Mr. Grouchypants

Peg Kaplan of “what if?” doesn’t like the nanny state ninnies that make it their mission to protect their fellow citizens from the dangers of smoking. I have similar feelings on this issue. I would prefer that people choose to quit smoking since it is a filthy and dangerous habit. However, if people wish to smoke, they should be allowed to smoke. And it should be up to the individual business to decide whether to allow smoking on the premises. I can understand why people would want to get behind a smoking ban. Let’s face it, cigarette smoke stinks, and most people would prefer not to be exposed to it while in public. For that reason, one would be hard pressed to find many people who would defend the position of the smokers. But I think that such attitudes could prove to be short sided since smoking bans could lead to other government action that more people would oppose.

It seems like the tobacco industry serves as a kind of stalking horse at times. When the government sued Big Tobacco to recoup money spent on the health related costs of smoking, most people supported the action. After all, tobacco companies had lied about their knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking. So not too many people shed any tears over the companies getting hit with a huge settlement. They didn’t consider that the ruling in those lawsuits would lead to similar lawsuits in other industries. But, sure enough, suits were brought against gun manufacturers for the damage caused by their products. And soon McDonalds was sued for making kids fat.

The question is, “what’s next?”. So far, none of the fast food lawsuits have gotten anywhere. But that was true of the tobacco lawsuits for years as well. But if one of them is successful in the future, will the health advocates be satisfied and leave it at that? I don’t find that very likely. Such a success would only embolden them to pursue other methods for changing people’s behavior, such as a “twinkie tax” on junk food. And if the tax doesn’t change our eating habits enough, why not simply ban some forms of junk food? It might seem crazy, but a few years ago it would have sounded crazy to suggest suing McDonalds for your weight gain.

Here is the last article of the late philosopher, Richard Taylor, to appear in Philosophy Now magazine. It deals with Stoic philosophy as it relates to self-determination. Taylor concludes with the following:

From this the Stoics concluded that, just as no external is of value to you, so also nothing can hurt you, except you yourself. What you are is entirely up to you.

It has been a while since I looked at Taylor’s Metaphysics, but if the quote reflects his feelings, then I must have misunderstood his discussion of fatalism. I will probably revisit the book to check on that since it is such an interesting piece of work. It is a bit of a downer in places since Taylor seemed to have a low opinion of people in some regards. If I remember correctly, he felt that you were wasting your life in some way if you weren’t creating something. That jarred me when I read it and probably acted as part of the impetus for me to start this site. Generating blog posts here and there isn’t much, but it is a start. I’ll try to post some thoughts on the book as I read sections of it. (Sort of an online book report)

President Bush and the Republicans have seen better days. Dubya’s approval ratings are looking bad, and his administration is mired in the Plame leak scandal. High-ranking GOPers Tom Delay and Bill Frist are under investigation for financial dealings. And the casualties in Iraq keep mounting. But any short term advantage the Democrats have could turn out to be short lived because of some fundamental facts about the voters in the country. That is the theme of this article by James Pinkerton (via RealClearPolitics). He comments on the paper “The Politics of Polarization” by Democrats, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck. According to their paper, a “great sorting out” has resulted in conservative and religious believers migrating to the Republican party while liberals and secular voters moved to the Democratic party. And the self-described conservatives outnumber the self-described liberals 34% to 21%. That is bad enough for the Democratic party without taking into account that many political moderates have more conservative views on social issues such as gay marriage. From Pinkerton’s article:

As Galston and Kamarck observe, religion and the social-issue controversies it raises have been “the overriding factor” in the realignment of the parties - or, to put it more bluntly, the shrinkage of the Democratic Party. The authors regret this shrinking but don’t see a reversal so long as their party is seen as anti-religious.

The perception of anti-religious sentiment is particularly bothersome for the Democrats considering the large numbers of religious voters in the country. Now it is certainly not the case that all or even most Democrats are hostile to religion. However, there are enough instances of anti-religious rhetoric from Democrats and liberals to cause problems for the party. A good example of this is Mark Morford’s column belittling an Arkansas couple who have 16 children.

Now most people would find the Duggar family at least a little odd. I saw a documentary on them which was filmed while they were expecting their 15th bundle of joy. And I found myself wondering what the couple was smoking multiple times throughout the show. I don’t understand why someone would want to have a family so large that it required the older children to “buddy up” with a younger sibling just to keep things running smoothly. But I finally decided that if the couple could provide for all the kids and they were content, it really wasn’t any of my business.

But Mr. Morford doesn’t have as much of a “live and let live” attitude about it. In fact, he seems downright offended that Mrs. Duggar has chosen to exercise her reproductive choice this way. And while attacking the Duggars, he repeatedly makes references to religion, describing them as “18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair”. Later he asks, “Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest?” He seems troubled by the fact that there isn’t a counterweight to families such as the Duggers and asks, “Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side?”. (Seems like you have to be pretty pro-sex to have 16 kids.)

While there are anti-religious Republicans as well, one is far more likely to see snarky attitudes about a “massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots” from liberals. And religious voters notice, non-religious voters too. That is why only 29% of Americans see the Democratic party as religion-friendly compared to the 55% who see the Republicans as such.

(Morford column via LaShawn Barber)

Being the U2 fanboy that I am, I’m always looking for stuff about the band and it’s frontman. The cover story for the November 3rd issue of Rolling Stone is an interview with Bono. Here is an excerpt from said interview. He makes some interesting remarks concerning his faith and about songs dealing with God. One of the things I’ve always enjoyed about U2 is the overtly religious themes in their music. When Bono discusses his faith, it always seems to be a very dynamic force in his life. It isn’t some kind of comfy security blanket. It is much more active and even discomforting in a way, compelling him to change himself and the world around him.

