I don't get it. What is the deal with this woman? More importantly, what is the deal with her supporters? I really don't get it.
I am not anti-Republican. I suppose I'm anti-fundamental Christian, but I've been ok with other politicians that are fundamental Christians (only in spite of that fact, but ok nonetheless).
Do I have a problem with women as politicians? I don't think so, but I suppose it's possible. Do I have a problem taking beautiful women seriously in politics? That may be a little more likely (and, yes, I do think Sarah Palin is very attractive), but I still don't think that's it either.
I think it may be the fact that I see her as a complete Sue Average. There's nothing spectacular about her. I don't think she's an idiot, like many on the left think. I also don't think she's all that smart either.
I think the problem is that she's no more than a female version of George W. Bush. Enough with the 100 IQ politicians that get their intellectual inspiration from Jesus and the Republican base!
... and the Republican base/Tea Party folks ... enough already! If you would've been pissed about George W. Bush's socialism and out-of-control spending, you might've had me. Instead you watched for eight years as he was probably as fiscally bad as the worst liberal presidents. You justified it because he had (R) next to his name and he talked to Jesus a lot. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, throw both parties out!
Did I mention that I don't get the obsession with Sarah Palin? You betcha!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Intelligent Design
The Intelligent Design folks are trying so hard to make it into science.
First of all, let's not kids ourselves. Most supporters of Intelligent Design are Christian Creationists wrapped in a cloak of better logic than the talking snake story (Bill Maher's favorite short summary of the Garden of Eden). If they can get their foot in with Intelligent Design, they're one step closer to prayer in school, Adam on the cover of the science textbook, and Stork Theory to explain where babies come from.
Let's review the definition of science. Science "... uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena."
Spirituality is a supernatural phenomenon. Spirituality is inherently separate from science. That doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue, but how can the supernatural be run through the scientific method? If it could, it would no longer be supernatural.
In complete irony and contrast to all of the above, I'm not opposed to the idea that an intelligence created or guided our evolution. I think it's very possible that an intelligent alien race might have seeded the universe with some sort of generic material/code with the ability to take hold and evolve on planets.
I don't think this is what the Intelligent Design advocates mean though.
... and I don't claim this to be anything scientific other than an improbable hypothesis among an infinite number of possibilities.
Some interesting links:
The Short Proof of Evolution
Responses to Some Common Objections to "The Short Proof of Evolution"
Creationism in the Science Curriculum?
First of all, let's not kids ourselves. Most supporters of Intelligent Design are Christian Creationists wrapped in a cloak of better logic than the talking snake story (Bill Maher's favorite short summary of the Garden of Eden). If they can get their foot in with Intelligent Design, they're one step closer to prayer in school, Adam on the cover of the science textbook, and Stork Theory to explain where babies come from.
Let's review the definition of science. Science "... uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena."
Spirituality is a supernatural phenomenon. Spirituality is inherently separate from science. That doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue, but how can the supernatural be run through the scientific method? If it could, it would no longer be supernatural.
In complete irony and contrast to all of the above, I'm not opposed to the idea that an intelligence created or guided our evolution. I think it's very possible that an intelligent alien race might have seeded the universe with some sort of generic material/code with the ability to take hold and evolve on planets.
I don't think this is what the Intelligent Design advocates mean though.
... and I don't claim this to be anything scientific other than an improbable hypothesis among an infinite number of possibilities.
Some interesting links:
The Short Proof of Evolution
Responses to Some Common Objections to "The Short Proof of Evolution"
Creationism in the Science Curriculum?
Are we just a drop in time?
If atheism is right, do we cease to exist upon death? What sort of comfort is there in that?
First of all, I don't know that's what happens. I can't deny that life is different from inanimate objects. Maybe there is some "soul" thing that continues on after we die and made us alive in the first place. However, it seems the very likely that we will simply cease to exist ... as unappealing as that may be.
There are a lot of things in life that aren't particularly appealing though. That doesn't mean that it makes them any less true.
Our mortality makes life precious. Our procreation makes us live on. Is that enough? Who knows? I'm happy with my life. I don't feel any "voids in my heart" or the such that most Christians assume an atheist feels. I have a great wife and four fantastic kids.
