mUUsings

Shall We Play a Game?

2005-07-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

From Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado):

"Well, what if you said something like, If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites."

This he said as one possible way to dissuade al-Quaeda from effecting its 10-year plan to use suitcase nuclear bombs to destroy several cities in the US. WorldNet Daily had the details on the al-Quaeda nuclear threat.

Here's the transcript of the exchange:

Campbell: Worst-case scenario - if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?

Tancredo: What would be the response? (pause) Um, you know, there are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens and you may have to do afterwards (unintelligible) draconian.

Campbell: Such as?

Tancredo: Well, what if you said something like, "If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims." You could take out their holy sites.

Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca?

Tancredo: Yeah. What if you said, "We recognize this is the ultimate threat to the United States, so this is the ultimate response." I'm just throwing out some ideas because you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is, once again, tighten up internally.

I don't know about you, but I rather seriously doubt that - if al-Quaeda actually has the means and the intent to effect this "American Hiroshima" - that threatening to bomb Mecca is going to stop them. And I have to wonder if there are any countries (who don't now support al-Quaeda) out there with nuclear capability that would find the bombing of Mecca to be intolerable.

And hey, we didn't really need that Saudi Arabian oil anyway. At least we won't after the worldwide nuclear conflagration.

How about a nice game of chess?

Secret Decoder Rings and "Mainstream"

2005-07-17T07:46:00.000-07:00

George Bush has stated in his radio address that his Supreme Court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner will be "mainstream"; specifically, he said, "My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values".

Texas Republicans can have a peculiar personal definitions of words. For example, Bush stated that he would be bipartisan when he ran for his first term, that he would be a "uniter, not a divider": his first term was anything but.

More recently, Texas Republicans have argued that checks aren't cash so they didn't really engage in money-laundering.

So it's worthwhile to get out the super secret decoder ring to figure out what "mainstream" means to some Texas Republicans.

How about Montgomery County's self-professed mainstream group, the Republican Leadership Council, which attempted to get Robie Harris' books _It's Perfectly Normal_ and _It's So Amazing_ banned from the the Montgomery County Library System by pressuring the commissioners court to ban them by fiat? (At the end of the day, a community panel decided that the books did indeed NOT violate community standards, and restored the books to the shelf.)

The Republican Leadership Council is also, incidentally, an extremely vocal opponent of presenting evolutionary biology in high school science curricula.

The Republican Party in Montgomery County officially dissociated themselves from the "mainstream" RLC.

Or take the Harris County arm of the battle against evolution, the Texans for Better Science Education. They put out voters guides criticizing groups of moderate republicans as "NOT MAINSTREAM CONSERVATIVE!"

So what's the point? Anyone can call himself mainstream. Where the rubber meets the road is what they actually do. George Bush thinks judges like Janice Brown and Pricilla Owens are acceptable ... perhaps ... mainstream?

RNC consultant and Texas Republican Party vice-chair David Barton states in his audio seminar, Thinking Biblically, Speaking Secularly that it's important to use liberals' terms against us. The example he gives is "censorship". The upshot of the discussion is that when we say, don't incorporate intelligent design in the biology curriculum because the ideas don't have currency with the scientific community, call us unfair and call that censorship.

I would submit that "mainstream" is used to the same effect. The label signifies positions held by most people; in this case by most practicing jurists. But just as in anything, pay careful attention to what's actually inside the package.

Crossposted to Come and Take It.

Hubert Vo at the West Houston Democratic Club

2005-07-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

Hubert Vo was the guest speaker at today's West Houston Democratic Club. He discussed his experiences in this, his first session in the legislature. I should mention I worked on Hubert's campaign.

He began by thanking everyone for their support in his campaign.

Then he discussed partisanship and the way things work in the Lege. The entire freshman class had agreed at the orientation to try to work together and keep partisanship to a minimum. This pact made the Republican leadership a bit nervous, and the Republican freshmen got their arms twisted somewhat, so things sort of dengenerated from there.

Hubert also got his arms twisted a bit. The Republican leadership wanted him to vote for school vouchers and when he did not they killed Hubert's local bill. Though such tactics should not be surprising, it's sad.

Hubert commented that he doesn't understand why Republicans call themselves "pro-life" because a concern for life should not end with the birth of the child. (Interestingly, I am listening to Gil Scott-Heron's "Save the Children" in the background while I compose this post). Hubert is steadfast in his concern for children and families. Hubert considers education, access to health care, and the tax shifting currently going on in the Legislature to be critical issues for families.

Hubert told a story about when he first came to the US. At that time, he could bring only 5 pounds of luggage. He could not bring anything from friends for their relations, souvenirs. Just the clothes on his back and a few additional items. And he hearkens back to this experience each time he enters the legislative chamber. He's not carrying anyone's luggage: not any organization's, any individual's. He comes in fresh each day, ready to represent his district and the families of Texas.

He discussed the tax shifting scheme that is currently in the Legislature. In case you live under a rock, what is basically going on is that the legislature is intent on cutting property taxes and is using boosts in the sales tax percent and an expansion of the sales tax base to fund that tax cut and a little additional money for schools. However, Hubert mentioned the funds to schools under the proposed scheme would actually reduce in 2006 from 2003 in terms of real dollars. So it's billed as school finance but it really is not addressing the school finance problem. The other point was that families making under $100,000 per year get a tax increase and families making over $140,000 per year get a tax cut. The expansion of the sales tax base will include bottled water (a member of the audience commented after the talk that this can have a serious effect on areas which don't have potable water) - but not beer (See, the Legislature has priorities!), car repair services not already covered, hair cutting, among others.

Then Hubert told another story stemming from his emigration to the US. His father has six children, and got them all together and stated "you all will go separate ways, make different choices but we are all connected to each other through our family". He went on to liken this to the situation of Democrats. He said he believed the Democratic Party is the party of compassion, a party to support communities and families, and that people should vote straight ticket Democrat.
I think that's probably fine for most folks, except to say that Democrats need to run serious candidates in more races.

Jimmy Dunne asked Hubert what he thought of the telecom bill that would permit phone companies to offer cable. Hubert supports it, and this generated a lot of discussion. Several members of the audience were concerned that the end result would be redlining and extremely high rates in rural areas. Hubert shared this concern, but felt that this deregulation and the competition would be a good start in terms of improving services and reducing rates for most Texans.

