Libeqrat

Why Thanks

2008-11-28T23:35:00.000-08:00

Turkey might be yummy, but sometimes words are just plain delicious. Via Pharyngula, here is the best explanation of Thanksgiving on which my eyes have ever feasted:

A gang of Puritan religious kooks who were too wacky and weird for their homeland emigrated optimistically to the new wilderness to the west, hoping to found a utopia for repressive fanaticism. They proved to be incompetent as well as crazy, and nearly died off completely in their first few years, but survived thanks to an affiliation with local tribes who were quite competent at successfully thriving in that environment, but were unfortunately strategically unwise in allowing these parvenu lunatics to persist in their midst. . . . [T]hey got along with the Indians while they were hungry, but don't worry — it wasn't long before the colony was stabilized, and then they resumed the habits of genocide, warfare, witch-burning, rebellion, empire-building, civil war, habitat destruction, and exploitation[.] We traditionally celebrate this day with indolence and gluttony.

Anyway........

I thought I'd send out an appropriately timed thank-ya to the folks who have commented here, as well as to those who have e-mailed me compliments on my irregularly updated blog. I'll be sure to post more Libeqrat's political analysis when I get a chance.

Happy Thanksgiving. :)

Defame and Fortune

2008-11-14T20:21:00.000-08:00

My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character.
-----Charles Barkley

The 2008 race for the Senate in North Carolina became especially heated when Sen. Libby Dole ran an attack ad accusing her opponent, Kay Hagan, of associating with atheists and making promises to an atheist lobby. This ad even implied that Hagan could be an atheist herself. Oh, the horror.

Now, Kay Hagan is not only a Christian, but a Sunday school teacher and elder at her church, so it's understandable that she was upset. Dole ran a vile political attack ad that was a bald-faced lie. In response, Hagan filed suit against Dole for defamation of character, and------

Wait. What?! Defamation? What defamation? Being an atheist is somehow a character defect? Associating with atheists is reflects badly on one's character?

Before I get too crazy about this, I should point out that, now that Hagan's fortunes have improved (i.e. she won her election and unseated Libby Dole), she has dropped her lawsuit. You know, because she doesn't want to focus on that horrible attack to the detriment of her Senatorial duties.

Well, okay, but what about the manner in which atheists were treated in the course of this campaign?

I actually wouldn't have had a problem with Hagan's lawsuit had it been filed on the grounds of False Light, a tort in which the defendant tells a non-defamatory, but nevertheless damaging, lie about the plaintiff. If that sounds a like I'm nitpicking over semantics, consider the following:

The ad said,

A leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor. [quoted atheist] "There is no god to rely on." "There is no Jesus." [end quoted athiest] [ . . . ] Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras, and took godless money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return? [quoted atheist] "There is no god."

Okay, the ad's obvious implication at the end is that Kay Hagan herself promises that "There is no god" in return for "Godless money." Yes, the ad was despicable. Not to mention desperate, ridiculous and laughable. (What does it mean for a candidate to promise that "there is no god," anyway? It's sort of like promising P.Z. Meyers that there are indeed squid in the sea. What good would it do him?)

But it's not defamatory! Let's change some of the words, shall we?

A leader of the Jewish Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor. [quoted Jew] "There is no Christ to save you." "Jesus is not the Messiah." [end quoted Jew] [ . . . ] Jews and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras, and took Jewish money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return? [quoted Jew] "There is no Christ."

Get it? Would you be offended if Hagan had filed suit claiming that she was defamed ― that her character was maligned ― for associating with Jews or being Jewish? Hell yes! And you'd demand that the suit be for false light, not defamation. At least, I hope you would.

Anyway, I think Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin has this exactly right. You can listen to him here. {Warning: R-Rated Language.}

Which Animals Are More Equal Than Others?

2008-11-14T17:46:00.001-08:00

Conservative talk show host Dennis Prager caused a minor stir a while back when he passionately claimed that "equality . . . is not an American value." I think his comments provide an excellent starting point to discuss precisely what we all mean when we use the slippery term "equality."

But first, lest you think I'm kidding, take a listen:

Yikes. Where to begin? The Republican Party is better at protecting the right to pursue happiness? I suppose . . . as long as the person pursuing happiness is not female, a minority, gay, atheist, Muslim, a pot smoker, an immigrant, foreign, named Clinton or otherwise pursuing happiness in a non-traditional manner. And what's with the overwhelming antipathy to European ideals? But I digress.