I certainly don't hold that my "religion" will give any comfort or provide support. It also doesn't answer any of the big questions. I'd love to know the whos, whys, whats, hows, and wheres of existence. I guess I'd like it to be neatly wrapped with a nice bow, but don't think that it is. I hold out hope that as we advance as a civilization, we continue to come closer to this knowledge ... if we don't kill ourselves or the planet before we get there.
First of all, I don't know that's what happens. I can't deny that life is different from inanimate objects. Maybe there is some "soul" thing that continues on after we die and made us alive in the first place. However, it seems the very likely that we will simply cease to exist ... as unappealing as that may be.
There are a lot of things in life that aren't particularly appealing though. That doesn't mean that it makes them any less true.
Our mortality makes life precious. Our procreation makes us live on. Is that enough? Who knows? I'm happy with my life. I don't feel any "voids in my heart" or the such that most Christians assume an atheist feels. I have a great wife and four fantastic kids.
I certainly don't hold that my "religion" will give any comfort or provide support. It also doesn't answer any of the big questions. I'd love to know the whos, whys, whats, hows, and wheres of existence. I guess I'd like it to be neatly wrapped with a nice bow, but don't think that it is. I hold out hope that as we advance as a civilization, we continue to come closer to this knowledge ... if we don't kill ourselves or the planet before we get there.
Stealing from the Christian worldview?
I've blogged about morality, but someone recently stated that atheists only have morals because they borrowed them from the Christian worldview. I don't agree that morals are divinely inspired, but I don't deny that my specific morals are heavily influced by the Christian worldview.
Most of my Christian friends initially think that my disbelief in God (any deity) means that I reject the teachings or the morals of Christianity. This is simply not true. I don't agree with all Christians teachings (regarding behavior/morals), but I agree for the most part. I run things through my own mind and when a behavior makes moral sense, it makes moral sense.
Most of these behaviors are within a mainly Christian culture. I was taught by my parents, who were taught by their Christian parents. I grew up in Christian communities.
Where I disagree is that a supernatural guy in the sky gives logic to the morals, not the inherent pros/cons of the behavior itself.
Most of my Christian friends initially think that my disbelief in God (any deity) means that I reject the teachings or the morals of Christianity. This is simply not true. I don't agree with all Christians teachings (regarding behavior/morals), but I agree for the most part. I run things through my own mind and when a behavior makes moral sense, it makes moral sense.
Most of these behaviors are within a mainly Christian culture. I was taught by my parents, who were taught by their Christian parents. I grew up in Christian communities.
Where I disagree is that a supernatural guy in the sky gives logic to the morals, not the inherent pros/cons of the behavior itself.
Proof of God
I often am told by Christians that they have all the proof they need through the Bible. They know it to be true, so therefore it is up to the atheist to prove it untrue.
This is a complete and utter fallacy. Because a premise cannot be proven false, that premise can't be assumed true.
Christians don't need to prove there is a God though ... unless you're trying to convince me it's true. If you're trying to put prayer in our public schools, you need to prove it. If you want to be taken seriously by those not brought up through the indoctrination, you need to prove it (or at least admit that your belief is based on faith, not proof).
I know most Christians believe there is ample evidence for proof of their religion. However, there's a reason you have to have faith to believe. Chrisianity and religion have a foundation in the supernatural. I need to see some verifiable and repeatable miracles - a suspension of our known science - to believe in the supernatural.
There's little proof of anything related to Christianity other than the existence of historical figures and a book. As much as I believe Julius Caesar existed, I believe Jesus existed (meaning I believe he existed). I just don't believe that he was divine. I know that's sacrilegious to Christians, but it's what I believe.
Imagine what it might take to cause you to disbelieve in Christianity. What would it take to make you a Muslim or a Buddhist? You would have to lose your faith.
I'm flexible, but you'd better show me some proof.
This is a complete and utter fallacy. Because a premise cannot be proven false, that premise can't be assumed true.
Christians don't need to prove there is a God though ... unless you're trying to convince me it's true. If you're trying to put prayer in our public schools, you need to prove it. If you want to be taken seriously by those not brought up through the indoctrination, you need to prove it (or at least admit that your belief is based on faith, not proof).
I know most Christians believe there is ample evidence for proof of their religion. However, there's a reason you have to have faith to believe. Chrisianity and religion have a foundation in the supernatural. I need to see some verifiable and repeatable miracles - a suspension of our known science - to believe in the supernatural.
