Rantings and Ravings

2008-09-30T19:47:00.005-05:00

Catholic Church Morally Confused.

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke (formerly of St. Louis, now at the Vatican) said today that, "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a ‘party of death’ because of its choices on bioethical questions."

Once again the Catholic Church has demonstrated its inability to distinguish moral from immoral, good from bad. (Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil - Isa 5:20) In this case, they confuse being pro-fetus with being pro-life. Standing up for the fetus when it contributes to the destruction of the mother's life, the life of the family, and damages society, is not pro life. It is putting the life of the unborn ahead of the lives of persons who are our neighbors and friends. To ruin the lives of the mother and her family and to multiply suffering in order to bring into this world another mouth that cannot be fed or clothed, another child who will suffer from lack of health care, lack of education, and lack of opportunity is neither moral nor favorable to life.

If the Catholics were defenders of life, they would promote contraception and family planning throughout the earth, they would energetically take up the cause of universal health care, and they would demand that the wealthy contribute from their surplus to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

Until we see that day, they are simply morally confused.

2008-09-30T18:57:00.004-05:00

Exercise can be a total waste of time.

There's this guy who "works out" at the same gym I do. He has a handsfree bluetooth headset in his ear when he walks in the door. He talks on his phone the whole time. He is in the locker room changing clothes talking to a series of people ("I've got another call coming in, I'm going to have to let you go"). He talks loud enough that everyone can hear his side of the conversation. Then he goes to work out. He sits on the machines talking on the phone between sets ("Hold that thought a minute, I've got to do another set"). Then when the conversation gets intense, he just leans on the machine for fifteen minutes trying to explain to somebody on the other end of the line why the contract is delayed and they are loosing money on the deal. Then after his workout it's "I'll get back to you, I'm standing here without any clothes on, I've got to go take a shower." I've even seen him talking on the phone while he is in taking a piss.

It is a complete waste of time for this individual to come to the gym. He is getting zero benefit from his workout. In fact the workout is an additional stress in his day that is damaging his immune system and is likely to make him sick.

Ninety percent of the beneficial effects of exercise are associated with being focused. The physical benefits (strength, endurance, etc.) come from the intensity of the exercise and the form. If you can easily carry on a conversation through it, it's not intense enough to produce a benefit and there is no way you can be focused on the form if your mind is off on a cell phone someplace. A significant component of every lift is psychological. You have to psych yourself up for every rep in every set. To lift enough weight to produce improvement requires concentration.

Ninety percent of the stress relief benefits of exercise are associated with being focused on the here and now. Exercise helps with stress because it takes you away from the stressors of work, family, and society and takes you to a place where it is just you and that weight. It works because you stop thinking about everything that is stressing you out if even just for an hour; you focus on a simple goal, and with concentration and effort you can reach it.

Ninety percent of the social benefits associated with exercise are lost if your workout partner has to stand and listen to you talk on the cell phone instead of interacting with you and developing that relationship that becomes the important social aspect of exercise. Yeah but this guy doesn't have a workout partner. (I wonder why.)

But I forget. This guy is not there to gain the benefits of exercise. He is there to show the world how important he is. He cannot be out of touch with his people for even an hour. His opinions are so vital to his co-workers, family, and friends that they have to have constant access.

What an ass hole.

2008-08-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

In this place, in this time
homosapiens glimpsed freedom
and lacking the courage to take the plunge
retreated from the precipice
to the comfort of tradition, superstition, and authoritarianism
choosing demagogues with simplistic black and white answers
over the complexity of color.

