Über die Freiheit / de libertate

I’m on the record criticizing Arnold Kling, but this bloggingheads.tv episode is excellent. If you want to get a basic understanding of the current economic turmoil, this is a great place to start.

How does an atheist debate a theist? It seems to me that such arguments accomplish nothing due to unprovable assertions by theists. Now obviously I am biased, but I think that the onus should be on the religious to prove God’s handiwork in daily life. I’ll admit that history demonstrates a consistent belief in the supernatural by humans, but I’d still argue that I should not have to disprove an invisible, unknowable divine.

I think of this issue thanks to an article posted on Prof. Koyzis‘ blog. In his article mainstream screenwriter Joe Eszterhas discusses his conversion to Christianity. He recounts surviving cancer concluding

I will thank Him forever because He gave me new life and a heart which is truly able to love for the first time in my life. His love is mine.

My first thoughts were posted in the comments at the blog.

But why must we assume such a result is from God? Simply because he says so? Could it not be that Mr. Eszterhas’s change came not from God, but rather from human intellect and will power and the medical science that results from it?

As a devout fundamentalist (not to mention hateful and ignorant) Christian for the first nineteen years of my life, I can honestly say that I never once felt, despite naïve pleas, the ‘presence of God’. Thus, the first step outside of my engrained religiosity was to reject an active god and support full cessationism. Subsequently this led to a clockmaker god, who lets the world operate after initial creation. And finally, I came to an outright rejection of theism.

With this in mind, I find Mr. Eszterhas’ claims of God’s role to be lacking. However, Prof. Koyzis responded, defending God’s work in daily life.

Robert, medical science does not negate the work of God. The human intellect and will power are gifts of God. Most of the time God uses ordinary means to accomplish his work.

Of course I did not say that medical science negates the works God. In and of itself medicine and other human advances are not an argument against theism. What I questioned was why one would assume that surviving cancer must be explained by God. Nothing in Esterhas’ story is particularly revealing except that he feels that God “saved” him. On the contrary, I would argue medical science, self-confidence and family are what got him through the undeniably trying event.

Prof. Koyzis’ points seem to be circular. Human intellect is a gift of God. We know this because the Bible claims it so. We know the Bible is correct because people like Mr. Eszterhas’ demonstrate God’s work in our lives? But this reasoning and gotten us absolutely nowhere.

However if intellect is a gift from God, why do so many intellectually endowed people reason that God mustn’t exist? How can I use my intellect to reason the non-existence of God if my intellect is the product of God? I don’t understand this paradox.

Likewise, how can a nontheist argue against the proposition that “God uses ordinary means to accomplish his work”? If every little element of life is God’s work and it is invisible and ordinary it is incredible easy to support the existence of God. Merely the existence of the world would be “evidence” of God’s existence.

Thus the central issue is that the theists put forth arguments for God which are supposedly a priori. That is, God exists because he obviously does, look at the world! And yet they also try to make the a posteriori argument with conversion experiences like Mr. Eszterhas. Our daily lives in addition to supposed miracles provide the experience which should lead one to posit the existence of God.

If religion can assume both types of knowledge, without a shred of credible evidence, how does one begin to focus on specific issues? Observing the world clearly demonstrates that human intellect is capable of explaining nearly all of the presented evidence for God. I don’t just mean this in a biased way, but human reasoning clearly leads to central contradictions in the biblical and experiential “evidence for God”. Thus when it comes to focusing on certain cultural and moral issues it is hard to have a fair debate because the nontheist is expected to ignore rational thought and accept the premise that a divine being is controlling the game.

Thus when discussing suicide the rational person is forced to accept that humans should not have the choice when to die, yet the theist is not required to supply an intellectually based argument. If you can use God and the Bible as a crutch, then you can win any argument. Similarly, on a societal issue like same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in general, the nontheist is greeted by a proclamation that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Thus arguments based around human intellect which produce arguments for equality and biology are drowned out by the fact that a 2000 year-old, human-created book says the opposite.

Can there ever be a fair argument if the unreasonable, illogical and anti-intellectual position holds veto power?

The question is: assimilate to what? If assimilation means respecting the same laws as other Americans - and all the cultural specificities that those laws embody - then immigrants are clearly still expected to assimilate. If assimilation means believing in the ‘American dream’ of achieving greater things through hard work and merit, then the overwhelming majority of immigrants subscribe to it with gusto. If assimilation means changing the colour of their skin, then that is impossible. If assimilation means adopting American values and cultural customs, then should all immigrants watch Seinfeld or Oprah; worship in a church, a synagogue, at home or not at all; support a woman’s ‘right to choose’ or oppose abortion; believe in free markets or the New Deal? The reality of modern America is its great diversity, irrespective of immigration. So when Brimelow advocates a vast Americanisation campaign, to purge America of diversity, multiculturalism, foreign languages and hyphenated identities, how exactly, and with what, does he intended to scrub blacks, Asians and Latinos clean?

