leftlibertarian.org

In case you haven't heard, the California Supreme Court decided yesterday (Thursday) to strike down a ban on gay marriage on constitutional grounds.

In my opinion, the court had solid constitutional basis to do this, if one wishes to play the state government legal game. However, although the end of equal marriage rights should be a clear win, the fact of the matter is that this decision was made by a small group of judges in an oligarchic fashion, usurping the will of the voters (who voted by a ballot measure - that's direct democracy - to deny gays the right to marry). Of course, I don't believe that the majority should be allowed to exercise tyranny on the minority, but better vulgar democracy than oligarchy, right? I'm inclined to shrug it off, but one must wonder if this encourages courts to defy the will of the people more often. (Then again, if the will of the people is to deny a minority its right to equal liberty, then maybe it deserves to be defied.) Maybe I'm just worrying too much? A victory for gay rights is a victory for gay rights, right?

*The photograph pictured was taken by Eric Rolph and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks, buddy.

I just heard about this via e-mail a few minutes ago:

An unusual coalition of antiwar Democrats and angry Republicans in the House today torpedoed a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, eliminating, for now, the one part of the controversial bill that had seemed certain to pass.

Instead, House members voted to demand troop withdrawals from Iraq, force the Iraqi government to shoulder more war costs and greatly expand the education benefits for returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict.

The surprise on war-funding left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant and Democratic leaders baffled. House leaders had broken the war-funding bill into three separate measures, the first to fund the wars, the second to impose strict military policy measures opposed by President Bush, and the third to fund domestic priorities, including expanded education benefits and flood control work around New Orleans.

But that legislative legerdemain became the plan’s undoing. Democratic leaders knew that many members of their caucus, who have vowed not to approve another penny for the Iraq war, would reject the supplemental appropriation for the conflicts, but they expected Republicans to push it through. [Utterly despicable. —R.G.] Instead, 131 House Republicans voted present on the measure, incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the war bill largely in secret.

[…]

The House actions were a dream come true for the antiwar movement.

It is time now for Americans to be heard and for this Congress to move forward with the safe redeployment of our troops, exulted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) who called on the House to use the $162.5 billion in war funds for domestic priorities.

For the first time ever, the U.S. House has now taken decisive action to bring this war to a close, declared Alan Charney, program director of the antiwar group USAction.

When the Senate takes up the bill, its version will include war funding, but prescriptions on troop withdrawals and torture will probably fall to a GOP filibuster.

—Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post (2008-05-16): War Funding Bill Stalls in House

I suppose what’s most likely is that the funding will be re-added in conference committee, or a new emergency funding bill will be thrown together while the party whips are lashed extra-hard and the warhawk Republicans kiss and make up with the doughface Democratic leadership. But there is a glimmer of hope today that there wasn’t yesterday, shining through the cracks in the both the War Party coalition (of leadership Democrats and warhawk Republicans), and in the ruling majority. I don’t know whether this is just a stumble, or the beginning of a real fall, for the bloody-handed, doughfaced Democratic leadership. I’m too cautious to expect a fall, but I do hold out a little hope. And when they do fall, you can expect them to fall fast and hard. Stay tuned on this one.

See also:

• GT 2008-05-13: Gosh that’s tough
• GT 2008-03-25: And now they bring up you.
• GT 2008-02-17: In ten words or fewer: brass tacks edition
• GT 2007-12-16: Reformist overtures

Posturing macho warrior cops in Chicago, Miami, Palm Beach County, Montana, and Johnson City, Tennessee are all now starting to carry AR-15 or M4 assault rifles with them on ordinary street patrols, for all those tactical situations that they expect to find themselves in.

Throughout the 1990s, Washington, D.C. had more of its residents killed by police officers than any other city in the United States. Now the D.C. metropolitan police department has ordered 500 AR-15 assault rifles, which they will begin issuing to inner-city patrol cops to start carrying on the streets this summer. I guess so they can more effectively shoot 14 year old black bike-thieving suspects in the back of the head.

Do you feel safer now?

(Via Manuel Lora 2008-05-10.)

See also:

• GT 2008-05-12: No, seriously, I could swear the water in this pot is getting a little hotter…. (#2)
• GT 2008-05-06: No, seriously, I could swear the water in this pot is getting a little hotter….
• GT 2008-04-28: Is it just me or is the water in this pot getting a little hotter?