2008-07-18T09:57:00.003-05:00

Came across an article by N. Gregory Mankiw that highlights the classical fallacy in libertarian reasoning. The article was published in the New York Times in July of 2007 and titled ‘Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair’.” Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President Bush and was an advisor to Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
Mankiw says:

“None of these calculations, however, say whether the rich are paying their fair share. Fairness is not an economic concept. If you want to talk fairness, you have to leave the department of economics and head over to philosophy.
“The quintessential political philosopher of modern liberalism is John Rawls, the author of the 1971 classic “A Theory of Justice.” Professor Rawls concluded that the primary goal of public policy should be to redistribute resources to help those at the very bottom of the economic ladder. If Professor Rawls were alive today, he would most likely want to raise the top income tax rate of 35 percent in order to finance a more generous safety net. And for much the same reason, he would probably raise taxes on the middle class as well.
“Professor Rawls would get a vigorous debate from his Harvard colleague, the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick. In his 1974 book, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” Professor Nozick wrote: “We are not in the position of children who have been given portions of pie by someone who now makes last-minute adjustments to rectify careless cutting. There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons.”
“To libertarians like Professor Nozick, requiring the rich to pay more just because they are rich is little more than officially sanctioned theft.
“There is no easy way to bridge this philosophical divide, but the political process will, inevitably, try to forge a practical compromise among those with wildly divergent views.”

Of course there is an easy way to bridge this philosophical divide. Professor Nozick has the moral perspicacity of a hyena. His theory that the rich should be permitted to trample the poor just because they can is morally and ethically reprehensible to the core and all thinking caring Americans should reject it out of hand. I say noblesse oblige.
Nozick makes the classic libertarian error of treating the “state” as if it were an entity separate from the people and then structuring his discourse around an adversarial conception of the relationship between the people and the state. This is only the case if the “state” is a king or dictator. In a democracy, the government is us. The decision to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, in fact, arises “out of the voluntary exchanges and actions” of the people, acting through the government to carry out their will. Thank God the people have a better developed moral sense than Professor Nozick and his libertarian buddies. When individuals (or any segment of society) forget their moral obligations, it is in our best interest to remind them or if necessary compel them to act. This is critical for our protection and for the benefit and stability of society.

2008-06-14T20:41:00.001-05:00

So I keep running into these people who walk around all day with a pissed off attitude.
Most of the time there are one of two things going on with these people.
1. They think that people will see that they are all pissed off and say, “Oh my goodness, he is all pissed off, we must change the world so he will be happy.”
2. If they think they are God’s children, they may be thinking that God will see that they are all pissed off and will say, “My child is all pissed off, I must change the world so he will be happy.”
Well I’m just fucking sorry. Nobody, not even God, is going to change the world so that you will be happy. You are just going to live the rest of your life with a pissed off attitude and then you are going to die.
The solution to this is pretty obvious. You have to figure out how to be happy in the world the way it is and you have to spend all that energy you’ve been spending being pissed off on making this world a better place, not just for yourself, but for others and generations yet to come.

2008-02-28T07:36:00.004-06:00

It is common in this country for political candidates to be asked if they believe in evolution. What is the correct answer to this question? The candidate should say something to the effect that:

"Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are either useful or they are not useful. They are not something you believe in or don't believe in. Religious propositions are matters of faith or belief. The scientific theory of evolution is not a religious proposition."

"Asking if someone believes in evolution is like asking if they believe that the number of electrons in the outer ring of an atom is a determining factor in the chemical bonds that the atom will form. This isn't a matter of belief. The issue is, can the model (the one that says there are electrons in orbits around the nucleus of an atom) be used to predict the chemical bonds that the atom will form. It can, despite the fact that particle physics tells us it is a gross oversimplification of the nature of electrons, atoms, and chemical bonds. As a result, we need to keep teaching this model to students in high school chemistry."

At this point the interviewer is likely to push the candidate to commit to a belief with some question such as, "So do you think that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor?"

The candidate should respond:

"The hypothesis that humans and other primates have a common ancestor is one of the most useful and beneficial hypotheses to emerge from the scientific theory of evolution. Much of the scientific advancement of the past century in medicine, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, ethology, and numerous other disciplines depends on this hypothesis."

Interviewer: "So then you are saying humans and monkeys have a common ancestor."

The Candidate who wants out of this should respond: "I said the hypothesis is useful," and refuse to answer further questions.

