Conservative Allies in Politics: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on conservative allies in politics. The question was:

Aren't politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul allies in the struggle for liberty? Although I'm an atheist and a novice Objectivist, I've always wondered why so many advocates of individual rights oppose candidates and movements that seem to agree with us on a great many issues. Despite their other warts, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the most likely men to promote our causes. The notion that they evangelize is dubious. And even if true, are there better alternatives today? I've also seen this attitude towards Libertarian candidates and their party. Ronald Reagan was the only President who advanced the ball towards free markets in the last fifty years, and yet people condemn him because of his position on abortion and because of his religious/political partnerships. I've never understood this. Shouldn't we embrace the advocates of free markets out there today, even if not perfect?

My Answer, In Brief: The Republicans – including "better" Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul – are a dangerous mixture of some economic liberty, nationalism, and theocracy. Instead of discrediting liberty by supporting them, focus on the issues.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 25:38
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Activism, Conservatism, Elections, Free Society, GLBT, Immigration, Politics, Progressivism, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Objectivism Versus Libertarianism and The Libertarian Party
• With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by William Martin
• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• Rand Paul on immigration and Ted Cruz on immigration
• Sen. Rand Paul introduces 'fetal personhood' bill to outlaw abortion
• Denver Post: How the Republicans Lost My Vote by Paul Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on conservative allies in politics, flunking a student, guilt about refusing requests, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 July 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Defending Abortion Rights: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on defending abortion rights. The question was:

How can abortion rights be more effectively defended? Although the biblical case against abortion is weak, the religious right has gained much traction against abortion rights in the last decade or two. The "personhood" movement is growing every year, and incremental restrictions on abortion have mushroomed. Even more alarming, the demographics seem to be against abortion rights: young people are increasingly opposed to abortion. What can be done to more effectively defend abortion rights? Can any lessons be drawn from the success of the campaign for gay marriage?

My Answer, In Brief: The advocates of abortion bans are largely motivated by the divine command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which is then often cast in the language of the "right to life." To combat that, those people need to be confronted with the reality of what abortion bans mean to women and couples.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 29:00
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Communication, Conservatism, Ethics, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, being virtuous but not happy, defending abortion rights, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 April 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

The 2012 Election Results: Philosophy in Action Podcast

In the 11 November 2012 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I discussed the 2012 election results, and I thought it might be of interest. The question was:

What should we think of the results of the 2012 election? Many free-market advocates are despairing over the election results, particularly the re-election of President Obama. They claim that America has sunk to a new low in re-electing an openly socialistic and egalitarian hater of America. Do you think that such despair is warranted? Also, how can intellectuals, activists, and others effectively promote individual rights over the next four years?

My Answer, In Brief: Advocates of free markets need to stop despairing and start thinking about how to make progress over the next four years.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 43:21
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Alcohol/Drugs, America, Apocalypticism, Democratic Party, Elections, Gay Marriage, Immigration, Politics, Republican Party, Rights Relevant Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Pursuing Personal Values in an Imperfect World

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread. A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the 2012 election results, explaining a break-up, keeping contact with questionable family, and more – is available as a podcast here: Episode of 11 November 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap.

Read more...

Two Wrongs, No Right: Scott DesJarlais

Oh my: Scott DesJarlais, Pro-Life Republican Congressman And Doctor, Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion:

A pro-life, family-values congressman who worked as a doctor before winning election as a Tea Party-backed Republican had an affair with a patient and later pressured her to get an abortion, according to a phone call transcript obtained by The Huffington Post.

The congressman, Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, was trying to save his marriage at the time, according to his remarks on the call, made in September of 2000. And, according to three independent sources familiar with the call and the recording, he made the tape himself.

DesJarlais, who was provided a copy of the transcript by HuffPost, did not deny its contents, but in a statement released through his campaign characterized it as just another sordid detail dredged up by the opposition. "Desperate personal attacks do not solve our nation's problems, yet it appears my opponents are choosing to once again engage in the same gutter politics that CBS news called the dirtiest in the nation just 2 years ago."

Amazingly, that's not even the worst of what he did. The details -- and the transcript -- are here.