[Philippe Legrain, Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 219.]

A lot of people, not just from the far left or libertarian fringe, are drawing the analogy between the push for the bailout and the run-up to the Iraq war. Personally, I think that this is being unfair to the Iraq war, which by comparison was debated longer with more information provided to Congress and to the public. [EconLog]

On Thursday the Leader-Post reported that a number of “underage” employees were let go from a local Dairy Queen.

On Friday the Leader-Post editorialized in support of the law banning “underage” workers.

On Friday I sent a letter to the editor:

In the Friday, September 26, 2008 edition of the paper (”Protections serve
young workers”) the Leader-Post editorialized in favor of “arbitrary” laws preventing 15 year olds from working certain jobs.

The editorial goes as far as to attempt to link the current state of affairs with that of industrial Britain in the 19th century, as though voluntary, consensual part-time work is akin to forced child labor.

Likewise the editorialist decries the interest in “buying frills and gadgets,” calling it, “the sad detritus of a materialistic age.” First, can one honestly argue that adults don’t partake in such a shameful materialistic age? Secondly, a desire for the latest technological frivolities is not shameful, rather it should be encouraged as a privilege we now have thanks to the hard work of those in the past.

The Leader-Post advocates a blanket policy preventing young people from working, while admitting that many students are fully capable of handling school and part-time work. To create policy based on the notion that some might not be able to handle both is fallacious and offensive. Drafting legislation which punishes individuals for the sake of the collective is not the proper role of government.

Most egregiously, while defending the arbitrary and unnecessary law with one side of its mouth, on the other side the Leader-Post continues to employ youths-indeed children-as deliverers of its papers in the early hours of the morning.

7:00: Boring.

7:03: What?

7:07: Zzzzzzz…

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr put up a post discussing one of the famous Schoolhouse Rock videos which advocated a federal law which would force school buses to stop at all railroad crossings. He criticizes it on federalist grounds.

A commenter had one of the funniest responses ever:

Orin Kerr says he cares about our children — he says he’ll protect them from danger. So what did he do when Congress tried to pass a law that would have made it illegal for school buses to park on railroad tracks? He opposed it. Said it was “not Congress’s problem.” Kids in jeopardy? Not Congress’s problem? This November, let’s make sure Orin Kerr doesn’t become America’s problem.

Orin Kerr. Wrong on buses. Wrong for America.

Even funnier, another commenter comes to Kerr’s defense:

Not only has Orin Kerr been a child, he overcame being born without the ability to walk.

Happy Celebrate Bisexuality Day!

Over at the econoblog Division of Labour Tim Shaughnessy has a post about “why libertarians don’t gain much ground”. His basic thesis is that libertarians are intolerant atheists. His post is centered around a post by Nicholas Provenzo of The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism’s blog Rule of Reason. Provenzo’s post has caused quite a stir in intarweb circles. Here is the central idea behind the post:

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

On the surface this seems like inflammatory and perhaps harsh, but I’m not sure myself. One blogger called it “pretty vile stuff” another blogger called him an asshole, repeatedly. The hate mail he received and subsequently posted has even more interesting responses: he’s a Nazi; kill yourself; you should have been aborted, etc.

Most of the backlash comes from the second sentence of the paragraph quoted above: “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome”. If one looks at this quickly, as many seem to have done, it might appear that he is saying that all Down syndrome babies should be aborted. However, I think people might be misunderstanding the word “morality”. Rather than saying that it is only moral to abort, I believe he is saying that if one chooses so, it is moral to abort, as it is in any situation. Now obviously from the remainder of Provenzo’s post it is clear that be believes the better choice is to abort the child, but I don’t believe he is saying all should. It truly is a matter of choice, but Provenzo is attempting to argue for what he believes is the more moral choice.

Of course this is where the debate really takes off. As callous as it might seem, I think Provenzo’s moral preference has the better argument. While I would never attempt to undermine the individual choice of any woman, I think there is a good argument to be made for abortion in the case of severe disabilities in fetuses. I am uncertain of what moral good comes from bringing a child into the world where they will have no quality of life. Indeed, I think Provenzo might be right when he alludes to the fact that bringing a severely disable child into the world might ultimately be selfish and cruel.