The Candidate who wishes to clarify should respond:

"In science, a hypothesis can be confirmed or falsified. Scientific experiments are designed to test a hypothesis by figuring out what evidence would confirm or falsify the hypothesis, and then examining the evidence. Over the past 150 years people have identified dozens of lines of evidence that could be used to falsify this hypothesis and lines of evidence that would confirm the hypothesis. Every time the evidence is examined the hypothesis has been confirmed. In fact, now we can't imagine what kind of evidence could be marshaled to falsify the hypothesis that we haven't already looked at."

"The last great hope for falsifying the hypothesis was the speculation that human DNA would contain something (some genes, some sequence, something) that could not have come from the common primate ancestor. The results are in. The human genome has been sequenced and it is completely consistent with the hypothesis that it came from the common ancestor. There is nothing in it that is non-animal like. In fact, 98.8% of our DNA is identical to that of a Chimpanzee. In addition, our DNA is much simpler than we thought it would be. A few decades ago, scientists figured that in order to produce a creature as complex as humans it would take at least 100,000 genes. We actually only have about 30,000 genes. Only one of those genes is not present in the chimpanzee DNA and it is one that influences the size of the forebrain. Nearly all our genes are identical to the Chimpanzee genes. That is because the life processes in us are virtually identical to those in other primates. Only about 1.2% of our genes(about 300 genes)are different from the corresponding Chimpanzee gene (ie: the Chimpanzee has the same gene but in a slightly different form). For example, the gene that controls the growth of body hair in the Chimpanzee does the same thing in us. The human gene, however, shows signs of having been damaged by a mutation and as a result we have less body hair. Mutations (the basis for evolutionary change) frequently make genes work less efficiently. Sometimes that results in selective advantage for the organism."

2008-02-21T18:16:00.002-06:00

School Vouchers and Segregation: The school voucher system promoted by conservatives will result in establishing a segregated school system at tax payers expense. The voucher system is presented to Christians as an opportunity to have your children educated in a Christian environment and as an opportunity to return to a morals based education system. While these goals may be laudable, the real effect of the voucher system will be to return the country to a system of segregated schools. This is why the voucher system is so strongly advocated by reconstructionists, segregationists, and white supremacist groups.

We should only accept a school voucher program if the vouchers can only be used in racially balanced schools. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)

2008-02-21T17:53:00.003-06:00

So I am pro-life but not pro-fetus; pro the life of the baby and the life of the mother and in fact all life. The pro-fetus group calls themselves pro-life but they are actually only pro-fetus. As soon as that baby is born, they want nothing to do with it. They want nothing to do with making sure the baby is properly fed, they want no responsibility to assure it is properly clothed, or that the baby gets a good education and that the mother has the resources to give the baby a chance to grow up to be a productive citizen.

In fact, some people in the "pro-life" movement are strongly opposed to using taxpayers money to protect mothers and children. I have met "pro-life"-ers who say things like "if we make it too easy for these people, they will just have more welfare babies." The implication is that they want to make sure that the mother gets punished for having a baby out of wedlock: "If she suffers enough and sees how bad she and the baby have it, maybe she won't be so quick to have another illegitimate child."

Ok. So making babies suffer is a family value.

Wait a minute. These people are not only not pro-life. Their position is immoral to the core.

It is immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world and then structure society to assure the child will suffer for a lifetime for the "sins" of his or her mother.

I'm sorry. Whenever a "pro-life"-er plays the morality card, those of us who actually care about morality need to scream at the top of our lungs and call attention to the moral fraud this group is perpetrating on our nation.

A constitutional amendment to protect the fetus should only be considered if the amendment also provides for protection of the baby and mother. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)

2008-02-21T09:37:00.008-06:00

Sometimes Baptist preachers say things from the pulpit that are utter nonsense. While this is never excusable, when a small time country preacher does it, it is at least understandable. Mike Huckabee is running for leader of the greatest country in the world. When he demonstrates himself to be ignorant and uninformed, he demonstrates he is unqualified to be president. "We really don’t need a lot of law if we’re people of morality," Huckabee said at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, according to a report in the Lynchburg News Advance. "There are only 10 basic laws that we need … the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10."

Some preachers have a penchant for proclaiming that the ten commandments are the foundation of all morality and the basis for our legal system. This is historically and factually inaccurate.