Scott DesJarlais is no different than many other hypocritical advocates of banning abortion. Such people never see any valid reasons for abortion whatsoever -- until they happen to face some circumstance in which a baby would be inconvenient. Then they avail themselves of that choice which they seek to deny for others, usually without that affecting their efforts to ban abortion one iota.

Such hypocrisy is infuriating.

Read more...

No Personhood on Colorado's Ballot in 2012?

Colorado Personhood Measure Falls Short Of Ballot:

Backers of a controversial fetal personhood measure in Colorado have failed to gather enough signatures to get the proposal on the November ballot, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced on Wednesday.

The measure, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, fell nearly 4,000 short of the 86,105 signatures it needed to qualify for the ballot. The proposal has appeared on statewide ballots in Colorado twice before, in 2008 and 2010, and was soundly rejected by the voters both times.

A spokeswoman for Personhood USA, the anti-abortion group behind the nationwide push for fetal personhood laws, contended that the Secretary of State's office had made a mistake in counting the ballots. "We have more than enough valid signatures that were discounted by the Secretary of State's office," Jennifer Mason told The Huffington Post.

It sounds like Personhood USA will appeal Secretary of State Scott Gessler's ruling, so for now, we just have to wait and see.

Colorado's Republicans must be (secretly) cheering and hoping, because personhood did them a lot of harm in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Read more...

GOP and Voting Strategy

Note: This is cross-posted from my blog, NoodleFood.

Wow, this essay -- It Is Infuriating That I Can't Vote For A Fiscal Conservative Without Also Supporting Religious Aggressives -- was a huge breath of fresh air for me. Here's a few quotes:

At some point, I actually would like to vote for a Presidential candidate who has the balls to really tackle our budget problem. Because, as a country, we really do have hard choices to make. And now is the time to have leaders who are actually willing to lead (read: make unpopular decisions), instead of spineless yes-men who quake at the thought of saying or doing things that most people don't want to hear.

And given that the folks who say they will take a hard line on those sorts of fiscal decisions tend to be Republicans, I assume that to vote for such a fiscal conservative, I would probably be voting for a Republican.

And I would would be fine with that.

Except for one thing...

Thanks to the radicalization of today's Republican party, voting for a Republican fiscal conservative would also mean supporting Republican Religious Aggressives who want to expand the scope of government to such an extent that the government will be telling me what I can and can't think and do on certain subjective moral and cultural issues--and enforcing this legally.

And that's a non-starter.

And:

In short, I support freedom.

The Republicans do not.

The Republicans support increasing the size and scope of government to such an extent that it strips away freedom and limits the choices Americans can make because some people believe these choices are "just wrong."

And that's a bummer.

Because I would like to support a true fiscal conservative at some point--our budget mess is a real problem.

But unless the Republican party returns to what it used to be, or a Democrat who is also a true fiscal conservative comes along, I fear that I am not going to be able to vote for one.

Because I just can't support what today's Republican Party supports:

Stripping away freedom and increasing the scope of government to the point where America won't be America anymore.

Hear, hear! (Please read the whole thing.)

In my view, the only way that the GOP will ever listen to the many, many Americans who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal is if those people stop reflexively voting for the GOP simply because the Democrats are marginally worse on some (but not all) key issues.

The GOP knows that evangelicals will sit home rather than vote for a candidate not to their liking; they know that they have to earn the vote of the religious right. As a result, the GOP has become increasingly unprincipled and compromising on every issue -- except its (utterly wrong) opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

In contrast, GOP politicians know that fiscally conservative and socially liberal voters will hold their nose and vote GOP just this once... and then again... and again... and again. Hence, GOP politicians don't even need to pander to those voters while campaigning, let alone actually satisfy them once in office.

The only way to crush the GOP's love affair with the religious right, in my view, is to punish the GOP at the polls by refusing to vote for their big-spending theocratic candidates. We must say, loud and clear, that we'll only vote for candidates who are genuinely committed to cutting spending, welfare programs, regulations, and more -- while not push any social conservative agenda either. Yes, that will entail some more pain from the Democrats -- perhaps very serious pain -- in the short term. Alas, I think that's the only way to turn around the GOP's ever-growing commitment to spending like mad while imposing biblical law.