I also cannot agree whatsoever with the standard pro-life/Christian response which attempts to say that bringing such life into the world is a beautiful act. To say that the mentally handicapped are “ambassadors of God” is profoundly misguided. To say that they are “ambassadors of God” is to show how evil the god of Christianity must be. If god would allow a such a hardship upon a innocent child just to show god’s supposed love then god is undeserving of any reverence. Likewise as the National Review article shows, Christians appear to use the disabled as pawns in a disgusting game of self-satisfaction. Take these for example (emphasis added):

• “Their presence, in short, elevates all of us.”
• “It wasn’t until my brother John lost his battle with cancer ten years ago that I truly appreciated how much he influenced those around him.”
• “He made us better people”

In each instance Franc shows that the disabled’s presence is designed to improve our lives. I don’t doubt the genuine love and care that was provided, but it seems that there is little concern for the life of the disabled person. If one person’s life is based around the self-satisfaction that another might get out of it, it seems a little troubling to me. If the primary purpose of disabled individuals is to demonstrate god or teach the rest of humanity a lesson and the comfort and happiness is in the background there is a huge problem with priorities.

All that said, I think I agree generally with Provenzo’s point, however, I think he was unnecessarily terse and probably could have crafted his post more carefully as to better deflect the criticism—though in such debates civility, especially on the anti-abortion side, is generally lacking and based primarily on guttural instinct. I also must point out that I, like most people, don’t like abortion, and wish it were unnecessary, however I believe that it is a fundamental freedom that women (and to a small extent, couples) should always have.

As for Shaughnessy’s response, I don’t much understand it. I don’t know any libertarian who is as openly hostile to religion as he claims. Reason magazine, though cosmopolitan and generally irreligious, isn’t as hostile has he states. There is nothing inherently incompatible about religion and libertarianism. It is only incompatible when religion is applied in as though it were a strict guide for political philosophy. Indeed, I think there is a strong case to me made for Jesus being a libertarian in a basic sense, though this supposes a strong Arminian view of theology. That said, religion, and Christianity specifically, are huge obstacles to a more free society. Looking at abortion, same-sex marriage and other dictated morals one can see how Christianity is, or at least has been portrayed as, the antithesis of libertarianism. The reason that many libertarians are atheists is because libertarianism puts a huge emphasis on human reason, while religion attempts to directly undermine the abilities of humanity.

More specifically, I don’t know how Shaughnessy can think that his argument for a libertarian stance on abortion has much merit. Invoking the non-aggression axiom in the case of a zygote is patently absurd. He states that he doesn’t “see how, after the two haploids become a diploid, this being is anything but human, and thus deserving of the rights any other human has.” I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand how one can think that a microscopic ball of cells can logically have the same rights as a rational human being. (I’ll admit this does provide a problem in respect to babies which are not “rational”, however, I think that the birthing process IS important in this respect.) If all things that are potential human beings—a zygote—are worthy of protection, shouldn’t we also include the sperm and egg within the realm of protection?

I don’t know if calling an abortion moral is necessary, but surely forcing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child is immoral. The abortion itself might not be moral (depending on one’s definition of morality) but having the choice to do so certainly is moral and any prevention of this choice is rightfully condemned.

Now I’ll agree with Shaughnessy that Provenzo’s post might not convince “an ideological fence-sitter”, but I don’t think that such fence-sitters really exist. However, in my former life as a fundamentalist Christian I completely rejected abortion and now such posts appeal to me, at least in an intellectually stimulating way. So perhaps posts will help abortion foes to at least reexamine the basis of their beliefs.

I think the strange comment about potheads is also revealing. First off, what’s wrong with potheads wanting to get their drugs cheaper? Additionally, how is calling one’s self a libertarian going to reduce the cost of marijuana? If potheads want to get cheaper drugs they’d be better off attempting to influence members of the Democratic Party. Putting a Bob Barr sign on your lawn isn’t going to accomplish anything. So when Shaughnessy can point out potheads who are calling themselves libertarians for this sole reason, I’d like to see it. Until then, he should work on stopping sounding like a moralist.

The ultimate point of this post seems to be that until the Randians stop insulting is religious faith he will “continue to be slightly embarrassed [sic] to admit my libertarian leanings.” First off, I think “leanings” is accurate since, from at least what he presents in this post, he seems more like a market-oriented conservative, rather than a libertarian. (But I’d have to see his position on same-sex marriage and other cultural issues to make a better judgment of his ‘libertarian purity’.) Secondly, I think it’s odd to be embarrassed to call yourself libertarian because some elements within the ‘movement’ disagree with you. Using this logic he should be embarrassed to call himself a member of Louisiana State University-Shreveport since presumably there are some ultra-leftists on campus or perhaps he should embarrassed to be an American since there undoubtedly some douche bags to be found within the population.