Let's talk equality. Cenk Uygur at the Young Turks called out Prager for his rather stunning omission from his speech of the Declaration of Independence's preceding clause (something about "all men are created equal," I think): Uygur's commentary prompted others to say that Prager had been "libeled,"since he was clearly speaking against "economic equality" not "equal rights." Given the speech in the above video, I'm not sure Uygur actually defamed Prager, but YouTube's Advocate1234 does have a point that we should take seriously, since it forces us to examine our understanding of "equality."

So, what do we mean by "equality?" Are progressives really monolithic in their call for "spreading the wealth?" Is the American left really Communist? Of course not. So, when Uygur reminds us that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that states deny no one the "equal protection" of the laws, precisely how would Prager disagree? Would he disagree? They'd probably disagree somehow if face to face, but if so, what is it we're all demanding when we demand equality and equal rights?

Okay, here's the Libeqrat's position: Understood in isolation, "equality" can be a problematic concept, and even undermine civil liberties. Instead, we should understand equality as a function of liberty. Liberty has substance, and that substance must be enjoyed by all persons equally.

Heh, let's unpack that. :)

First, the word "equal" is a term of comparison. In order to determine whether I am being treated "equally" to everyone else, we have to know how everyone else is being treated. Of course, we have to acknowledge that if we are all being locked in cages all day, we are all being treated equally.

But, we don't want the law merely to be equally applied. We want something substantive to be equally protected.

For a Libeqrat, one of the paramount substantive things to be protected equally is the pursuit of happiness. Each and every person must be equally entitled to choose her own means to achieve happiness.

Now, does that mean that as long as a person invokes the pursuit of happiness to justify what she's doing that society may not interfere? Of course not. It depends on what she's doing. Because if each of us has the equal right to pursue happiness, then we each only have the right to pursue happiness in manners that do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

So, may the government legitimately stop you from smoking pot? No. You are entitled to pursue happiness that way, and you're not infringing on anyone else's rights by doing so. May the government prevent you from smoking pot while driving a car? Yeah. You're now risking the right to life of non-consenting other people, and they have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are equal to yours.

But the pursuit of happiness is not merely a negative right, that is, you are not free to pursue happiness just because the government will leave you alone. The pursuit of happiness has positive substance, and the government is not its only threat. Indeed, sometimes government is necessary to secure it.

So, now consider the concept of equal, substantive liberty in the context of social programs. To the extent that they are designed to ensure a substantive and equal pursuit of happiness, they are legitimate. For instance, when people do not have access to any form of health care, they are often pursuing survival, not happiness. While everyone might be treated equally under a system where the government provides no health care at all to anyone, such a system does not actually protect everyone's rights equally. However, the government should discipline itself by ensuring that it is indeed working to ensure just that --- that everyone's substantive rights are being equally protected, and not simply creating bureaucracy upon bureaucracy in pursuit of an unrealistic utopia that ultimately doubles back and infringes on liberty.

So that's the Libeqrat's view on equality. This explanation is not entirely complete, but it I hope it will spark some interesting discussions.

Thanks to Think Progress for allowing the video to be embedded.

From Abomination to ObamaNation

2008-11-09T18:48:00.000-08:00

Because I make no secret about my atheism, people interested in the Libeqrats' philosophy sometimes ask me whether the "rational" part of "liberty, equality, rationality" itself means "atheism," and whether a Libeqrats' Party would be the atheists' party. In a word, no.

Certainly, a Libeqrats' Party would welcome and embrace atheists, and unlike many political parties, would champion their civil rights and liberties. But only because atheists, agnostics, deists, and theists of all stripes are all equally entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, while rationality entails a pro-science agenda, and one that would have the government itself operate from a secular perspective, it hardly entails excluding religious people from helping to craft public policy.

What, though ― you might be wondering ― would that mean, in a pluralistic country in which many of those participants will claim to derive their morals and principles from their religions? Well, I am heartened to embed here excerpts from an overlooked speech by now-President Elect Barack Obama, in which he says,

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. . . . [This] requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.

Bingo! Take a listen . . . . .

After eight years of the Bush Abomination's gleeful theocratic pandering, not to mention the disaster that was Proposition 8's success here in California, these words from the now—president-elect are very welcome.

The entire speech, along with an interesting thread of comments, is available here on Richard Dawkins' site.

Thank you to Fearless2005 for allowing this video to be embedded.

Apocalypse Nov.

2008-10-26T22:30:00.000-07:00

Golly. It appears that the world might come to an end in November. According to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who has taken leave of his faculties long ago,

[California's Proposition 8 is] more important than the presidential election. [ ] We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation, [ ] but we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.

Well, I guess he should know. I mean, who's done more research on the family than the Family Research Council? But perhaps I'm not being fair. I mean, he's just predicting the end of the nation, not the end of the whole world, right? Wait, what's that, Charlie?