I don't recall the other questions, except that Hubert was asked if he's going to run again (he is).

I am always pleased to hear him speak, because he's so very genuine. He's an ordinary person who's had extraordinary life experiences and as such has an extraordinary store of compassion and commitment to service. We are really fortunate to have him in the legislature, and our government would be greatly improved by having more public officials like him.

Metal-oxidizing bacteria

2005-07-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

From the NSF, a Photo-exhibit of the collection of metal-oxidizing bacteria and micro-photos of the bacteria.

Goings-on About Town

2005-07-15T13:11:00.000-07:00

July 23 - Ron Sass, ecology and evolutionary biology prof will discuss climate change. 10 AM, Tracy Gee Community Center

July 22-24 - John Lennon artwork will be on exhibit at the Galleria (Foley-Nordstrom wing).

Better count your ribs

2005-07-14T16:48:00.000-07:00

You just can't make things like this up.

Ken Ham attacks Catholic views on evolution in Agape Press, as follows:

"If you're going to believe in evolution," Ham asserts, "and say that God took an ape man and made a soul to make Adam, and God took an ape woman and made a soul to make Eve, then the woman came from an ape woman. She didn't come from Adam. And if the woman didn't come from Adam's side, then you've got a major problem."

By accepting this idea that evolution accounts for the origin of man, the creation scientist says, "You've just destroyed the whole basis of marriage, the whole basis of oneness in marriage and even Christ's relationship to the Church, which is based upon the doctrine of marriage -- the church being the bride of Christ."

Forget about private accounts!

2005-07-06T13:45:00.000-07:00

The real problem with social security is abortion.

So says Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention in today's . Agape Press.

From the horse's mouth:

"part of the judgment of God on America is abortion. We have a Social Security crisis because of abortion. If it weren't for abortion, we'd have 41 or 42 million more Americans working. They wouldn't have been aborted [if abortion were not legal], and they would be contributing to Social Security."

Fact Check: Answers in Genesis

2005-07-02T09:12:00.000-07:00

Here's an oldie but a goodie.

Q: What’s wrong with the word “races”?

A: At the time of Thomas Jefferson, 200 years ago, when people used the term “races,” they’d think of the Irish race or English race and so on. But Charles Darwin changed all that when he published his book The Origin of the Species. The title actually included the words “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Darwin was a racist. He believed that different groups of people evolved at different times, and so some societies were more like apes than others. Sadly, this fueled racist attitudes toward different people groups.

Because of this, the word “races” today still conjures up evolutionary ideas. Many people think of Darwinian evolution when they hear that word.

Hard to know where to start.

First, the title of the book is On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

You may read the book at the URL referenced above.

Second, the book is about natural selection, not human evolution. So AIG is misrepresenting the content of the book. This is a common misrepresentation. Darwin later wrote Descent of Man, which discussed human evolution. As to the evolution of different groups of people at different times, and some groups of people being closer to apes, read the book. I don't find this concept, implied or otherwise.

You will also find that Darwin's attitudes toward the Irish and the Scots are more negative than his attitude towards people of color -- this does not exactly track to modern standards of racism, in which Irish and Scots are considered "white". The accusation that Darwin was a racist involves a projection of our own societal standards on a past culture. I should mention that Darwin was an abolitionist, he came from a stauchly abolitionist family at a time when many people still defended slavery. He had remarkably open attitudes toward people of color for the time. He was much more concerned with urbanization and poverty than with race. Read Descent and his other writings and form your own opinion. Don't take Ken Ham's word on it.

That said, whether or not he was a racist is completely irrelevant to whether or not he was correct, just as Konrad Lorenz's association with the Nazi party did not make his research on imprinting wrong.

No discussion of evolution and racism is complete without discussion of pre-Darwinian
racial ideas, and take particular notice of the succession of slave laws that established racial hereditary slavery. Additionally, here's a nice discussion of polygenesis. There were some rabidly racist promoters of creationist theories of polygenesis, one the most notable of whom was Louis Agassiz. Ron Numbers' book The Creationists also details racist attitudes on the part of anti-evolutionists. And, I should not have to mention, but some people are unaware of the Curse of Ham. (This is passing out of use, I think, but I have had a personal exposure to it: a few years back I had a gentleman in his seventies comment that this Biblical story might explain why Africans can't govern themselves.)

Here's the short story.

Racist attitudes are complex. They derive from a myriad of factors and life experiences, and there is nothing to stop a creationist from being a racist or anti-racist, nor an evolutionist from being a racist or anti-racist. That is an opinion that is formed in childhood, long before a person even begins to get exposure to science. It is therefore an illegitimate critique of evolution, or any other scientific theory for that matter. It is furthermore manipulative, misleading, unethical, and immoral to critique evolution in this manner.

If anything, a knowledge of evolution and the genetic background of humans provides a scientific basis that enhances the moral critique of racism: There is more genetic diversity within a given "race" than between them, and we are all decended from common ancestors in Africa. Given that information it is foolish and wrong to maintain that there are immutable distinguishing differences between the "races". Once we can begin to understand race as a cultural and historical phenomenum, rather than a biological one, we can begin to talk about how to change these cultural views and move toward an anti-racist community.

Ian White Miner is doing excellent work in this regard with the Race Museum. Ian spoke at the UUA General Assembly and also brought a moving exhibit that provides an opportunity to re-think racial ideas. Right now, there is just a page on the website, however, if you get a chance to hear him speak: do so. If you have a chance to see the exhibit: do so. At some point, there should be more content, so bookmark the page and check back from time to time. Another resource, the
White Privilege Conference.

Let's take racism seriously. Let's not use it as a stick to beat others with.

BSA rolls out a new product

2005-07-01T21:02:00.000-07:00

The Boy Scouts of America, which has been experiencing membership declines and also has been plagued with membership fraud, has rolled out a new product: Soccer bundled with Cub Scouts. The idea is to attract Hispanic/Latino/Mexican boys to cub scouting by hooking them with a soccer program.