Over at the Foreign Policy blog, Joshua Keating has a post about the scramble for the arctic. He notes that Russia has been making claims about arctic rights and concludes:

The folks in Canada, which has a massive Arctic claim as well, aren’t taking this very well. Canada was already looking north uneasily after the invasion of Georgia and has been conducting military excercises in the region. Some commentators are now calling for Canada to increase its activity in the Arctic in order to bolster its territorial claim. There is apparently no ban on weapons in the area so it’s not hard to imagine things getting out of hand.

I for one don’t see things getting out of hand. Canada is not going to get into a military fight with Russia. A) Canada would lose. B) The United States would be pissed. C) There’s an election.

Over at his blog David Koyzis links to an article by Stanley Carlson-Thies entitled “Is the Common Good Rainbow-Striped?” My initial reponse: What the heck is public justice? And how is it Christian? Is it like social justice? Can’t be. (My second response: Why the hell is he french spacing? Third response: Hyphenated names are annoying to type and they seem like two people.)

Besides the odd and slightly offensive title, the article is an odd and disturbing hybrid of libertarian principles and Christianist rhetoric. On one hand Carlson-Thies argues that Christians are being oppressed and are unable to freely express their religiousity. On the other he is implictly arguing for a libertarian freedom. And with his third hand his is asking for a subsidy.

That said, I’m not convinced that a world ruled by the Center of Public Justice would be all that desirable. But for his sake I’ll take it at face value. The central contradiction, I would argue, is his conception of the state. Take this for example:

The view seems to be that in public life we are essentially identical and must be treated the same. No business may refuse to serve us.  And since government must serve all equally, private groups supported by government also must serve everyone equally.

It is of central importance that the government does treat people as identical–under the law.  I would agree that the private businesses and individuals should be able to make their own choices. What  I don’t understand is why treating people as identical and the same is not laudable? Why is tolerance wrong? I fully support a business’s right to discriminate wildly, however, I would never support any business whose model was based upon hate, ignorance or myth (ie. religion).

The second portion is even more confusing. Does Carlson-Thies really believe that government supported private groups should be able to use money extorted from taxpayers to futher their unliberal and intolerant ideas? Would he be making the same argument if a Satanic charity was using his tax dollars to exclude Christians from their procedures? For some reason I have my doubts.

I honestly don’t know how he can keep a straight face and say “The government should not be used to enforce a single code of behavior that denies the deep religious convictions of many people and institutions of faith.” The government’s role, as defined by separation of church and state, is to be morally neutral. The government, absolutely, shouldn’t deny religious conviction, but when you combine it with the government, you lose.

If Carlson-Thies would stick to a libertarian approach to religion and stridently advocate a separation between government and religion it wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortuntely he wants to have his cake and eat it too. You can’t admit that “America is home to several moral communities” and then wonder why the public gets upset when you demand tax dollars and the right to be intolerant and hateful. It’s utterly ridiculous to call it “a new secular theocracy” when you are actively promoting a hidden Christianist theocracy. How an obviously intelligent man could become perplexed by a public bothered by his personal views being subsidized is beyond me.

I suppose he’d argue that he’s merely looking for honesty and commenting thusly. However it seems odd that he’s focusing on liberal talking points and not really addressing any falsehoods on the side of conservatives.

First he criticized Obama’s community organizing. Then defended Palin against being a creationist. Then he defended Palin’s “message” from God statement. Then he criticized Obama’s tax plan, twice. Then he defended religion and by association Palin’s evangelicalism. And most recently he defended McCain’s kindergarten sex-ed ad.

I see only two instances where he has spent any time criticizing McCain/Palin. Once on her general false stance on earmarks, which he promptly defended as “what one would expect of a governor” and that “her general style suggests the sort of politician who would be willing to fight, perhaps able to win, against a variety of entrenched interest groups.” Second he uncritically linked the open letter that made the rounds.

Now obviously Friedman is allowed to blog what he wants. Hell, he might even be correct in all of his criticisms, but I wonder why he has expended so much effort on one side of the issue. As a radical libertarian I would assume he finds little to like in either campaign, yet he seems to be focused more negatively on one side. Am I missing something?

