An Appalling Case of Progressivism

This is precisely the reason I am a proponent of socially conservative values (h/t GayPatriot):

Officials in Basel [Switzerland] have agreed to rename the “sex box” after receiving some 3,000 letters of protest from parents angered by the controversial trove ofwooden penises and fabric vaginas set to be used in a new sex education programme for playschool and primary school kids. 

Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick. 

“It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said. 

Many parents say they do not understand why sex education needs to be taught to children as young as four.

I can see the point of educating teens about sex, but four year olds?

Eymann said he understood that one line in the programme, “touching can be enjoyed heartily”, could be misconstrued, but insisted: “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me’. We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ’no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age." 

Eymann said he would prefer if sex education was taught to children at home but argued that education officials needed to respond to the realities of today. 

“We currently live in an oversexualised society. There is uncontrolled distribution of pornographic material that can reach young children. Some primary school children know the TV schedule until 2am. We would like to offer these children firm support, which is often not available in the family. The box is only an aid. I trust the teachers to approach the material with care.”

Yes, we do live in an oversexualized society.  However, making it further oversexualized is not the solution.  And, this is perhaps the worst part:

Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends: 

“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend“, he said.

This is one of those things that would make me check the date if it weren't August (in case it were April 1st).  Still, I have a difficult time thinking any sane person would actually think this is the solution to anything.  While I am opposed to government intervention into the actions of people in private (as long as they are not causing harm to anyone), it is clear to me that children, especially children this young, are not rational, and cannot understand sex and what its significance is.  Sex is a natural thing, but, it has the capability of causing problems when it is not understood rationally.  I would prefer to live in a society where sex is not out in the open, where it is private.

In addition, it is totally unacceptable for parents not to be able to pull their children out of this program.

NOTE: I almost titled this post "Mental Porn for Pedophiles" but I decided not to.

An Evil Corporation

From the Vancouver Sun:

BC Ferries says it is in the process of "discontinuing its sponsorship agreement with the Vancouver Canucks" in a letter accompanying its cagey reply to a Freedom of Information request regarding the amount it spends on tickets, luxury suites and advertising at Rogers Arena. 

BC Ferries has been a sponsor of the Canucks for years, an agreement which includes ads along the boards and access to a corporate box the ferry corporation can use to entertain guests.

But the publicly owned ferry corporation is refusing to tell the public just how much money it spends on the sponsorship and seats.

BC Ferries is the crown corporation that operates the various ferries throughout the province, most of which connect the Lower Mainland (Vancouver Metropolitan Area) to Vancouver Island.

I am glad that their sponsorship of the Canucks is ending, but why does a monopoly need to advertise?  They are spending taxpayer money to advertise something that people have to use if they want to take a ferry to Vancouver Island (or anywhere in the province).  The fact that taxpayer money is spent on tickets and luxury boxes is just outrageous.  Taxes are supposed to benefit taxpayers, not give VIPs a comfortable location from which to watch an NHL game.  These are the kinds of things that can be cut from the budget (instead of increasing fares).

Like many other crown corporations, BC Ferries should be privatized.  The government has no business running a corporation (particularly a monopoly).

A Quisling I Am Not

In this recent post of mine, I attempted to refute a common argument I have seen made by the gay left in response to the existence of gay conservatives.  Another common "argument" I have seen made by some members of the gay left is that gay conservatives are "quislings."  Or, in other words, we are traitors (to the gay community).  That is a very offensive slur however, as it implies some loyalty to the gay community in the first place.  I do have other characteristics, some of which I share with some non-gay people.  And, to me, those characteristics happen to be more important than my sexual orientation.  I guess I can understand why some people, who believe they are oppressed (or something), would want to group together, especially if they are trapped in a perpetual victim complex (as most gay leftists appear to be).  As I have said before, I do not have any loyalty to the gay community, nor do I have any intrinsic link to other gay people (and I especially do not have a link to people with "gender identity" issues).