I discussed these ideas about voting strategy in greater depth in Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio Show. (In fact, I wrote this post before Sunday's broadcast.) You can listen to that segment here:

• Duration: 38:30


• Download: MP3 Segment

Links and other details can be found on the web page for the question.

My basic points were:

(1) The Founders did not create a two-party system by design.

(2) Voting is the least significant political act you can do, albeit still worthwhile.

(3) Fiscal conservatives need to be willing to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils if they want better candidates.

(4) A good candidate from a third party is often a worthwhile protest vote.

(5) I don't yet know how I'll vote, although I'm most likely to vote for Gary Johnson.

(6) Acrimony over voting is wrong, pointless, and destructive.

I'm not too concerned with how anyone votes in this presidential election. I'm definitely not demanding that people vote in some particular way. The process of demanding better candidates from the GOP needed to start long before now... and it can only really begin after R&R either win or lose.

Read more...

Personhood USA Gets the Facts Wrong about Georgia Ballot Measure

Personhood USA is rather less than accurate in its latest newsletter. It begins:

Voters in Georgia turned out to support a Personhood amendment with a super majority of 66% earlier this month, proving once again that everyday Americans from across the country believe that the right to life extends to all human beings.

In fact, the measure did pass by 65.7%, but the ballot measure was limited to the GOP primary, not in any general election. Here's what LifeSiteNews reported:

A strong majority of voters participating in Georgia’s GOP primary yesterday supported a non-binding ballot question on whether to grant state constitutional recognition of personhood for the unborn child.

Sixty-six percent of voters in Tuesday’s GOP primary expressed support for amending the Constitution of Georgia in the future to grant the “paramount right to life” to all human beings from their earliest biological existence until natural death.

The amendment question won in 158 of 159 counties, garnering 593,250 votes of the 902,512 cast statewide, according to Georgia Right to Life (GRTL), which spearheaded the question. The group noted that, in most counties, support was between 71% to 78%.

Yes, that's a bad sign for the GOP, which will continue to isolate itself and lose general elections with "personhood" on its agenda.

Read more...

The Importance of a Candidate's Views on Abortion: Philosophy in Action Sunday Radio

On Sunday morning's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer a question on the importance of a candidate's views on abortion that might be of interest. The question is:

How important are a political candidate's views on abortion? Why should we be worried about a political candidate's bad views on abortion if their views on other issues like economics are generally good? After all, as US President, Mitt Romney couldn't outlaw abortion even if he wanted to. But a good or bad President could have a tremendous good or bad effect on our economic liberties. Conversely, President Obama wants to keep abortion legal but that positive pales in significance to his terrible negative views on economics. Shouldn't a candidate's views on economics be more important at present than their views on abortion?

Interested? I hope so! Here's what you need to listen to the live broadcast:

• What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show


• Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

The full show will cover ways to express love, the morality of exposing security flaws, the nature of happiness, the importance of a candidate's views on abortion, and more. You can review all the questions for this episode here: Q&A Radio: 22 July 2012.

If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 22 July 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast.

Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts live every Wednesday evening and Sunday morning. Take a peek at the Episodes on Tap for the scoop on upcoming shows!

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, newsletter, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to any past episode or question. And visit the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes.

I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

Read more...

Newt's Nutty Abortion Stance

Today two articles came out slamming Newt Gingrich for embracing the hard-line anti-abortion "personhood" movement.

Paul Hsieh wrote the first for Pajamas Media. He emphasizes the fact that Gingrich's proposals would ban the birth control pill and IUD. He writes, "If Gingrich (or any other 'personhood' supporter) wins the 2012 GOP nomination, the future legality of birth control pills and IUDs would immediately become a national political issue, to the detriment of the Republicans. Just as the 'personhood' issue tipped the swing state of Colorado in favor of the Democrats in 2010, it could also tip a few critical swing states in favor of Obama in 2012."

I wrote the other article for The Objective Standard. Like Paul, I discuss the strategic foolishness of Republicans embracing the "personhood" movement, referencing Ken Buck's loss of a U.S. Senate Seat. I also discuss Gingrich's comments regarding birth control.