The constitution of the United States is careful to protect us from the ten commandments. Enforcement of the first four commandments is prohibited by the separation clause. For example, the first commandment states "you shall have no other gods before me." Yet religious freedom cannot exist unless people are permitted to worship other gods. That is what religious freedom is. Just as I have the right to take the name of other peoples gods in vain and they must be guaranteed the right to take the name of my God in vain (in violation of the third commandment). Religious freedom is clearly in conflict with these commandments.

Our legal system is based on British common law, which is based on Roman law, which was based on Greek, Persian, and Babylonian law. Many of the laws of the Old Testament are virtually quotes from Babylonian law which was based on the Code of Hammurabi. Only three of the ten commandments have any status in our legal system at all; it is illegal to steal, illegal to bear false witness, and murder is against the law. These three things did not come into our legal system through the ten commandments. These things are against the law in much older codes than the ten commandments and the Old Testament. Most of the commandments are not part of our legal system at all. For example, there is no law that requires you to honor mother and father, coveting is not against the law, and adultery is not against the law. In other words the ten commandments have virtually no relationship to our legal system.

The ten commandments make a very poor foundation for morality. Slaves are mentioned twice in Exodus chapter 20 and coveting your neighbors wife is a property issue. The wife is listed after the house and before the ox and ass. Who can argue that a code that condones slavery and treating women as property is an appropriate foundation for morality.

Sometimes you hear it said that outside of Christianity, there is no morality. ("If you invite an atheist to dinner, you'd better lock up the silver.") The implication is that if we don't incorporate Christian percepts in government and schools then there is no basis for morality in society and chaos will result. This is also historically and factually untrue. Throughout history there have been great, non-Christian, non-Jewish civilizations that have had high standards of morality that pre-dated or were developed totally independently of the Old Testament. Today, there are totally secular societies, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan societies that have and operate on very high moral standards that they did not get from the Old Testament. Humans are moral creatures. Morality is essential for stable human societies to emerge. The Hebrews developed moral standards for their society, but they did not invent morality. Some of my atheist friends have higher moral standards than many of the Christians I know. Morality does not come from God and does not presume a God for its existence.

2008-01-18T07:54:00.000-06:00

I am so tired of having my religious beliefs and convictions, my values, trampled, ignored, mocked, and denigrated by the evangelicals. I am tired of having morally reprehensible positions shoved down my throat in the name of Jesus. I am tired of the evangelicals arrogance. I am offended that they think they speak for God.

Mike Huckabee has said that AIDS is a plague and that this is the first time in history that carriers of a plague have not been isolated from the general population. Huckabee has proposed isolating AIDS victims. He has been asked about this recently and refuses to back away from the position.

Aside from the profound ignorance reflected in this position (AIDS cannot be passed through casual contact), I'm trying to picture how this would work. I guess we could round up people with AIDS and move them to some kind of concentration camp. I'm picturing chain link fences and concertina wire with heavily armed guards. If they try to leave we could shoot them and bulldoze their bodies into trenches.

It seems to me that Huckabee's understanding of Jesus view of the future of America is looking a lot like Hitlers view of the future of Germany. How can this man call himself a Christian. Why don't Christians everywhere rise up with one voice and condemn this man.

Let's think about this further. This gay guy is the CEO of some company. He is doing really well. He drives a BMW, he and his partner live in a really nice condo on the 15 floor of a high rise downtown. He's been opening stores in several states and is considering taking his company public when he and his partner contract HIV and ultimately are diagnosed with AIDS. In Huckabee's America, the government would arrest these two, confiscate their property, place their corporation under some sort of government takeover, and haul these guys off to some camp in Idaho or Arizona or someplace.

No they wouldn't. If Huckabee started concentration camps for AIDs victims, the only people who would be there are blacks and hispanics. The rich guy with the condo and the BMW would hire fancy lawyers who would keep him out.

Huckabee wants us to believe that he knows what God wants for America. No, this man has never met Jesus, the Christ, the Son of Love!!!

