Dr. Forbush Thinks

I have read a lot of editorial endorsements in my time. In general an editorial board of a newspaper looks at two candidates and determines that one candidate is slightly better than the other. They normally don’t go into the mudslinging from either candidate. They don’t fall for the ploys that voters may be tempted to believe when they watch the mudslinging advertisements day after day during the election season.

Today however, in the San Jose Mercury News the editorial board comes right out and tells us in no uncertain terms to drop Richard Pombo. They tell us that this Republican goes beyond the normal agenda of the Republican party like selling off our National Parks and drilling for oil off the coast of California. He wants to do these things, but he goes further with his desire to do away with the endangered species act and put a highway through his personal property so he can build a truck stop or some other development. In fact money seems to buy his vote fairly easily, he was determined to be one of the top 13 most corrupt congressmen of either political party.

Pombo is such a “black eye” for California Republicans that Pete McCloskey, Pombo’s primary challenger, says that he would rather vote for Democrat Jerry McNerney than his fellow Republican. And the San Jose Mercury News editorial board tells us that Richard Pombo is a National disgrace for California’s 11th Congressional District.

The San Jose Mercury News editorial can be found here.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Living in the wilds of California we occasionally have a problem with hornets. They like to build their nests in the eves of our house, and forage for food and water. They buzz around our heads as if they are egging you on to swat them. We all know that swat a hornet generally leads to getting stung, even though the urge to swat them tends to always be there.

For the most part we can co-exist with the hornets. They do their thing and we do ours. They build their nests in the eves of our house and we spray poison on them and kill them. No one wants to be stung, and the hornets can move on and find another place to live.

Now, it would be impossible to find every hornets nest in our town and kill all the hornets. We could try to find the hornets that live in our yard, because we know that they will eventually begin to build a nest in the eves of our house again. But, we don’t venture off into the field behind our house to kill the hornets there. I don’t go to our neighbor’s house and kill their hornets for them. I don’t walk around the neighborhood trying to encourage the neighbors to fight the hornets.

Now, occasionally a hornet will sting someone and the sting can be very painful. And, if a person is allergic to the hornet’s venom the sting can even be deadly. There was a case when I was growing up when a little girl was stung by a hornet, and had a terrible allergic reaction. Her throat swelled up, and she couldn’t breath. She suffocated to death. It was horribly sad, and we talked about it for days.

Hornets have even attacked me myself. When I lived in The Woodlands, Texas we had bike paths through the wooded areas and golf courses. I used to bike to and from work every day, even with the 99% humidity and the 99-degree heat. On my way home from work one day I was minding my own business riding my bike down the path. I noticed a hornet seem to chase me down the path. It was a crazy idea, hornets don’t do anything if you don’t bother them I told the other guys that were riding with me. However, on the next day as I passed through the same area a hornet flew out of the woods circled around my friend, and stung me on the head. Actually it stung me multiple times, and each sting felt like a sledge hammer hitting me in the head. I fell off my bike, got up and ran away. What could I do? Later we found that the type of hornet that attacked me was a particularly hostile hornet that didn’t loose its stinger. We reported it to the authorities, but they laughed at me. Needless to say I didn’t ride my bike through that area for quite some time.

Hornets can be hostile. And, for the most part hornets are not particularly beneficial. They can cause damage and even kill people. It seems to me that hornets are a good metaphor for the terrorists that cause us trouble today.

Imagine the family of that little girl that died from a hornet’s sting. The family was surely devastated, much like our country after September 11, 2001. I am sure the family must have reacted to this death in a particularly predictable way. They must have gone around their yard and exterminated every hornets nest in the area. They must have taken precautionary steps to make sure that other family members were not allergic to hornets. After all, these things are often hereditary. They might have hung fly paper and sprayed insecticide around the house. They might have even hired a pest control firm to come out to the house every month to remove nests and spray. These are certainly akin to the things that our country should do in light of our attack. We should protect our country by securing the ports, and borders of our country like the family in the metaphor protected his house.

But, the question comes down to how far should you go. Is it possible to eradicate every hornet on the planet? If not, then where do you stop the eradication? Is protecting the house adequate enough, or should you talk to the neighbors? Talking to the neighbors would be like talking to our allies, Europe, Canada, Mexico and the rest. We are certainly doing that.

But, the problem I have is with Iraq. I am sure anyone that reads my posts already knew this. So, I have to write this. Iraq is like the hornets nest in the field behind the house. Does it make any sense to go out in the field and poke that hornet’s nest with a pole? Then stand around and complain about being stung. If that does make sense, does it make any sense to poke it again and again and get stung again and again and complain again and again? There are two solutions, return to the house, or kill the nest. Unfortunately in our real world situation the population of Iraq are the hornets. Killing the nest virtually means killing the entire population of Iraq. This has moral and ethical problems that most of us agree are not the example that the United States would like to set for the world.

I anticipate that some of my critics would suggest that the hornets in Iraq are not the entire population of Iraq, but only a small fraction of the population. And, to this I would say that you should read the National Intelligence Estimate that tells you that our presence in Iraq is the catalyst that converts the population into hornets. Poking the stick into the nest makes them angry and converts the docile into the aggressive.

It is certainly going to take a while for the agitation in Iraq to settle down, but we certainly need to stop poking the nest with a stick!





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

In a comment I read today it was pointed out that the word liberal has been distorted and expanded. This ploy is a rather clever but dishonest reality in our current world. Conservatives have claimed that there is a black and white world of those who agree with them and everyone else. This line in the sand attempts to make confuse people more than honestly describe the reality of the world.

So, lets look at what the conservatives have done here, and why they are wrong.

First of all, conservatives will take a position on an issue. They tell us what their position is, for example, on abortion, they believe that killing a fetus is wrong. They stake out this position as the “right” position and everyone else is “wrong.” Then they don’t stop there, but they exaggerate, misinform and demonize everyone associated with opposition to this issue. The issue for them is “black and white.” And, perhaps for some people the issue is black and white. However, for the great number of people in the middle, the moderates, the issue is not so black and white. There is the question of whether the regulation of abortion is even an issue that the government should address. Many libertarians believe that health issues should remain between a patient and their doctor. The question of when life legally begins is also another issue that stays out of the debate under these conditions. Then, the mother and father’s ownership rights are completely ignored. One may say that a human being can not be owned, but when does a fertilized egg become a human being not subject to ownership under the legal definition. Then, there are the mother’s right to life and health that may be in jeopardy if she is forced to give birth. Then there are the practical problems that the mother faces that are rarely considered in these debates. To the conservative there is no debate, because the issue is “black and white.”

By making the issue “black and white” one might think that this limits those who would support your position. But, the reality of the situation is not that clear cut. People do not say, “The conservatives will only accept me if I am 100% against abortion in all cases,” which is the “black and white” stance. Instead people are likely to say that there might be some cases that abortion should not be done and they find themselves agreeing with the conservatives on those points. And, conservatives are able to use this leverage by there “black and white” argument. They say, “Liberals support this abhorrent exception to abortion. Isn’t that disgusting? You’re not disgusting, therefore you’re not a liberal.” After hearing this definition of liberal, people come to believe that the term is extremist. Unfortunately the extremists on the right are the ones that created this false definition.