One additional point I make is that Gingrich's proposals would subject women who get abortion to severe criminal penalties:

If, as Personhood USA asserts, a zygote is a person with the same right to life as a born infant or adult, then any action that intentionally kills a zygote, embryo, or fetus constitutes murder, as a representative of the organization emphasized during a November news conference. By the logic of the position and in accordance with existing murder statutes, abortion would be legally prosecuted as murder. Any doctor or husband who assisted in an abortion would be prosecuted as an accessory to murder. A Canadian anti-abortion group forthrightly argues that women who get abortions should face severe prison sentences. A Colorado supporter of Personhood USA explicitly calls for the death penalty for women who get abortions.

For a more detailed discussion of the issue, see the essay by Diana Hsieh and me, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties."

Originally published at Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

Videos: An Early Look at the Election and GOP Candidates

In last Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I took an early look at the 2012 election, then surveyed four GOP candidates -- Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. I've posted all five questions as videos, and so here they are! (Obviously, I'm speaking for myself here, purely as a private citizen, and not for the Coalition for Secular Government.)

The first question was:

What's your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My answer, in brief:

In a presidential candidate, I'm not looking for either John Galt or "Anyone But Obama." I'm looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The second question was:

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He's no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The third question was:

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices "active governance," meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fourth question was:

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He's a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fifth question was:

Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My answer, in brief:

Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he's fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoyed these video, please "like" them on YouTube and share them with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Video: Voting for Horrible Politicians

In last Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed when and why people should vote, given that politicians are mostly horrible. In my answer, I discussed the current crop of Republican presidential candidates -- who are all horrific on abortion, except for pro-choice Gary Johnson. Obviously, I'm speaking for myself, not for CSG, but I thought I thought some readers of this blog might be interested.

The question was:

All the candidates are nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even bother to vote?

My answer, in brief:

We're not always faced with choice between two varieties of evil in elections, and in those cases, it's proper to vote. Also, it's good to vote for ballot measures. So vote selectively!

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Michele Bachmann Sponsors Abortion Intimidation and Expense Bill

Here's yet more legislation seeking to prevent women from seeking to terminate unwanted pregnancies, as is their right. This time, it's courtesy of GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has introduced legislation to require that abortion providers make the heartbeat of the unborn child visible and audible to its mother as part of her informed consent. Bachmann issued the following statement about her bill:

"A pregnant woman who enters an abortion clinic is faced with a decision that will forever change two lives. That's why she must have the very best information with which to make that decision. The 'Heartbeat Informed Consent Act' would require that abortion providers make the unborn child's heartbeat visible through ultrasound, describe the cardiac activity, and make the baby's heartbeat audible, if the child is old enough for it to be detectable. A study by Focus on the Family found that when women who were undecided about having an abortion were shown an ultrasound image of the baby, 78% chose life. An unborn baby's heartbeat can be detected as early as five weeks after conception and ultrasound technology is an amazing medical advance that provides a window for a pregnant woman to see her unborn child. My legislation will not only enable this technology to be better used to protect life, but also to ensure that a woman who is considering abortion is finally able to give full and informed consent."

The "Heartbeat Informed Consent Act" has been endorsed by: National Right to Life, Family Research Council, American's United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Heartbeat International, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Ohio Right to Life and Wisconsin Right to Life.

A woman does not need to hear a heartbeat to give "full and informed consent" for an abortion any more than a person with a fractured arm needs to see his own x-rays before his arm is set. Such legislation, now all-too-common, is just a not-so-clever ploy to prevent some abortions by making them more difficult to obtain. Here, Ms. Bachmann is putting the squeeze on the poor and the emotionally vulnerable. Shame on her!

Read more...

GOP Gay Disparagement, Like Alcoholism, a Choice

I have already (tentatively) predicted that Obama will win reelection next year, and nothing coming out of the Republican Party causes me to doubt this. (Of course, it is still early, and the economy as well as the Middle East are especially volatile right now.)

Rick Perry, who I figured would rise to front-runner status, has managed to turn the religious right's social agenda into his campaign. Consider this headline from yesterday's Los Angeles Times: "Rick Perry signs anti-abortion pledge." This is the same issue, more than any other, that cost Ken Buck his senate seat last year.