There's little proof of anything related to Christianity other than the existence of historical figures and a book. As much as I believe Julius Caesar existed, I believe Jesus existed (meaning I believe he existed). I just don't believe that he was divine. I know that's sacrilegious to Christians, but it's what I believe.
Imagine what it might take to cause you to disbelieve in Christianity. What would it take to make you a Muslim or a Buddhist? You would have to lose your faith.
I'm flexible, but you'd better show me some proof.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Prohibition, Income Tax, and Women's Suffrage
George Will and 1920
So I stumbled across this article today. I have always enjoyed history (minored in it in college), but I don't consider myself an expert. I do consider myself "literate" however. That being said, I had never considered how close together the Amendments for Income Tax (16th - 1913), Prohibition (18th - 1919), and Women's Suffrage (19th - 1920) were together. I had always considered them separate from each other.
George Will implies that they are somehow tied together in the linked article.
I guess I see what he's saying about Prohibition and Women's Suffrage. He asserts that women, devoutly Christian women, were the main ones strongly behind Prohibition, particularly through the Anti-Saloon League. The fact that women were gaining significant influence in politics via the ballot box brought this issue to the forefront in a way it may never have with a male-only constituency. Women were already getting the right to vote in many states well before the passing of Women's Suffrage. So, I can see how one may have caused the other. Women were able to influence the election of both Houses, putting in a friendly Congress to get both of these Amendments through. The states were similarly affected, allowing the ratification.
Where I disagree with Will is the Income Tax Amendment's correlation. I don't think it was tied to the others, but created an economic situation for Prohibition to work because it was in place already (a mechanism to replace the loss of significant liquor tax revenues).
What I'm now curious about is how this ties together with the Roaring 20's and subsequently into the Depression. I'm also curious about its indirect impact going into the New Deal and our continual rise of socialist tendencies in this country.
It's ironic that, given our current economic situation, we are somewhat considering lifting the criminalization of drugs, but I digress...
So I stumbled across this article today. I have always enjoyed history (minored in it in college), but I don't consider myself an expert. I do consider myself "literate" however. That being said, I had never considered how close together the Amendments for Income Tax (16th - 1913), Prohibition (18th - 1919), and Women's Suffrage (19th - 1920) were together. I had always considered them separate from each other.
George Will implies that they are somehow tied together in the linked article.
I guess I see what he's saying about Prohibition and Women's Suffrage. He asserts that women, devoutly Christian women, were the main ones strongly behind Prohibition, particularly through the Anti-Saloon League. The fact that women were gaining significant influence in politics via the ballot box brought this issue to the forefront in a way it may never have with a male-only constituency. Women were already getting the right to vote in many states well before the passing of Women's Suffrage. So, I can see how one may have caused the other. Women were able to influence the election of both Houses, putting in a friendly Congress to get both of these Amendments through. The states were similarly affected, allowing the ratification.
Where I disagree with Will is the Income Tax Amendment's correlation. I don't think it was tied to the others, but created an economic situation for Prohibition to work because it was in place already (a mechanism to replace the loss of significant liquor tax revenues).
What I'm now curious about is how this ties together with the Roaring 20's and subsequently into the Depression. I'm also curious about its indirect impact going into the New Deal and our continual rise of socialist tendencies in this country.
It's ironic that, given our current economic situation, we are somewhat considering lifting the criminalization of drugs, but I digress...
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Why am I not in the Tea Party?
I've found myself over the last 18 months of its rise, apathetic toward the Tea Party movement. With the primary victory of Rand Paul, I've actually thought about the party for the first time.
Here's what I found for the mission statement on the Tea Party Patriots website:
Tea Party Mission Statement
It sounds like what I believe. So, why can't I jump on board immediately?
I think it's because of the reason I've been apathetic toward them all along. It seems like it's the same drones that have been following right wing talk radio for years. I'm not convinced that they really believe or understand what the movement is saying. I also think it may be because the left has been successful in their propaganda and smear campaign. This is to the extent that I don't really want to be associated with "those kind of people" like those teabaggers.
I'll have to stew on this one a little.
Here's what I found for the mission statement on the Tea Party Patriots website:
Tea Party Mission Statement
It sounds like what I believe. So, why can't I jump on board immediately?
I think it's because of the reason I've been apathetic toward them all along. It seems like it's the same drones that have been following right wing talk radio for years. I'm not convinced that they really believe or understand what the movement is saying. I also think it may be because the left has been successful in their propaganda and smear campaign. This is to the extent that I don't really want to be associated with "those kind of people" like those teabaggers.