I’d also like to focus on his most recent defense of what he calls ‘kiddie sex ed’. Friedman’s argument is basically this: the bill Obama voted for literally says “comprehensive sex education” and that ”K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

Friedman does point out that “It’s true that the bill also says all instruction is to be age appropriate. Precisely how one provides age appropriate instruction in the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV to kindergartners has not, so far as I know, been explained by either the Obama campaign or anyone else.” Of course, an anonymous commenter promptly comes up with a logical and reasonable response:

Okay. That one is easy (you must not have experience with five year olds). “Children, when someone else is bleeding, don’t lick their blood, use it as finger paint, or touch the blood. You can get sick from touching other people’s blood sometimes.”

The commenter is wrong, Friedman does have experience with children–he has two. Of course they’re long past five, but nevertheless. I see absolutely nothing wrong with introducing such education at kindergarten. Obviously a long winded explanation of HIV is not going to be useful but, keeping in mind the “instruction is to be age appropriate” part that Friedman blithely dismisses, does not mean we can’t introduce public health concepts to young children.

Another commenter at Friedman’s blog points out another issue. Looking at the bill online shows the changes between the old and new bill that was voted upon. The commenter states: ”If this means what it seems to mean, then to vote for the bill is nothing more or less than to vote for the changes.”

If you look further down the bill, rather than merely skimming the top, you can see where the real changes happened. Specifically if you look at section 4 (and two lines up), lines 1-19 you can see exactly what Obama and his defenders are referring to:

33        Course  material  and  instruction  shall
34        teach  pupils  to  not  make unwanted physical and verbal

                            -4-      LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1        sexual advances and how to  say  no  to  unwanted  sexual
2        advances  and  shall  include  information  about verbal,
3        physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without
4        limitation nonconsensual sexual  advances,  nonconsensual
5        physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The
6        course  material and instruction shall contain methods of
7        preventing sexual assault by an  acquaintance,  including
8        exercising  good  judgment  and  avoiding  behavior  that
9        impairs   one’s   judgment.   The   course  material  and
10        instruction shall emphasize personal  accountability  and
11        respect  for others and Pupils shall be taught that it is
12        wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another  person.
13        The  material  and instruction shall also encourage youth
14        to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
15        instruction shall inform pupils of  the  potential  legal
16        consequences   of  sexual  assault  by  an  acquaintance.
17        Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
18        to touch an intimate part of another person as  specified
19        in the Criminal Code of 1961.

Now obviously here you are going to run into the ‘age appropriate’ issue again, but there is no reason that a five year old can’t be taught about appropriate and inappropriate touching in a useful manner.

Thus, I think Friedman is completely and utterly wrong in defending the ad even if he says “I doubt Obama is in favor of explicit sex-ed for small children, which is what the McCain ad implies. But he did vote for the bill, and so is in a poor position to label a truthful description of what was in it as a lie.”

The problem, Dr. Friedman, is that it’s not a “truthful description”. It’s entirely possible to have a disgusting and wrong ad while quoting the wording accurately. If I take a random quote from the Old Testament describing god’s vengeance it might be an accurate ‘description’ but still a lie in regards to the overall message of the Bible. So no, the reporters have it right: the McCain ad is a lie.

I think commenter Joe best sums up Friedman’s recent psychology: “This contrarian game sometimes leads you off into the weeds.”

Political scientist and blogger John Sides presents this data over at The Monkey Cage.

In the last week, Palin’s favorability rating has, well, paled.

A few weeks back on August 25th Radly Balko wrote his FOX News column about underage drinking and the Amethyst Initiative, a collection of university administrators who advocate lowering the legal drinking age.

Just today, John Birch Society writer John Fisher attempted to refute Balko’s point. He had this to say:

Balko doesn’t know his facts. Binge drinking is a problem in other countries. In Britain where youth can drink alcohol with their meals in pubs at 16 years old, 53,844 people under 25 were admitted to English hospitals in the last year due to alcohol-related trouble. In Canada where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province, the recent death of a 20-year-old man serves as a reminder to youth of the dangers of binge drinking.

Huh? You can’t argue against someone for not knowing their facts, then present only two ‘facts’ yourself. First, that 53,844 persons under 25 were admitted to hospital is contextless? Now obviously the optimal number for this issue is zero, but how are we supposed to know whether the British number is high or low when compared internationally? In proportion to the population is that a large number? How many of those admitted where between 21-25?

Second, how on earth does one recent death in all of Canada prove anything? No one–Balko nor the Amethyst Initiative–is arguing that lowering the drinking age to 18 is going to magically stop all binge drinking. They’re arguing that a lower age, combined with responsible alcohol consumption taught by parents and educators is going to reduce the ‘forbidden fruit’ aspect.