It's been a long time since I last posted, dear reader. The theatre has consumed my life for quite some time, and then came finals. However, while reviewing for my final examination in philosophy, I decided to discuss God's existence with some neophytes of philosophy (and by neophytes, I really mean people who haven't so much as dabbled in the wonderful discipline) elsewhere online. Then I thought, why not copy my post here to preserve for eternity? So here you have it. It's written for an audience much different than this one, and it's written in a very pedagogical tone, but...it's something worth preserving nonetheless, I think. You'll also notice that my responses to the arguments are very simplistic. Indeed...but I wouldn't have expected my original intended audience to read a ten-page essay. It's all about the audience, isn't it? If theatre has taught me one thing...

Anyway, enough of the chatter. Here's the post I wrote:

"Philosophy major, you say? I'd love to chime in!

The first poster has more or less alluded to the "cosmological argument," a very old argument for God's existence that can be traced back to Aristotle. The standard version of the argument goes:

1. Every contingent thing must have a cause other than itself.
2. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes, or else the causal chain would have never begun.
3. Therefore, there must be a first cause which is not contingent, and that is what we call God.

Most philosophers (myself included), however, object to this argument. First, why can't there be an infinite regress? There are infinite series of numbers with no beginning; why can't there be an infinite series of causes? Second, even if there is a first cause, who is to say that it even remotely resembles what most people call "God"? Couldn't it be some sort of eternal "spark" similar to what scientists have suggested to exist before the explosion of the Big Bang, something entirely natural?

Probably the second most common argument for God's existence is the argument from design (or "teleological argument"). It runs, more or less, that the world is filled with such complexity and beauty that only an intelligent designer could be responsible for it all. Few philosophers have taken this argument seriously since Darwin's theory of evolution, which provides a natural explanation for the development of life on Earth. Of course, science can't account for everything (yet), but that there are gaps is no more of a reason to posit God's existence as an explanation than it would be to posit Creationism as an explanation for the origins of life on Earth absent a scientific theory like evolution.

Most philosophers who still believe in God do so on practical, rather than theoretical, grounds. In other words, they realize that there is no evidence for God's existence, but they believe it helps us to believe in God, so why not? The most common such argument would be the argument from morality...as one of Dostoyevsky's characters remarks, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

Personally, I do not buy such arguments. There is a perfectly valid evolutionary account of morality, and it doesn't bother me that there is no objective, God-given moral order. We can still act ethically according to our own man-made ethics, and that suffices for me.

As you can probably already tell, I'm an atheist. Why atheist instead of agnostic? Consider this analogy, originally conceived by Bertrand Russell.

Imagine that I asserted the existence of a tiny china teapot orbiting around the Sun between Earth and Mars. The teapot has such properties that it is undetectable by human technology and probably will never be able to be detected by humans. Would I say that "I believe that this teapot does not exist" (the atheist position) or "I suspend judgment on whether the teapot exists" (the strict agnostic position)? I would go for the former. While strictly speaking, we should all be agnostic about such teapots, we can be atheists as well. (Indeed, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.) Such am I both an atheist and agnostic about God, in that I believe that God does not exist, but I do not claim to know this."

You'll notice my last bit is a repetition of something I said in my last post. Indeed.

Anyway, I would like to take the time to respond in length to each of the arguments to which I promised to respond in my last post, but that'll have to wait until after finals, at least. Until then, dear reader...

Fellow citizens, you can rest easier tonight knowing that the Miami-Dade County Consumer Services Department is out there protecting the people of their fair city from a grave and gathering danger — the danger of Miamians getting a lift from somebody other than a permanent, full-time, government-licensed taxi service:

MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. — A man who said he thought he was just helping a woman in need is accused of running an illegal taxi service.

Miami-Dade County’s Consumer Services Department has slapped Rosco O’Neil with $2,000 worth of fines, but O’Neil claims he is falsely accused.

I ain’t running nothing illegal, O’Neil said.

The 78-year-old said he was walking into a Winn-Dixie to get some groceries when he was approached by a woman who said she needed a ride.

She asked me, Do I do a service? O’Neil said. I told her no. She said, I need help getting home.