Setting aside management issues such as "Sticking to the knitting" and the question of whether this program would result in yet more membership inflation, the following
excerpt from the FAQ's is rather interesting:

Q: Besides schools, churches, and community-based organizations endorsed by BSA, can a youth-serving executive approach existing soccer leagues as prospective chartered organizations for new Soccer and Scouting units?
A: Though the idea of approaching already existing soccer leagues to charter new units would seem enticing to any membership-minded youth-serving executive, we don't recommend this approach for two reasons. First, youth soccer leagues are governed by their own rules and regulations set forth by their national soccer organizations. These rules and regulations may conflict with some of BSA's membership standards. Second, most soccer leagues focus their programs in the spring or fall and don't offer a year-round program. Soccer and Scouting offers a year-round character-building experience for young people.

I have bolded two items: (1) "membership-minded youth-serving executive". Wow! Jargon can be rather revealing about organizational culture. In this case, it shows the heavy emphasis on boosting membership numbers.

(2) BSA's membership standards ... well, seeing as the BSA has gone to court to protect its right to engage in religious discrimination against prospective cub scouts, and since many soccer leagues, including the one I am involved in, do not practice religious discrimination, I can see how that could be a problem.

As to the soccer program itself, after reviewing the FAQ's, even if there was no religious test for participation, I would not put my child in this program. The program that I currently work in, Fun Fair Positive Soccer, is constructed with particular care to balance the skill of the teams, there are specific rules as to parent behavior, the league is set up to have a set number of children on each team, and the children rotate using an equal substitution system that strives for each child to play each position. In short, a great deal of time and effort has been spent to design a superb soccer program. What is the BSA's approach to issues like this?

Unbalance in the skill level - "coaches are asked to move strong players to defense or rotate them out of the game for brief periods of time". This is patently unfair. Children should not be penalized for being good players. "The pack/league head coach has the authority to reassign a player to a different team if teams are significantly imbalanced with regard to talent.". The better plan would be to balance the teams from the beginning - but that would not necessarily promote the cub scout portion of the program.

Team size - "A: Not having enough volunteers, unfortunately, can affect the quality of the program offering. But here are the best ways to work around this issue. First, instead of one coach and two parent helpers per team, you could lower that to one volunteer per team. The only other option, which you would try to avoid, is to increase the size of the teams to reallocate the volunteers according to availability." Increase the size of the team? Seems a bit strange to me. How would you devise a fair rotation, and is it fair to the opposing team for one team to have more members (more time to rest).

Basically, it seems to me that this blended program would not deliver a superiour soccer experience. Whether the scouting experience is as good as joining a cub scout troop, I could not say.

HealthSouth Board: please, stick to televangelism

2005-07-01T07:37:00.000-07:00

Richard Scrushy, founder and CEO of HealthSouth Corporation, who as CEO presided over a seven-year, $2.7 billion (or so) accounting fraud, which took several years for forensic accountants to untangle and drove the company onto the pink sheets, has been acquitted in the criminal case against him. There are still civil fraud cases, including one by the SEC, pending.

The judge presiding over the SEC's civil trial has requested that they show cause for the civil trial to proceed.

Scrushy's defense: all the CFO's and accounting people hid this fraud from me, I had no idea and should not be held accountable for what they did.

Now Scrushy wants his old job back and he maintains that the board of HealthSouth unfairly fired him.

Implied in his defense is the presumption that he didn't think it was his job to keep an eye out for the fraud that went on, nor was it his job to evaluate whether the financial statements accurately expressed what was going on in his business.

Here's what I would like to know: exactly what was the job that he was getting millions of dollars a year for? He has amassed a personal fortune of almost $300 million. Surely it's not all for his pretty face.

At BEST, he was grossly incompentent. The Board states he is not welcome back. Let's hear it for reality-based financial reporting!

Pennsylvania and Intelligent Design

2005-06-29T14:33:00.000-07:00

Two items from Pennsylvania:

1) From Agape Press, an interview with proponent of the intelligent design bill in the PA legislature, Dennis Leh. Here's what Leh thinks PA students need to know:

School children "need to realize that evolution is only a theory. It's not backed by sound science," he says, "and there are many, many scientists -- [including] bio-scientists and physicists – who do not believe in evolution."

When our schools let people graduate who have such a wrong view of what a theory is, something is drastically amiss. If you don't know what I am talking about, have a look at Larry Moran's essay about the fact and theory of evolution, paying particular attention to the discussion of what a theory is.

That doesn't stop mechanical engineers, for example, testifying that evolution is not "true science" because it is a "theory" and not a "law", but jeez, we need to call them on this BS.

Item 2, from the latest NCSE reports, which contained excerpts of depositions taken in the Dover, PA trial, the superintendent of schools enlightens us on the identity of the "master intellect" referenced in Pandas and People:

A. Aliens.
Q. Can you think of anything else [other than aliens or God]?
A. No.
Q. Using master intellect in that context, it must mean God or aliens?
A. In this context, yes.

Lovely, what they want to teach our children.

Clean up Texas without DeLay

2005-06-29T10:57:00.000-07:00

Send Nick Lampson some money today.

Oprah v. Hermes

2005-06-29T10:37:00.000-07:00

First thought: the people at Hermes were really, really stupid. I can't imagine how much money they have and will lose in the future over this. Additionally, it is alleged that the Hermes staff member said during the course of the conversation that they had been having problems with North Africans in their store lately. If true, the accusations that this is a racial incident should be taken seriously, and I would question how people of color are treated at Hermes during regular business hours.

Second thought: Oprah shouldn't expect to get in after closing time, or at the least pick up the phone and let them know she's coming - I realize that these extremely high-end stores do make exceptions to their posted hours for celebrities and extremely wealthy individuals.

But my underlying problem is: People get refused service or treated disrespectfully because they are African-American, Mexican, Latino, whatever ALL THE TIME. It's my hope that Oprah's show will focus on these people, and not her personal experience.

Finally, I found an article that discusses Sean Combs retail shopping habits:

“Puffy sends his people ahead to stores and shuts them down so he can shop privately, so this kind of thing doesn’t happen,” Wilbekin said.

Wow. I just don't know where to start on that.

