They Still Haven't Updated
Several years after it became obsolete, leftists are still claiming us wingnuts believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
While I'm at it, the essay in question starts out by claiming that we wingnuts believe corporations are people. Such a claim is another clear indication that the author doesn't have a clue about the beliefs of us wingnuts
Santorum Fell for Leftist Propaganda
Rick Santorum apparently fell for the leftist claim that education makes people more secular. When I tried looking for actual evidence that might back up such a claim, the closest approximation turned out to be this article. I noticed two things: 1) Most types of college had much less loss of faith than 62%; 2) the greatest percentage of students who said they were no longer “born-again” Christians was in Catholic colleges. Maybe it was less a loss of faith than a transition to a slightly-different faith. (On the other hand, the same researcher published a more recent article that might have other data … but it's hidden behind a pay wall.)
I won't more than mention that Charles Murray has apparently found evidence that more educated Americans are more religious.
Meanwhile on IO9…
Annalee Newitz explains the dangers of giving the state a monopoly on paying for medications that affect reproduction.
That might not be what she intended.
Taking Graphs a Little Too Far
The graph here resembles those here.
Why the Claim That Rich People Have Higher Moral Standards Sounds Odd
My guess is that the people of lower-class origin that upper-class people are acquainted with are those climbing out of the lower classes. (Their opposite numbers—those falling out of the upper classes—can be found at any Occupy Wall Street rally.) The upwardly-mobile are likely to be even more “uptight” than those already at the top.
If I recall correctly, C. N. Parkinson wrote an essay on this topic (“La Ronde” in The Law of Delay). I'll try looking for it.
Traditional Liberals vs. Current Liberals
According to traditional liberals, birth control should be between a woman and her doctor. According to current liberals, birth control should be between a woman, her doctor, and someone else's wallet.
Update on Kale
Cthulhu's vegetable tastes okay in an omelet, but I still prefer broccoli florets.
For more non-Euclidean food, see Vi Hart's discussion.
A Theory about the Contraception Mandate
It's Charles Murray's fault. When Charles Murray pointed out evidence that the white lower classes that some people imagine to be the mainstay of the Republican party are acting more in accordance with what used to be called the new “morality” than the upper classes, I suspect that many Democrats reacted by saying “They should be voting for us!” This was followed by their standard strategy of treating the expected results of personal decisions (i.e., not bothering to use birth control) as Someone Else's Fault. The obvious next step will be to try to connect not paying for contraception to the nefarious designs of the “1 percent.”
Fake? Accurate? Neither?
There is reason to believe that at least one of the emails recently leaked from the Heartland Institute was written by someone who sounded entirely too much like a caricature of “climate denialist.” It's possible that that they really were written by such a caricature. A large fraction of college students graduate believing with a perfect faith that fossil fuels are likely to melt an icecap or two and that becoming a climate-denialist flack is a job suitable for conscienceless scoundrels. Some of the people believing in that claim are such conscienceless scoundrels who then try to get jobs as climate-denialist flacks and a few might even succeed.
I'm sure that the think tanks have screening procedures to keep people like that out but they might not always succeed.
If you want examples of similar phenomena, you may recall that the campaign against drug re-importation was run by people who thought it was their job to defend an oligopoly. For another example, there was a lunatic on parts of Usenet who actually believed left-wing conspiracy theories about the triumph of Turbo-Capitalism but decided he wanted to ruthlessly claw his way to the middle. People like that actually exist and might be at work here.
I Don't Think This Is Kosher
In the latest news about the state takeover of everything:
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
Milk and meat are not permitted at the same meal according to Jewish tradition. At the moment, Jewish day schools are granted exceptions. If the contraception mandate goes through and is allowed by the courts, then we will be one election away from a system where violations of the laws of kashrut become mandatory.
Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are Devoted to Religious Freedom
Alternet proved it.
I won't more than mention that the defenses of Catholic teachings that Alternet approves of are a matter of establishment of religion whereas the defenses that Alternet disapproves of are a matter of free exercise.
A Common Assumption on the Left and Its Contrapositive
I'm sure my fellow wingnuts have encountered people who point to the alleged benefits of a large-scale government program and claim that there is no way those benefits can be provided privately. The apparent assumption is that if something isn't run by a government, it can't be done on a large scale.
The contrapositive of that is: If something is large-scale, it is run by a government. That, in turn, means large corporations or religious organizations are governments. In other words, if your employer doesn't provide, for example, free condoms and if it is large enough for its condom purchases to count as “large scale,” then a government has banned contraception. As another example, in LeftWorld the Citizens United ruling means that governments that we have little control over are allowed to mess around in our political system. All this nonsense fits together.