I'll have to stew on this one a little.
Tea Party, Libertarianism, and Christianity
A friend of mine posted this article on Facebook yesterday:
How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?
I do not have anything to do with the Tea Party, but do consider myself to be a libertarian. I wasn't aware that libertarians ever proclaimed any interest in being Christ-like with regard to government.
That being said, there is an interesting point to debate about people who claim to be Christians being in the Tea Party - that they are being hypocritical by having a political conviction that is opposed to their religious one.
I reject this argument. Government can be secular, impartial, and unemotional, allowing the individual to be the opposite of all of those in any way they desire. In fact, I think this inherently allows an individual to be however they want and co-exist with others that are different.
I also reject the constant accusation of racism as a core element. I am not so naive to think that there aren't people negatively motivated by a black president, but I truly don't believe this is a motivation of significance at large. I see the political philosophy as having more of a haves vs. have-nots element - a matter of socio-economics and not race. Although the demographics are changing somewhat, the haves are still overwhelmingly white. To me, that's why the movement is overwhelmingly white. Labeling someone or a movement as racist makes it easy to dismiss them. Also, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?
I do not have anything to do with the Tea Party, but do consider myself to be a libertarian. I wasn't aware that libertarians ever proclaimed any interest in being Christ-like with regard to government.
That being said, there is an interesting point to debate about people who claim to be Christians being in the Tea Party - that they are being hypocritical by having a political conviction that is opposed to their religious one.
I reject this argument. Government can be secular, impartial, and unemotional, allowing the individual to be the opposite of all of those in any way they desire. In fact, I think this inherently allows an individual to be however they want and co-exist with others that are different.
I also reject the constant accusation of racism as a core element. I am not so naive to think that there aren't people negatively motivated by a black president, but I truly don't believe this is a motivation of significance at large. I see the political philosophy as having more of a haves vs. have-nots element - a matter of socio-economics and not race. Although the demographics are changing somewhat, the haves are still overwhelmingly white. To me, that's why the movement is overwhelmingly white. Labeling someone or a movement as racist makes it easy to dismiss them. Also, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Cutting cable is gaining momentum
Cutting the Cord
I'm a solid two months plus in and have no regrets to this point. I can't quite get all of the over-the-air channels over my indoor antennas at the same time, but I'm close.
I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm going to have to switch ISPs at some point though. I still have Comcast Internet and I would have to think they're not going to put up with this for too long. Also, there's a 250GB maximum per month that I'm beginning to worry about.
Live sports is the real kicker. ESPN is going to have some massive leverage over the next handful of years. I wonder which direction they should go: embrace Internet streaming or blackmail the cable/satellite providers.
I'm a solid two months plus in and have no regrets to this point. I can't quite get all of the over-the-air channels over my indoor antennas at the same time, but I'm close.
I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm going to have to switch ISPs at some point though. I still have Comcast Internet and I would have to think they're not going to put up with this for too long. Also, there's a 250GB maximum per month that I'm beginning to worry about.
Live sports is the real kicker. ESPN is going to have some massive leverage over the next handful of years. I wonder which direction they should go: embrace Internet streaming or blackmail the cable/satellite providers.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Use of Government
I'll borrow one of Bill Maher's signature bits because it seems appropriate:
New Rule: Americans should stop trying to use the government to further their own agenda.
This is a fundamental problem. The government is all powerful. They make and enforce the laws. They print and control the money (or at least delegate it). They can tax at will. People know it and try to make it a tool for their own agenda. They think their use is just and right, whereas other uses are abuses of power.
The more powerful you are, the more influence you have in government.
Why not have a government that is there to prevent/punish criminal activity (including fraud) and settle civil disputes? Most everything else is a co-opt of the government's power for personal gain.
New Rule: Americans should stop trying to use the government to further their own agenda.
This is a fundamental problem. The government is all powerful. They make and enforce the laws. They print and control the money (or at least delegate it). They can tax at will. People know it and try to make it a tool for their own agenda. They think their use is just and right, whereas other uses are abuses of power.
The more powerful you are, the more influence you have in government.
Why not have a government that is there to prevent/punish criminal activity (including fraud) and settle civil disputes? Most everything else is a co-opt of the government's power for personal gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)