20110226
20110225
20110224
competitiveevolution
Twisted overlap: those who warn that acceptance of evolution would lead to everyone giving in to dog-eat-dog competition and self-interest, and those who warn that prosperity and "economic freedom" require everyone to give in to dog-eat-dog competition and self-interest.
20110218
20110212
dempartytrad
""The tradition of the Democratic Party is: be more liberal than the Republican Party on domestic matters. Not too liberal, but more liberal. On matters of foreign policy, don’t be much different at all." --Howard Zinn, 2009 interview with Dave Zirin
The think tanks that drive Republican policy have realized for at least 20 years that Democratic policy is only defined relative to Republican policy, that Republicans could move arbitrarily far to the right and the Democratic Party would follow.
The think tanks that drive Republican policy have realized for at least 20 years that Democratic policy is only defined relative to Republican policy, that Republicans could move arbitrarily far to the right and the Democratic Party would follow.
20110210
abusedpledgeletter
Abuse of the Pledge
This past Monday I attended a public debate at the Salt Lake City Library. I won't go into who was there or why, it's tangential to my point and you can easily find it if you like.
Most of the event was interesting and engaging, and most of the participants showed to have some common ground on critical moral points. However, early on one side chose to invoke the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not done at the opening of the whole event, but was instead reduced to a stunt during that speaker's assigned time.
I started to stand along with many in the audience, but it was bluntly obvious what this speaker was trying to do. Not being especially fond of loyalty oaths nor mandated spiritual rituals, I chose to keep my seat. My commitment to the ideals of America is not a tool for public speakers to score points over.
My suspicions of the speaker's intentions were confirmed when, as expected, his side later tried to use people's response to the Pledge to divide the audience and call support to that side.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 (slightly altered, since then) by Francis Bellamy (a socialist, if that matters) with the purpose of inspiring a sense of unity among the diverse peoples and classes of the country (though his own sentiments were less than perfect).
Some act as if the Pledge has magical significance, so that anyone with the 'correct' sentiment will be overwhelmed with the need to speak it, but no one is ever actually required to take part. If a child were drowning in a nearby pool, you obviously would not take part. When Liberty is drowning in a nearby pool, you should not take part. When demagogues invoke the Pledge against the spirit of unity, as a stunt to test in-group loyalty and divide people into Us and Them, that is an excellent reason not to take part.
Years ago, I fixed the Pledge in my own heart. Here is my Pledge:
I pledge my allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the ideals to which it aspires, Liberty and Justice for All.
_________
The event was a debate on immigration issues between United for Social Justice and the Utah Minutemen. I may have more to say on that later.
This was a letter submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune today. They'll edit it, of course, though I know I've seen printed letters longer than their word limit. I'm at least a hundred over. I hadn't seen the limit 'til after I sent it.
This past Monday I attended a public debate at the Salt Lake City Library. I won't go into who was there or why, it's tangential to my point and you can easily find it if you like.
Most of the event was interesting and engaging, and most of the participants showed to have some common ground on critical moral points. However, early on one side chose to invoke the Pledge of Allegiance. This was not done at the opening of the whole event, but was instead reduced to a stunt during that speaker's assigned time.
I started to stand along with many in the audience, but it was bluntly obvious what this speaker was trying to do. Not being especially fond of loyalty oaths nor mandated spiritual rituals, I chose to keep my seat. My commitment to the ideals of America is not a tool for public speakers to score points over.
My suspicions of the speaker's intentions were confirmed when, as expected, his side later tried to use people's response to the Pledge to divide the audience and call support to that side.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 (slightly altered, since then) by Francis Bellamy (a socialist, if that matters) with the purpose of inspiring a sense of unity among the diverse peoples and classes of the country (though his own sentiments were less than perfect).
Some act as if the Pledge has magical significance, so that anyone with the 'correct' sentiment will be overwhelmed with the need to speak it, but no one is ever actually required to take part. If a child were drowning in a nearby pool, you obviously would not take part. When Liberty is drowning in a nearby pool, you should not take part. When demagogues invoke the Pledge against the spirit of unity, as a stunt to test in-group loyalty and divide people into Us and Them, that is an excellent reason not to take part.
Years ago, I fixed the Pledge in my own heart. Here is my Pledge:
I pledge my allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the ideals to which it aspires, Liberty and Justice for All.
_________
The event was a debate on immigration issues between United for Social Justice and the Utah Minutemen. I may have more to say on that later.
This was a letter submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune today. They'll edit it, of course, though I know I've seen printed letters longer than their word limit. I'm at least a hundred over. I hadn't seen the limit 'til after I sent it.
20110203
denyskeptic
The skeptic applies doubt to everything, including especially oneself. Denialists apply doubt only to reaffirm their committed selves.
Denial of climate change, like denial of evolution, is heavily concentrated within the United States, and therein heavily concentrated among those aligned with or influenced by a particular political faction.
Do not honor denialists by calling them skeptics. I'd feel reluctant applying the word skeptic to lots of people, including myself.
Denial of climate change, like denial of evolution, is heavily concentrated within the United States, and therein heavily concentrated among those aligned with or influenced by a particular political faction.
Do not honor denialists by calling them skeptics. I'd feel reluctant applying the word skeptic to lots of people, including myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