This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon.

That latter gem spewed forth from the mouth of Charles Colson, who would like to be known for founding Prison Fellowship Ministries, but who is probably more rightfully infamous for his role in Watergate.

Well, Libeqrats can at least take some sacrilegious heart knowing that CA Attorney General Jerry Brown knows how to play this End Times Game. He revised California's ballot header. I'm looking at my ballot right now, and indeed, Prop. 8 is not described as a measure to define marriage, but as one to "eliminate [the] right" of gay people to marry. And I admit, it's a pleasure that the accuracy of the description really annoys authoritarians.

As for my part, I've been working on the No on 8 campaign here in the heathen town of San Francisco, and the activism I've seen has been very encouraging. Personally, I'm looking forward to the raining frogs. How about you?

When You've Gone InSane, & Ya Need a VP, Who Ya Gonna Call?

2008-06-12T19:18:00.001-07:00

Ghostbusters?

Bobby Jindal has a very impressive resume. At the tender age of 37, has already served in many professional capacities, has been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and is currently serving as the governor of Louisiana, making him the youngest governor in the country. As an Indian American he is also one of our nation's lamentably few minority governors.

He also happens to be a Republican, so his youth and minority status have attracted the attention of that party's old, white presidential candidate, who just might be considering Jindal as a running mate. But as Gone InSane contemplates Jindal's potential political advantages and disadvantages in the VeeP slot, he might want to take into account another lesser-known, less impressive capacity in which the ambitious young man served -- as an exorcist!

Yes, that's right, Jindal, who converted from Hinduism to Catholicism, performed an exorcism on a friend experiencing a seizure, and he apparently credits his good deed not only with successfully casting out the nasty demons from her body, but for curing her skin cancer as well.

Oh! My!....er....Gosh!

Oh, how I long for rational leaders. Yes, while we should all be at liberty to practice any religion or no religion, our government must be rational. No, I'm sorry, I do not respect Jindal's beliefs. I respect his liberty to believe whatever he wants. I respect him as an equal citizen. But not his beliefs themselves. What if he had done irreversible damage to his friend by preventing her some seeing a medical doctor? And if he does end up one heartbeat away from the presidency (which I realize is probably unlikely), how would his beliefs that exorcisms can cure cancer affect his health care policies?

This isn't just a silly story. It's potentially deadly serious. He is, after all, the highest ranking official in Louisiana -- a state, by the way, now seriously debating whether to teach creationism in its schools (but that's irrationality for another day).

Think He Can Spell Antidisestablishmentarianism?

2008-06-08T15:31:00.000-07:00

Has anyone looked up "maverick" lately? Has it come to mean "illiterate theocrat?"

In this not-so-new video, authoritarian presidential hopeful Gone InSane regales us with his lethally ignorant desire for the integration of church and state. You know, I've heard a variety of dubious interpretations of the First Amendment under which certain mixtures of religion and government are not proscribed, but rarely have I heard presidential candidates claim outrightly that "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation."

Thank you to JedReport for posting this clip on YouTube and allowing it to be embedded.

So, a Republican and a Libertarian Walk Into a Barr, and . . .

2008-06-05T17:55:00.000-07:00

Has former Georgia Congressman, and current Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Bob Barr genuinely converted to a kind of libertarianism? Judging by his voting record in the House as a Republican representative in the 1990s, my suspicions have always been that he was merely an opportunist, anti-Iraq war authoritarian. I also suspected that the Libertarian Party simply latched onto him for the chance to garner attention, and possibly spoil the election for Republican presidential candidate Gone InSane (which would be just fine with me). But I have to admit, I haven't paid enough attention to Barr's career to know that he (at least now that he's running on the Libertarian ticket) purports to have reversed some of his old authoritarian positions. Whaddaya think? Is it real? Take a listen.

In any case, to be a Libeqrat is not to be a Libertarian with a capital L, and I'm sure not voting for Barr. But maybe it would not be completely disingenuous of me to recommend him to libertarian Republicans I know. (I still maintain that progressives and libertarians have a lot to offer one another, no matter how crazy people call me.) ;)

And if nothing else, Colbert's line that the Defense of Marriage Act makes government so small that it can fit into your bedroom is brilliant! If only Borat were around to feed Barr more cheese.

What Are We Smoking?

2008-06-05T10:43:00.000-07:00

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we seem to think that we can make everything that scares us disappear by criminalizing it. And if punishing people for their behavior fails actually to mitigate the scary problem, the answer is clearly to make the punishments harsher, and give the police more leeway to search, seize and destroy. Never is the concept of outlawing everything we dislike itself reconsidered by serious government officials, so by the middle of this brave, new century, if the act of breathing is not outrightly illegal, it will likely be considered probable cause for the cops to search you.