2006-01-17T21:48:00.000-06:00

Apparently, Political Science education in this country is nearly as bad as Science education. Hardly anybody seems to understand even the basics of our form of government. This is not a democracy. Our form of government is a constitutionally limited republic.

For thousands of years, humans were governed by kings, lords, chiefs, popes, ayatollas, etc. With a few historically brief exceptions, freedom was unknown. Government of the people, for the people, and by the people was unheard of.

During the period known as "The Enlightenment," humanity was blessed with some of the greatest minds in human history. A number of these great thinkers set about rethinking the way humans govern and have been governed. Their understanding was illuminated by a careful and thorough understanding of history.

They were fully aware of the abuses and failures that characterized all the forms of government that had been tried up until that time. They were fully aware of torture, cruelty, genocide, ethnic cleansing, repression, and the many other abuses that had plagued mankind for thousands of years. The great enlightenment thinkers were convinced that there must be a better way for humans to govern and they were further convinced that if too much power was given to too small a group (like to the king and his advisors or to the pope and the bishops) that abuses were sure to result.

Enlightenment political philosophers knew that the best form of government that had been devised up until that time was the "benevolent dictator." Countries that had a ruler (king, lord or whatever) who had the best interests of his people in mind and made his decisions based on what would make his country most prosperous and what would do the most to improve the quality of life for the largest number of his subjects had the best living conditions. The problem was that this form of government is highly unstable. When the benevolent dictator dies, there is no guarantee that his successor will be benevolant. In addition, benevolant dictators are pretty rare in human history.

Enlightenment writers believed (partly because of the strong influence of humanistic philosophy at the time) that the people should be able to govern themselves. They believed in the wisdom of the majority. The problem was that they also knew that a democracy could never work. If you let the majority rule, the majority will pass laws to give themselves power, and to make themselves permanent rulers ("one man, one vote, one time"). When the majority becomes convinced that the fact that they were elected is proof that it is God's will that they return the country to the one true belief (theirs), it can lead to passing laws requiring that everyone who disagrees with them renounce their "false" beliefs and afirm their loyalty. When people resist they are imprisoned or excecuted; their property is confiscated, their homes and businesses burned and looted. Massacre and civil war follow. This type of "totalitarian democracy" or "Jacobin democracy" led to the Reign of Terror during the French revolution.

No! A pure democracy is definately not a good idea. We cannot let the majority rule. If we do, they will be burning people at the stake before you know it. That is why the framers of our constitution, the great enlightenment thinkers who worked together to bring forth a more perfect form of government on this continent, rejected democracy in favor of a constitutionally limited republic with built in checks and balances.

The majority can only be given control of the government if somebody is watching them and when they start passing laws that infringe on the rights of the minorities, they can be stopped. In our form of government, one of the ways the checks and balances are implemented is through the supreme court. The supreme court is appointed for life. Once they are appointed they are not subject to politics. When the congress or the executive branch starts doing things that limit or infringe on the rights of the minorities, it is the responsibility of the Supreme court to step in and stop them.

This has happened many times in American history. For example, following the Civil War, the majority in this country beleived that even though the slaves were free, the races should be kept separate. They believed that former slaves should eat in their own resaraunts, drink at their own drinking fountains, ride in separate areas in public transportation, live in their own parts of town, go to their own schools, etc. The majority passed laws to this effect. It finally (after about 100 years of abuse and consequent civil disobedience) became clear to the Supreme Court that the majority was abusing their power here. Through a number of critical court decisions (such as Brown v. Board of Education) the Supreme Court forced the government and the nation to face these inequities. In other words, it is the job of the Supreme Court to tell congress they must legislate to protect minorities.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to overturn legislation and to block executive action when it infringes on the rights of minorities. Without this essential check and balance system, the leaders of the majority become abusive dictators and freedom is lost.

In our system, it is critical that the majority be prevented from "packing" the Supreme Court with individuals who will permit the majority to abuse the rights of minorities. For example, there are those in United States today who wish to return to a system of segregated schools. If they can get enough of their supporters appointed to the Supreme Court, they will quickly pass the School Voucher program and within two years, the schools in the South will be completely segregated at taxpayers expense. It is therefore critical that Supreme court appointments cannot be made with 51% of the vote. Fortunately, the procedures of the Senate are set up so that it requires 2/3 of the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. Ideally, this requirement should be set in stone in the constitution. Unfortunately, it is not. The founding fathers did the best they could, but in this case the system is not quite tight enough.