By the way, why did the spell checker flag “contrapositive”?
A Mysterious Lack of Scandals?
It's quite common for defenders of traditional values to be caught in extramarital affairs or popping pills of dubious legality. For some reason, such scandals appear to be much rarer for abortions. (There were only two instances here and I'm sure they were thorough.) Maybe we uptight reactionaries really do take abortion more seriously than mere vices.
A corollary to the above: You can't blame the pro-life movement on hatred of pleasure.
I've also noticed the pro-choice people using anecdotes of pro-life activists having abortions. For some reason, such anecdotes rarely have any backing.
A Possible Consequence of the Contraception Mandate
According to The Wall Street Journal:
The HHS rule prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control, simply because Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's regulators believe no woman should have to pay anything for it.
In other words, this puts us one election away from a regime that can shut down anonymous purchases of contraceptives any time they want. It won't matter if the courts say that you have the right to anonymity in this case … not when a list of names of purchasers can appear on ConservaLeaks (based in nuclear-armed Iran, of course) any time.
This Could Be Turned into a Video Game
If the Elsevier boycott were turned into a video game, would it be called “Angry Nerds”?
Addendum: For some reason, I wrote the above without realizing that the anti-SOPA campaign was a clear example of Angry Nerds in action. Some people have a firm grasp on the obvious. I don't.
Buildings, Corporations, and Ems
The recent case of a woman who said she wanted to marry a building (discussed here) was intended to make a serious point: that only human beings could have rights and, more specifically, that the possession of rights also included the right to marry other beings with rights. (The second point is part of the basis for gay marriage.)
What does this imply about the rights of ems? A person made of atoms could not possibly marry a person made of bits. A century or two from now, the criticism of corporate rights might have echos in debates on em rights. (ObSF: Valentina by Joseph H. Delaney and Marc Stiegler)
I won't more than mention extraterrestrials, yet.
But wait, there's more…
According to Fark:
While we're all distracted by the Republican primary circus, the Koch brothers quietly collect $100 million, $60 million of it from them personally, to defeat Obama in November. Thanks, Citizens United
The Citizens United decision was about corporations spending money on political campaigns. If tycoons spending money on political campaigns was due to the Citizens United decision, that means tycoons are now classified as corporations. If corporations don't have human rights that means…
Answer to an Infrequently Asked Question
The Unicode symbol for “Pile of Poo” is 💩 or 💩.
A Brief Note on the Komen Foundation vs. Planned Parenthood
Wait 'til next year!
Geeky News
The latest version of the Safari web browser now has MathML support.
“I Wish I Had Spent More Time at the Office”
The above phrase might have been Dr. Richard Olney's last words.
If Non-Euclidean Geometry Is a Sign of Cthulhu…
…then kale is the Vegetable Not To Be Described.
“…The Geometry of the Dream-Place He Saw Was Abnormal, Non-Euclidean, and Loathsomely Redolent of Spheres and Dimensions Apart from Ours”
My reaction to the tumor shapes at Object Breast Cancer (seen via BoingBoing) was: IT'S CTHULHU!
Then What WILL They Wear?
A few decades ago, Morris Bishop wrote “The Crusty Professor's Song” (also found here) about changes in university dress codes since the days of stand-up collars. It ends:
Maybe time will banish
Sweatshirts, dirty jeans
Maybe these will vanish
From collegiate scenes
Students will not wear
Dirty sweatshirts, dirty jeans
Jackets, coats, waist coats, vest
Caps and hats, garters, spats
Cuff-links, cuffs, tie-pins, ties
Stand-up collars, stand-up collars
Never any more.
Then what WILL they wear?
The answer turned out to be pajamas.
As for what will follow pajamas, I will quote Arthur C. Clarke:
I have no idea what it will be, and am in no great hurry to find out.
The Next Step after Gay Marriage
Someone wants to marry a building. I'm not sure what the kids will be raised as…
On a serious note, she said:
"If corporations can have the rights as people, so can buildings," said Aivaz, referencing a Supreme Court decision on political advertising. "I'm doing this to show the building how much I love it, how much I love community space and how much I love this neighborhood. And I want to stop it from gentrification.”
Corporations represent people. Who does the building represent? By the way, what are they planning to do with the site? Somehow I don't think an empty building is preferable. Even if they're constructing houses for the 1%, that gets the 1% out of other neighborhoods.
I'm an Effete Intellectual Snob
I scored 5 on this test and I'm still a reactionary crackpot.