For Fisher to argue that “Past history and the experience of other countries shows that lowering the drinking age won’t increase responsible drinking – it just increases the amount of drinking” is quite novel, especially considering that he doesn’t provide data to support such an assertion. However, Will Wilkison is here to back him up:

There’s certainly evidence that if we got rid of age limits, teens would drink more. But drinking more is a drinking problem only in the minds of neoprohibitionists. In a 2003 survey 22% of American tenth graders said they’d had five or more consecutive drinks in the last 30 days. But in Denmark, where there’s no legal minimum to drink (though you have to be 18 to buy), 60% of 15- and 16-year-olds said they’d thrown back five or more in a row within the last couple of fortnights. Maybe you think that’s too much. But the European champion of heavy teen drinking ranks as the world’s happiest country and scores third in the United Nation’s 2007 ranking of child welfare. In the UN listing the U.S. came in 20th out of 21 wealthy countries.

Wilkinson nails it. What people like Fisher are really arguing for is less drinking, completely ignoring that that inself isn’t the issue. As Wilkinson concludes,

In an America without a minimum drinking age, we would shift our focus from demon rum and car crash statistics to creating an environment where parents are expected to supervise their children and alcohol would become for teens just another thing, like bicycles or swimming pools, that can either make your day or take your life.

“It’s hard to get a doctorate: it takes a long time and it takes rather more application than most people have,” says Mr. Granatstein, who holds a PhD from Duke University. “But it frankly doesn’t indicate anything except you can wait out the system. It really isn’t a guarantee of intelligence or anything else. I say this having spent 30 years in university with people with doctorates — and some of them were as stupid as hell.” [Ottawa Citizen]

Linguist Bill Poser, who I talked about earlier, adds this comment at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Uh, folks, the thing about Creationists is not that they don’t believe in dinosaurs, its that they believe that Adam and Eve road them to church.

Now you know why I’m smarter than the rest of you:

Scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.

Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. [The Times of India]

As a history nerd I spend my time reading The Saskatchewan Gazette, the official weekly publication of the Saskatchewan government. My favorite feature is the listings under the The Change of Name Act. Here are some of the best:

David LEVI became Igor BOGOMAZOV
Lauren Danielle OLEDZKI became Daniel Eric OLEDZKI
Gregory Wilfred DYCK became Gregory Wilfred VAN DYCK
Robert Glen GORDON became Robert Glenn O’SOUP

If Mr. O’Soup doesn’t name his first born Cup, he will have failed life.

The American presidential race is officially a farce. John McCain is a spineless weasel and the right-wing needs to be bitch slapped.

My personal ideology is hard-core libertarian that is to say, a radical individualist. (Though David Friedman and Will Wilkinson have convinced me to question the Rothbardian deontological libertarianism and look more closely at the consequentialist approach, though I am too much of a utopian and don’t think I’ve come to the point of joining the “libertarian bargainer” position quite yet.) As Reason magazine sums it up aptly, I believe in Free Minds and Free Markets.

With this in mind, I have no particular love for either major American political party, both are ready and willing to increase and size and scope of government at a moment’s notice. Overall the Republicans are eager to control your life socially: marriage, homosexuality and the like. The Democrats on the other hand, are interested in controlling your economic lives through increased taxation and harmful regulation. Even with this distinction it’s not entirely accurate since both parties continue to regulate both aspects of modern life.

Nevertheless, I think that at this point with all of the lies and distortion that are being pumped out by the McCain campaign, especially about Sarah Palin, it’s time to abandon the Republican Titanic.

With the selection of Sarah Palin McCain’s true nature comes out as does the vile rhetoric of conservatives, especially the religious right. I actually don’t think Palin, when looked at in the abstract, is that bad a pick for vice president. As Radley Balko has said, “Palin is about the best libertarians could hope for from McCain.” I do like the idea that Palin is “outside the Beltway” and that she did take on some corruption. Additionally, Sarah Palin appears to be in support of jury nullification. She’s also basically likeable ignoring her policies (or lack thereof).