2003-04-12T22:59:00.000-05:00

Day 24: Still no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

2003-04-12T22:51:00.000-05:00

The stability of a free country depends on the self discipline and self control of its citizens. The stability and social controls in a free country are internal. In a dictatorship, the controls are external. For a free society to work, the people must have internalized a particular set of values and beliefs. The peoples committment to freedom and equality must be stronger than their committment to any political, economic, or religious ideology.

In a free country everyone looks out for his or her neighbor. In an anarchy, it is every man for himself.

The United States is far from perfect. But the last election shows how close to a truely free country we are. The election was so close that even now we don't know who actually won, and we do know that the party that is not in power did win the popular vote. However, the party that "lost" (the democrats), did not start a civil war, muster an army, and try to take what was rightfully theirs. How many times and places have existed in history where that could have happened? Americans have a powerful committment to the process of orderly transition of power that takes priority over their other strongly held beliefs and committments.

Freedom in a our system of government is limited. People sometimes get the idea that in a the United States you are free to do whatever you want to. But in a free country you are only free to do things which do not infringe on the rights of others. It is a mistake to say that in a democracy the majority rules. In a democracy, the majority is in charge of protecting the rights of the minorities. If a majority that does not understand this gets elected, the democracy is ended. If the majority does what it believes to be right even though it violates the rights of those who disagree with it, there is no democracy, there is no freedom.

2003-04-09T10:48:00.000-05:00

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Teddy Roosevelt, 1918

2003-02-28T14:33:00.000-06:00

For information on Fundamentalism please check the following links:
What
is Fundamentalism? and Why is it so dangerous?

Dr. Neilson, in his excellent article "Religion's Role
in the Terroristic Attack of September 11, 2001," addresses the questions
"What makes something fundamentalist?" and "How did this worldview influence
the terrorist actions?"

2003-02-28T12:57:00.000-06:00

Protect your children from hate speech. Use parental controls to block CBN.

Remember, giving up our freedoms does not protect us from terrorism, when we give up our freedoms terrorism wins.

2003-02-28T11:09:00.000-06:00

Terrorism is a by-product of fundamentalism. When we support Christian fundamentalism, we are as bad as governments that support Islamic fundamentalism. Until we demonstrate to the world that we are impartial in our fight against people who hate, we cannot and will not be taken seriously. As long as we tolerate fundamentalist ideology in our government, we are part of the problem not part of the solution.

This is a free country and we must permit fundamentalists to believe and teach as their conscience dictates. We must permit it, but we must be ever vigilant to guard against their attempts to impose their beliefs and ideology on others. This is a pluralist society and we must allow individuals and groups their own lifestyle, but only within the limits of respect for the freedom of others.

If the fundamentalists want to pull their children out of the school systems and indoctrinate them in their own schools we must permit them to do so, but we cannot support their schools with tax dollars.

If the fundamentalists want to form paramilitary groups and live in armed camps in the woods, we must permit it but when they become a threat to their neighbors we must stop them.

If they wish to post the Ten Commandments on their lawns, we must permit them to do so, but we cannot allow them to force the public schools to post them in the classrooms.

If the Amish wish to preserve a lifestyle from before the industrial revolution, we must permit them to do so, but they will have to modify their lifestyle to accommodate the growth of industry and technology around them. Similarly, fundamentalist groups must understand that for freedom to exist, their interpretation Gods commandments can only be implemented within the context of respect for the right of others to disagree.

We must protect and preserve freedom of speech. As a result we must allow fundamentalists such as Falwell and Robertson to set up TV networks and say what they believe. But there are limits to free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. And whenever these people use these media for hate speech, we must all stand up and loudly denounce them for it. We must teach freedom and respect for others right to be different and right to disagree as diligently as the fundamentalists teach their dogma. Protect your children from hate speech. Use parental controls to block CBN.