When you let someone else define your classification, you loose your political power. In this case the right sets up the definition as the extremist furthest to the left as the definition of the “other side.” Moderates do not come into the discussion in a black and white world. You are either with us or against us is the cry of these extremists. And, unfortunately some of the moderates have been goaded into following the crowd and accepted some of the fear mongering of the extremists.

Of course, abortion is only one example of how the extremists have shaped the debate by creating a false choice and telling us that this is a “black and white” world. The truth is that we do not live in a “black and white” world. We live in a world of colors and hues, bright and dark, as well as shades of grey. If we don’t realize this then we will be condemned to “stay the course” without questioning the “supreme leader.” And, when a country has a leader that calls himself “the decider” and a culture that calls those who disagree, “against us,” we have a problem. We don’t call this paradigm a democracy; we call it a dictatorship.

When we look at a world that has the conservative viewpoint and the other viewpoint we find ourselves in this “black and white” world. But, how can we fight this phenomenon? In a true democracy where all the citizens have a reasonable understanding of the political world this problem would never arise. But, as I am often reminded, we have a representative democracy where many of the citizens are uninformed. This situation lends itself to the possibility of abuse. Voters are asked to support a candidate based on black and white politics. Are you with us or against us? Then, the elected representatives are continually looking for money to run these misinformation campaigns, and the money comes from organizations with some strings attached. These strings influence the representatives to vote on the issues in a black and white manner.

The evidence that we are in this “black and white” culture shows itself in the block voting of the congress over the last several years.

The antidote to this problematic “black and white” culture is education and thinking. The more educated a person is, the less likely they will accept “black and white” solutions, and the more they will question these proposed solutions. We should have real political debates where participants actually involve themselves in the process. The current situation in the US Senate where no one listens during the debates shows us just how far we have come from a working representative democracy. And, all Americans should be ashamed of this.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Many Americans have never been to Mexico. In fact, many Americans have never even been out of the country. But, I won’t get into that in this piece. Instead I’d like to just talk about my minor experiences in Mexico. I say minor, because I never lived there and of course living in a place helps one to understand the place better than just a few visits. But, the point is that travel always opens your eyes.

More than twenty years ago I had the crazy notion that I would travel from Texas to California to visit a friend whom had moved there. I decided that I’d simply drive the 22 hours from College Station, TX to San Diego, CA over my spring break from graduate school. I loaded up my 1966 Ford Mustang with a cooler, some snacks and a week’s worth of clothes and took off on the highway. I pointed my car west and started to drive.

It took me nearly eight hours before I actually found a freeway, instead of the Texas Farm to Market roads that litter the state. The Farm to Market roads aren’t so bad, as long as you are certain to slow down below the speed limit when they pass through a small town. The city law enforcement likes to bust out-of-towners for a sure source of revenue. Out-of-towners aren’t likely to argue a ticket, they’d just as soon pay the ticket and be out of town as quickly as possible. However, once I was on the Interstate there was no looking back, “California here I come.”

It wasn’t my first trip to California, and my friend wanted to show me a good time. So, after driving 22 hours, without out any time out for sleep I found my self in the back seat of someone’s car with a load of kids heading for Tijuana. We drove to the boarder, parked the car and walked across the boarder. We walked past the little kids selling Chicklets on the street. We walked past the vendors and panhandlers and we found the taxi stand. My host had been here before, and they knew exactly where they wanted to go. We piled into the taxi and I soon found myself, in a groggy state entering a Mexican Bar by the name of “el Tunnel.” Or, the English translation “The Tunnel.” The gimmick was that everyone needed to walk over a suspension bridge through a dark tunnel to get into the bar, hence the name.

One might wonder why these college students wanted to go to a foreign country just to go to a bar. After all, my friend and I were over 21 by that time, although I don’t know the ages of my other hosts. Many college kids from San Diego had flocked to Tijuana to go drinking, because of the lower drinking age. Of course this was twenty years ago, so I don’t know what the laws are today. But, besides the drinking age issue, there were certainly many cultural reasons to go to Tijuana, or Mexico in general. However, Tijuana might not be the best place to witness Mexican culture.

In fact border towns are based on the tourist industry. The people who run the businesses in the border towns will concentrate on what they can “sell” to tourists. And, when the people come across the border to buy the things that they can’t get in the United States, then that is what you are most likely to find in the border town. Currently seniors go across the border to get prescription drugs that happen to be much cheaper than those sold in the United States. Law enforcement is present, but they certainly look the other way if it is in their interest to do so. For example, it might be easier to purchase illicit drugs, or even automatic weapons if that is what you are looking for. And, for this reason it might be a tad bit easier to get yourself into trouble in a border town as well.

But Mexico isn’t just a collection of border towns. Mexico certainly has its tourist spots, but it also has its charm and culture. A few years after this visit to Mexico I had taken a series of trips Leon, Mexico. This huge city of more than a million people, is dead center in the middle of Mexico. Its major industry is not tourism, but leather among other things. My reason for visiting this city in the middle of Mexico was a scientific collaboration with a group of physicists from the Universidad de Guanajuato.

Leon, Mexico has an airport and at the time they had fights from Houston in and out of Leon on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If you wanted to come or go on another day you would be required to create another itinerary. Sometimes we could fly into Mexico City and drive up to Leon. On other trips we could fly into Guadalajara and drive down to Leon. I certainly preferred to fly into Guadalajara and drive down, because there was much less traffic than driving out of Mexico City, even though the trip was about the same length of time. And, driving around the countryside offered an interesting opportunity to stop at places out in the middle of nowhere and see how the people are trying to earn a living, or just trying to survive.

The flavor of Mexico comes through in its contrast to what you would expect to see in America. For example, on my first flight into Leon I flew from Houston to Monterrey Mexico and then from Monterrey to Leon. Of course when we landed in Monterrey some passengers got off the plane and others bordered. I noticed as they were loading and unloading the cargo that four crates of roosters were being loaded onto the plane. The crates were large barred crates with plenty of room for these roosters to walk around. I saw the guy pick up his roosters when we got to Leon and wheel them out to the taxi stand. I thought this was a bit unexpected, but I promptly forgot about it. We had flown in on a Thursday for the long weekend, and we would return the following Tuesday. The interesting thing was that the same guy was back on Tuesday for the return trip. He had his four crates, but only one rooster. I am guessing that he flew into Leon for a weekend of cock fighting and only one of his four roosters had been successful.

On another trip we flew into Guadalajara, rented a car and drove to Leon. This might have been my second trip to Leon. I remembered approximately where I was trying to go, but I had only been driven around the city on my previous trip. This time I was trying to remember landmarks and navigate a relatively unfamiliar city. At one juncture I recognized a landmark and quickly decided to turn at the last moment in the belief that I should need to turn down the street. Unfortunately I quickly realized that I was going the wrong way down a one way street. (I really hate when that happens. I am sure the other drivers on the street don’t like it either.) As quickly as I could I did a U-turn in order to be heading in the correct direction, but it was too late. The flashing lights were the first clue. Of course the police had to tell me what I already knew, I was heading the wrong direction on a one way street. Of course they did this in Spanish and I did my best to apologize. But, I used the opportunity to attempt to ask directions. I asked, “Donde esta Universidad de Guanajuato?”

