Links

Some links on books: First, why the paper-free, all e-book world is not coming soon (and why that’s a good thing). More on that here.
Second, if you’re looking for new books, here‘s some suggestions from booksellers across the nation.
And here’s a report on a company privatizing libraries. I’m inclined to agree with the blogger hilzoy that privatization isn’t really a small-government solution: If it’s a legitimate government function, there’s no reason to privatize; if they’re not legitimate, privatization doesn’t change that.
Now, on the First Amendment: Right-wing religious activist Bryan Fischer (whose CV is here)has decided the First Amendment only applies to Christians, and specifically excludes Mormons. His evidence (click through at the link): The Founding Fathers suppressed the Mormons, didn’t they (no: They were dead as doornails by the time the Mormons came into existence)?
Which, as Fred Clark points out at Slacktivist, is the problem with trying to establish one religion: How do you decide who belongs? Mormons consider themselves Christians; a lot of Christians don’t (I had a co-worker who thought they were devil worshippers). Some Protestants don’t think Catholics are Christians either. Various Christian sects consider anyone outside their particular wing of Christianity to be heretics; some think they should all be stoned.
Even on the personal level, if some of our rights attach to being Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, whatever)——and some dominionists do propose that——how exactly will the government determine whether you’re a “real” Christian or not.
That’s quite aside from the fact that there’s no evidence the Founding Fathers believed the First Amendment was Christians only (if that’s what they’d meant, they could certainly have said so). But as I’ve noted before, everyone wants to believe the Founding Fathers agree with them.
Now, in the undead sexist cliché department, we have the NYPD warning women against wearing short skirts when there’ve been rapes in the neighborhood.
Then we have Instapundit Glenn Reynolds’ supposedly brilliant put-down of Elizabeth Warren. Warren, you may remember, had a speech pointing out that nobody gets rich on their own: Society paid for the roads, for the education of the workers, for the police that keep their property safe.
Reynolds’ response: Society pays for lots of benefits that improve your sex life (the paths on which you jog, the immigration laws that keep out sexy foreign women) so you’re obligated to have sex with whoever the government chooses! Ha-ha, that’ll put the uppity woman in her place!
This goes back to the tendency to equate women with things I’ve mentioned before. It doesn’t even make sense: The logical analog to Warren suggesting progressive taxation is fair is to suggest she should pay higher taxes, not that she be raped.
And if she were a man, I doubt Reynolds would think of this particular brilliant put-down (which is worse in detail, as shown at the link and ripped apart in the comments).

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Reading, Undead sexist cliches

2 responses to “Links

  1. Pingback: Like water flowing up-hill « Fraser Sherman's Blog

  2. Pingback: If you support taxing the rich, why don’t you support raping hot women? One idiot’s theory | Fraser Sherman's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.