Happy Independence Day!

Signage at Moore Liquor
Photo credit: Danny Wallace

Today is July 2^nd, the anniversary of the date in 1776 on which the Second Continental Congress voted to formally cut legal ties with Great Britain by adopting the Lee Resolution. This momentous event prompted John Adams to write the following to his wife on July 3^rd:

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more...

Turns out he was only off by a couple of days, because Americans were so taken with the wording of the subsequent declaration of independence to the British that they pretty much disregarded the fact that the colonies had formally voted for independence two days earlier. A cynic might say that the triumph of style over substance in American self-governance took all of 48 hours, but the full story is just a bit more complicated, but we'll not go into it just now.

According to Professor James R. Heintze, one of the first celebrations of the 4th of July took place two years later, in 1778, as "General George Washington direct[ed] his army to put 'green boughs' in their hats, issue[d] them a double allowance of rum, and order[ed] a Fourth of July artillery salute" from his headquarters in New Jersey.

Which brings me to the problem of rum. I'm a fan of rum, especially Puerto Rican rum, and it seems that we Okies cannot buy any rum on July 4th (because it is Independence Day) or on July 3rd (because it is the Lord's Day). So, if I want to celebrate July 4th in grand Washingtonian style, with a double helping of my favorite rum, I've got to get my ass out to the liquor store today. On that note, I'm off to Moore Liquor, because it seems that they alone are willing to publicly condemn the foolishness and irony of celebrating our national independence by curtailing our individual liberties.

HR1015

Via ERV, we have the antics of another Oklahoma lawmaker who appears not to know what country he is living in, nor why we enshrined free speech into our state and federal founding documents.  Hint: It was not to protect popularly supported and unoffensive speech.

Rep. Thomsen claims that he wants OU to "engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution" but endeavors to suppress controversial speech like that of Richard Dawkins, because it is "contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma" and therefore not fit for debate. 

Open and fair discussion of the theory of evolution must address the entire range of thinking on the subject, from creationists like Phillip E. Johnson, Casey Luskin, and William Dembski, to moderate scientists like John M. Lynch and Michael Ruse, and yes, even hard-line naturalists like Richard Dawkins. Every one of these people have spoken on the topic of evolution at OU, except the last. Why single out his particular views for special treatment if one truly believes in a free and open debate of all sides?

The conclusion is obvious and ineluctable: HR1015 is naught but thinly veiled theological protectionism masquerading as academic freedom.

Reading this week (2008-07-21)

This week I'm rereading a fascinating book which popularizes econometric techniques as a means for studying various psycho-socio-economic problems from a perspective which provides new and surprising insights.

Some of these insights might have public policy implications, most particularly and controversially the argument that abortion prevents violent crime - with a two-decade time lag.

His Panic is Manic

My father (and his fellow Birchers and Minutemen) warns that the Mexicans are swarming through the Rio Grande and bringing an inevitable wave of Hispanic culture and cuisine with them. I was skeptical of such claims until just now...

Here they come - speeding on I-35N - with TX plates! How many illegals do you suppose they fit in a van like this?

¡Dios mio! Hopefully the GOP will find a way to send these huddled masses back. We can't just be giving away freedom to everyone, it's a limited commodity - like real estate and heiresses.

Pusillanimous parishioners perpetuate preachers' primitive propriety

Here we go again with the new Pew Forum study data. (No, I’m not trying to get a job at Pew.)

[Click on image for full-sized graph]

Here are the propositional claims tested in this particular part of the study:

• Abortion should be illegal in all or most cases
  
• Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society

Note that the scatter-plot is very nearly linear, as one might not necessarily expect given the relative dearth of homosexuals hanging about the abortion clinic. Perhaps these answers are highly correlated because these seemingly distinct issues address essentially the same fundamental moral question in two different contexts:

Should adults be allowed self-determination over their own bodies when it comes to matters of sexuality and reproduction?

It is becoming alarming clear that certain faith-based groups are far more interested in following ancient dogmas instead of following our national ideals of personal liberty and autonomy.

Here is the money-quote from the report synopsis:

The connection between religious affiliation and politics appears to be especially strong when it comes to certain issues, particularly those that have been at the forefront of the “culture war” controversies of recent years. Some religious traditions, for instance, are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion; seven-in-ten Mormons and six-in-ten members of evangelical churches (61%) say abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. On the other side of the issue, six-in-ten members of mainline churches (62%) and seven-in-ten of the unaffiliated say abortion should be legal in most or all instances. A similar divide exists on the question of whether homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged or accepted by society.

This accurate assessment should scare the living shit out of you all. Rather than listen to their own consciences and reason out the ethics of victimless crime for themselves, religious believers in our free and secular society most often rent out their moral faculties from a handful of poorly-educated public speakers who fill their heads with Bronze-Age ethics. This would be downright pathetic if it weren't so effing infuriating.

Now, I don't have a womb and I'm not into men, and hence my own personal liberties are not directly tied in with the political fate of those who find seminal fluid less revolting than I do. That said, these are not matters of personal taste but public policy issues, and it should be blindingly clear that the tyranny of the majority can turn its spiteful venom upon anyone, at anytime, for any reason or none. Accordingly, we freethinkers must make our stand against those who stand against personal liberties in any form. Now, thanks to the Pew Forum, we have now a clearer idea of those against whom we struggle. Onward, non-Christian soldiers, to the culture war!

Happy Flag Day!

I almost never post merely to refer to other people’s posts, but this takedown piece on The Pledge of Allegiance is truly and utterly priceless. One people, one country, one flag!