 That said, the last two weeks have done more than enough for me to consider her and McCain dishonest and unworthy of support:

1. Reformer/Earmarks: That fact the campaign continues to maintain that she opposed the famous Bridge to Nowhere, despite the fact that she initially supported it only to opposite as political opinion changed, but then took the money anyway.
2. Community Organizing: Rudy Giuliani and Palin’s childish and disgusting mocking of Obama’s three years as a community organizer. Though I agree with Michael Steele on Real Time with Bill Maher that community organizing certainly has a political aspect to it, such as convincing people to vote for liberal causes, that’s not the entire story. The Catholic (!!) organization Obama worked with also assisted with job training and tutoring. Conservatives argue for grassroots, individual help and mocking it shows how shallow the Republicans are.
3. Experience: Palin has none. “Executive” experience is not merely gained by being a governor. Being a mother doesn’t give you extra power. If the McCain campaign hadn’t made such a huge deal out of Obama’s supposed lack of experience, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
4. Book Banning: She asked the librarian “”how she could go about banning books”. Though it appears that no books were ever actually banned, I don’t for a second believe the conservatives talking points which argue she was just asking for ‘information purposes’.
5. Foreign Policy: That people, and McCain himself, would argue that living next to Russia gives Palin foreign policy experience is ludicrous and insulting. Hell I visited Berlin once, I supposed I’m qualified enough to become ambassador to Germany!
6. The Bush Doctrine: Palin’s response to ABC’s Gibson is absolutely ridiculous. Yet I’ve seen two vigorous defenses of Palin’s response. One by phrase originator Charles Krauthammer and one by the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund on Real Time with Bill Maher. Both argue that Palin is ok not to know because the Bush Doctrine has many meanings and has evolved. I don’t deny that the Bush Doctrine is somewhat more complex in totality, as Wikipedia shows. However, if you actually watch the interview, you can clearly see that this is not simply a matter of disputing that “[t]here is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine”. And no Dr. Krauthammer, “In what respect, Charlie” is in no way a “quite sensibl[e response] to a question that is ambiguous.” The video shows a textbook attempt to avoid the question. The way she pauses and says “In what respect, Charlie” is a definite attempt at getting it explained to her. Likewise, she continued afterwards with some generic response about fighting terrorists but admitting mistakes. That is all clearly an attempt to avoid a question she did not know. It’s something I would do in a seminar class when I don’t know the answer. If, as Krauthammer and Fund argue, there are various meanings and Palin just didn’t know to which one Gibson was referring, then it still doesn’t work because she didn’t respond with “which part of the bush doctrine” but rather she rambled on generically exposing her glaring lack of knowledge. Indeed Foreign Policy magazine’s Blake Hounshell’s says in her rambling Palin described pre-Bush Doctrine policy.
7. Sex Education: This perhaps the best example of the McCain campaign’s outright lies and distortion. To take one policy educating children about sexual predators (despite Penn and Teller’s argument that ‘stranger danger’ is Bullshit!) and twisting that into ‘teaching 5 year olds about sex’ is completely abhorrent.
8. Religion: I’m tired of the religious right and their intolerance. The fact the McCain is pretending to be a right-wing Christian shows his complete lack of backbone. I am willing to accept that Palin did not prescribe creationism to be taught in the schools. I also agree that her “mission from God” statement has been misinterpreted . However, she is a member of a pentecostal Assembly of God church which proscribes to the ridiculous theology and instills a belief in creationism and a view that that God’s will is present in all of life, including war. Though I’ve yet to read any truly damning quotes, I don’t doubt for a second that she believes both contested propositions. As for the charge of anti-semitism, I’m not sure. I certainly don’t like the Jews for Jesus movement, but I’m not sure how bad it is. David Berstein has described the sermon at Palin’s church as “midly offensive” and points to Palin’s interactions with the Jewish community in Wasilla. To be fair I should include Ilya Somin’s argument that creationism as compared with other Christian beliefs (eg. virgin birth, the great flood, ressurection) is not that different. All are false, but we focus too much on creationism. Kerry Howley, interestingly, doesn’t care which “fairy tale ought to disqualify Palin” because she “assumed her professed belief system was strategic rather than sincere, but perhaps only male political figures are allowed to operate on more than one level.” Now, obviously it’s impossible to get inside Palin’s mind, but I think this is an unfounded feministic snark. McCain’s “faith” is contrived, no question. Obama’s public faith is most likely highly motivated by politics. But Palin’s definitely seems sincere. To counter the feminist critique I’d say that Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism is strategic and she’s “allowed to operate on more than one level.”
9. Abortion. I’m most certainly pro-choice, though like 99.9% of people I don’t like abortion. That she is against abortion in cases involving rape and incest is ridiculous and offensive. Likewise McCain arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned shows how much he’s sold his soul to…the Christians.
10. Sexism and Hypocrisy. As Balko said, “When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners….Either Sarah Palin is a pit-bull, or she’s a fragile woman with delicate sensibilities whom we’ll all need to tiptoe around for the next four years. She can’t be both.” Conservatives have been complaining for the last 4 decades about liberal political correctness and cries of ‘sexism’, yet as soon as it’s politically convenient they hop on the bandwagon. For years Dobson has repeatedly stated that mothers should stay at home or else their children will be ruined. Yet he gleefully supported Palin: “Sen. McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is an outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base of his party.” Despite having a 5 month old baby and a young child. Likewise Phyllis Schlafly long argued that a woman’s primary role is as mother but she also gleefully accepted Palin.

