doesn’t strike me as very open-minded to just generalize about people you don’t know because someone like them did something you don’t like.

“You must be Republican if you take up two parking spaces.”

To which a Republican might reply, “Since Democrats are communists and socialists and think everything belongs to everyone, you must be a Democrat if you take up two spaces.”

“If you’re gay, you must be a Democrat.”

To which a Democrat might say, “If you’re married and gay, you must be a Republican.”

It’s all so ridiculous and obnoxious.

The fact of the matter is that neither Democratic nor Republican parties accurately or consistently represent any guiding principles in any very intelligible way.  The Democratic party claims to support freedom and liberty, but they advocate nationalized health care which is effectively enslavement of doctors and taxpayers alike.  The Republican party claims to support property rights, but they oppose gay marriage, which is primarily an issue of property rights.  The Republican party claims to support free markets but have, for the past several decades shouldered business with more and more onerous regulations, taxes, and stultifying rules.  The Democratic party claims to be in support of small businesses and the common man and yet they are constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, assist unions, and enact all sorts of social programs which put everyone, especially small businesses and the common man, under incredible, even fatal strain.

But the lack of consistency in the party at large does not translate directly to the individuals who care to apply those labels to themselves.  Not every Republican is against gay marriage, the EPA, immigration, abortion, and national health insurance.  Not every Democrat is a tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping socialist with jungle fever and a hybrid Vespa scooter.

Forget all that and let’s just get down to the point: if you are a devout follower of one party or another, I do not care what your beef is with the opposition.  You’re at least as wrong as they are, which is to say you’re probably completely wrong.

I’m very willing to be polite to people and help them find rational support for some of their complaints on a wide number of topics.  Are you pissed off that the Republicans want to make fetuses slavemasters over those whose wombs they occupy? I am outraged with you.  Do you hate Rachel Maddow for being a snarky, sarcastic, obtuse, snob with really cute hair? I’m right there with you except I love the color of her hair. Is the idea of bailing out failing businesses offensive to your free-market sensibilities? I say that same thing!

But if you’re going to just say, “This douchebag took up two parking spaces, so he must be a Republican,” or “She did gay porn to cover her crack habit, so she must be a Democrat,” then I’m probably not going to entertain you for long because I think both parties suck and I like gay porn.

Thanks to Adam Baldwin’s tweet, I found this movie review of Avatar, which argues that because of the heavy-handed, simplistic, and down-right farcical presentation of Liberal political values, the film is actually a film about Conservative political values.

And this afternoon, Joe.My.God. linked over to a claim from Glenn Beck that because the birthers are so damn stupid and Conservative, that it’s a plot by Liberals to discredit all Conservatives.

I have an idea: maybe these things are exactly what they appear to be!

I don’t mean to get all snotty by pulling the Occam’s razor out on these people, but what if there really are people out there with stupid ideas in their heads?

And what if some of those people make movies?  What if some of those people make websites and go on television and call in to radio shows and spew their stupidity over anyone who may be paying attention?

I don’t mean to sound cynical, but there are a lot of bad ideas in the world and there are more than enough idiots to hold on to them all.  Sooner or later, you’re bound to run into one of these asshats on the internet, television, movie theater, book , magazine, radio program, sidewalk, grocery store, or, possibly, your own kitchen.

I see absolutely no reason not to take James Cameron at his word.  He made a movie espousing a deep loathing for technology and advanced civilization, so I think that’s what he believes.  Sure, if pressed, I think he’d equivocate, vacillate, and talk all around the question without getting to the logical, essential point behind his philosophy, but that doesn’t change the fact.

And I really do believe that there are quite a few people out there who believe Barack Obama is not a “natural citizen” of the United States.  Many of them are earnest when they argue that there is some alleged lack of evidence for the counter-argument and that proves their case.  Many of them seem to lack even basic critical thinking skills that would cause them to disregard this argument on its face. They really do not care how much testimony and evidence is provided to the contrary — even from people within the Republican party.

These plots simply do not exist.  These things are not satire. There is no cabal nor conspiracy to make Liberals or Conservatives look stupid.  They are doing just fine on their own.

I just found out that Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs recently announced his departure from “the Right.”

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

You should click over and read the whole post.  It’s short and he gives a quick list of 10 things he hates about the Right and examples of people and groups who illustrate those “principles.”

My first reaction to his post is “duh.” Less on the particulars than the general sentiment. Given the prevalence of some of the things which are commonly associated with the Right side of American politics today, I’m not all that sure about why they’re called “conservatives.”

But my second reaction was to look for some sort of unifying principle which would reveal Johnson’s underlying philosophy and what he stands for today as opposed to which label he now eschews.

I mean, I’m sitting here and I do not consider myself to be on the “right” nor a “conservative” in politics. But I’m also not on the “left” nor a “liberal.”

So, here are things he does not like:

• Fascists
• Bigotry
• Hatred
• White supremacism
• Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages
• General religious fanaticism
• Anti-science bad craziness
• Homophobic bigotry
• Anti-government lunacy
• Conspiracy theories
• Hate speech
• Raging hate speech
• Anti-Islamic bigotry
• Violence
• Genocide
• Hatred for President Obama
• Racism
• Hate speech
• Bizarre conspiracy theories

Some of these; racism, fascism, homophobia, anti-science carziness, are really obvious and I think all rational people can agree that those are unacceptable neither in sum nor in part.

The repeated complaint about hatred is really vague and silly to me.  When someone complains in seriousness about “haters,” I roll my eyes because the only way to stop from rolling my eyes involves the pointy part of a wire hanger.

In the spirit of granting the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Johnson, I can’t really object to any of his objections.  Since I am not close to the Right neither in terms of a movement nor its many organizations, it’s difficult for me to say whether or not all of these things really and truly do represent conservativism.

I tend to care less about what a person thinks than what they try to force me to think, so the opposition to gay marriage and other theocratic/fascist motives and efforts leave me cold toward the Right to say the least.

I do know a number of people who consider themselves conservative who do not support these things, too, though.  I think their association with the GOP is questionable, but I have not reached the conclusion that the decision represents any mortal sin.

I also hasten to point out that I have a number of similar, serious concerns about the Left in America, but this post isn’t about that.

What this post IS about is the fact that I really can’t find much of substance to make hay about in his announcement.  Sure, I could complain about his support for anthropogenic climate change and the ambiguity of some of his other complaints, but none of it is all that serious to me in light of the fact that I know he’s not an Objectivist, but someone who has been on the liberal/libertarian side of the conservative posts of his that I’ve read.  And I’ve read him only rarely when another blogger I follow has linked to him in a way that I found compelling.

So, I stumbled on this announcement with some bemusement.  I know LGF is a pretty big player in the blogosphere, but I can’t see any particular reason to object or applaud here.