That is, I think, outrageous. I can understand his desire not to be confronted with stupidity, but this is selfish and does nothing to improve conditions for anyone else, and I do believe that people with power, money, and privilege should do something constructive to make a more just society. This is basic common sense and common decency. What kind of society do you want to live in? One in which people are divided by class, color, or other superficial factors, or one in which we can live peaceably together? We have the first, we all have a great deal of work to do in order to get the latter.

The Education of Shelby Knox

2005-06-28T19:55:00.000-07:00

... is a documentary film that chronicles the (unsuccessful) battle of the Lubbock Youth Commission, and in particular a young lady named Shelby Knox, to introduce comprensive sex education into the public school system.

The film contains extensive footage of the "True Love Waits" program, which is quite valuable in terms of seeing how abstinence-only programs work and what is taught.

In addition, the film shows how Shelby develops into a fairly liberal democrat in light of her experiences. In addition to her sex education work, she befriended some youth who were attempting to start a Gay-Straight Alliance in Lubbock high schools. It is interesting to note that hundreds of GSA cases have been won, but the Lubbock case was lost on the basis that permitting the group would conflict with the abstinence-only policy.

In the discussion after the viewing, Shelby noted that she thinks that the abstinence-only policy remains in effect at this point, not because the parents want it, but so that the GSA ban will remain effective. For Shame - that these parents would consider their kids' safety and health to be less important than banning a support group for gay kids. Eh, but I guess the parents don't know the difference between a support group and a sex club. What else would you expect from a locality where the picketers scream at young ladies (like Shelby) entering the Planned Parenthood facility (that does not perform abortions) "Don't kill your baby!". On second thought, maybe they were just concerned that Shelby was getting
birth control pills from Planned Parenthood.

Cross-posted to Come and Take It.

UUA General Assembly

2005-06-28T19:09:00.000-07:00

Here's an initial roundup from the Fort Worth papers related to the UUA General Assembly:

Denomination meets Downtown

Seeger aging but still an Activist

(Note, If I had a Hammer was led by the very marvelous emma's revolution. Pete sang with the rest of us.)

Rally Opposes Death Penalty

Americans are spiritually hungry, historian says

Unitarians denounce US torture of detainees

I am still trying to synthesize the information and the experiences, I will post further on the activities.

What part of "coercive and abusive" do they fail to understand?

2005-06-21T09:18:00.000-07:00

Via talkleft, I find that there was a dust-up yesterday in Congress over sense of the Congress language in the Appropriations bill that would have expressed disapproval of "inappropriate" prostelytizing.

Here is original language in the bill:

SEC. 9012. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT CONCERNING INAPPROPRIATE PROSELYTIZING OF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY CADETS.--

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military, but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been reported is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy;

(2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds; and

(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air Force Academy.

(b) REPORT ON PLAN.--

(1) PLAN.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.

(2) REPORT.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report providing the plan developed pursuant to paragraph (1). The Secretary shall include in the report information on the circumstances surrounding the removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton from her position at the Air Force Academy on May 4, 2005.

Let's recall what was going on there. "Heathen flights" were organized to intimidate cadets who did not want to go to chapel. Jewish cadets were called "[expletive] Jews" and Christ-killers. Cadets seeking passes to go to freethought meetings were denied while cadets seeking passes to go to Christian churches were permitted to go. (Church and State, Vol 58, No. 6, June 2005, pp 8-11). The superintendent of the Air Force Academy has admitted there is a problem and thinks it will take up to six years to fix it. Hence, the request that Congresscritters, who after all must recommend which ~~lambs are sent to the slaughter~~ young people will attend, express the view that their constituents not be subjected to, um, "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing" from people above them in the chain of command.

Sounds good to me. Doesn't sound so good to Republicans, though.

Congressman Hunter offered an amendment to gut the language in the bill, as follows:

SEC. 9012. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT CONCERNING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE AT UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY.--

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military;

(2) the military must be a place where there is freedom for religious expression for all faiths; and

(3) the Secretary of the Air Force and the Department of Defense Inspector General have undertaken several reviews of the issues of religious tolerance at the Air Force Academy.

(b) Report.--

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS.--The Secretary of the Air Force, based upon the reviews referred in subsection (a)(3), shall develop recommendations to maintain a positive climate of religious freedom and tolerance at the United States Air Force Academy.

(2) SECRETARY OF AIR FORCE REPORT.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report providing the recommendations developed pursuant to paragraph (1).

The reason given for the changed language was basically that there wasn't an official expression by the Air Force that there was a problem, and that the Congress should give them time to finish their report.

Actually, this should be a no-brainer. If they didn't like the idea of indicting the Air Force academy based on news reports, they could have amended to strike "as has been reported". So, as far as I am concerned, we can take Hunter and the folks who voted for this amendment at face value: "Coercive and abusive prostelytizing" is a-ok with them.

Notice, the language does not prohibit prostelytizing - it prohibits coercive and abusive proselytizing by a cadet's superiors. Now, you can argue that this is a subjective judgement that is rather difficult to make. That's not what Hunter and his allies did. They argued that the sense of Congress language was attacking all proselytizing, and furthermore, it would prohibit impromptu gatherings of soldiers for religious services.

I live in an area where the high school kids think it's important that the Jewish kids know they are going to burn in hell for eternity if they don't become Southern Baptists. So I am very aware that the line between proselytizing and coercion or abuse is difficult to draw. However, I think it's important to make the attempt, rather than to have an anything goes kind of situation.

The anything goes situations tend to get a little out of hand, as occured in Santa Fe ISD , the home of the famous high school football prayer case. In Santa Fe, the complainants were Mormons and Catholics. They were afraid to speak in public, so an American Baptist family spoke for them. Texas Monthly did a great article on the atmosphere at that school, it was basically extremely hostile to anyone who was not a Southern Baptist. So this case, which is quite frequently cited as part of the bias against Christians in the culture war, was actually an inter-sectarian dispute which involved some pretty heavy-handed abuse by one sect of Christians of anyone who did not belong. I think when you dig a little deeper into these cases of religious intolerance, you frequently find dynamics such as this - and you end up with Christians on both sides of the issue.