In a democracy, the majority rules. But the majority doesn’t get to do whatever it wants to. In a democracy, the majority is given the responsibility for preserving and protecting the rights of the minorities. If the elected majority does not understand this, democracy cannot survive. Fundamentalists (both Christian and Islamic) believe that they have been commanded by God to follow His commands. Fundamentalists believe that their particular interpretation of those commands is absolutely correct and true. No disagreement can be tolerated. No compromise can be permitted. When fundamentalists become the majority and are elected to rule, democracy is finished.

This is what makes politically motivated fundamentalists such as Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Ashcroft so dangerous. They do not understand the nature of freedom and the nature of democracy. The do not understand the compromises that must be made to ensure the survival of a pluralistic society.

2003-02-28T11:03:00.000-06:00

Open letter to our representatives in the House and Senate:

Please tell Ashcroft:

Giving up our freedoms does not protect us from terrorism, it is giving in to terrorism.

2003-02-28T11:01:00.000-06:00

It was reported on the news Tuesday morning that Vicente Fox, President of Mexico made a speech yesterday regarding Mexico’s decision not to support the US attempt to get a new resolution on Iraq through the UN. As part of that speech he said something to the effect that Mexico wants to win the war on terrorism without violence. The Administration of the US created this fiction of a “War on Terrorism” right after September 11 to give the appearance that they were doing something about the attack on America. Terrorism isn’t something you fight with armies and tanks, bombs and guns. Terrorism is something you fight with social change. This is only a war in the sense that the war on poverty was a war and the only way it will ever be won is without violence.

We had a war against the Taliban and we drove them out of Afghanistan.
We are now doing a bunch of war mongering with regard to Iraq but there is no military “War on Terrorism.” The whole point of terrorism is you can’t fight it. You just have to live with it until you can change the attitudes that lead to it.

Terrorism is a horrible thing that we must do everything in our power to eliminate. Frequently, terrorism is a by-product of religious fundamentalism. It is ridiculous to think you can counteract the forces of religious fundamentalism with military force. Fundamentalists believe that their way is the only way that can be allowed to exist and they must stamp out those who disagree with them. When the US moves in to replace Muslim regimes we look like we are taking this same intolerant stance with respect to Muslims. We must take strong action to show the world that we are not trying to eliminate those who disagree with us. We must take a strong stand against fundamentalism wherever we find it. If we hope to succeed, if we hope to have an internally consistent approach, we must take as strong a stand against the Christian fundamentalism that leads to white militia groups and to the bombing of abortion clinics as we do against Muslim fundamentalism that leads to bombing of the World Trade Center.

So what can we do about terrorism? What will work? How can we decide what will work and what won’t, how to proceed and where to start? There is a pretty good mental experiment that can be used to evaluate strategies for dealing with terrorism. No strategy will be effective with Muslim fundamentalists that would not be effective with Christian fundamentalists. If it wouldn’t work to fight the fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson it won’t work to fight the terrorism of Osama Ben Laden.

If we sent in troops and surrounded the state of Virginia and targeted our missiles on Lynchburg in an effort to shut down Liberty University, that hotbed of fundamentalism, do you think it would help solve the fundamentalist problem in the United States today? You can’t use military force to fight an idea.

The structure and organization of Islamic fundamentalism is analogous to the organization and structure of Christian fundamentalism in many ways. There is no centralized command. Many individuals, pastors of small rural churches, teach Christian fundamentalism to their congregations. Some of their members embrace the ideas fully some do not. There is no master list. There isn’t even a universally agreed upon list of beliefs or doctrines. Each of the thousands of small fundamentalist churches has it’s own unique beliefs. Several thousand such congregations exist in Eastern Kentucky alone. Where would you drop bombs to wipe out fundamentalism in Eastern Kentucky? If you sent in troops to ferret them out, whom would you hunt?

