How Fucking Sad:

In Support of Animal Equal Rights

I do not agree, but if there was anyone who could make such an argument it would be Peter Singer:

Normal adult human beings have mental capacities that will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult human, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, adults who entered parks would become fearful that they would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment.

The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon. This does not mean, of course, that it would be right to perform the experiment on animals, but only that there is a reason, and one that is not speciesist, for preferring to use animals rather than normal adult humans, if the experiment is to be done at all.

Note, however, that this same argument gives us a reason for preferring to use human infants - orphans perhaps - or severely intellectually disabled humans for experiments, rather than adults, since infants and severely intellectually disabled humans would also have no idea what was going to happen to them.

Hate Crimes, continued

Well, after my post on my opposition to hate crime statutes, Andrew Sullivan decided that he to would venture into the subject after seeing an article in the Washington Times.

Andrew:

The GOP hysteria over this hate crime law, as opposed to all the others, seems obviously a case of prima facie homophobia. That bigotry obscures the serious case to be made that all these laws are unnecessary infringements on freedom of thought and corrosive of equality under the law.

The Washington Times:

Once homosexuals become a special class protected by hate-crime legislation, the back door is open to prosecuting those who speak out against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

This touches on another reason for opposition: free speech. As much as I am against things like racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and other discriminatory attitudes, I would fight to the death to preserve that right for everyone - including those who would use such right to defame me. When we criminalize hate crimes, we are in effect criminalizing the speech they use when they commit the regular crime - the reason I specify speech is because that is the only true way that police can discern the intent of hate. This country is above that. I am opposed.

Jesus on a Plate

Doesn't this violate separation of Church and State? Charlie Crist - who reminds me of my high school Latin teacher - says no

Obama's Policy Support

Frequently, pundits are saying that Obama is personally more popular than most of his policies. I disagree:

An ABC poll shows that 3/4 of Americans favor reducing greenhouse gases - a majority even supports this STRONGLY, 2/3 favor normalizing relations with Cuba (perhaps an outcome of the meager positive developments in their policy), 3/5 prefer stricter levels of gun control, 3/5 also support granting illegal immigrants some form of residency (majority support exists across the political spectrum). The latest ABC poll pegged his approval at 69% - this is roughly equal to most of these positions...

Goldwater

Andrew Sullivan links to a very interesting article which quotes Barry Goldwater:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent.

If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism'.

Hate Crimes

Two things brought this post to fruition: a conversation with a friend over my opposition to hate crimes statutes and the recent passage of the Matthew Shepherd Act (adding homosexuality among other attributes to federal hate crime statutes) in the house.

As a gay man myself, this comes after very deep and considerable amounts of thought:

A crime is a crime. It is made no worse by the fact that a crime is committed against someone due to their immutable or projected characteristics. If a person is attacked on the basis of skin color or homosexuality the perpetrator does not deserve a more severe punishment therein than an equal crime committed without the same intent. If anything, the punishment in general should be raised. We cannot truly know an intention. Therefore, the government should not act as big brother by believing that it can divine the intentions of individuals.

Hensarling's Amendment is a Dead Birdy

Wow. Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) is a complete idiot. His amendment today on allowing credit card companies to retroactively raise rates on consumers if they give 90 day notices to the affected consumers was very bad - great that the nays had it. The amendment would have subjugated H.R. 627. His later amendment wasn't as bad, but also deserved to - as Rep. Maloney (D-NY) stated - be "black flag dead".

I am all for allowing the marketplace to operate without government interference. However, I am all for government influence int he marketplace. The difference is this: interference is socialism or ownership while influence would be considered common sense regulation or good government spending (such as the stimulus bill).

When government gives money to a private firm (after intensive bidding for such funds on the part of said firms) to complete a project such as roads, healthcare, high-speed rail, etc. I am completely for it. The government provides directly a stimulating effect while simultaneously disavowing any attempt to interfere after the money is delegated. Republicans need to realize this difference and stop stating that the stimulus was socialism - it isn't! The stimulus has not created any public ownership of these companies to which the moneys have (or will) be awarded.