I didn’t explain before that the Universidad de Guanajuato is a major university in Guanajuato, a town about 20 miles from Leon. But, being such a large university they also had groups and institutes through out the Mexican state of Guanajuato, the state in which Leon is located. There was an institute of physics and an institute of psychology that shared a building in central Leon, and there was also a major research center that the institute of physics was building at the time just outside of the city of Leon. I was looking for the Physics institute in the center of the city, but the policeman had no idea that this place even existed so he answered with the logical answer, “la Universidad de Guanajuato esta en Guanajuato,” or whatever the proper Spanish equivalent is. I got the point, but my Spanish wasn’t good enough at the time to go into the details. In the end we just got a warning and we decided to find the hotel instead, and then we could use the phone to get directions. This was before the cell phone age.

I told this story, because I remember it whenever I meet someone who doesn’t speak English as well as I would like. I remember when I was on the other side of the language divide trying to communicate. Even the simplest things are difficult to do even if you know a bit of the language. The policeman most likely thought that we knew nothing at all, we weren’t even in the right city. He was probably thinking to himself, “idiot tourists, don’t even speak the language, don’t even know where they are, sheesh,” or whatever the equivalent Spanish is.

The area of central Mexico is so nice. You could believe that you were plucked down in the middle of Europe or even some American city, if you didn’t try to read the Spanish signs. The climate every time that I have been there was virtually perfect, dry room temperature during the daytime, slightly cooler at night. The people are nice as well. Everyone I met was friendly. I met people from the physics and psychology institutes and also people who were not from the institutes. The entire atmosphere differed greatly from the tourist areas of Mexico’s borders, or beaches.

We also went to visit other towns and cities in the area. We went to the city of Guanajuato, which is a very unusual city built in a crater. I assume the volcano is dormant, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were to come to life one day causing all of the inhabitants to evacuate the very beautiful and unusual city. And, this city also has a very unusual “Museum of the dead.” This “museum” has a collection of dead bodies that have been petrified in some nearby cemetery. The bodies are not extremely old, there clothing seems to be from the 1800s, although I could certainly be wrong. When I first visited the “museum” the bodies were propped up against the walls with a velvet rope separating them from the viewers. The last time I visited it the bodies were contained in Plexiglas boxes reminiscent of Sleeping Beauty. The entire experience is so surreal and so contrary to American culture that on every visit I had to take other Americans to experience this weird “museum.”

Many Americans who have never been to Mexico, or maybe have only been to the tourist areas of Mexico have created a vision of Mexico in their minds. This vision of this nation is not always flattering to the country, and they lead to preconceived ideas. Some preconceived ideas are based on some reality, such as the violence or illegal activity in the border towns. But these views are not the reality in all of Mexico. But, so many people are still motivated to cross the border into the United States. Does that mean that these people are attracted to the American lifestyle, or are they just attracted to American jobs?

Even with Mexico being a much better place than what many Americans imagine, there are still many poor jobless Mexicans. Many of these Mexicans come from groups that are considered lower class than the rest of Mexico. These people might be from the large native population, or just the lower class poor, or even the rural areas of the country. The point is that not every Mexican finds themselves wanted to move to America to make money harvesting crops or working as a nanny. Many Mexicans are happy living and working where they work. The problem is that number of poor and unemployed in Mexico seek to make a living and they can’t find work in Mexico. And, if we don’t want these people to do our menial labor, then the obvious solution is to help Mexico create jobs in Mexico. The methodology is irrelevant for this discussion, but since we have this perceived problem, the problem with the poor in Mexico is our problem as well, because it effects us.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

First of all, I don’t really have a clear answer to the question: “Why Blog?” When I write I search my mind for the information that I know, believe or understand from my personal experience and observations of the world. I make no claim that I have done any painstaking research on any particular topic. I write in response to what I read or hear or see. So, the question becomes, “Is what I do worthwhile if I don’t do research on every little fact or opinion that I write about?”

I know for certain that I don’t think that my opinion is above anyone else’s opinion, when it is opinion. My opinion is based on observations, which have my personal perspective and could possibly be in error or a distortion of reality, as anyone does. And, my opinions also have some basis in fact and other people’s observations. I try to point all of these things out and if someone calls me on any of these things I gladly provide facts, data or point out that it is my opinion and why I believe what I do. Hopefully this makes me informed or knowledgeable, but not high and mighty. Please differ with me where you see this differently. I am certainly willing to talk with anyone and I respect other people opinions and thinking on all issues.

But, even if my opinion is not a fact I find value in it for two reasons. The first is that when I construct and explain my point of view I pull together thoughts and ideas that have floating around with no certain anchor point in my mind. In the act of pulling these things together I clarify how I understand these things in new contexts, which hopefully strengthens my overall understanding of the world we live in. The second reason I find value in blogging is that I believe that my personal view of things is not the same as everyone else’s. It might not be the one and only view of life the universe and everything, but it is another point of view. It makes sense to me and it sometimes makes sense to others that read what I write. The sharing of my point of view hopefully draws questions and comments from my readers and that interactions helps me to grow further in my understanding of the world as others point out some things that I have most likely missed. And, because of that I welcome anyone’s point of view, especially if his or her point of view differs with my own. It doesn’t mean that I am going to change my opinion, but if someone’s different outlook causes me to think I grow as a person.

Of course what I dislike are parrots. I know when I hear parrots, because I hear the exact same story reprinted again and again. A recent example is the Mark Foley scandal. Republicans simultaneously began to bring up Democrat pedophiles from 20 years ago. Chances are that these people are simply parroting back something that they read at “Little Green Footballs” or some other conservative blog. Obviously the people parroting this back in the great Republican echo chamber of the Internet felt that justification for not doing anything about a sexual predator in Congress was to be found in the same disgusting behavior on the Democrat side of the aisle. Its hard to imagine that so many people would come up with such a lame justification based on events that happened so long ago.

And, the same echo chamber plays its part in spreading the lies of the Bush administration. When the truth comes out, sometimes many months or years after all of this misinformation is spread around the net honest people realize that what they once knew is no longer true. And, when they realize this over and over again they must come to the logical conclusion that they have been lied to. If this is the obvious case and people don’t admit that they have been lied to, then there must be some other explanation for “staying the course.”

If my writing makes you feel uneasy then I hope that it is because it makes you question what I am saying. I also hope that you question your other sources as well, because no one person has a monopoly on truth. The problem is that every person has their observations clouded by their personal opinions and experiences. Sometimes these experiences thrust you to have extreme reactions and become disillusioned or enamored with a “new” idea. But, the key is always to take everything with a grain of salt. Nothing is the answer to every question no matter how much we wish that it were.

The idealist inside me hopes that the act of blogging is a conversation with the world. I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I don’t expect to get all the answers either. Instead bringing up topics, observations and political issues offers people to read what someone different than themselves thinks about the issues. They may perhaps strengthen their own point of view or change their point of view in relatively minor ways. In the long run we all have these conversations with each other in a web of interactions and perhaps out of this mess we understand the world around us a little better and this understanding will spread to everyone. (Or at least maybe it will spread to a few more people.)