In short, to phrase it as non-Christians against Christians is a red herring. It's more frequently a subsect of Christians against everyone else, and indeed, in yesterday's debate, members of Congress noted this.

For example, from Congressman Israel:

And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets, staff members and faculty members who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest happen to be Protestants.

So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths.

From Sheila Jackson-Lee:
Air Force officials have acknowledged the problem, which initially surfaced in early May 2004 when a survey of present and former cadets revealed that some students felt that `born-again' Christians received favorable treatment and that persons of faith that did not consider themselves born-again had been verbally abused. These reports are unacceptable; truly we can not tolerate even the hint of religious intolerance or persecution anywhere in our nation, but especially not in any sector of our Armed Forces. Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting and in many cases are dying to protect the idea of religious freedom for all Iraqis, it would be a true shame if religious intolerance were given even the slightest legitimacy here in the United States.

Anyway, I got a little ahead of myself. These comments ensued after Obey of Wisconsin offered an amendment to essentially restore the original language in the bill and in the wake of Hostettler's outburst. Here is what Hostettler said in its entirety:

Mr. Chairman, the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It continues unabated
with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats. Do not get me wrong. Democrats know they should not be doing this. The spirit of, if not the exact, language in the underlying bill added by the Democrat ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin was offered by a Democrat in the Armed Services Committee during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 DOD authorization bill.

The author of that language in the authorizing committee, the gentleman from New York, has suggested since that time that ``extremist groups'' are behind the removal of language similar to his. I and others who spoke in opposition to that amendment had never even heard of the notion of such an amendment until the gentleman from New York actually offered it during the committee markup. And so I am curious as to who these extremists are that the gentleman from New York spoke of.

Mr. Chairman, we may never know because that is the nature of this debate, name-calling of unspecified people and groups who hold a world view different than many of these Democrats. And, as I said, Mr. Chairman, Democrats know they should not be doing this. Following the overwhelming opposition voiced at the DOD markup, the Democrat ranking member of the committee requested the gentleman from New York to withdraw the amendment, which he did. Like moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.

.

Translation. Objecting to "coercive and abusive" proselytizing is anti-Christian and part of the war on Christianity that's going on in the US. Nevermind that common decency and common sense would dictate that calling a young man who wasn't alive 2000 years ago a "Christ-killer" is not a great idea. Nevermind that the majority of bias complaints involved Christians complaining about the heavy-handed tactics of other Christians. Again, it's about treating people of all faiths with dignity and respect.

I don't expect someone like Hotsettler to get it, but there are many moderate Christians who read little snippets about cases such as this and about the culture wars who are still forming their opinions. Give them some facts if you run into them. Let them know that it's not a situation of non-Christians against Christians, but rather about sectarian Christians trying to monopolize the definition of what's a Christian. Ask them whether they think that calling people Christ-killers or harrassing people who don't choose to go to chapel is consistent with their understanding of the Bible and their practice of Christianity.

Dispatch from the North

2005-06-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

Tulsa, that is. For once we are behind the curve.

This is a little old, but too good to pass up.

The Tulsa zoo has an exhibit that shows elephant images in various cultures, such as Ganesh and the Republican elephant mascot.

Well, the municipal government's gone and decided that since there's a statue of Ganesh and of a Native American with a spiritual inscription, that Christians are being discriminated against ... so there's got to be an exhibit depicting a six-day creation. No word on which Biblical creation account they are going to use. City attorneys say the exhibit will depict creation stories from multiple religious and cultural traditions.

Zoo officials say it will take six months or so to organize the exhibit, and that they are concerned that "we are going in the wrong direction". Look on the bright side, creation stories are fun. I've always been partial to the Norse Creation story, but maybe that's because of the beautiful illustration of the event in D'Aulaire's book of Norse Myths (which is being reprinted.

I think someone didn't think this one through. In real life, many conservative preachers won't share a pulpit with non-Christians. In zoo life, their Creation account will essentially share a pulpit with other creation accounts. How does this solve their problem, really?

And how long before our local Texas zoos get hit with demands for equal time for Creation Science?

AP article here.

Crossposted at Come and Take It!.

Dianne Feinstein on the Filibuster

2005-06-04T19:20:00.000-07:00

Great speech on the filibuster, via Josh Marshall.

Voices for evolution

2005-06-03T15:31:00.000-07:00

From the Catholic News Service:

Church needs better evolution education

Catholic education has long had adequate science instruction, including instruction in biological evolution. The bishop quoted in the article is concerned that Catholic kids are picking up anti-evolution biases from the culture, and that Catholic educators should improve their curriculum in order to counter this anti-evolution bias.

From the article:

Without a church view of human creation that is consistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge, "Catholicism may begin to seem less and less 'realistic' to more and more thoughtful people," said David Byers, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Science and Human Values from 1984 to 2003.

...

"Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time," he said without mentioning specific controversies in the United States.

This is a great statement, it's noteworthy that he includes the discussion of human evolution. Many lay people accept evolution in principle, but stop short with human evolution. So it's great to see a cleric straightforwardly state that human evolution is simply not a problem for his flock.

Support Ford Website online

2005-06-03T15:29:00.000-07:00

See it here.

AFA targets Ford for a boycott

2005-06-01T10:51:00.000-07:00

American Family Association has targeted Ford Motor Company for a boycott because Ford "promotes the homosexual agenda". The details are available at the Boycott Ford website. I must say, before I read that site, I had no idea how gay-friendly Ford was. We need to support Ford on this.

I have started a counter-petition, which is available at PetitionOnline. Please sign the petition. Please note, I have a required field "ford products owned". Check the "Boycott Ford Website" to see if you own a Ford product first. I want them to know there are customers who support them.

Action items:

1. Sign the petition.

2. ~~Call~~ Write to your local Ford dealer, you can get this information at the Boycott Ford website.

3. Write to Ford or call them to express your support, the contact info is here.

4. Ask some of your like-minded friends to take action.

Unitarian Jihad

2005-04-10T11:43:00.000-07:00

My Unitarian
Jihad Name is:
Sister Atom Bomb of Looking at All Sides of the Question.

Get yours.