Cathy Young discusses The Problem of Poverty at Reason.com. She points out the deficiencies in the liberal and conservative approaches to dealing with poverty. She agrees with Megan McArdle that many of the conservative notions concerning the causes of poverty are correct, but conservatives need to be less moralistic. I tend to agree with that assessment. The liberal’s heart is in the right place, but doesn’t matter too much if liberal policies don’t effectively deal with the issue. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to have less of a “holier than thou” attitude when it comes to the poor. This is particularly true of religious conservatives. “Judge not, lest ye be judged” and all that.

It appears that the anti-war crowd isn’t content to stick with the “chickenhawk” strategy. To be considered qualified to discuss the war in Iraq, you not only have to be enlisted and stationed there. Apparently you also are required to have the correct opinion of the war. Check out the comments in this Mediacitizen post on Lt. Gregg Murphy of the 278th Regimental Combat Team. It appears that Lt. Murphy has been publishing far too many positive letters and emails about the war to be taken seriously. And simply accusing the soldier of being a propagandist for the administration is not enough, as is evidenced by this section:

To learn more about the war from a real soldiers, visit Paul Rieckhoff’s organization, Operation Truth. Paul — who served for ten months in Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Leader in the 3rd Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions — tells me that Operation Truth works on behalf of ordinary enlisted soldiers to amplify their voice in our nation’s decisions regarding the military. His Website is an outlet for many who see their efforts and concerns being misrepresented by mainstream media.

So Murphy isn’t even a real soldier. It’s no wonder that the anti-war crowd has to constantly tell people that they support the troops. Perhaps they should be a little clearer and tell us that they support the troops that express the correct opinions.

(Via The Huffington Post)

Lines I wish I had written:

The mystery masked man was smart
He got himself a Tonto
‘Cause Tonto did the dirty work for free
But Tonto he was smarter
And one day said kemo sabe
Kiss my ass I bought a boat
I’m going out to sea

Lyle Lovett - “If I Had a Boat”

Rich Lowry pens an article about the Bible Literacy Project which seeks to expose American schoolchildren to Bible instruction. The organization has the support of groups as diverse as People for the American Way and the National Association of Evangelicals which seems like a pretty mean feat to me.

But do we really need to have Bible study in public schools? Couldn’t teachers use this as an excuse to force their religious views on their students? While there is certainly the chance that the class could be abused by zealous teachers, I don’t think the risk is large enough to outweigh the potential benefit. Religious implications aside, the Bible is the single most influential book EVER. Period. The idea that a child could be considered educated without being exposed to the Bible is absurd.

So I think that some sort of Bible study should be a mandatory part of a high school English curriculum. Otherwise we will be graduating students who will be severely handicapped in their cultural literacy (and appreciation of U2 lyrics). Will some religious parents object to the notion of looking at the Bible as a literary work? Sure, but if they want their children to view the Bible as a divinely inspired creation, they can instruct their children in that at home. That is part of their job as parents anyway, right?

The Washington Post has an article about the strip Calvin and Hobbes. I can’t believe it’s been ten years since Watterson retired the duo. While I can understand his motivations for quitting while he was ahead, the comics page just isn’t the same anymore.

The article provides some interesting info on Watterson who seems to be as much of a recluse as Vangelis. It also confirms a suspicion I had concerning the origin of the name of Calvin’s teacher, Ms. Wormwood. The name was, in fact, drawn from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

(Via Arts & Letters Daily)

Mark Steyn writes about some of the concessions the citizens of Britain are willing to make to avoid offending some of their Muslim brethren. One of the most outrageous involves the Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. The council has banned all “pig-related items” in response to a complaint by a Muslim employee. The ban includes a box of tissues decorated with Winnie the Pooh and Piglet images. Naturally, they have a good reason for these actions. From the article:

Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. “It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding,” he said.

So there you have it. In the name of “tolerance and understanding” one employee is allowed to impose the strictures of his religion on everyone else. That certainly doesn’t look like tolerance. It looks like someone being bullied.

(Via Mangen by way of Maverick Philosopher)

One of the arguments that people make when opposing gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage could lead to polygamy being legalized. It’s the classic “slippery slope” argument. While one case does not a trend make, three people were recently married in the Netherlands. Technically they just registered with the state as a civil union, but they still enjoy all the benefits of marriage. If nothing else, this should cause people to at least consider the polygamy objection rather than treating it as absurd. There are people in the world that would like to be a member of a polygamous relationship, and some of them will certainly come forward to request the right to marry if gay marriage is legalized. The question would just be “when”, not “if”.

Now I doubt that Americans would be very receptive to the idea of polygamous marriage. It would likely garner even less support than gay marriage. But that wouldn’t matter from a legal standpoint. If marriage could be redefined to include gay couples, why not include unions of three people? I have not seen any good reasons why one would be allowed but not the other. In fact, what I usually see is for the person defending gay marriage to simply declare that a marriage has to be between two people. That is no different than a gay marriage opponent stating that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. The polygamy objection seems to me to be a legitimate criticism of the proposal to redefine marriage. So gay marriage advocates need to develop arguments which defend gay marriage but exclude polygamy. If someone isn’t prepared to take that obejction seriously in light of the events in the Netherlands, then why should anyone take his arguments seriously?