Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: politics (page 5 of 19)

He’s pretty responsive to their wishes

9 December 2010 / / 2 Comments

The Kongressional Krayzee Korps has decided that President Obama doesn’t talk about the Sky-Fairy enough.

President Obama doesn’t mention God frequently enough in his speeches, a group of religious House Republicans said in an open letter to the president, chastising him for skipping over mention of the “Creator,” especially in a recent overseas address.

Forty-two members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus complained in a letter sent to the White House Monday that in a speech delivered last month in Indonesia, the president substituted the U.S.’s religious-themed national motto for a more secular alternative.

The letter suggests the speech was not an isolated incident but part of a series of remarks that “establishes a pattern” of the president intentionally excluding talk of God from his public remarks.

Republican crazies have made a demand, so you know what that means. Expect the number of god-references in presidential speeches to jump sharply.

Obama, “is is”, and “was is”

29 October 2010 / / 6 Comments

I’ve been noticing a phenomenon I call the ‘double is’. That’s where you say “The thing is, is that…”. This phenomenon has been noted before, but it’s not clear what’s happening. The ‘double is’ resembles (superficially) other grammatical sentences in English, like “How serious the problem is is less important than how serious it feels to them.” It’s also normal to put other verbs before an is, like “The thing to do is to be honest.” Even so, the ‘double is’ is sort of hard to account for grammatically.

The thing is is that people still use it. I just heard it from US President Barack Obama on his recent Jon Stewart interview.

But then Obama does it again, this time using the past tense:

The point “was is…”? Now that’s something I hadn’t heard before.

The role of disgust in opinion-forming

25 August 2010 / / 2 Comments

How do we go about forming opinions? As for me, when a moral or political decision comes up, I rationally sit down, weigh up the pros and cons of the options, and take the view that I think is best based on the evidence.

No, just kidding. I probably do it the other way around like everyone else. Form a snap opinion, and then hunt around for evidence to justify it. I don’t like the idea that this is how we operate, but it’s probably true all the same.

My first experience with political opinion-forming was the US election in 1972. My entire Republican family was voting for Nixon, but I thought I’d vote for McGovern. I didn’t even know what voting was. I’d seen the primaries, and I thought that when you voted, you had to go and stand next to your candidate so they could count you. There I imagined my family, standing with Nixon (with his fingers in ‘V for Victory’ pose), while on the other side of the room it was just George and five-year-old me. Why did I take the view I did? Why did they? I don’t know, but it is funny that no one in my family has changed voting patterns since then.

Sometimes my opinions lead on from prior opinions, or from values that I have, but where did they come from? I can’t say it’s anything more conscious than my ‘voting’ for McGovern all those years ago. I’ve often suspected that my opinions are based on some tendency, a leaning one way or the other that tips other decisions. But what tendency? Looking out for in-group v sympathy for out-group? Fearful or fearless? Authoritarian or democratic? Or something more primal?

New research highlights the role of simple ordinary disgust.

This is the argument that some behavioral scientists have begun to make: That a significant slice of morality can be explained by our innate feelings of disgust. A growing number of provocative and clever studies appear to show that disgust has the power to shape our moral judgments. Research has shown that people who are more easily disgusted by bugs are more likely to see gay marriage and abortion as wrong. Putting people in a foul-smelling room makes them stricter judges of a controversial film or of a person who doesn’t return a lost wallet. Washing their hands makes people feel less guilty about their own moral transgressions, and hypnotically priming them to feel disgust reliably induces them to see wrongdoing in utterly innocuous stories.
…
Psychologists like [Jonathan] Haidt are leading a wave of research into the so-called moral emotions — not just disgust, but others like anger and compassion — and the role those feelings play in how we form moral codes and apply them in our daily lives. A few, like Haidt, go so far as to claim that all the world’s moral systems can best be characterized not by what their adherents believe, but what emotions they rely on.

Primal emotions as atoms in the periodic table of our moral chemistry. Maybe these simple reactions are too simple to explain the complex range of opinions that grow out of them, but if opinion-forming goes back to something simpler, then disgust seems like a good candidate. I’ll be looking forward to more of this research.

Election day and the Australian Sex Party

22 August 2010 / / 3 Comments
On Election Day, I volunteered for the Australian Sex Party, handing out ‘how-to-vote’ pamphlets at polling places for a few hours. Here’s how it went.

Why the Australian Sex Party?

18 August 2010 / / 3 Comments

I’m volunteering to help the Australian Sex Party. Yep, this election Saturday, I’ll be at my local polling place, handing out ‘How to Vote’ cards and answering questions.