Louis Vaughan

2004-12-20T21:16:00.000-08:00

Louis Vaughan was the long-time pastor of the Omega Missionary Baptist Church here in Houston. He was a very special, kind man who ministered with love to his congregants. As a child, I attended his church fairly regularly. He will be sorely missed. His nephew-in-law, Frank Celestin, will be pastoring this church now. Please keep Frank, his wife Patsy, the Omega Missionary Baptist Church, and Louis' family in your thoughts and prayers.

Interesting Hubert Vo reference

2004-12-03T19:17:00.000-08:00

This from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. There is an editor who has a column called "Thinking Right" and it's snippets from a somewhat right-wing perspective (I think this because of his titles and he backhanded criticisms of liberals. Anyway, here's what he has to say about Hubert:

I love the American Dream. Carlos M. Gutierrez, the new secretary of commerce, is a Cuban political refugee who began working at Kellogg Co. selling Frosted Flakes out of a van in Mexico City. In Texas, Hubert Vo of Houston, who fled Vietnam as a teenager after Saigon fell in 1975, won election to the state House of Representatives.

Capitol Days

2004-11-29T22:46:00.000-08:00

From the Texas Home School Coalition:

During each morning session [of Capitol Days], THSC representatives, legislators, and legislative staff members educate attendees about the legislative process and train them to lobby. Each month, there will be different speakers and topics, depending on the current issue of concern for Texas home educators. In the afternoon, students, parents, and chaperones will head to the Capitol to meet and lobby legislators and then reconvene for a debriefing (sharing and feedback) session.

Don’t miss these opportunities for great political science field trips!

banned books

2004-11-29T22:42:00.000-08:00

The Texas ACLU and Texas Library Association have created website on books banned in Texas public schools.

Van Till In Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith

2004-11-29T19:21:00.000-08:00

Howard van Till is one of my favorite spokespeople against Intelligent Design. Howard is an astronomer who is the author of the book The Fourth Day, what the Bible and the Heavens are Telling us About the Creation (reviewed here). Prior to the development of Intelligent Design, Howard was a steadfast critic of Young Earth Creationism and he's been in the trenches against ID practically since its inception. He has criticized ID on a theological basis as a form of episodic creationism and thus a god-in-the-gaps theological position and he has made specific criticisms of assumptions underlying Bill Dembski's explanatory filter.

His latest foray appears in the December 2004 issue of PSCF, the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, a fellowship of scientists who are Christian. There is an article exchange in this issue. First James Madden and Mark Discher, philosphers and theologians discuss ID, van Till responds, and Madden and Discher respond to van Till's comments.

Without going into great they said-he said detail, here are a few points that I found interesting in the exchange. Discher and Madden seem a bit out of touch with the stated goals and rhetoric of the ID movement. They criticize some ID proponents - notably Michael Behe - for (they say) going beyond trying to detect the presence of design in nature and to posit that a designer might exist, while commending him for not making claims about the attributes of the designer. Their view is that there is no warrant for the existence of a designer because the existence of design might be consistent with interventionist creationism (a designer), Aristotelian forms, or atheistic panpsychism, which they describe as fundamental particles purposefully taking particular states (I don't get it either, but they cite Mary Midgely and Thomas Nagel as examples of the idea).

Two points on this. First, depending on the venue, ID proponents do or do not identify the designer. When they go in front of the Texas State Board of Education they are quite coy and do state that the designer could be anyone, little green men even. But the ID proponents who go on Hank Hanegraff's radio show overtly state that the designer is the Christian God, see also Phil Johnson _Reason in the Balance_ and Chuck Colson _How Now Shall We Live_. The reason why they shy from identifying the designer is that they know that it is inappropriate and unconsititutional to teach creationism in public school and they want to smear evolution proponents with the epithet of misleaders when evolution proponents call ID a creationist program. The reason they shy from describing the designer is not in respect for the concept that they don't have a warrant to describe the designer just because they demonstrate design.

Secondly it is precisely the failure to discuss the designer that constitutes one failure of the ID program. It gets circular. How can you detect design without considering the intent of the designer and how can you consider the intent without considering the identity?

Van Till aptly notes that the non-interventionist creationist options that Madden and Discher offer, in the context of the ID movement in North America, are "radically unacceptable on theological grounds, leaving divine interventionism as the only attractive option available for serious consideration. It is in the light of this reality that I see ID and compensatory, hand-like, supernatural action as effectively constituting a package deal" (emphasis added).

Madden and Discher get to the heart of the matter when they note that the value of ID is to serve as a "materialism-defeater" thus opening biology up to an interdisciplinary program in which philosophers, theologians, and biologists all work; to their credit, they admit that this interdisciplinary program would be beyond empiricism. Way, way beyond. I appreciate their frankness in making this statement. While it is true that ID proponents want to change the rules of science, they are frequently not so frank about this goal. Rather they state that they simply want "more science" to be taught or the "weaknesses" of a particular theory to be taught. So it's refreshing to see the cards out on the table.

Stepping back from their argument for a moment, they appear to consider some basic assumptions of science to be unseemly. Frequently in modern science it may be unclear how exactly something works or why it reacts the way it does. There are a few methods of attacking the problem (1) try to study it (2) try to study systems like it (3) let it be a mystery for the moment and study what you can, such as how it reacts with other objects. Basically, letting "I don't know" be an acceptable answer. And yes, methodological naturalism does dictate that whatever scientific explanation you posit for the "I don't know" situation, it's gotta be testable and it's gotta be a natural cause. Madden and Discher find this unattractive. They consider this "promissory-note materialism" and state that one is warranted in rejecting it for ID until materialistic Darwinian natural selection (yes, folks, they do commit that error of considering natural selection as the only factor in the evolutionary account of biology) provides a complete accounting for biological complexity. Big words for "the argument from incredulity is ok." Well. It's not as though scientists claim to be able to explain everything. I think they are also hung up on some apologetics stuff, in that they fail to distinguish between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism and appear to consider these positions as hostile to theism.

Anyway, van Till makes a few nice points I would like to just quote.

The ID movement's success as a 'materialism defeater" is wholly dependent on its ability to make a scientific case. If that scientific case cannot be made, however, then the movement has no basis whatsoever for asking that the concept of "intelligent design" be presented as an alternative to mainstream science's understanding of bioltic evolution in a pubic(sic, how embarrassing) school science classroom. Public school board members and legislators need to know this.