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

I am glad to see that you are questioning this war. Unfortunately, you still don’t understand what has happened here. Bob Woodward’s new book gives us new insight into the Bush administration and why they did what they did. Mr. Woodward should not be considered a leftist or Democrat or liberal. He actually lauded the White House in his first two books on this administration. The White House was giving copies of the books as Christmas Presents. Bob Woodward was given access to many in the White House and got in depth interviews with Rumsfeld and other high level people. So, the picture painted by this book paints a gloomy situation where George W Bush has set his mind on something and he doesn’t listen to anyone when they tell him something that is contrary to his belief that the war is going fine. “Stay the Course” is his mantra.

So, why are we in Iraq? We are there because George W Bush has expectations that exceed reality. He believed that going into Iraq would transform the Middle East. He still tells us that. It wasn’t to fight al Qaeda as your early commenter proclaimed. Only 7% of those fighting in Iraq are associated with al Qaeda now. Even less were there before we went in to the country. But, we are stuck in the middle of a civil war, and it is getting worse not better. The Iraqis don’t want to take responsibility, because they all have their own agenda. The Kurds have withdrawn into their mountain haven, and the Sunnis are afraid that the Shiites will take control of the oil and enforce that claim with the help of their friends from Iran. We need to leave to let the Iraqis take control, but if we don’t do it right the country will be controlled by Iran. But, actually Iran is gradually gaining more power in Iraq as long as we are there as well. Our leaders are afraid to do anything, because anything we do has risk of something worse than we have there now.

If you accept what I am saying, then maybe John Murtha’s plan makes more sense to you. He suggests that we pull back and let the Iraqis actually do the enforcing of the rule of martial law. They speak the language and understand the culture better than our soldiers do. He has proposed that we should be ready to send forces in, if and when a hot spot erupts. Eventually these eruptions will become less frequent, because the Iraqis don’t like being occupied by us, but if their own soldiers are enforcing the rule of law, then the people will accept them as legitimate force and they will accept responsibility for security. When people feel secure they are less likely to revolt. Unfortunately the longer we wait the more violence is committed against each other in this civil war, and that breeds a revenge mentality that may be difficult to control. But if the US pulls out, the new Iraqi forces can use the US occupation as an excuse for the violence and the common enemy will breed peace among Iraqis. Obviously it is a psychological phenomena. But, look at how violence subsided in South Africa when the white rulers gave up power.

The current “stay the course” approach promises to cause more violence and death. At some point twenty years down the road a new generation will come to power and perhaps they will be more amiable toward each other. But, if you think of the 100 years of war in Ireland, or other long drawn out conflicts it doesn’t make much sense to expect that outcome. What is really sad is that all of this was predicted by many in the military and the state department, but the Bush administration ignored everything. They acted like the rebels of the 1960s who believed that if government was torn down then a new government would rise up and be better than the old one. Fortunately they didn’t succeed in doing this; unfortunately the Bush administration did succeed.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Republicans are very good at organizing and keeping everyone on the same page. They decide what should be talked about, and when. So, it is quite interesting to look at this year’s election theme, so that we can get a feeling of what the Republicans would like to if they retain power after the November election.

So, what types of things have the Republicans brought forward in this election?

President Bush was here in California yesterday to lend his support to Richard Pombo, the Republican representative that would like to destroy the environment in the name of personal property rights. His main issue is that he owns property in the mountains between the San Francisco Bay area and the California Central Valley. He would like a Freeway to be put through his property so that he can build souvenir shops, hotels, gas stations and such on his property. That being said the polls have him in a tight race with his Democrat opponent. The thing is that his district was gerrymandered in such a way to contain a majority of traditional Republican voters and his seat should be quite safe. But if Republicans choose to stay home from the polls the Democrats could actually win this one. So, George W Bush came to campaign for Richard Pombo, which put George W Bush on my local news last night.

Well, of course George W Bush not only offered to pat Richard Pombo on the back; he also used the opportunity to push the Republican election theme. George W Bush didn’t say that Democrats were evil, he toned it down to say: “Don’t vote for Democrats because they will raise your taxes. Don’t vote for Democrats because they will cut and run in Iraq.”

Wow, George W Bush is campaigning against all Democrats equally. He is saying, just don’t vote for them. It is interesting that the gloves came off and he isn’t even trying to put a nice political face forward. He isn’t willing to say that some Democrats have different points of view. He doesn’t say question your local candidate and I’m sure that you will come to this conclusion. He doesn’t offer the option to vote for the person, not the Political Party. No, he just says don’t vote Democrat, because you will be sorry, like Democrats are as evil the terrorist we are fighting in Iraq. But, of course he isn’t interested in attracting moderates, he just wants the Republican base to show up to the polls and vote, and he is convinced that painting the Democrats as evil will do just that.

So, Republican theme number one is: “The Democrats are evil, so don’t vote for them.”

But, Republicans are not a one-issue party, so they have multiple themes in this election.

The Republicans are grabbing the nose of the voter and pointing it in the direction they want them to look. This has been common election tactics for almost two decades now. They have become the masters of the sound bite and media control. They get their messages out in unison and in agenda priority order. This year they want you to ignore several things that have been going wrong in the Republican controlled congress. They want you to ignore the trouble in Iraq. They call those in the media who mention the deaths of our soldiers as focusing too much on the negative. But, if a traffic accident were to kill five people anywhere in the country the news would be all over the story. So, why would the deaths of five soldiers in Iraq be any different? Shouldn’t the news cover this story in the same way? The Republicans who have total responsibility for this debacle don’t want you to think about this, rather they would like you to think about the “Global War on Terror.” Even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the president is sure to mention 9/11 and the War in Iraq within a sentence of each other in every speech. They want you to ignore the new National Intelligence Estimate that tells us that the Iraq War is actually being effectively used by terrorists as a recruiting and training tool. Train them in Iraq and send them to the USA is what they are thinking.

So, Republican election theme number two is: “Create fear in the minds of the voters. Then offer the Republicans as the party that will relieve that fear.”

Well, ignoring things seems to be a party theme, not just this year’s election theme. The Republican Party was deeply involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal mainly because of the Republican controlled house’s efforts to reduce the access of Democrats to lobbyists. So, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Republicans are the major players in this scandal. But Republicans have continued to tell us that the corruption of these Republicans should be ignored. After all, the Republicans are the party of religious morals and ethics. Even though Jack Abramoff was able convince the congress to support slave labor in the US territories in the Pacific Islands they still want the voters to believe that Republicans are moral and ethical. After all, Don Rumsfeld tells us that human rights like the Geneva Convention don’t apply to all humans.

Republican theme number three is: “Listen to what we say, ignore what we actually do.”

These themes seem to cover most situations. In an election you don’t always know what situations might come up. For example, when the Mark Foley scandal broke last Friday, it didn’t take very long to blame the evil Democrats for their secular values and tell us to ignore the man behind the curtain. It seems like most unforeseeable events can fit into the Republican Election Themes as they come up.


-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

For 3 years the White House has denied that the famous “Mission Accomplished” sign on the USS Abraham Lincoln was the president’s idea. In fact, the White House has gone to great lengths to blame the Navy for putting the sign up in response to the ships “end of tour mission.” In Bob Woodward’s new book, “State of Denial” he claims that the term was actually part of the president’s speech, until Don Rumsfeld was able to get him to remove it from the speech. This was from an interview with Don Rumsfeld, right from his mouth. There is no need to spin this in any other way. Rumsfeld also said that unfortunately, he was unable to remove the sign from its prominent place behind the president in time. Listen to Terry Gross interview Bob Woodward on Fresh Air.

