The “Extinction Acceleration Act”

Posted by on

A bill originating with Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, would effectively repeal the Endangered Species Act, removing protections from 94% of currently listed species, including polar bears, wolves, grizzly bears, and sea otters. It would force the automatic removal of species from the endangered list after five years, whether or not those species had recovered and were deemed safe by scientists.

Worst of all, it would take the entire process of species protection out of the hands of biologists and wildlife experts, where it rests right now, and require the consent of state governors and a joint resolution of Congress. And if an endangered species was found to reside entirely in the borders of a single state, that state’s governor would have the power to overrule the protection of that species. 

Good grief! Rand speaks for a political party most of whose members believe that god made the birds and the beasts. It says so in the “good book”. Whether that is so, or whether wild animals are the product of millenia of evolution, these creatures, with whom we share the planet, are a wondrous miracle, deserving our protection against gun-happy hunters. Why does Rand want to see them go? To free up the countryside for speculation and development. This tells you all you need to know about libertarianism. Follow the money. Libertarians like Paul sometimes like to quote Epicurus as an inspiration. Epicurus would be amazed, I’m sure, to be told the the Endangered Species Act was even necessary in the first place. “what on earth have you people done to your environment” he might exclaim, “that all these creatures have declined in number so drastically?”

Light relief

Posted by on

Some women protested when the BBC used words they thought were inappropriate in the early morning.

To the Daily Mail

The poor girls who were upset at the use of the phrase “bastard trenches” on the BBC Breakfast show should steer clear of ironmongers and plumbing supplies shops.

These places will sell them stop cocks, drain cocks (heavy duty), ball cocks, short screws, long screws, bastard screws, bastard files, bent male-to-female connectors, u-bends, male-to-female unions, male-to-male unions, male nipples, male-to-female nipples, female elbows, male-to-female elbows, two-inch male-to-male bends and, of course, nuts.
But if they’re feeling a little soiled after that, they can also buy washers.
William Neil, Reading, Berkshire
(The letter has been edited)

In Iceland the Pirate Party wins fight against a blasphemy law

Posted by on

Support for Iceland’s Pirate Party is soaring. According to a recent Gallup poll, 34.1 percent of the country said it stands behind the insurgent political movement that received just 5.1 percent of the vote in 2013.

The Pirate Party has just had its first major legislative victory — repealing a 75-year-old blasphemy law that made it a crime to “ridicule or insult” the teachings of a legally recognized religious community. Anyone found violating the blasphemy law had been subject to a fine and three months in prison. The law, established in 1940, came under fire after the Jan.7 attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

To quote a section of the repeal act, it is “essential in a free society that the public express themselves without fear of punishment.”

While the vote was underway Thursday, all three members of the Pirate Party stood before parliament, known as the Althing, and declared “Je suis Charlie”, in solidarity with the French satirical publication.

In a statement after the vote, the party praised parliament for issuing “the important message that freedom will not bow to bloody attacks.”

The Icelandic churches all opposed repealing the blasphemy law. The Catholic Church wrote in a statement after the successful repeal: “Should freedom of expression go so far as to mean that the identity of a person of faith can be freely insulted, then personal freedom — as individuals or groups — is undermined.”

All religions, indeed, all public organisations, should be subject to thoughtful criticism. To use ad hominem foul language and to blast off incognito is the act of an ignorant coward. But to ask such questions as, “why does religion A appear to spawn violence, or interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights etc.” should be debated without fear of bullying. Likewise, the views of those who do not believe in the teachings of religion should be also be subject to (polite) debate. It is good for everyone to have their beliefs queried and tested; it makes you think, sometimes for a change.

Taste and employment

Posted by on

“An employee was recently fired by his company for tweeting a tasteless joke about running over a cyclist. Surely what we do or say in our private lives is no business of our employers? Many like to think so, yet the days when we could draw a strict line between the professional and the personal are gone. It was we who insisted that companies no longer just sell us stuff but be ‘good corporate citizens’, we who have insisted they live up to certain values – be nice to their workers, commit themselves to Fairtrade and in general ‘do no evil’. So, to protect their credibility they, in turn, insist their staff uphold those values, too. We can’t have it both ways. If we want companies to stand for something other than just making money, then the ‘ethical spotlight’ we turn on them will be turned on us, too”. (Julian Baggini, The Independent) 

I don’t agree. The fellow is a twerp, amd has neither good taste nor judgment. But what he did has nothing to do with the way he does his job. If it had affected the company snd its profitability directly, that would be a different matter, but what an employee does in his spare time is still no business of the boss, despite the views of journalists. In effect, the boss has gratuitously injected himself and the company into the story, and thus sort-of associated the company with the tweet. Not wise. Maybe he wanted to get rid of the employee anyway, but this is not the right reason for, or way, of doing it.

The trend is in favour of less religion, not more

Posted by on

The Religious Landscape Study by the Pew Research Center a year ago showed the US growing less religious. Republicans consistently do well among voters with strong religious beliefs, and Democrats score better with younger people who self-identify as atheists or agnostics, as well as those who say their religion is ‘nothing in particular’. More than a third of millennials — 18 to 33 year-olds — have no religious affiliation.

The study. a 35,000-person sample, showed a 10 percent decline in self-identified Christians, though they still are more than 70 percent of the US population. At the same time, the religiously nonaffiliated, or “nones,” have increased by about one-third and now account for about 23 percent of American adults, a trend with political implications. 

The number of evangelical Protestants, the core of the Republican base since Ronald Reagan, has held steady, but the number of Catholics has declined to about a quarter of the electorate. White Catholics vote are more likely to be Republican, and their non-white counterparts Democrats.  (Pew Research)

I have no argument with religion if it makes people feel happy and secure and they don’t bother me or my friends. There are wonderful people among them, doing good, selfless things for other people, especially the poor and the sick. What is annoying is when they do bother others, forcing on the rest of us their views on homosexuality, abortion, the teaching of history, of evolution and global climate change, claiming that their views are the immutable word of god. To these people change of any sort, however fair, just and democratic, is a fundamental threat. These are insecure people and should be sympathized with; at the same time, however, they should get their tanks off my lawn.