One question I’ve already gotten is “What on earth are you helping them for?” I’ll confess, it does go deeper than the desire for a bright yellow ASP t-shirt, or to make fundy heads go asplody.

When I first heard about the Australian Sex Party, I thought, “Ha. Funny.” Then when I saw their policies, I thought, “Wait a minute. I agree with most of this.” Here are my favourite ASP policies.

To overturn mandatory ISP filtering of the Internet and return Internet censorship to parents and individuals.

The Internet filter is Labor’s idea, and it’s a shame they’re clinging to it. Even the Liberal Party has disavowed it.

To bring about the development of a national sex education curriculum as a first step in preventing the sexualisation of children.

Yes, yes, and yes. This is what prevents pregnancies (and abortions): better information and availability of contraception.

To create total equal rights in all areas of the law including same sex marriage.

Neither of the major parties has had the courage to come out in favour of this. When someone who’s an otherwise progressive thinker refuses to condone gay marriage, you know what that tells me? They’re willing to let prejudice prevail, for no good reason. And that they’re probably beholden to some religious ideology.

To enact national pregnancy termination laws along the same lines as divorce law — which allow for legal, no-fault and guilt-free processes for women seeking termination.

It’s a medical matter, not a political matter.

Overturn restrictions on aid to overseas family planning organisations that reference abortion.

Why is this even happening?

Convene a Royal Commission into child sex abuse in the nation’s religious institutions.

This should have already been done.

An Ethics course along the lines of the current NSW trial, developed by the St James Ethics Centre, to be incorporated into the national curriculum.

I love the idea of getting young people to examine secular ethics and ethical issues. Much more relevant than the bronze-age tribalism they’re currently getting.

Supports stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research, and maintains it is a vital medical issue, not a religious issue.

Automatic yes.

The public education system should be secular in nature and not provide for any religious instruction whatsoever.

‘Religious instruction’ is an oxymoron.

Ending the tax exempt status for religions.

Cessation of tax-exempt status on all but the charitable work of religious institutions.

Religions don’t pay their fair share, and we end up paying their tax burden. Let them pay taxes like all other businesses.

To be fair, there are planks in the platform that I find uncomfortable, unappealing, or complicated.

To bring about equal numbers of women in the Parliament through enabling the Federal Discrimination Act to have jurisdiction extending to political parties.

This is worded funny. You can’t force equal numbers.

Decriminalisation, not legalisation, of purchase, possession and consumption of all drugs for personal use, such quantity to be defined as an amount equal or less than 14 day’s supply for one person.

I can’t stand drugs and don’t use them (including alcohol), but I see the value of moving enforcement to the supply side. Dealing would remain illegal.

Minors (under the age of 16) may obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian.

Touchy, but actually that’s the way it is now.

I understand the reasoning behind these positions, but I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with them. Even so, these aren’t deal-breakers for me. No one’s going to agree with every party position, and this will be more pronounced when the party takes a strong stand on issues, as does the ASP.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to a volunteer info meeting, or as they call it, ‘Slave Training‘. You have your choice of two meetings; they describe one as ‘vanilla’. I’m going to the other one! (Pictures soon.)

Americans: Don’t you wish you could vote for a Sex Party? Oh, I forgot: Republicans. Let me reword that. Don’t you wish you could vote for an unrepressed non-self-hating sex party?

Health care: Into the too-hard basket.

29 July 2010 / / 1 Comment

This is why you do not give power to Republicans. They’ve made a chart showing how confusing the new US health care system will be.

Developed by the Joint Economic Committee minority, led by U.S Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the detailed organization chart displays a bewildering array of new government agencies, regulations and mandates.

And there’s a rather complex and confusing chart. Gee, that chart has a lot of lines and shapes on it. That might take a while to read.

“For Americans, as well as Congressional Democrats who didn’t bother to read the bill, this first look at the final health care law confirms what many fear, that reform morphed into a monstrosity of new bureaucracies, mandates, taxes and rationing that will drive up health care costs, hurt seniors and force our most intimate health care choices into the hands of Washington bureaucrats,” said Brady, the committee’s senior House Republican. “If this is what passes for health care reform in America, then God help us all.”

Yes, the health care system is a complex system. The economy is also a complex system. A country is a complex system. But to them, complexity is always needless complexity. If it can’t be explained in two minutes to someone with no particular expertise, it’s unworkable and should be dismantled.

The Republican health care chart is much simpler.

Please do not give Republicans control over a system that they’re too lazy and stupid to figure out.