Finally we have that one cleared up, how many more lies to we have to prove?






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

When the Republican, conservatives, Christian Right or whoever complains about the world we live in, they tend to bring up the issue of moral relativism faster than kids running to a Bar-B-Q. The complaint tends to be that moral relativism allows each person to determine what is “right” and what is “wrong” based on ones personal standards. But, the lines are blurred here, because the exact rules and laws become the issues that are argued about.

So, lets begin with an example that the Republicans argue should not be decided by moral relativism - sexuality. Conservatives tend to believe that there is a long history of tradition that dictates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in regard to “sexuality.” The non-religious conservative position on this issue is to “preserve tradition.” Under this guidance “traditional marriage” is the only place for sexual relations. In order to preserve the appearance of adhering to this tradition, many customs and formalities were built into society as a way to pretend that this “tradition” actually mattered. The entire structure of dating etiquette was an effort to allow men and women to meet, but preserve the illusion of purity until marriage tradition. In addition to this dating etiquette there were traditions for what to do if one doesn’t quite stick to these traditions as well. For example, the man should marry the woman if she should become pregnant. Of course this could never happen if the tradition were followed, but by tradition the tradition was not followed. Little is mentioned of the long tradition of pre-marital sex, homosexual relationships, mistresses and other trifles hidden as the secrets of society, because they were occurred behind closed doors.

Maybe the tradition existed because of religion, or maybe the religious law existed because of the tradition, but since it dates back that far we can not know for certain. Those who are religious believe that their religious laws are quite important, and they don’t see a difference between these laws and the secular laws passed by government and enforced by the police. After all, murder is both a religious law and a secular law, why can’t all the religious laws be made secular laws as well? Before the “1960s social upheaval” there were cohabitation laws where a man and a woman could not live together unless they were married. This law was religious law passed into secular law by religious people. And, religious people long for the day when they could make all of their religious laws into secular laws as well. Then the police could enforce them and their children could be kept safe from the temptation of violating these laws. So, what prevents secular society from passing religious laws?

The answer of course comes down to the moral relativism argument. The religious people have determined by their religious tradition that certain rules and laws should be adhered to by the faithful. These rules and laws are specified by their interpretation of their religious texts and the tradition passed down from eons ago. These laws hold weight because of the tradition associated with them. The non-religious non-traditional people believe in secular laws created to help society function, but not to dictate what people should do without purpose. They believe that murder and theft are valuable laws that prevent mayhem and chaos and therefore help society function better. But, making laws that prevent people from living with one another is an arbitrary law that doesn’t help society run smoothly. Perhaps some people could make a counter argument, but the point is that people debate the laws and then people create laws that they want to live by in order to have a more harmonious society. Religious text may influence some of the people making these laws, but it also has little effect on others. In other words, some issues are morally relative, depending on your personal view of religion, including what particular religion or belief system you personally use.

This means that society can agree on a core set of values that everyone agrees with. For example, I believe that everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Even though we have exceptions to this rule, which we have also agreed upon, murder is wrong. Some people may not agree with punishing a person who murders by murdering him, and others believe that this is the only way to punish someone who takes a life - by taking his. So, it is morally relative that some groups believe that murder is always wrong, and some groups believe that murder is mostly wrong except under some circumstances. Similarly, some people believe that selling nails on Sunday is morally wrong, because the person who buys them is certainly going to work on the Sabbath with those nails. In fact, the person selling the nails is in moral violation for working the cash register. Similarly, some people believe that man should not improve upon what God has given him, therefore trying to save a life with medical technology is morally wrong to them, while the majority of Western Civilization believes that man should use whatever God has given us to prevent a death. It is morally relative to believe in one side or the other in this issue. But the secular laws of society have ruled that doctors are allowed to save lives.

There will always be crazy religions that are based on crazy interpretations of crazy or even sane religious texts. Sometimes a large number of influential people are persuaded to follow a crazy religion. Sometimes a crazy idea gets a large number of people to support it. This idea may be sane or it may be insane, but either way the majority can make it a secular law for the entire society. The law may help society function better, or it may hinder the way society functions. But society isn’t static. New people will create new generations with new attitudes and new ideas. The new generation will continually reevaluate the old laws and if they no longer function, the new generation will eventually gain the majority and they will be able to change the old laws. Unfortunately, this process takes quite a while, and a generation of people need to suffer with the old prohibitive laws. But, there is hope when we know that society is dynamic.

So, moral relativism allows us to say that we don’t have to accept every crazy religious person’s idea of morality. If a Jehovah Witness wants to argue that America is a religious country therefore we should not celebrate holidays, including Christmas, do we all have to agree with their moral idea about holidays? If a Jewish person quotes the non-kosher nature of pork from the Bible, do we all need to agree that a secular law against the production of pork is necessary? If a Muslim tells us that the Koran allows him to have as many wives as he can afford should we change the secular laws to allow for that? These are all morally relative points of view that we all accept everyday. So, when the Religious Right complains about moral relativism being a bane on society, tell them that they have their own moral reference frame and you choose not to live in it.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Didn’t I write this before? If I have, which I most likely have, it needs to be written again. After all, the truth can not be repeated to often. If it was, the marketing firms for corporate America would go out of business.

The latest corruption scandal to rear its ugly head is of course the deceit of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives over the disgusting behavior of the gay pedophile, Mark Foley. I’m guessing that most Americans are certainly willing to forgive a pedophile, as long as he’s a Republican, but most Republicans certainly like their pedophiles, straight. So, what is the Republican Party that hates gays doing with a gay pedophile amongst its ranks?

Well, most Republicans must be thinking that Mr. Foley must have been able to keep his activity as secret as the White House plan for Iraq, but today we know that that isn’t exactly the truth. In fact, the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert was informed of Mr. Foley’s activities before this was released to the public. Of course, as with the rest of the Republican agenda, these things have priorities. For example, maintaining control of congress takes priority over protecting the pages at the Capitol. Isn’t it strange how things seemed so different in 1999 when the congress, lead by the Republicans that that the protection of interns that were of age was the top priority, when they brought forth Articles of Impeachment? Maybe the American people will now be able to shed the light of truth on these last few years of politics. If the American people consider that the Republicans actually took Bill Clinton to the woodshed for their own benefit, then they shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that they protected their own for political purposes as long as they could. This, of course, is major hypocrisy.

But, as I have said before, the Republican Party is build on the hypocrisy of saying whatever will get a politician elected, and then following the Party agenda once elected. These two items are not always in lock step with each, and most often are not even close to the same priority level. We have seen this through out the last five years for certain. They frighten the people about terrorism to get elected, then drag their feet on protecting our ports, chemical and nuclear plants that are the most vulnerable targets in our country. They tell us about the danger of gay marriage being the most important threat to the welfare of our country, then they remain quiet about a homosexual pedophile soliciting sex from a 16-year-old page.