(Emphasis in original).

Yes, and they need to know that when Discovery Institute was asked point-blank in Texas last November if they were seeking to put ID in the textbooks and why not, they said they were not because it had not been productive as a scientific endeavor. Bill Dembski stated a little over two years ago, "We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front." And ID's scientific breakthroughs since that time have been less than stellar. Possibly the time that the ID heavy hitters have been spending lobbying Boards of Education to include "weaknesses" of evolution in the curriculum could have been spent in the lab instead.

ID theorists are now unable, and will necessarily remain unable , to reach a computationally warranted conclusion any more forceful or specific than this: In the absence of a detailed and causally specific scientific account of the particular sequence of natural processes and events that can fully explain the formational history of formational history of biotic system X, it is logically permissible to posit that the actualization of X required at least one instance of non-natural action. That is certainly true, but the logical permissibility of positing a religiously attractive, non-natural explanation in the context of incomplete knowledge is a weapon far too weak to defeat (or even bruise) naturalism of any type.

This is important. Just because it's logically permissible doesn't make it true or scientifically acceptable. There is much more to empirical science than a simple logic game. And I have to give you the footnote, because it's a classic:

A few thousand years ago, in the absence of knowledge about electrostatic discharge, and in the context of religious beliefs held by polytheisitic cultures, it was both logically permissible and religiously attractive for some people to posit that lightning required the direct action of a divine agent. In the long run, however, a belief that is both logically permissible and religiously attractive remains vulnerable to defeat by knowledge based on empirical science. Lightning, we now know, is an electrical phenonomenum.

This bandwagon's big enough for three

2004-11-29T15:41:00.000-08:00

Jack Stick also filed an election challenge last week. Thus, the house will be dealing with three election challenges involving Republicans seeking to void or reverse the results of their election due to alleged voting irregularities (Stick, Eric Opeila, and Talamdge Heflin).

I have two thoughts: first, I don't advocate ignoring voting irregularities or counting illegal votes. However I have concerns about a partisan body resolving questions of fact regarding the evidence of those voting irregularities. It's a given that political parties have a vested interest in the results of a partisan race - that's why there were paired observers at the count of the Heflin/Vo absentee ballots, why the officials deciding the status of those ballots were paired, and even though the election judge who resolved conflicts was Republican, based on some of the comments to Charles Kuffner's blog, Democrats who attended felt that he presided over the process fairly. Once these challenges are in the House, the majority party has no obligation to include the opposing party in anything but the final vote. Thus there is a potential for abuse by the party in control - this was true in challenges that occured while Democrats controlled the Legislature, and it's true today.

In the accounting world our professional standards require us to be independent in certain cases and to maintain objectivity always. But, here is the kicker: part of independence and objectivity is that we are held to a higher standard than actual independence and objectivity. We also must maintain the appearance of independence and objectivity. Here's an example. Accountant audits a company that rents space from accountant. Peer reviewer looks at the situation, notes that it is permitted, but says, discontinue the arrangement because it has the appearance of impairing independence. Sound unfair? Let's consider why the profession became important. In the wake of financial scandals in the 1920's and 1930's, public companies were required to provide assurances to investors by independent, competent professionals that their financials were properly stated. Hence the extra-squeaky-clean-higher-than-high bar. Because if investors lose confidence in the independent accountant's report, they'll take their marbles home and keep them under the mattress. That is bad news for all the companies seeking capital, not just the dishonest ones.

I believe the principle that the process should not only be fair, but also appear to be fair holds true in the electoral system, only bigger. This is because we accept government and its attendant controls on our behaviour because we consider it legitimate. We consider it legitimate because we believe that the process is fair. Whatever the House ends up doing, in the end if the voters consider that the process was unfair, we'll all suffer in terms of increased citizen distrust and dissatisfaction with the political system.

On a side note, I was interested to see what Tom DeLay's independent opponent for his congressional seat had to say about Heflin's challenge (letter to the editor in today's Houston Chronicle):

He should ask Gore
State Rep. Talmadge Heflin lost by 32 votes and is now wanting a new election. But he should talk to Al Gore.

If Gore can be required to accept his loss to George W. Bush in 2000 by 537 votes out of millions without a new election, then Heflin should do the same. Or do we accept results only when our side wins?

If this is where the Republicans are going, they need a new direction before democracy falls off the edge of the cliff.

MICHAEL FJETLAND
Sugar Land

20/20 on Matthew Shepard

2004-11-26T11:33:00.000-08:00

GLAAD and the Shepard family have published a guide with "10 questions" about the 20/20 episode rehashing the Shepard murder. I don't watch TV, most of it is trash as far as I am concerned. It saddens me that 20/20 would air this piece, give the murderers this soapbox, when the plea agreement - which took the death penalty out of the sentencing picture - specifically prohibits them from discussing the murder with the press. Brutally murder a young man and rub the family's face in it, very nice going. ABC, this is not your finest moment.

New books

2004-11-25T07:23:00.000-08:00

Stephen Donaldson has released Runes of the Earth, the first of the last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.

Terry Pratchett has released Going Postal, in which a man has the difficult choice of managing Ankh-Morpork's post office or being hanged.

We discover the origins of the great rift between House Atreides and House Harkonnen in the latest book in the Legends of Dune series. Some short stories filling in gaps between the Butlerian Jihad and the Battle of Corrin are available for download.

All three of these books are available at the Houston Public Library.

Still waiting for:

The sequel to Shelters of Stone and Drive to the East, the second book in Harry Turtledove's Settling Accounts series.

& I thought my precinct was small

2004-11-24T20:16:00.000-08:00

I live in an itty-bitty precinct that was carved out of a republican precinct, I heard because there were too many democrats in my immediate area. But that's neither here nor there.

I was looking at the canvass report for the SD 149 race and I find that in precinct 283, which has zero (0) registered voters (per the county clerk), 10 people voted: 9 for Heflin, 1 for Vo.

I find the map for precinct 283, and it's even itty-bittier than my precinct. Heck, I didn't know anyone lived there! (It's businesses all along that stretch of road.)

