Can you tolerate NAMBLA?

image courtesty of the Federal Art Project, via Wikimedia Commons You think you're open-minded? What if the North American Man-Boy Love Association wanted to distribute a newsletter in your town? What if they wanted to hold a local parade celebrating pederasty? I am currently studying social psychology in graduate school, and I'm particularly interested in political psychology. One of my present research interests is political tolerance. "Political tolerance" refers to individuals' willingness to extend equal civil liberties to unpopular groups. When political scientists and psychologists measure political tolerance, they often probe individuals for their ability to withstand the most offensive, outlandish groups and speech possible. For example, a liberal-minded person may be asked whether they would be willing to allow a rally for the Klu Klux Klan or some extremist, militaristic group. Paradoxically, a truly tolerant person must be willing to allow racially intolerant speech. Political tolerance plays a cornerstone role in functioning democracies (at least, we think so). If voters can strip away the civil liberties of disliked political groups, those liberties lay on precarious ground indeed. If we cannot tolerate the words of anarchists or members of the Westboro Baptist Church, then we do not really believe in the boundlessness of speech at all. Academics say as much. In reality, voters are not so tolerant.

Continue ReadingCan you tolerate NAMBLA?

Proposed Amendment

I've been mulling an idea for an amendment to the U.S. constitution that probably won't have as much a chance as the failed Equal Rights Amendment, in which persons of the female persuasion would have been defined explicitly as full fledged people with the same rights as the white male landholders for which the constitution was originally penned. How's this?

"Government shall pass no law abridging the right of any person to decide whether an organism living within his or her own body is a harmful parasite or a welcome guest, and to respond accordingly."

A lawyer could probably tighten up the wording, but I think the gist is there. This amendment might save oodles of money on government health care in ways such as:
  • It would limit the ways in which lawyers determine what medical procedures are prohibited or required, and the associated overhead in managing those decisions.
  • It would remove the bureaucracy necessary to separate funding for procedures that everyone accepts under government insurance from those protested by a vocal minority.
Discussion?

Continue ReadingProposed Amendment

The storms are still gathering . . . but these are better

In response to one of Hank's posts from a week or so ago, Erich posted the Internet commercial put out by NOM, the National Organization for Marriage, which is, in my mind, almost a parody of itself. The ridiculous assumptions they put forth - that THEIR freedoms are at-risk, that schools are teaching gay marriage, that they are losing something if gay men and women are allowed to marry - would be laughable if not for the fact that a portion of our population will watch it and nod vigorously in agreement. I think these "storms" say it better: -- On YouTube, you'll actually find many of these parodies - thank goodness so many jumped on board to point out the utter absurdity of that horrible ad. [If you're viewing this post from the home page, click on the title for 2 additional parodies.]

Continue ReadingThe storms are still gathering . . . but these are better

Rachel Maddow on the abhorrent new “poll tax”

Rachel Maddow is so very very right about the new "poll tax." There is now excuse why people should be standing in line for 2, 4 or 8 hours, waiting to exercise their fundamental right to vote.  Time is money, and the de facto system in place in many parts…

Continue ReadingRachel Maddow on the abhorrent new “poll tax”

On June 7, 2008 you can march to protest . . . the voluntary use of birth control pills . . . Huh?

The "American Life League" is putting out this silly garbage. They are trying to make it illegal for anyone to purchase birth control pills. This would put us back to the 1965 case of Griswold v Connecticut. Consider some of the this wacko group's talking points: Q: Is it OK…

Continue ReadingOn June 7, 2008 you can march to protest . . . the voluntary use of birth control pills . . . Huh?