This hypocrisy is a metaphor in microcosm if you just look at Mark Foley’s efforts on Capital Hill. In private he is a homosexual pedophile. But, in congress he is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He exploits children in private, while he passes laws that he intends to break in public. But, it seems to me this is exactly what the Republicans have done with the Torture Law that was just passed by the congress. The “stay the course” President, George W Bush, does not intend to change anything that they are doing in the “War on Terror.” He was encouraging the passage of a law that would offer the fewest violations for those who continued to follow the administration policy, but the public was lead to believe that they will adhere to the Geneva Convention’s language. The truth is that the law is left ambiguous while it gives more power to the Executive Branch to determine what torture should be defined as. Obviously, the secrecy of the administration is quite helpful in maintaining the status quo, like it was for Mark Foley.

This hypocrisy is seen over and over again. We can look at the tax cuts for the wealthy passed by George W Bush and the Republicans. The voters who elected these Republicans to congress were convinced that their personal tax burden would be reduced in order for them to get tax relief, but very little real tax relief went to this segment of our society. Enormous tax breaks went to the wealthy that could potentially live on their stock dividends at a much lower tax rate than the person working at the Wall Mart or Seven Eleven. And, the wealthy are actually trying to reduce this tax on their dividends to zero. This means that a person born into a wealthy household could be given a gift of stock, or they could inherit all of their parent’s stock and spend only their tax dividends with out paying income tax on that money at all. Where is the civic responsibility in this equation?

The Republicans obviously want to contain this corruption, but the truth is that the Republican Party is built on a flawed political ideology of personal selfishness. People attracted to the Republican Party want personal gain for their allegiance to the Party. They believe that small government is good, because they will be able to keep more of their personal wealth. They want reduced taxes and fewer government projects because they believe that this mayhem will result in more personal opportunity to exploit the system. They don’t have morals, but they believe that passing laws that make religious moral violations a crime will win them more votes to pass more laws that will make them wealthier. In fact, the hypocrisy goes so far that they cut welfare so that single working women need to leave their kids unsupervised while they work to feed them, but they have thousands of corporate welfare laws where wealthy corporations get tax breaks for doing what they had planned to do all along.

Hypocrisy is a dangerous moral strategy, because it means that you have sold your soul to the highest bidder. Hypocrisy with greed at the center makes every hypocrite on Capital Hill a National Security Threat. When we have a congress lead by hypocrites looking for the best deal, but with access to all levels of government, then all a terrorist needs to do is pay off a congressman with a need for cash and the terrorist has access to the same things that that congressmen has access to. If many congressman has such low moral standards to exploit children, whose to say that he wouldn’t exploit the National Security of our nation?








-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Conservatives like to make the claim that Liberals will always propose that “…we should throw money at a problem.” Of course this argument could be made about the conservatives as well, because any project will take “seed money” to get it started, no matter what the project is. There is publicity, marketing, staff to get anything off the ground. So, making the claim that throwing money at a problem is only a liberal tendency misses the point of the issue itself.

The point is that there are always issues that need to be solved. Only those that believe in anarchy believe that government has no purpose at all. The anarchists are excused from this argument. But, for the rest of us the argument comes down to how much money the government will spend and what projects will that money be spent on. Paying for the government’s spending is a totally different issue, because taxation is the source of all money whether the money is borrowed now and paid back later, or if people need to be accountable now. I shouldn’t need to say anything about the evil of debt, but the Republicans tend to prefer that evil because it allows them to shirk their responsibility to some later generation.

So, let’s look at what the Republicans have decided to spend your hard earned money on. They have decided that sending troops halfway around the world to try to keep the peace in a civil war is a wise use of your tax dollars. But, to be fair the civil war didn’t happen until we spent the money to invade the country on poor intelligence in the first place. Unfortunately we didn’t spend the money to get good intelligence, because the Republicans that took over the government in 2001 thought that terrorism wasn’t such a big deal. In fact, these Republicans thought that spending the money on “Star Wars” missile protection was a better use of the money. In fact, shifting the spending of money around was an obsession with the early Bush administration.

I think that the summary of this action could easily be stated as shifting money from a “prevention strategy” to an “aggression strategy.” Diplomacy was less important than weapons systems. Cutting money for programs like FEMA, Head Start, and health care in favor of programs like new weapons, star wars and military aid to our allies.

The point is that retort of throwing money at the problem isn’t valid in most cases, because the act of throwing force at a problem generally costs money. And, as we know with the pointless war in Iraq we have thrown $300 billion dollars at the problem and the latest NIE shows that the war is actually fueled by this conflict.

If we were to think about this $300 billion dollars for a moment and the terrorism problem we might be surprised to realize that Bill Clinton’s suggestion of helping Middle Eastern countries to create public education in the Middle East might have addressed this problem in a much more effective way.

Bill Clinton pointed out that the terrorists are largely created in the madrassas, cheap religious schools infiltrated with terrorists. Parents choose to send their children to these schools, because they realize the value of an education in a modern world. Since public education does not exist in these countries, parents are left to choose between the various private education options. And, the parents decide that the cheapest education is the religious education offered by these madrassas. The question could become, how many madrassas could be shut down by helping Middle East countries create public education systems? How much would we be willing to spend to actually reduce number of terrorists recruited through this system? What would the side effects of doing this be? Overall positive or negative effects? How would that compare to our aggressive efforts? How many lives could have been saved by using this approach?

Obviously this is one solution to one problem and I am sure that many bright people out there have many other solutions. We should listen to them and consider them. But we should be careful not to resort to aggression as the solution to every problem. It would be like the old saying, “When all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.”







-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Congresswoman Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) says that Gay Marriage is more important than the “War on Terror.” Well, it depends on who you are if you agree with her or not. If you are a Republican Congress Critter, then I am guessing that you will agree with her 100%. Of course you would, because the Republican Congress and the Republican Executive Branch and now the Republican controlled Supreme Court have totally blown the “War on Terror.” ThinkProgress.com has the video.

Well, to be fair Ms. Musgrave actually said that “Gay Marriage” “is the most important issue that we face today.” So, not only is “Gay Marriage more important than the “War on Terror,” but it is more important than cutting taxes, or saving people from going to Hell. It is more important than feeding the poor, or protecting the rights of the unborn. It is more important than the divorce rate or the homeless problem. It is more important than the War in Iraq, or the space program. It is more important than building better schools or building bridges or highways. It is more important than protecting the environment or the food supply. It is more important than life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It is more important than the survival United States of America. Boy, it must really be important. Well, at least it is important to her.

At this point I should remind everyone that the Republican Party controls the entire government and if anything is wrong with government we just need to point a finger at the Republicans who can virtually change anything with the drop of a hat. And if Gay Marriage were so important, you would think that the congress would be united behind this threat to America. But, Republicans have lost their leadership skills, or they just never had any. You be the judge.

The problem is that most sane people actually believe that the “War against Islamic Extremism” is a big deal. Perhaps most sane people would prefer to say that it is a tad bit more important than whether two gay people should be allowed to create a social contract between themselves. In fact, we should expand the war to a “War against Religious Extremism.” In this way we can address the Christian Religious Extremists that insist on pushing Gay Marriage prohibition when an election is looming on the horizon.