O’Neil told the woman if she was still there when he finished his shopping, he would give her a ride. She was, so he did.

—Local10 Miami (2008-05-09): Man Accused Of Providing Illegal Taxi Service

Here’s the reward O’Neil got for daring to commit this heinous act of human kindness:

As it turned out, the woman was an undercover employee with the consumer services department targeting people providing illegal taxi services.

She said the reason she targeted him (is because) she saw him sitting in his car for a few minutes, said Ellen Novodeletsky, O’Neil’s attorney.

After O’Neil dropped off the woman, police surrounded him, issued him two citations and impounded his minivan. On top of the fees, it cost O’Neil an additional $400 to retrieve his minivan from the impound lot.

There are no prior complaints that O’Neil was providing illegal transportation for a fee.

It’s not entrapment because she didn’t expect him to provide her transportation, said Sonya Perez, a spokeswoman for the consumer services department.

O’Neil claims he was just being kind and providing a ride to a lady in need.

There’s all kinds of possibilities, but the fact of this particular case, what our enforcement officers witnessed — because we had several on the scene, plus a Miami-Dade police officer — and all the information came back the same, that this was a business transaction, Perez said.

O’Neil said he never even discussed money until the woman insisted upon it.

She asked me, How much you charging? O’Neil said. I said, Anything you give me. She said, No, I need a price.

—Local10 Miami (2008-05-09): Man Accused Of Providing Illegal Taxi Service

Well, thank God, says I. The last thing that the dedicated public servants of the Miami-Dade County Consumer Services Department should permit is for consumers to actually get services. Some might say that they ought to let consenting adults alone, to make their own decisions about whether to get the transportation they need by calling a full-time professional taxi service, or by making arrangements with friends, or just by finding a nice old man who is willing to help you out that day on an informal basis, in return for a little bit of money for the gas and the time. That the county government has no business at all trying to force people into a particular business model of highly formalized, full-time professional transit businesses, if they would rather make other arrangements on their own time and on their own dime. But, really, since we already have a bipartisan caucus of legislators, regulators, and professional bureaucrats running behind us all, yelling You’ll put an eye out with that!, Don’t drink that; it’ll stunt your growth!, You’re not going out like that, are you?, and You keep your mouth clean, son, or I’ll wash it out for you with soap! — well, what could be more natural than for them to add a shout of Don’t you get in a car with that stranger! to the chorus?

See also:

• GT 2007-09-15: Free Riders
• GT 2008-01-16: Well, thank God #8: Civil Tongue edition
• GT 2007-09-19: Well, thank God #7: sagging and the new sumptuary laws
• GT 2006-08-31: Well, thank God #6: Raed Jarrar and ostensive definitions
• GT 2006-07-18: Well, thank God #5: the Director’s Guild triumphs over insurgent customers
• GT 2006-06-27: Well, thank God #4: Unauthorized Erections edition
• GT 2006-02-23: Well, thank God #3: National Caffeine Awareness Month
• GT 2005-12-05: Well, thank God #2: We Are The Champions edition
• GT 2005-10-27: Well, thank God: The Bluest Eye edition

Most Canadians have some knowledge of former Canadian forces general Romeo Dallaire. He is widely known for having served as Force Commander of UNAMIR, the ill-fated United Nations peacekeeping force for Rwanda between 1993 and 1994 and for trying to stop the genocide that was being waged by Hutu extremists against Tutsis and Hutu moderates. (More on his story is available from Wikipedia.) The following report from CBC deals with the story of Omar Khadr a Canadian citizen who at the age of fifteen was captured by the Americans after a firefight in Afghanistan and is now being held in Guantanamo Bay. Dallaire, who was appointed to the Canadian senate by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, has called for the repatriation of Khadr in no uncertain terms. Current Liberal leader Stéphane Dion says he disagrees with Dallaire's "choice of words" in his denunciations of the present Conservative government's lack of effort in returning the "child soldier" to Canada and has stated that the Liberal senator should be "disciplined" ... birds of a feather and all that. You'd think after Dallaire's experience in Rwanda the idea of becoming a politician would be a little less than appealing. I hope he quits.

Here is a new bulletin from the United Farm Workers concerning the treatment of farm workers in California who were "invited" to pick cherries for the Stemilt Growers Company. They were promised accommodation on the job and then had to live in their cars or even sleep in the company's fields. What century are we living in, people?


Late Friday we told you about the situation in Shafter CA, where more than one hundred cherry pickers were evicted after talking to news media about their working and living conditions. Today we want to ask you for financial help so we can continue to aid these farm workers and fight the company responsible for this travesty, Stemilt Growers Company -- which boasts of being the largest shipper of fresh-market sweet cherries in the world.

These cherry pickers worked for Stemilt in Washington State. They were told by company representatives to come to California for a job in the cherries--so they did. When these farm workers reached California, a number of the workers were hired, but other workers were told to just wait and see if they could get jobs. While in Washington, some of the workers were informed that housing would be available to them when they got to California, but when they got here there was no housing. They had no choice but to sleep in the fields. Some stayed in tents, others in cars and still others slept on cardboard or simply the dirt.

When workers went public, things only got worse. Stemilt company representatives' called the sheriffs to have the 100 plus workers and their property evicted from the orchard.

The UFW has been hard at work to help these cherry pickers. We are working with numerous agencies to find housing and food so these workers are not left out in the cold. We are also collaborating with the Department of Labor, who has sent in investigators to look into conditions including lack of housing, access to safe water and required work breaks.

How can a huge company like Stemilt ignore the pleas of the workers who traveled so far to labor in their fields?

Please help us continue our efforts to get these workers the food, housing and basic rights they are entitled to by law. By making a donation today you will help achieve justice in the fields.

https://secure.ga6.org/08/stemilt


To see news stories about the situation, you can click here to visit our "News Coverage" page on UFW.org.

---

United Farm Workers,
29700 Woodford-Tehachapi Rd.,
P.O. Box 62, Keene, CA 93531,
http://www.ufw.org

15 May 2008

I wrote a guest article for the Frugal For Life blog on Frugal Living as a Form of Tax Resistance:

Since I adopted a frugal lifestyle five years ago, of all the dumb, harmful, and worthless things I don’t miss wasting my money on, I don’t miss the war in Iraq the most.

When the invasion of Iraq started, I quit my job and deliberately reduced my income to the point where I no longer owe federal income tax. I transformed my life, concentrating on what really matters, so that I can live within my means without paying this tax — honestly, peacefully, and legally.

American households have, on average, spent more than $4,500 apiece on the Iraq war so far — that doesn’t count the expenses we’ll continue to be racking up for veterans’ care and the cost of the ongoing occupation. And that’s just the extra costs of that war above and beyond what we spend to keep the world’s most gargantuan military going year after year (another $6,800 per year per household).

By and large, these households spend this money whether they want to or not because they don’t think we have a choice. At most, they grumble about “death and taxes” and wish the politicians were nobler and wiser while they watch their paychecks get whittled down by the IRS.

The times call for more than complaining and wishful thinking. We have to put as much of our effort as we can on the side of our values, instead of allowing so much of our effort to be stolen by the tax collector and used to promote the values of politicians and the military/industrial complex.

As it says in Your Money Or Your Life, “when we go to our jobs we are trading our life energy for money.” When we pay taxes, the government takes our life energy from us. If you live frugally on a low income, the IRS takes less from you — so you can dedicate more to your own priorities.

About two-in-five American households already live “under the tax line” and pay no federal income tax at all. Opponents of the Iraq war, and other people who know they can spend their money more wisely and justly than the government does, would be wise to ask if they should endeavor to become part of this two-in-five.

There’s a long history of frugality being used by groups opposed to government policy — including the American “Founding Fathers.” During the first Continental Congress in 1774, John Adams wrote home to his wife, “Frugality, my Dear, Frugality, Œconomy, Parsimony must be our Refuge. I hope the Ladies are every day diminishing their ornaments, and the Gentlemen too. Let us Eat Potatoes and drink Water. Let us wear Canvass, and undressed Sheepskins, rather than submit to the unrighteous, and ignominious Domination that is prepared for Us.”

Even if it’s not time for another American Revolution just yet, it’s certainly time for more Americans to put their money, and their life energy, where their hearts are.

Comments to the post have ranged from interested to indignant, which is a good sign that my argument reached beyond the choir.