In an effort to expedite our plunge into a totalitarian abyss, the city of Washington, D.C. brings you Neighborhood Safety Zones:

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence. . . . At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest.

Yeah, I feel safe. Don't you?

Certainly, violent acts like murder are genuine crimes that are genuinely frightening, and D.C. is apparently experiencing a lot of them lately. But how is it, exactly, that this policy by panic could even have been conceived, much less debated and considered, in the United States? Here's a hint:

A city councilman who represents some of the affected neighborhoods -- in the District's northeast quadrant -- was cautiously optimistic about the proposal's potential to "crack down on ... open-air drug markets." But the local lawmaker, Harry Thomas, did express worries about DC "moving towards a police state." [emphasis mine]

Yes, there are some concerns about the emergence of a police state, but hey, if we can finally stop people from doing drugs, might it all be worth it?

Folks, the so called War on Drugs is an unmitigated disaster whose ultimate side effect is the virtual abrogation of the Fourth Amendment. While I certainly can't claim to know precisely what has caused the recent spate of violence on which D.C. now feels compelled to crack down (pun intended), at some point we need to recognize that it is our response to drug use that aggravates violent crime, not the drugs themselves.

As a Libeqrat, I'd consider outlawing the ingestion of any chemical that would make an otherwise non-violent person suddenly turn violent. Otherwise, each and every individual should have the right to act in any manner that does not infringe upon the rights of non-consenting others. You wanna do drugs? To borrow a slogan: Your body; your choice. We'd all better wake up to this reality soon, lest we all find ourselves living in the discomfort of Neighborhood Safety Zones.

Another Fight as Miserable as the Rest

2008-06-04T20:47:00.000-07:00

I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
---Kinky Friedman

On Thursday, May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued a very lengthy decision overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage. I remember the day well. I called my partner to inform her of the ruling, read the relevant sections of it to her over the phone, and discovered later in the evening that impromptu celebrations on the streets of San Francisco's Castro district made it moderately difficult to drive my car around looking for a parking space. In any case, the mood in the city was rightfully one of universal jubilee.

Naturally, though, California's local authoritarians aren't standing for this affront to . . . uh . . . tyranny, I guess. Spurred, no doubt, in large part by their beliefs that the institution of marriage has remained utterly static since its inception as an irrevocable familial property-sharing arrangement in which the woman was one piece of the property, and that their deity will literally make the sky fall if the decision remains the law of the land, more than one million inexplicably obsessed activists have put the matter up for another popular vote this November.

Yes, it remains a serious flaw of the California Constitution that it can be amended by a mere majority of voting voters in a particular election. I suppose that gay marriage activists should have gathered signatures for a simultaneous proposition that might have nullified the one that will appear on ballots this fall. Something like, "Rights protected by the California Constitution shall not be rescinded except by amendment to the Constitution approved by a two-thirds majority of all registered and eligible voters."

But I digress. What I really want to convey is my position as a Libeqrat: Government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether. Each and every individual should have the right to enter into a marriage contract with any other individual or individuals, and the terms of that contract should be defined by those individuals themselves, not the state. And that should be that. To the extent that there are disagreements among the parties, courts can interpret and enforce the contracts. Viewed as such, gay marriage is a simple liberty issue, an issue of the pursuit of happiness.

The Supreme Court's decision, moving though some of it is, is couched in the convoluted parlance of "fundamental rights," tracing the history of the concept in federal and California jurisprudence, weighing the state's interest establishing the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and limiting them to certain kinds of people, all to reach the conclusion that marriage is now one of the fundamental rights of individuals. Why bother with this analysis? Why do courts place the burden on individuals to prove that a right is "fundamental" rather than placing the burden on the state to prove that it has been delegated the power to limit individual liberty? And why should the state have the right to define and limit a contractual marriage relationship at all?

I haven't seen any public figure or talking head express the Libeqrat view precisely, though, interestingly, professional wrestler and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura opined to Pat Buchanan that the government should only recognize civil unions, leaving marriages to the church. (Buchanan, of course, responded with a typically Orwellian understanding of tyrant judges, prompting Ventura to explain the concept of tyranny of the majority to him.) In any case, I will of course be working to prevent the proposed Constitutional amendment from passing in November. But with each of our basic liberties having to be earned ad hoc, the fight between the anti-equality authoritarians and the gay rights activists promises to be as miserable in California as it has been in the rest of the states.