Furthermore, sexuality cannot be compared to race.  Unlike race, sexuality is not hereditary.  My father is not gay.  Nor is my mother.  Most black people have at least one black biological parent.  I wasn't born into the gay community.

I haven't known that I have been gay for my entire life.  Some of my characteristics, however, I have known about, or have become aware of prior to my acknowledgement of my homosexuality.  Such as my conservative political views.

Let's Be Reasonable

I would like to address a topic that I have been meaning to address, but have not done so yet.  And that topic is religion.  Like homosexuals, those lacking a religious belief are generally assumed to be politically left-of-centre.  And, also like homosexuals, there do exist those lacking a religious belief that are conservative.  There even exist conservative homosexuals who lack a religious belief (such as myself).

I consider myself agnostic, because I believe that we cannot know for certain whether or not a deity (or any supernatural entity) exists (unless it were proven that one does exist).  And, just because modern science doesn't prove the existence of some supernatural entity, that doesn't necessarily mean that it never will.

For all practical purposes, I suppose I am atheist, in that I would only accept a supernatural entity/diety if it were scientifically proven.  In accordance with the principal of Occam's razor, that dictates that the hypothesis that depends upon the fewest assumptions is generally favorable, I do not believe that anything supernatural exists.  Most things can be better explained with science.  And, for that which cannot be explained with science, new scientific discoveries have elucidated what has previously been unexplained.  Ergo, it stands to reason that new scientific discoveries may elucidate what currently cannot be explained with science.  Having said that, science is not absolute.  Existence is mysterious, and, in my opinion, we humans cannot be absolutely certain that things are how they seem, regardless of how likely or unlikely they are not how they seem.

I do not view those with religious beliefs as inherently inferior to myself because they are religious, just as I would hope that religious people would not view me as inferior because I am not.  I have a great deal of respect for religion, as I believe it plays a significant role in society.  In this comment I made to a post at GayPatriot, I explained my views on this subject.  So, instead of writing something new, I will just recreate most of that comment because it does the job.

I have a large amount of respect for religion, the role it plays in society, and the people who commit to it. I doubt I would ever be able to understand faith, but I can respect how important it is (as long as I still have freedom to be secular). It provides a valuable structure and a means by which to keep people grounded and restrained, as well as a means by which to keep society moral. As long as the religion is a benevolent force (unlike Islam), I condemn those who mock it. They should have the freedom to mock it, but I cannot understand or appreciate their intolerant motivation.

As a social (or cultural) conservative who favors limited government, I recognize religion as a valuable means by which to propagate a moral structure in society and it does so much better than government ever could. In other words, it keeps people and society “clean” and modest.
I do not have respect for those who, whether conservative or liberal, who [sic] fail to respect another point of view, so long as that point of view allows for dissenting point of views [sic].

While many atheists/agnostics claim to be rational, I will say that many of them have an irrational opposition to religion.  Because I was raised secularly, I have no understanding of the nature of religious faith, so, for that reason, I cannot condemn it as "irrational."  The primary function of most secular organizations seems to be to pass judgement on others, which I find ironic.

As for the nature of the relationship between religious people and secular people, I would hope there could be a mutual respect.  Not all atheists are religion-hating liberals.  Public expressions of faith do not threaten me, just as they shouldn't threaten anyone else.  In addition, religion is not necessary for morality.  Most people are able to tell the difference between right and wrong.  That doesn't mean those people necessarily avoid doing wrong, but many do.  That also doesn't mean that secular people are as moral as religious people; the opposite is probably true.  

There are plenty of secular conservatives.  And, something that also applies to gay conservatives is that much of the incredulity of this apparent oxymoron is based upon misconceptions.  The misconception of the average conservative as being a religious zealot that means to dictate what people are allowed to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or something.  While there are those on the right who may fit that description, there are many who do not.  I mentioned this issue in a previous post, in which I also present an argument (someone else's) for cultural conservatism.