Voter registrar doesn't show any streets, voters, anything there using the street search tool and when I attempted to get the list of voters there were no records.

The sword-rattling ends, the challenge begins

2004-11-24T06:07:00.000-08:00

Heflin announced his plans to file an election challenge this morning.

There is one other Republican who is definitely filing a challenge and one who is considering it. So, potentially a total of three Republican election challenges this year in the Lege (I expect Heflins' will be the most divisive).

From the article, the challengers are:

AUSTIN - Two Republicans defeated Nov. 2 will submit paperwork today asking the GOP-majority Texas House to throw out official vote tallies and name them winners of their respective races or force new elections, advisers predicted Tuesday.

A third defeated candidate, Republican Rep. Ken Mercer of San Antonio, will decide by today whether to join the others in contesting his 498-vote loss to Democratic challenger David Leibowitz, his campaign manager said.

Now, the San Antonio paper states that the Texas House can give the challengers the seat. They can~~not~~. What they can do is seat the ~~certified~~ 'true' winner ~~(essentially, dismiss the contestants complaint)~~ or void the election and direct the gov to call a special election. The true winner determined by determining whose votes are illegal, bringing them in and making them swear under oath who they voted for, and subtracting the votes from the appropriate candidate's total.

The citations are basically election code sec 221.012 & 241.020

Reasons to monitor your local school board

2004-11-23T05:33:00.000-08:00

In Wisconsin, scientific theories other than evolution (specifically, Intelligent Design, which Ken Miller has aptly characterized as (paraphrased) a collection of half-baked objections to evolution) to be taught in Grantsburg schools.

In Dover, PA, teachers will refer students to the Intelligent Design book, Of Pandas and People (reviewed here by historian of science Richard Aulie.

(Thanks to Talk.origins' Jason Spaceman for the clippings.)

well, duh

2004-11-23T05:27:00.000-08:00

Talmadge Heflin has finally filed for a recount in the State Representative race for District 149. His challenger, Hubert Vo, won by 32 votes. Since Heflin said Wednesday, November 3, that with such a small margin (at that point 110, or maybe 52, the margin changed a couple of times) "there will be a recount", my question is: What took him so long and what was all that sword-rattling about a challenge about?

Fun Fair Positive Soccer (FFPS)

2004-11-20T15:45:00.000-08:00

We are wrapping up our fall FFPS season. I coached my daughters' (7 year old and 10 year old) teams. It was a hard season, harder than the spring season because of time constraints, but this soccer league is so wonderful participating is always worth it.

FFPS philosophy is that the primary goal is for the kids to have fun and the secondary goal is learning the game. Accordingly FFPS has modified rules and procedures. For example, the field is smaller, the players play five to a side, no instruction from the coaches or parents is permitted during games, no negativity from parents or coaches (berating children, telling them "run, "go here", "go there") is permitted. We tell the parents to stick with "go, good, great, nice." and never, ever start or escalate something with another parent. They sign agreements at the beginning of the season that they will abide by FFPS rules.

The teams are balanced according to players' abilities and they are rebalanced every season. All teams are co-ed, and there are teams formed up through teens. There is a wonderful substitution system. The objective of all these procedures is that all the kids play, every position, every game, and the games are between evenly matched teams.

This league is superlative. I can't say enough nice things about it. I would encourage parents to look into the league, Spring 2005 season signup starts February 15, season starts April 5, 2005.

Heroes of Public Education

2004-11-19T13:38:00.000-08:00

I will be speaking this Sunday, November 21, 2004, at the Unitarian Fellowship of Houston. The topic is Heroes of Liberal Education. Or Public Education. Or TH Huxley, whose genius and compassion never ceases to amaze me. Or something like that. Should be fun. The adult forum occurs from 10-11 and the service begins at 11.

Update: I have composed my remarks. One of the great themes that Huxley and Horace Mann both highlight is the concept that the social benefits we have now, we inherited from our forebears. What we do with them is our legacy to our decendants. This has implications for education, envirnomental policy, fiscal policy; really everything we do. We can take a short-sighted view that says our purpose in this life is to accumulate our own wealth (which we naturally got entirely through our own effort) and to keep it and pass it on to our lineal decendents. I would submit that this is the prevailing view of modern-day conservatives; at least that is what I can discern from their policies and rhetoric. We can take a longer-term view that we have received a leg-up from the collective efforts of the society that begat us, and we have an obligation to increase its collective wealth and well-being so that the next also has the benefit of that leg-up.

Here are some of Huxley's comments that got me thinking along those lines (taken from a book of aphorisms] selected by his wife and published posthumously):

CCLXXXIII [C. E. ix 230]
I cannot speak of my own knowledge, but I have every reason to believe that I came into this world a small reddish person, certainly without a gold spoon in my mouth, and in fact with no discernible abstract or concrete "rights" or property of any description. If a foot was not set upon me at once, as a squalling nuisance, it was either the natural affection of those about me, which I certainly had done nothing to deserve, or the fear of the law which, ages before my birth, was painfully built up by the society into which I intruded, that prevented that catastrophe. If I was nourished, cared for, taught, saved from the vagabondage of a wastrel, I certainly am not aware that I did anything to deserve those advantages. And, if I possess anything now, it strikes me that, though I may have fairly earned my day's wages for my day's work, and may justly call them my property–yet, without that organization of society, created out of the toil and blood of long generations before my time, I should probably have had nothing but a flint axe and an indifferent hut to call my own; and even those would be mine only so long as no stranger savage came my way.

So that if society, having, quite gratuitously, done all these things for me, asks me in turn to do something towards its preservation–even if that something is to contribute to the teaching of other men's children–I really, in spite of all my individualist learnings, feel rather ashamed to say no. And, if I were not ashamed, I cannot say that I think that society would be dealing unjustly with me in converting the moral obligation into a legal one. There is a manifest unfairness in letting all the burden be borne by the willing horse.

DemocracyFest 2005

2004-11-19T13:10:00.000-08:00

From My Vote is My Voice:

"DemocracyFest '05 will be held in Austin, TX on June 17th-19th. Mark your calendars now! ... For more information on DemocracyFest '05--including proposed agenda andlodging info, please visit <http://myvoteismyvoice.com/Texas/index.html> "