An Effect of the “Contraception Revolution”
An article on Alternet is looking forward to perfect contraception, apparently because it will supposedly make pro-natal religions obsolete. I suspect the contrary will happen. It will merely cause pro-natal people (who tend to be religious) to outbreed the rest.
An effect of slightly-imperfect contraception
While reading the above-mentioned article, I realized that slightly-imperfect contraception has produced lower birth rates among people who are both irreligious and smart. In other words, it is promoting religious smart people and atheists who are ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray. That might explain the New American Divide.
One Problem with Newt Gingrich …
… is that he wants the Moon to be a state. Why can't it be an anarchy instead?
On the other hand, there is the saying “governments are for gravity wells” and the Moon has a gravity well…
So That's Why People Think He's a Flake
In response to the latest Edge question: “What Is Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, or Beautiful Explanation?” Aubrey De Grey discussed, instead of something related to gerontology, the end of monogamy:
My claim is probably obvious by now. It is simply that there is nothing about sex that morally distinguishes it from other activities that are performed by two (or more) people collectively. In a world no longer driven by reproductive efficiency, and on the presumption that all parties are taking appropriate precautions in relation to pregnancy and disease, sex is overwhelmingly a recreational activity. What, then, can morally distinguish it from other recreational activities? Once we see that nothing does, reflective equilibrium thus forces us to one of two positions: either we start to resent the temerity of our regular chess opponents in playing others, or we cease to resent the equivalent in sex.
Those parts of society “driven by reproductive efficiency” will outbreed the rest whether or not lifespans are extended. As I've said before:
As for whether we should pay attention, if medical research stagnates the anti-natalists will disappear. On the other hand, if cryonics actually pays off we might have them to kick around forever. At first, they will be outvoted in elections and outbid in decision markets. Later they will be ignored completely as they become an infinitesimal fraction of the population.
I'm reminded of the people who used to think the work ethic would become obsolete. That didn't happen either.
If We Need More Biodiversity…
… we need more human activity.
It's interesting how many of the crises that leftists are concerned about can be best handled by doing the exact opposite of everything they recommend.
Applying the Golden Rule to Foreign Policy
Apparently, Ron Paul has been calling for applying the Golden Rule to foreign policy. If I recall correctly, Ron Paul is on the restrictive side of the immigration debate, frequently defended on the grounds that large-scale Mexican immigration is some kind of invasion. So… since I'm in favor of having the United States invaded (by Ron Paul's standards), clearly I must be in favor of invading other nations. Similarly, during the recent “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations I wondered if the demonstrators should be bombed. Obviously, I should be in favor of bombing other nations as well.
Global Warming Is a Religion After All
Tim O Reilly proves it.
Hate-Speech Laws, Fence-Posts, and SOPA
Back in my Usenet days, I would frequently criticize hate-speech laws, even when the absence of such laws allowed neo-Nazis to spread propaganda:
There is also the matter that if the neo-Nazis are close to taking over, exposing their plans could possibly be interpreted as "hate speech." The absence of hate-speech laws also makes it difficult for Nazis to start repression if they ever do take over. Once they take over, they will have to hire censors, they will have to deal with people claiming to be censors who are leaking information, they will have to deal with the fact that most policeman will refuse to get involved in book burning, they will find that whatever level of government they take over will be opposed by other levels, if they actually try a massacre, they will find that any similar groups will have access to uncensored information and can be prepared, and they will find that most of the "60 million guns" in the U.S. are turned in their direction.
Let us suppose that the federal government wanted to censor something on the Internet. (Humor me.) Right now, they would have to set up a bureaucracy to blacklist web sites. That may be simple enough, but the bureaucracy would also have to go after people who circumvent the firewall. They will also need internal investigations to stop bureaucrats from leaking the data they want to censor, etc. The censors might also be out of office before the bureaucracy can be set up. In other words, Internet censorship would not be very effective right now, which may help dissuade would-be totalitarians from even trying to start it. If we pass SOPA or a similar bill, we'll have the bureaucracy and will be just an election or two from censorship.
Along similar lines, see this Samizdata discussion of fence-posts:
The problem is, they will outlaw almost everything while enforcing very little. Imprisonment by stealth. People will not know they are encircled until it is too late - like putting in all these very deep, robust fence-posts with no fence panels. All seems open. One day you will wake up and the panels are in, you are trapped and they can decide what law they wish to impose to nail whomsoever they desire.
Has the State Taken Possession of Our Kidneys?
If the State can tell you whether you can donate your own kidney to your own child it has taken possession of your kidneys and may decide that somebody it chooses needs them more.
The State might not be at fault this time; it is currently possible to go somewhere else. When the State sets treatment guidelines there will be no “somewhere else.”
|
|