The week in Palin

19 July 2010 / / 3 Comments

On Sarah Palin’s latest: I think ‘refudiate‘ is a perfectly good portmanteau word, like ‘webinar’ or ‘spork’. Palin wasn’t even the first to use it. But it won’t help the perception that she’s a Bush-style mangler of words, and I think comparing herself to Shakespeare was probably a bit over the top.

While I’m on the topic: In American pollstering: Palin’s favourables are now at 76% among people who still choose to identify as Republicans — higher than any other likely candidate. All sensible conservatives were driven out of the party long ago, or fled in horror.

Well done, Argentina. Boo, LDS leaders.

15 July 2010 / / 5 Comments

Argentina votes for marriage equality.

It’s worth pointing out again that the leadership of the LDS Church, not content with interfering in the legislation of neighbouring US states, decided to broadcast its opposition in Argentina before the vote.

“The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is absolutely clear: Marriage is between one man and woman and is ordained of God,” said the July 6 letter from church President Thomas S. Monson.

A copy of the letter and its English translation began circulating over the weekend on websites for former Mormons.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah on Monday confirmed the letter was sent to local leaders in Argentina, where the faith has more than 371,000 members, according to a 2010 church almanac. The country’s population is more than 41 million.
…
The letter falls short of calling for political activism by members in Argentina, but is an echo of a 2008 letter from Monson to Latter-day Saints in California. Monson had called for Mormons to give their time and money to help pass Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative to ban gay marriage.

So, another step in the wrong direction. I’ve said this before: Homo-hating might have been a winning strategy back in the day, but it’s only going to become less and less popular as time goes on. With such a long paper trail, the Mormon Church is really going to have a hard time walking this back eventually.

So will Catholics.

Mormon leaders, Catholic leaders — there’s less and less to distinguish them now. They are truly loathsome individuals.

Yes, she is.

29 June 2010 / / 2 Comments

Julia Gillard, the prime minister of Australia, is an atheist. For a while there, I wasn’t sure, but she came out this morning in a radio interview.

Do you believe in God?

No, I don’t, John. I’m not a religious person.

I’ll write some more on this later, but I just wanted to light a celebratory sparkler. Isn’t it great that Australia is a country where a politician doesn’t have to pretend to believe in supernatural beings, and can still get elected as a head of government…

Erm. Maybe I should hold off on the celebration until after the elections.

Frauds, linguistic and otherwise

18 June 2010 / / Comments Off on Frauds, linguistic and otherwise

It’s a week for Obama-bashing. Nothing new there, but now a pseudo-linguist is trying to linguify the sport. Paul Payack is the guy in charge of the Global Language Monitor, a group which serves mostly to promote bogus claims about language. This time, Payack is carping about Obama’s Oval Office address. He says it’s far too professorial at an impenetrable 9.8 grade level. Also, it’s ‘aloof’ and ‘out of touch’.

Mark Liberman comments:

I think we can all agree that those are shockingly long professor-style sentences for a president to be using, especially in addressing the nation after a disaster. Why, they were almost as long as the ones that President George W. Bush, that notorious pointy-headed intellectual, used in his 9/15/2005 speech to the nation about Hurricane Katrina, where I count 3283 words in 140 sentences, for an average of 23.45 words per sentence! And we all remember how upset the press corps got about the professorial character of that speech!

Payack’s critique appeared in this CNN article.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said.

He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: “That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s secretary of energy.”

Did that sentence stump you? If it did, it’s not your fault — blame Obama.

In fact, why not blame Obama for everything? That’s the strategy employed here by Sarah Palin, whose sentences could never be described as ‘professorial’, though one could say ‘aphasic’.

I get through about 13 seconds of this before I get a strong desire to cram her down an oil pipe (along with her three-legged stool), which may just be worth trying. I’m amazed at her ability to criticise someone who’s actually working on the problem. Remember how she used to say “Drill, baby, drill” not too long ago? For some reason, not so much anymore.

I can only imagine what the extent of the disaster would have been if the GOP clowns had won the election. More drilling, plus even less regulatory oversight.

John Cole takes up the theme:

All I know is that if Obama doesn’t stop the oil leak with his massive Kenyan penis and then give a rousing FDR/Trumanesque speech delivered using a grade 7.5 language level that gives Chris Matthews a blue-vein hard-on and then personally scrubs every drop of oil from the gulf without hurting BP’s profits and making sure every oil worker has a job, I’m out. I mean, come on. That isn’t asking too much, is it? And why don’t we have gay marriage and a cure for cancer? What a loser!

Yeah, because saving the economy and passing health care is so last year.

Older posts Newer posts

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