The importance of tolerance

Lance Cpl. Jasen Bruce, a Marine reservist in Florida, allegedly attacked a lost Greek Orthodox priest — who was bearded, wearing a white robe, and who asked him in broken, heavily accented English for directions –  with a tire iron after apparently mistaking him for a Muslim and assuming the priest was a terrorist, the Tampa Tribune reports.

Of course, being approached by a Muslim does not warrant physical assault, although based on the anti-Muslim bigotry being spouted in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings, you might wonder.

Look, different does not equal bad. This applies whether the difference in question is country of origin, race, religion, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation. This simple concept is what tolerance is all about.

War on Christmas piffle

The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of The Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy because they don’t like these companies’ holiday ads — AFA insists that these companies must use the word “Christmas” in their holiday ads.

I’ll be making a special effort to spend money at these stores this season as a result of the AFA’s action.

To the executives of The Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy: Being boycotted by the religious right wingnuts at the AFA is a badge of honor.

And to all the “War on Christmas” idiots, remember:

• This is a diverse country and a diverse world: Not everyone celebrates Christmas.
• We have freedom of religion in this country; the fact that a majority of Americans celebrate Christmas is irrelevant.
• Among those who do celebrate Christmas, many do not do so as a religious celebration of Christ’s birth based on “literal” readings of the conflicting accounts of his birth in the Bible, but instead as a celebration of the spirit of giving.
• No one gets to impose their definition of a “proper” Christmas celebration, greeting or advertisement on anyone else.
• How the heck do people complain that Christmas is too commercial and that the “real meaning” is lost as a result on the one hand, and then get their knickers in a knot because holiday ads from retailers don’t meet their arbitrary standards of “Christian” enough? The levels of chutzpah, hypocrisy and tolerance cognitive dissonance required to do this stun me.

 

One-way bipartisanship

The Charleston County, South Carolina, Republican Party has censured Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for working with Democrats on a climate change bill, Roll Call reports.

What happened to Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment — “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican” — that used to be sacred to Republicans? What happened to Ronald Reagan’s big tent? It collapsed in New York’s 23rd Congressional District (thanks to a shove from Sarah Palin), costing Republicans a seat they’d held since the Civil War, and now it looks like its collapsing in South Carolina, with ultra-right-wing teabaggers targeting one of the most conservative members of the Senate for not being conservative enough.

It sure looks to me like Republicans are eating their own.

Fallacies offer cold comfort for cognitive dissonance

“Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.” ~ Mark Twain

Twain’s wisdom came to mind as I read a recent article by new Dispatch columnist John Larson (another new club member; welcome!) about medical marijuana dispensaries.

Near as I can tell, Larson supports in theory patient access to medical marijuana, but opposes in practice “putting [a medical marijuana dispensary] in Gilroy.”

That’s a perfect example of a NIMBY (not in my back yard) position. A Time magazine article on ethics called NIMBYism “a perverse form of antisocial activism.”

Certainly Gilroy should ensure that medical marijuana dispensaries — which are legal in California — are appropriately located, just as planners do for pharmacies and hardware stores, for example. Dispensaries should be treated like any other business seeking to locate in Gilroy.

Larson uses pretzel-twisted logic to try to justify his NIMBY position by claiming that legalizing medical marijuana usage is part of a larger battle to legalize recreational marijuana usage, something he apparently opposes.

Free speech only for those who agree with you

It’s more a more common sentiment than you might think. Fred Oliveri, in a letter to the editor of the Morgan Hill Times, which runs my regular column My Point Exactly, objects to the paper publishing a recent column that advocated rational criticism of supernatural beliefs:

If she wants to practice non-religious beliefs and follow the dictates of a foul mouth like Bill Maher instead of a Rick Warren or a Joel Osteen that is up to her. But to promote her lack of belief in any type of what she calls supernatural and I call religion should be left out [of the newspaper]. … I would recommend that the Times take a closer look at what they publish.

Since when is the filter of “Fred likes it” appropriate for deciding what The Times, or any newspaper, publishes?

But that’s not all. PZ Myers, on his Pharyngula blog, reports that 22.3% of respondents to a Lakeland, Florida newspaper’s online poll believe that atheists do not have a right to display a billboard. That’s disturbing, as Myers explains, because “it reveals that 22% of the respondents don’t think a number of their fellow citizens … have the same privileges they do.”

Free speech rights are afforded to everyone, not just to those who hold majority opinions. Or, as Neil Boortz put it, “Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.”

Medical advice from Suzanne Somers?

The Daily Beast’s Gerald Posner, who describes himself as a “longtime” user of alternative medicine, details why you shouldn’t get your medical advice from Suzanne Somers:

Her book promotes a regimen that many doctors believe causes cancer rather than cures it.

This regimen might have contributed to her own bout with cancer.

Several doctors and experts she uses as the basis for her book have medically checkered backgrounds.

Cancer is a recurring thread and marketing tool for her wide-ranging business interests.

One outside expert, based on his examination of 30 years of photographs, believes she had plastic surgery, which would undercut her reputation for health through alternative medicine.

Hmm, maybe folks who put their kids and other peoples’ kids at risk by refusing to get vaccines based on inaccurate and dangerous advice from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey ought to look for more credible sources of medical advice, too.

Ridiculing the ridiculous

I’m all for ridiculing ridiculous things, like anti-marriage equality arguments. LeftTake.com shares a list of “Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal” that apparently debuted on Facebook. Click over to read the whole list, but this is my favorite:

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

There are no fallacy-free, factual or constitutional arguments to support banning same-sex marriage. Opponents of marriage equality make ridiculous claims and it’s long past time to start shaming them for it.

Critical thinking basics

An important part of being able to think critically is being able to spot logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning. You need to ensure that you don’t use them in your thinking and debating, and you need to be able to spot them in other people’s arguments.

The Nizkor Project, a web site dedicated to refuting Holocaust deniers, offers a useful listing of 42 logical fallacies, providing definitions and examples of each. Don’t let anyone get away with using the slippery slope or appeal to ridicule fallacies, for example, on your watch!

Chickenhawk hypocrisy exposed

Markos Moulitsas exposes former Rep. Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) chickenhawk hypocrisy; Tancredo walks off the set.

more about "Chickenhawk hypocrisy exposed", posted with vodpod

Chris Brown is the one who needs to shut up

Acknowledged girlfriend-beater Chris Brown is criticizing his ex, Rihanna, for revealing graphic details of the beating he inflicted on her, according to People:

I maintain my position that all of the details should remain a private matter between us.

Wrong (and terribly self serving). When you commit a crime, the details of that crime are public. Your crime is not only against the victim — who has the right to speak about it or not speak as the victim, not the perpetrator, sees fit — but it is also against society.

Brown owes a debt not only to Rihanna but also to society. Remember, the crime to which Brown pleaded guilty is felony assault with the intent of doing great bodily injury. It’s not a minor technicality kind of crime. It’s a big deal.

Brown is essentially telling Rihanna to shut up. Sure sounds like an abuser to me, and it sure looks to me like that he’s still got a lot of work to do in that year-long domestic violence counseling class the judge sentenced him to take.

And every time Brown speaks about this subject except to say “I was wrong” or “I’m ashamed” or “I’m sorry” he shows us again how much of an ass he really is.