Well, actually the election is most likely more important than Gay Marriage for Ms. Musgrave, but she just isn’t honest enough to say so. In fact, avoiding talk about the War on Terror and bringing up the issue of Gay Marriage has one thing in common. What, you might naively ask? Well, of course they both raise prospects of reelection. If ignoring your personal failure helps your election, then scaring the voters into voting for you is even better. But, the sad thing is that we should be thinking of real ways to undermine the Islamic Terrorists that spread hatred around the World. But with Republicans in congress that think that Gay Marriage is the most important issue we face today, many issues will not get the attention they deserve. Certainly Ms. Musgrave does not have the people of her district'’ interest at heart and hopefully her challenger will demonstrate that he can do a better job. It shouldn't be hard now that she has said this.

This comment though is an example of the problem we face in this country. With hyperbole like this we can’t even discuss the “War on Terror” or “Iraq War” issues in the American public forum. The right refuses to acknowledge that these are two separate issues. They are tied to each other like a noose around the Republican’s neck. When you try to talk about the waste of the “War in Iraq” they hear “necessary evil in the War on Terror.” Bill Clinton had a good idea; he suggested that we should help Pakistan fund public education, because it would put the madrassas out of business. For some reason wasting $300 billion dollars on an unnecessary war that actually encourages more terrorists to join the battle against the West is OK, but spending money on things like education in the Middle East that might discourage the youth from going to the madrassas that spread this hatred is a waste of the tax payer’s money. We don’t even spend enough money on our own local education.

It seems like we are doomed until we can convince enough people that the Republicans and the Neocons are insane. Sadly, insanity seems to spread like a disease.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Baylor University has recently conducted a new detailed study of Religion in America. I discovered it because of an editorial column I read in this mornings San Jose Mercury News. But instead of relying on the editorial page I thought that I might find the raw data, well maybe officially condensed data and come to my own conclusions. You may read the Baylor press release of September 11, 2006 which also gives a link to the entire report.

There is so much here that one should read the report themselves, and they will come to their own conclusions. This study is a paradigm shift in how we look at religion and politics, so anyone who wants to appeal to the religious side of America should take a look.

On the first page of the study the author tells us that it was “common knowledge” that secularism was growing in America based on two General Social Surveys of religion conducted in 1988 and 2004. These two studies showed that in 1988 8% of Americans had no religion and in 2004 14.3% of Americans had no religion. Obviously, the conclusion was that America was becoming more secular. But, the more careful Baylor survey shows that it is more likely that many small churches don’t show up on the choice list in the survey. Therefore, the rise of people attending unaffiliated religions is falsely interpreted as a rise in secularism in America. They point out that the naming of some churches actually interferes with the accuracy of the survey, so in the Baylor survey the name and address of the place of worship was collected in order to provide an accurate classification of American religion.

So, it turns out that 10.4% of Americans are non-affiliated, but only 3.7% actually don’t believe in God. It seems to me that 96.3% is a large majority of believers, and is no where near the crisis advertised in alarmist publications.

So, this begs the political question, if there are so many believers how can Democrats be classified as secular non-believers? The truth is also in the survey. First of all, some people believe in God, but they just don’t go to church. But, this isn’t news, because even the Republicans have latched onto this fact because those who attend church more often are more likely to vote Republican. However, the Baylor survey goes into even more detail, asking people to sort themselves with other terms such as: Bible-believing, Evangelical, Mainline Christian, Born Again and more. And, as a curiosity more people in actual mainline Christian denominations claim to be Evangelical than those that are members of Evangelical Churches. So, the point here is that some people don’t know what label actually describes the church that they attend.

However, we still don’t know the answer to the question: where are all the religious Democrats? If they don’t go to church, but they are still religious, then how do we reconcile this dilemma?

The answer to this question seems to lie in the emergence of another piece of religious research. It turns out that America believes in four distinctly different Gods. These researchers have named these different Gods the Authoritarian God, the Benevolent God, the Distant God and the Critical God. These names refer to the way we imagine God’s place in the Universe. Do you believe that God is judgmental? Do you believe that God is engaged in the world? Thirty one percent of Americans believe that God is judgmental and he punishes wrongdoers; they believe in the authoritarian God. Those who believe in an Authoritarian God tend to be less educated and more likely to be from the South. And, these people tend to identify themselves as conservative.

On the other hand, twenty five percent believe that God is not judgmental but engaged in the world; they believe in a Benevolent God. The Benevolent God is prevalent in the Midwest. Twenty three percent believe that God is not judgmental and not engaged, or a Distant God. The image of the Distant God is most common in the West. And, sixteen percent believe that God is judgmental but not engaged, or a Critical God. The Critical God image is common in the East. The majority of believers in the four regions of the country have four different ways of imagining God.

And, there is the key to the political dilemma. Democrats believe that society needs to make society work, because God isn’t going to do anything about it. Democrats believe that they should create a government that helps those in need, because if society doesn’t help them, who will. Therefore, Democrats have their strong hold in the areas where God is viewed as being less engaged, therefore prompting people to make things right. It might also explain that Democrats don’t attend church as much as those who believe that God might retaliate for your absence.

Obviously these images of God are more common in some religions than in others, but since these are images that each person creates in their own imagination they exist in all regions of the country. These images are shaped by experience. They begin with what your parents teach you, and then what you learn from your peers. These images are also shaped by spiritual experience that are found in nature, in society and in the church itself. When you are told that God is like a father, you imagine your own personal father and how he behaves. When you are told that God loves everyone, your idea of that love is based on your personal experience of love. There is evidence for all of these aspects of God in the Bible, and the passages that you focus on are generally based on the passages that resonate with your experience. If you expect to find God by being yelled at in church then the preachers yelling could be comforting in knowing that there is a God who will make everything work out as He planned. On the other hand, if you expect to find God in the quiet of nature as you wonder at his marvelous creation the quiet will comfort you in knowing that God set everything in motion and it is your job to do your part to make the world a better place.

I highly recommend that everyone who is interested in these sorts of things should look at the Baylor survey, because it gives everyone insight into the connection between politics and religion. I didn’t even touch on the abortion, gay marriage, Iraq War or War on Terror. But the report has unparalleled insight into these issues as well.

In conclusion, 96% of Americans believe in God. The majority of Democrats and Republicans believe in God. Republicans and Democrats believe in these four different Gods, but more Republicans believe in the Authoritarian God, while Democrats are more likely to believe in one of the three non-authoritarian Gods.








-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Finally, Bill Clinton defends himself. Finally, he actually makes a stand and tells it the way he sees it. He is no longer competing for any political office, so it is safe for him to say something. Actually is has been safe for him to say something over the last six years of the Bush debacle, but he kept quiet.

When I saw the story about Bill Clinton’s with Fox News host Chris Wallace I was anxious to see some footage of the event. Of course, it was quite easy to get the footage on the Internet and I was happy to see it. On a day where John McCain thought that it was Ok for Hillary to be able to influence more conservative votes than Lucifer, in the same interview as he chastised Hugo Chavez for calling George W Bush the Devil. And, on a day where the we learn that the National Intelligence Estimate proves that George W Bush’s policy in Iraq is making us less safe, it seemed like the Democrats had won a trifecta. It was certainly a very nice day indeed, but why did it take so long for Bill Clinton to come forward?

I believe that Bill Clinton kept quiet for the last six years out of two things:

1) Respect for the Office of the President prevented him from criticizing it.
2) Being disgraced in office took away his credibility on issues of moral repugnance.


