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 listened to the Stuff You Should Know podcast about oil spills a while ago and ever since I’ve been telling people that the BP Oil Spew in the Gulf really isn’t anywhere close to the largest oil spill in history.  People always raise a skeptical eyebrow to me, but check this out:

That doesn’t make it any less tragic or devastating to the people who live in the Gulf, I know, but if you were judging the size of the spill by the amount of press coverage, you’d definitely get a different impression.

I saved this from FFFFound, but if you know the original source, I’d love to link to it.  (It kind of looks like an infographic from Wired Magazine to me, but I couldn’t find it in the quick few searches I did.)

Update: Commenters have provided the source of this graphic, so do note that the author has pointed out that it is no longer accurate/up-to-date since he created it.

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?

Found over at Joe.My.God.

Joe calls religious indoctrination of children child abuse. I can’t really go there with him although I’ve spent plenty of time laboring under the burden of religion. It suggests that some sort of police action should be taken.

When you raise your children, you can tell them whatever lies you want. It would be wrong for the state to attempt to dictate which ideas you’re allowed to teach them. Further, it is up to your offspring to make up their own minds at some point. If they decide they want to accept those mythologies without question, that is their business.

But watch that video and remember what a mean and insidious thing it is to raise your child in that mythology. No matter how you water it down with modern sensibilities, mysticism is wrong and harmful.

Via Clusterflock the NY Times reports on the proliferation of Apple iPhone/iPad apps dedicated to God or the absence thereof.  Here’s a bit from the article that caught my eye:

Sean McDowell, the editor of “Fast Facts” and some textbooks for Bible students, said he has become increasingly aware of a skill gap between believers and nonbelievers, who he feels tend to be instinctively more savvy at arguing. “Christians who believe, but cannot explain why they believe, become ‘Bible-thumpers’ who seem dogmatic and insecure about their convictions,” he said. “We have to deal with that.”

Emphasis added.

I’m saying instinct has nothing to do with it.  The reason atheists win arguments about the existence of God is because they’re right.  There are no rational arguments that support it and, because they thought through the attempted arguments for God they are suited to address it.

“Instinct” implies that it’s inborn or non-volitional.  But the act of thinking, of being rational is entirely volitional and it takes work.  If you turn off your brain and take things on faith, you’re not going to be as good at critical thinking and reasoning skills as someone who is practiced at those things.

I was listening to This American Life, the episode called “Social Contract.”  It’s about people working to try to maintain failing/bankrupt governments — governments like the state of New York, the country of Greece, or Barbados.

What struck me, though, is this: I wonder if people object to Atlas Shrugged as being unrealistic just because she didn’t spend an extra 60,000 pages outlining all the absurd and ridiculous politics that statist governments could go through before they collapse entirely.

I mean, Ayn Rand described some pretty accurate things, but I think she’d have to have been a sociopath or some sort of deviant to imagine some of the “solutions” that get proposed and implemented by politicians the world ’round in response to the problems they themselves created with excess spending.

Look at this:

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

While I haven’t been following the Oil Spill in the Gulf news closely (mostly because I don’t have access to broadcast news) I have stumbled across a little bit of new information.

First, I’ve heard that there may have actually been some incompetence on the part of BP in managing the capping of this well.  I haven’t sought out any corroboration of the story, but what I understand from the brief summaries I’ve read and heard, they were apparently trying to cap a well so they could move to another location, but they were behind schedule and were rushing to get the old well capped and that’s what led to the explosion that caused this spill.  Some people have suggested that there was also an effort to obscure the facts of the situation from public view.

Regardless of whether it was an accident caused by incompetence or circumstances beyond their control, I don’t disagree with those who call for BP to be financially accountable for damages that this spill has caused.

What I questioned in my last post on this topic is whether BP should be morally condemned for the spill as so many people have already done.  I’m still not certain about that.  (I’m still appalled by the number of people outright accusing BP of theft and murder out there.)

BUT! I did just learn about some of the comments that CP CEO, Tony Hayward, made about this.

“I’m sorry. We’re sorry for the massive disruption it’s caused their lives. There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back.“

This one has caused a LOT of outcry. I can see what he was going for there, but this statement was poorly timed and poorly worded.  This is because most who hear this statement will just hear the last sentence and conclude that he just means that he is tired of hearing people whine. He wants to get back to bathing in champagne in the back of a stretch Lambourgini and smoking cigars made of $100 bills.  And how about the 11 people who DIED in this accident? I’m sure they’d like their lives back, too.

Judging from the context of the statement, he probably just meant that he is distressed over all of the destruction this spill has caused not only to people and wildlife in the Gulf, but to businesses all over the world including BP and he wishes life could get back to normal.

The point I would make is that I don’t think it’s really appropriate for a CEO to air his wishes to the world. CEOs should not walk around indulging in wild wishful thinking like that.  That’s MY opinion on that remark.

I was also told that Mr. Hayward made the comment “Louisiana isn’t the only place that has shrimp.”  That’s false. Mr. Hayward didn’t say that.  Apparently, that comment was made by BP representative, Randy Prescott.

On its face, that remark is callous to the point where I wonder if Mr. Prescott is a sociopath.  It’s so callous that I had to keep googling and see if I could find that comment in context.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any reliable news source on Google reporting on this comment, let alone putting it context. The intarwebs are overflowing with comments suggesting that people call or email Mr. Prescott’s office.

If anyone can point me to the context of that comment, I’d appreciate it.

Thanks!

People are going around as if BP somehow planned to lose billions of dollars into the ecosystem.  That simply isn’t the case.

This oil spill was an accident and I’ve yet to hear that it was the result of any sort of gross negligence or malfeasance on BP’s part, so why do people act as if it were some sort of horrible moral failing by the people in that corporation?

I’ll tell you why: Because so many people in our culture have bought into the notion that oil is some sort of inherent evil and anyone involved in the production of oil is also evil.

Never mind that oil has brought us a frenzy of life-enhancing, wealth-producing, comfort-creating advancements over the past hundred years or so and that it remains an essential part of our lives and industry. I see nothing particularly objectionable about being “dependent” upon oil any more than it’s objectionable that we were “dependent” upon wood for sailing ships two hundred years ago or that we’re “dependent” upon sand for concrete and glass and other such wonderful things.

Anyone who advocates flipping a switch and cutting off oil in our economy hates human life because such a decision would mean widespread destruction and misery.