Obama, by far, is the superior candidate, especially intellectually, which is the most important thing to me. (Interestingly Canada’s election is being headed by three former academics.) There is, in my mind, only one conflict of interest. As Kevin Grier over at KPC has been hammering (here , here, and here) on about, gridlock is good for government. On the other hand, Alex Tabarrok makes a good case:

First, war. War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade.

I have no doubt that if Obama is elected there will be significant changes in the United States. Combine a Democratic White House with the Senate and House and there is bound to be a left-ward shift in economic policy-none of which will be in itself beneficial. Regardless I think getting out of Iraq and avoiding confrontation with Iran and Russia is important.

Having lived in Canada my whole life, I can say that a larger government does not mean the end of the world. I would argue that Canadians are nearly as free as Americans. Opening a business is simple, indeed according to the Heritage Foundation it takes only three days to start a business, compared to the United State’s six days. Additionally Canada ranks 7th in economic freedom by their rankings and the Fraser Institute ranks it 5th, tied with the United States. The two main shortfalls of Canada are a less rigidly enforced freedom of speech, though the constitution includes “freedom of expression” it lacks the clout of the First Amendment. Secondly, Canada’s health system fails many citizens despite being universal and tax funded.

Essentially, if the United States was to become somewhat more like Canada, it wouldn’t bother me that much. This is effectively what I see Barack Obama doing if elected. I see a shift towards universal healthcare (though more likely through tax funded health insurance rather than direct government run healthcare as in Canada and elsewhere) and an acceptance of homosexual marriage. I believe that Barack Obama, despite publically claiming otherwise, believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry, not just have civil unions.

But let’s be clear: I would much rather see a freer economy (less regulation, lower taxes, the end of corporate socialism, abolishing the death tax), the end to unjust wars and torture (Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and perhaps even Afghanistan) and expanded personal freedom (marriage, sex and the drug-war). But I’m also realistic (cynical?) enough to realize that I’m not possibly going to get what I want. Thus I think taking a utilitarian and individualist approach requires me to give greater clout to the human death and destruction that the war in Iraq has caused and accept more economic regulation as a trade off.

I pray to Darwin that Obama wins and lives up to expectations.

McGill political theorist (and libertarian!) Jacob Levy notes:

Claims that have to make Americans living in Canada giggle:
Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, battling his party’s sliding popularity in Quebec against both the Conservatives and the Liberals, sought to rally Quebecers around one idea. He said they must vote Bloc to deprive Harper of the majority he so dearly wants to prevent him imposing his “right-wing, American-style ideology” on Quebecers.

To start: For a gay man, Alan Ball sure has a fascination with cunnilingus.

Overall I found the first episode to be quite odd, but in a fascinating way. The pacing of the show is quite slow and the tone is obviously macabre but also silly, funny, disturbing, and, in a way, eerily sexy. Add all of this up you have a odd, confused mess of a show that is quite unlike Six Feet Under. Nevertheless, there is something that draws the viewer in. I think I’ll keep watching.

The Columbia Journalism Review points to a Times of London storyabout Wasilla, Alaska and Sarah Palin which includes this gem:

I buy a cup of coffee from an Inuit, and it tastes exactly how you would imagine a cup of coffee made by an Inuit would taste.

Look, I dislike Sarah Palin as much as the next partisan, but there’s no reason to slander an entire ethnic group. When we Nordamericano’s speak of the sophistication and enlightenment of Europe*, we should be clear to specify Continental Europe.

*This is in many, but not all, ways a myth, but work with me.

NEW YORK (AP) — Wall Street plunged Thursday, sending the Dow Jones industrials down more than 340 points as retailers and the Labor Department added to the mountain of dismal economic news that has all but dashed investors’ hopes for a late-year recovery. [Yahoo! Finance]

I’m not buying it. I think the market is responding to something else.

Will Wilkinson is in love.

Edit: Commenter Azed has the best of all possible summaries:

Dude, that was the longest and most profound explanation of the statement “I’d hit that” that I’ve ever seen.