Now a page of Perry's 2008 book causes Perry to follow Buck down another dead-end path: toward comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. Lynn Bartels has the details over at the Denver Post.

There is a difference between the comments of Perry and Buck, though.

In order to establish the full context, I'll quote from Perry's book On My Honor (page 70) more extensively than Bartels does:

Though I am no expert on the "nature versus nurture" debate, I can sympathize with those who believe sexual preference is genetic. It may be so, but it remains unproved. Even if it were, this does not mean we are ultimately not responsible for the active choices we make. Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink. And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.

A loving, tolerant view toward those who have a different sexual preference is the ideal position -- for both the heterosexual and the homosexual. I do not believe in condemning homosexuals that I know personally. I believe in valuing their lives like any others, as our God in heaven does. Tolerance, however, should not only be asked of the proponents of traditional values. The radical homosexual movement seeks societal normalization of their sexual activity. I respect their right to engage in individual behavior of their choosing, but they must respect the right of millions in society to refuse to normalize their behavior.

The key point here that Bartels ignores is that Perry recognizes the political right of consenting adults to engage in homosexual sex. That's centrally important. Secondarily, Perry calls for "valuing" rather than "condemning" homosexuals. That's a good start.

Unfortunately, Perry's position is essentially "love the sinner, hate the sin." In comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and saying it deserves only "toleration" (as opposed to open acceptance), Perry is basically saying there's something wrong with homosexuality. And that position is wrong.

Given that Bartels (and others) have compared Perry's remarks to those of Ken Buck, it is worth returning to Buck's statements on the matter.

Here's what Buck said, extemporaneously, on Meet the Press: "I think that birth has an influence over it [homosexuality], like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice." As I have pointed out, Buck's remark is technically correct. It is indisputably true that "birth has an influence" over sexual orientation, but that "you have a choice" about your sexual partners. For example, some heterosexuals have gay sex or remain celibate, and some homosexuals have straight sex.

Buck's problem was two-fold. First, his comparison of homosexuality, something inherently fine, to alcoholism, something inherently bad and destructive, was a bad one. However, again his remark is technically true; there does seem to be an inborn component to alcoholism. Perry's remark is worse because it was written (as opposed to extemporaneous) and because Perry draws a tighter connection (versus Buck's remark about "some other things").

Second, Buck was an idiot for not leading with the story about how, as a prosecutor, he pursued hate-crime charges in a transgender-related crime. So here we had a prosecutor whose record was strongly pro-gay rights, being smeared by his critics and the media as some sort of knuckle-dragging troglotyte. That was very unfair toward Buck, though he's the one who set the tone of the discussion. (Note: I actually disapprove of "hate crime" legislation, because I think all crimes are hate crimes and that harming a heterosexual person is just as bad as harming a homosexual one. Plus I worry about starting down the road to thought crimes. But my motivation is much different from that of the religious right.)

Significantly, Buck quickly clarified: "I wasn't talking about being gay as a disease. I don't think that at all.

We'll see if Perry backtracks along similar lines. But, as a candidate, if you're spending your time backtracking, you're not moving forward.

This article originally was published on Ari Armstrong's blog.

Read more...

Violating Abortion Rights in Oklahoma

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin will soon sign two new bills that violate abortion rights:

Republican Gov. Mary Fallin plans to sign two bills intended to further restrict abortion in Oklahoma.

Fallin has scheduled a public bill signing on Wednesday to sign a bill under which doctors could face felony charges for performing abortions after a woman reaches 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill is called the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” and is based on the premise that a fetus can experience pain after 20 weeks. It includes an exemption for abortions performed when the life of the mother is at risk or if there is a risk of physical impairment of a “major bodily function.”

The second bill would prohibit health insurance plans in Oklahoma offered under the new federal health care law from offering coverage for elective abortions.

Notice how Republicans talk about freedom in health care, as if truly concerned on principle... until the conversation turns to abortion, at which point they're eager to use any means whatsoever to prevent women from seeking private abortions and to prevent private insurers from willingly paying for them.

(H/T: Rob Abiera)

Read more...