Monday, August 22, 2005
Politics: Questions for Leftists
Dear Leftists,
Please forgive me for being presumptuous, but I have some questions for you in light of your superior intellect and finely-nuanced cultural understanding.
1. What happens when one oppressed group oppresses another oppressed group? For example, U.S. blacks oppose gay marriage in overwhelming numbers.
2. What do anarchists do for a living? I'm talking about anarchists currently living in the U.S. who currently self-identify as "anarchist".
3. Should multiculturalism trump women's rights? Remember that Islamic law and culture oppose equal rights for women.
4. Is Liberal Massachusetts culture superior to Conservative Mississippi culture?
5. Should I tolerate Islamic culture even if it is highly intolerant of my homosexuality?
I look forward to some answers. Based on my understanding of your ethics and philosophy, I hold you in the same ethical esteem as I do Pat Robertson. Perhaps your answers will help improve the way I feel about you.
Please forgive me for being presumptuous, but I have some questions for you in light of your superior intellect and finely-nuanced cultural understanding.
1. What happens when one oppressed group oppresses another oppressed group? For example, U.S. blacks oppose gay marriage in overwhelming numbers.
2. What do anarchists do for a living? I'm talking about anarchists currently living in the U.S. who currently self-identify as "anarchist".
3. Should multiculturalism trump women's rights? Remember that Islamic law and culture oppose equal rights for women.
4. Is Liberal Massachusetts culture superior to Conservative Mississippi culture?
5. Should I tolerate Islamic culture even if it is highly intolerant of my homosexuality?
I look forward to some answers. Based on my understanding of your ethics and philosophy, I hold you in the same ethical esteem as I do Pat Robertson. Perhaps your answers will help improve the way I feel about you.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Religion: The Selling of Sickness
There is a terrific article posted over at MSNBC regarding how drug companies are seeking to market drugs to people who are not sick. Since I don't believe the "mainstream" view of HIV and AIDS, this naturally fits into my bias: Manufacturers of "AIDS therapies" market their drugs to people who are not sick.
The article is an interview with Ray Moynihan, who has written a book on the subject of the selling of sickness. In the interview, he makes this very interesting quote:
"There’s an informal alliance between the drug companies and aspects of the medical profession and aspects of the patient advocacy world who all seem to have interests in defining more and more people as ill."
It's sad but true. Suppose we have a disease called "Syndrome X". Doctors treat this disease, drug manufacturers make medicine for this disease, and patient advocacy groups try and raise awareness for this disease. If more people start catching "Syndrome X", then are those three groups helped or harmed? I think we have such a huge need of thinking of those three groups as "good" that we don't allow ourselves to think that they might piggyback on a disease in order to improve their lifestyles. We give those groups far too much leeway over our lives. We permit creeping doom, if I can inject a nasty little bit of rhetoric.
Moynihan also makes this comment in the article:
"We’re seeing fear of disease, decay and death becoming a central part of life. I’d like people to investigate the psychic impact of being told 10 times a day you might actually be sick."
Perhaps they might also investigate the psychic impact of being told 10 times a day that you're a sinner and that you're going to suffer eternal, burning torture. It's the same misanthropic message in new trappings: "You're bad. You're broken. You're doomed. Give us money and we can save you."
This new Trinity (doctors, drug makers, patient advocates) is becoming a new religion all of their own. The god of this religion is Death.
The article is an interview with Ray Moynihan, who has written a book on the subject of the selling of sickness. In the interview, he makes this very interesting quote:
"There’s an informal alliance between the drug companies and aspects of the medical profession and aspects of the patient advocacy world who all seem to have interests in defining more and more people as ill."
It's sad but true. Suppose we have a disease called "Syndrome X". Doctors treat this disease, drug manufacturers make medicine for this disease, and patient advocacy groups try and raise awareness for this disease. If more people start catching "Syndrome X", then are those three groups helped or harmed? I think we have such a huge need of thinking of those three groups as "good" that we don't allow ourselves to think that they might piggyback on a disease in order to improve their lifestyles. We give those groups far too much leeway over our lives. We permit creeping doom, if I can inject a nasty little bit of rhetoric.
Moynihan also makes this comment in the article:
"We’re seeing fear of disease, decay and death becoming a central part of life. I’d like people to investigate the psychic impact of being told 10 times a day you might actually be sick."
Perhaps they might also investigate the psychic impact of being told 10 times a day that you're a sinner and that you're going to suffer eternal, burning torture. It's the same misanthropic message in new trappings: "You're bad. You're broken. You're doomed. Give us money and we can save you."
This new Trinity (doctors, drug makers, patient advocates) is becoming a new religion all of their own. The god of this religion is Death.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Culture: The Looming War over Gay Adoption
Though I *never* chose to be a parent for the sake of a political or moral cause, I believe that gay parenting will ultimately be the phenomenon which shifts society's attitude about gay people from one of superiority to one of equality. After all, if gay parents can raise children that are as happy and healthy as the children raised by straight parents, then by what measure can someone call a gay person "degenerate" when comparted to a straight person?
Conservative politicans are well-aware that successful gay parents changes society's attitudes about gay people (for the better), and whipping the "gay boogeyman" provides a lot of political strength to drive fearful religious zealots to the polls. They haven't had a very good response (for them, politically-speaking) to the swelling numbers of gay parents since the Lawrence v. Texas U. S. Supreme Court decision.
Julian Sanchez of reason.com (my favorite online publication) has written a terrific article describing the looming war over gay adoption. It's going to get ugly, but I think that the Conservative politicans will lose. Too many straight people now know that gay people make fine parents, and they won't take kindly to seeing their friends and their friends' children suffer from stupid legislation.
Conservative politicans are well-aware that successful gay parents changes society's attitudes about gay people (for the better), and whipping the "gay boogeyman" provides a lot of political strength to drive fearful religious zealots to the polls. They haven't had a very good response (for them, politically-speaking) to the swelling numbers of gay parents since the Lawrence v. Texas U. S. Supreme Court decision.
Julian Sanchez of reason.com (my favorite online publication) has written a terrific article describing the looming war over gay adoption. It's going to get ugly, but I think that the Conservative politicans will lose. Too many straight people now know that gay people make fine parents, and they won't take kindly to seeing their friends and their friends' children suffer from stupid legislation.
