Think the Canadian media will cover this?

U.S. President George W. Bush apparently gets in trouble with evangelicals because he said, when asked whether he thought the Bible was literally true: “Probably not. No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it.”

Doesn’t sound too controversial to me, but apparently some hard-core evangelicals are most upset.

Some evangelicals, however, claim they were not surprised by Bush’s remarks. A blog titled “The Moral Collapse Of America” pointed out after the interview that “George W. Bush’s religious beliefs are not compatible with evangelical Christianity,” because “Bush has openly said many times that Christians, Muslims and all other religions pray to the same God.”

“Evangelical Christians were conned into thinking that Bush was ‘one of them,’” the Moral Collapse blogger concluded. “the reality is that he isn’t one of them and he never was.”

What??? George Bush isn’t a religious extremist?? Funny, reading the media around here, you’d never have thought that.

Gosh, what a surprise

Put this one in your “who’d a tunk it” folder. Unicef (the well-known right-wing reactionary outfit) has just released a report saying long hours of formal, institutional child care is detrimental to very young children. Actually, I’m semi-impressed. That Unicef would have the guts to put that sort of thing in print is most commendable. Among other things, it “recommends that all children should where possible be cared for by parents at home during the first 12 months of life.” I especially love this part of the story:

The report has been published at a key point in the childcare debate. Children born today into the rich world are part of the first generation in which a majority will spend a large part of their early childhood in childcare. In Britain about 80 per cent of those aged 3 to 6 are now in some form of formal childcare or education. For those under 3, the proportion is now 25 per cent.

In part, this reflects new opportunities for women to be employed outside the home. But it also reflects new pressures, particularly on the poorest, to return to work as soon as possible after a birth – often to low-paid jobs.

The report notes that high-quality formal childcare can bring huge benefits to children, particularly those from disadvantaged homes, expanding their social and cognitive development and providing them with stimulation that they might not get at home.

But it cites research from Britain and the US suggesting that children who spend too long in formal childcare at too young an age may suffer from long-term effects, including behavioural problems, aggression, antisocial behaviour, depression and an inability to concentrate – although the effects are thought to be relatively small.

Although the effects are thought to be relatively small… You wonder, sometimes, what it would take for some people to get it. This business of sticking very young children – babies - in institutional daycare for many long hours every day of the week is a new and dangerous experiment that goes against everything Mother Nature tells us. But hey, what the heck, effects like antisocial behaviour and aggression and an inability to concentrate “are throught to be relatively small” so who cares! We’ve got jobs to get to, here! Real, meaningful jobs, mark you, not something dull and mindless like looking after our very own babies.

I wonder what Jack Layton will have to say about this report… Think he’ll change his mind about the need for a national child care program? Nah, me neither.

[cross-posted to PWPL]

Kill some, help others

There’s so much that’s wrong with this plan to broadcast the suicide of an American man on television. I’ll let you come up with your own objections – there are several to choose from. One surprising thing that caught my eye is the ad that ran with the story…

Isn’t that what the pros call cross-scripting?

[cross-posted to PWPL]

Oh dear, which one wins?

Reproductive choice or environmentalism? How does a progressive mind choose between the two? Another news story about the effects of hormones on males:

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

There are many bad things in the environment besides female hormones from contraceptive pills. If you read the whole story, you’ll find lots to be afraid of. But my question remains: If the choice is between continuing the use the Pill and demasculinizing fish, which one will we choose?

[cross-posted to PWPL]

Oggedy-boogediness

The things you learn. For instance, that there is such a thing as a “bloxicon”. Cute.

This here is the latest in one branch of the “whither conservatism” debate (call it the G-D subdebate). It may be me, but I’m having some trouble following her argument. Seems to be going back and forth a bit, without ever coming out and saying simply what seems to be her point: That religious zealots make her skin crawl. (The closest she gets is: “It isn’t so much God causing the GOP problems; it’s his fan club.”)

I know how it’s like. A lot of them make mine do exactly that, as I’ve explained before. I’m not against religion, but I tend not to associate with those who can’t resist talking about it even when religion isn’t anywhere near the subject at hand. I don’t mind sharing a political philosophy with the religious, not one bit. But it’s true that some of them aren’t always helping the cause with their presentation (sort of like Stéphane Dion that way).

But here’s the thing I don’t get: If, say, the GOP (or here, the Tories) did shed their oogedy-boogedy types, but kept conservatives who, like me, do not use religion to explain their position on social policy, would it really make these parties more acceptable to more moderate voters? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure pro-choicers don’t care why I’m against abortion. They only care that I’m against abortion.

Yes, religion is here to stay. So are the religious, whether I like them or not. I can’t keep them out of my political philosophy, and they sure can’t exclude me either. We just have to learn to co-exist nicely. Find common grounds (for instance: it’s wrong to terminate the lives of innocent and vulnerable beings not just because life is a gift from God but because no society where the weak and innocent aren’t protected can call itself civilized) and move from there.

Wouldn’t that be more useful than arguing over which one of us has the best neologism for the bloxicon?

[cross-posted to PWPL]