Sveiki

Something interesting I just noticed about my blog... the country that produces the fourth most visitors to my blog is Latvia.  My blog doesn't get very many visitors, the vast majority of which are from the United States, and the vast majority of the remainder of which are from Canada.  I am quite surprised, in any event, that I have had so many visits from Latvia.  I am guessing most, or all, of these visits must be from the same person.  Or, while I don't know very much about computers, perhaps this is due to a router located in Latvia or something.  Is that possible?  Anyway, I just thought that was interesting.

Self-Loathing, etc.

One of the most common points made by the gay left as to their argument that gay people cannot be conservative that I have seen is this: liberals are more supportive of gay rights than conservatives.  In general, that is true.  However, their argument is based upon a false premise.  If this is the nature of their argument, that since liberals are more supportive of gay rights than conservatives, that gays should be liberal and conservative gays are self-loathing, then they make a flawed assumption.  And that assumption is that gay people are one-dimensional, or that they have no other qualities, or perhaps their sexual orientation is the most important aspect of them.  While that may be true for some people, it certainly isn't for others.  For them, it seems, gay rights issues trump all others.  So, it follows that, since liberals are better on gay rights issues, it doesn't make any sense for a gay person not to be a liberal.  However, since there exist homosexuals whose sexual orientation is not their defining aspect, other issues may be more important to them.  In my view, homosexual people are basically equal to heterosexuals in terms of what rights they have.  So, for me, gay rights issues are unimportant.  In fact, I will go even further and say that I oppose gay rights as they are generally defined by the left.  That does not hold true for every issue, but it does for most.  If you are wondering how a homosexual can hold that view without hating himself*, then you are clearly unfamiliar with the concept of objectivity.  I should be able to objectively analyze anything in which I am personally invested just as effectively as something in which I am not.  When analyzing anything, I use a set of consistent values or principles, and I do it objectively.  So, what is so self-hating about that?  Yet another common false assumption that is made by those on the gay left is that LGBT people are all a unified bloc.  Of course, this is plain absurd.  For one thing, I am conservative first and gay last.  Another false assumption is that, because I am a homosexual, I can be assumed to have other characteristics that aren't necessarily related to sexual orientation, or that the homosexual population is not diverse to any significant extent.  For example, I would not be surprised if some gay person questioned whether I was, in fact, gay, based on my other characteristics.  Despite the fact that I am unquestionably homosexual, I am prudish, I don't listen to Lady Gaga, and not only do I not know the first thing about fashion, I hold it in contempt.  Those are just a few examples.  

No further assumptions should be drawn about me based on the one piece of knowledge that I am gay.  I consider myself fairly socially (or more accurately, culturally) conservative.  And apparently, social conservatism and homosexuality (not to mention agnosticism, but that is a totally separate issue) are mutually exclusive.  If you accept my previous arguments, however, this is ridiculous.  I may not agree with social conservatives on some issues, but I do agree with them on most.  Most issues have nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever.  

My hypothesis on the gay left's resentment of the gay right is that it is based upon false assumptions, about both homosexuals and conservatives.  If you have an accurate understanding of both, and use logic in your reasoning, it should not be difficult to accept that homosexuals can be conservative.  Furthermore, in my case, it wouldn't make any sense for me to adopt liberalism/progressivism as my political ideology, based on my other characteristics.

*Please note that opposing "gay rights" is not the same as wishing homosexuals less rights than others; I do not believe in granting homosexuals special rights.  I do, in fact, favor equality, I just favor equality in its actual definition, not as it is defined by the left.

UPDATE:  Please see also this post.  

But They're Obviously Racist

Most business economists favor spending cuts over tax increases (h/t Instapundit).  This is not a surprise to me, but it may inspire a few ad hominems from leftists (seeing as how that seems to be their preferred method of "debate").

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases. 

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending. 

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling. 

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.