You have to fight ideas with ideas. Ideas are only changed through dialog. We must open channels of communication and through persistent, respectful, ongoing discussion and education we must foster open mindedness and tolerance. People fear the unfamiliar. Getting to know people who are different from you, who have different attitudes and beliefs from you, is the best way to develop open mindedness and tolerance. Fundamentalism grows best in a climate of ignorance and isolation. Shine the light of education and understanding on it and it withers.

2003-02-26T07:48:00.000-06:00

We Stand Passively Mute
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech

Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

2003-02-26T07:47:00.000-06:00

I think I actually prefer a President who screws his interns to one who screws the nation.

2003-02-25T21:32:00.000-06:00

One of the news casts this morning reported that US Intelligence Agencies had suggested that Iraq might have remotely piloted vehicles. They suggested that they might be able to use these to target cities right here at home in the United States. The graphic that they showed with this on the TV was of an old (30 years old at least) drone the fuselage of which would fit in your living room.

Ok. Lets just think about this for a second. Lets just picture the level of technology Iraq would have to have to develop such technology.

tick-tock

Ok. Thats long enough. Now lets think about the size of the fuel tanks necessary to give an aircraft enough range to reach New York from Iraq and the size of aircraft required to carry a significant payload.

tick-tock

Ok. Now lets picture the comand and control center necessary to track and control such a craft and the sophistication and level of training required of the personnel who man the command and control center. Picture the satellite up-links and down-links and the video synchronization problems and the size of the space program required to put these satellites in orbit.

tick-tock

Ok. Thats long enough. Any military person who has had more than 6 months experience knows that this is impossible. The US can barely target Iraq from off the coast of Kuwait, let alone from mainland US, so how could Iraq target us from Bagdad.

This is obvious bull shit. Why would they say that. Oh yeah, it wasn't our military that said it. The release was attributed to US Intelligence, or was it the US Office of Disinformation. This whole thing is so Orwellian that I keep looking at my digital wrist watch to see if it is 1984.

This is obvious propaganda designed to boost W's approval ratings. And Americans are such sheep that it will probably work.

Think people. Think. God gave you brains, now use them.

2003-02-24T12:53:00.000-06:00

Lately I've been shocked at the growth of anti-intellectual, anti-scientific attitudes in the people I meet and in the media.

A couple of nights ago, I was channel surfing and caught the end of a discussion O'Reilly ("O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel) was having with a group of experts. Apparently, they had been discussing the research that indicates that even very small children are sexual creatures (something that has been well documented in the scientific literature and has been known for some time. O'Reilly was incensed. He kept asking the people on the panel something like "What is the value to society of knowing this kind of thing," as if to say that knowledge that does not have an immediate, positive, social application should not be discovered. Perhaps he was saying that research that challenges established beliefs should not be allowed. This is the height of censorship for one thing. For another, it reflects shocking ignorance. His panellists sat their stunned. He asked the question twice, in the last 15 seconds of the show then without giving them the time or opportunity to develop an answer, he closed the show saying he didn't like Kinsey or his research either.

The fact is that babies and little children masturbate, they stimulate themselves, they play with themselves and each other if they have the opportunity, and they like the way it feels. Nearly all babies do this. We are born sexual creatures, it is natural, it is normal, and it has been going on for millions of years with no disastrous or harmful consequences.

If the general public is not informed of this information, we end up with the kind of thing we saw in Houston a few months ago in which a fanatically religious mother drowned her five children to get Satan out of them. Childhood sexuality is not sin, it is not evil, it is not satanic, it is not evidence for demon posession, and it is just a normal biological process. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a social consequence of creating a society that is ignorant of childhood sexuality. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a consequence of allowing supersition and ignorance to grow unchecked in our society. If you think research and education are expensive, you should try ignorance.

One of the things that I can't figure out is why O'Reilly takes this position. There are at least two possiblities.

One: He is so ignorant and uninformed and closed minded himself that he finds any discussion of sexuality offensive and objects to funding research designed to better understand human sexuality, or

Two: He is playing the ratings game and has decided that their is a large enough segment of the listening audience who hasn't thought this issue through and will respond positively, in a knee jerk way, to anybody on TV who comes out against sex.

Either way, this is real scary. I have nightmares in which I watch America plunging into the dark ages.