Well, obviously how you way the reality of these two points most likely shines a light on your personal ideology. My belief is that George W Bush and the Republicans have pushed disgrace to a whole new level, while the aura of Clinton has grown in multiple orders of magnitude. And, what every self-respecting Democrat finally witnessed was Bill Clinton defending himself on Fox TV, the belly of the beast itself.

When I heard these words I felt pride in the Democratic Party for the first time in quite a while. Finally a voice of the Democrats that doesn’t back down when attacked. And, he said it with authority and knowledge pertaining to all of these issues thrown around in the conservative blogosphere. It really made me smile.

But, this was only a small lunge in the big battle against these people who have stolen our government away from us. Certainly there are other potential heroes out there that have a voice, but are they willing to challenge the conventional wisdom implanted by bloggers, conservative talk radio and conservative media like Fox? And, certainly the conservative ideologues are bound to do their best to spin this small moment their own way. Will their reaction scare other Democrats, which actually have campaigns to win, from voicing similar outrage against the conservative hailstorm?

There are already quite a few blogs out there are contradicting what Bill Clinton said in his defense. And, of course that is expected. Most of the conservative blogs out there are repeating the same lies that have been spread for the last five years since 9/11/2001. I am hoping and praying that this moment has broken the ice and other public figures will finally begin to tell the truth about what they know. Bill Clinton’s remarks certainly will not change the minds of the hardcore conservatives out there that already have their hearts hardened against the truth. But, his remarks will energize the base, which is certainly important. And, hopefully his remarks and other remarks of the same type will at least offer another voice for the moderates to hear before they go off to vote in November, and that is what really matters.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Some of the current conservative hatred of liberals is mainly a result of a long-term backlash to the social upheaval of the 1960s. Like I said in my piece on understanding the reasons Extremist Muslims are motivated, we should also try to understand why conservative extremists are motivated. In this attempt to understand their hatred we should look at some of the changes that happened in the 1960s, the forces that motivated them, and why the current brand of conservative is so upset with them. Of course, I will mainly concentrate on the first two, because I’m certain that only a true conservative can be true to his own motivation, and I always accept comments.

The 1950s were the era of the perfect American family portrayed in radio and TV across the nation. This campaign was so successful that many people actually believed that “Leave it to Beaver,” “Father Knows Best,” “Donna Reed” and “Ozzie and Harriet” were accurate portraits of the average American family. But, with such perfection for the American family to live up to the children who watched these shows became disillusioned with the differences between reality and the American ideal. Of course everyone had the opportunity to accept these ideals and strive to make them real in their personal lives or reject them and build a life out of the reality that they knew for certain.

This vision of an ideal American family did not die a sudden death, because many people held this ideal up as something to strive for - “The American Dream.” In fact, when John F Kennedy brought his personal perfect family to Washington DC, the public believed that this was proof of the American Camelot in reality. The Kennedies were the perfect nuclear family. The father had a nice job providing for his beautiful wife and cute adorable children. Wasn’t that the “American Dream?”

But, along with this imagine of the perfect American family there were voices in the 1950s that tried to tell the true story of the true America where some people weren’t treated the same as other people. The discrimination could be racial or economic or gender based or even politically based. The Beat Poets began to spread these ideas in their coffee house readings, while blues singers did the same in taverns. But, also Science Fiction writers preached similar messages in their imaginative stories set in some future time or distant planet. These ideas floated around for quite some time in the intellectual circles, but the average middle class American only knew what he saw on TV or heard on the radio.

But, the radio did begin to provide access to some of this less popular thought when they broadcast reenactments of some Science Fiction stories that carried these themes. And the radio began to play the blues and folk music as well. And, as with most new ideas the young hear about them first.

When John F Kennedy was shot in 1963 the world changed. The vision of a “perfect” America with a “perfect” family came into question. People who had already been questioning the American ideal spoke up a little louder. Cracks began to emerge in the vision of “perfect” America.

Of course, questions are asked in the context of the time. And, these questions are asked in order to better understand the context of the time we live in. People began to discover that they were not the only dysfunctional family in America, because they found out about their friend’s dysfunctional families. Of course they didn't even have a word for dysfunctional at the time, but they communicated these sentiments to each other anyway. It didn’t take long for people to realize that the marketing campaign was a lie. America was not filled with a majority of “perfect” families. Instead there were a majority of dysfunctional families and a lot of pretenders.

This realization was quite important, because the reaction to this discovery was to believe that most people lied to cover up what they feared. This hatred of plastic pretend phony adults was a theme in J. D. Salinger’s 1951 novel “Catcher in the Rye.” And, years after its publication the conduits of “new thought” were still pulling ideas out of this novel. For example, some say that Simon & Garfunkel originally wanted to name themselves "Catchers in the Rye."

Well, the opposite of pretending to be something that you are not is to “let it all hang out.” The idea is that you break down your natural defense mechanisms and let people get to know you for who you really are. If people know you as a person on a personal level, then people are less likely to do ill to you. Of course, this idea was not verified with scientific investigation, it seemed to make a lot of common sense. And, with the intention of breaking down these personal defense mechanisms many people used drugs and alcohol which also was not a verified method for doing this.

As time went on, this group of young people with a large group of close acquaintances began to understand each other and began to question society. And, about this time these people realized that the segregation laws in the South were certainly a big embarrassment to America and another phony façade covering up the hatred with a picture of the “perfect” Southern hospitality. It was obvious that nearly 100 years after slavery had been abolished the African Americans in the south were no better off and this seemed to be obviously the result of segregation. And as these young white northerners went to the south to fight for voting rights, the nation’s eyes were drawn to the problem as a piece of the façade was broken away.

The theme of the “phony American dream” was passed through out the American culture and distrust grew. Who could you trust? No one over 30 was the answer. Obviously drugs couldn’t harm you, because the authorities will lie about anything. The War in Vietnam isn’t for Democracy, it is just another lie from the authorities. And, since the young could no longer trust the wisdom of their elders every cultural idea and theme came crashing down. “Question Authority” was a popular bumper sticker, and people meant it.

In this atmosphere of distrust and disbelief the young had to learn for themselves that some things were right while other things were wrong. Tragedies like the Stones concert at Altamonte Speedway happened because the youth questioned the wisdom of the authorities. Sometimes people need to learn by their mistakes. But death is a hard lesson to learn for the victims. The authorities were also proven wrong on some occasions as well. Some peaceful demonstrations erupted into violence because the authority believed that might was right, and forcing people to do something will make them do it. Of course these horrible actions by the authorities knocked down the projection of authority a notch each time they acted with bad results.

In the end, what do we have? Why does the current conservative backlash to the social reforms of the 1960s really want? I believe that the conservatives want a return to the “values” of the 1950s, as they were marketed to the masses. But, the truth is that they never really existed. So, in order to return to the “values” of the 1950s we need to rebuild a façade that covers up the reality of society once again. This is done by creating an atmosphere were people hide there feelings and keep their thoughts to themselves. Everyone goes on and pretends to be who they are not. The parents pretend to be good parents in public conversation, but they act as they please behind closed doors. The result of course will be a society that looks good on the outside, but has every emotion bottled up inside our families and our heads. We become forced to hide behind a façade and we keep our defense mechanisms on high alert. Of course the stress involved in this will result in early deaths for the followers of this practice, and the rest of us will be relieved when they finally go.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics