The Gorsuch Vote

Very annoyed with Democrats opposing Neil Gorsuch, especially if they lead the Republicans to invoke the nuclear option:

• They'll only get a worse candidate if it were to go back to the drawing board.
• I understand they're probably appealing to their base. This is why I think independents are the way to go. Then their only base is their home area.
• Yes, what Repubs did to Garland was frustrating, but they got away with it. 
• Repub hypocrisy is equally frustrating, like the reason Reid did away with the filibuster wasn't because the Repubs obstructed everything and shut down the government. There is a chart that shows that the Repubs filibustered more than twice as much as any previous president in just Obama's first term.
• In short, it would be smart for four more Dems to vote for Gorsuch, to avoid the nuclear option.

Health Care is not deserved, a right, or an entitlement

I am very sympathetic with the desire of Democrats to bring health care to everyone. It seems to me there are enough smart people around that these things could be figured out without destroying the fundamental soundness of capitalism.

But...

That's not what inspired me to post something. It is the language I'm hearing by people like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Howard Dean of everyone deserving health care or everyone being entitled to health care. Wrong. America is a social contract. Even if Jefferson used language of inalienable rights, he didn't mean anything like this. And it simply isn't true. America will be a better place for everyone if we can work these sorts of things out. But health care is not a right. It's a great privilege.

We have a contract to live together freely as long as we all follow some basic rules. We don't steal each other's stuff. We don't hurt each other. We pay taxes so that we can pay police to keep the peace and so that the government can provide some basic services.

The idea is that everyone is free to thrive. It is in everyone's best interest that mechanisms be put in place to help those who get down on their luck as well as to set rules to protect us from our own stupidity. It does no one any good to let those in a cycle of poverty and despair languish. It is a smart system that helps these sorts back on track to being self-sufficient. That diminishes crime and ultimately benefits everyone.

But we are only "entitled" to what we have agreed as part of the contract, and then conditionally on keeping our end of the deal. "He who does not work, shall not eat" is the default. We might very well make it part of our contract to say that if you are incapacitated, society will help. After all, wouldn't we want help too if we came down on our luck?

But the goal is to get back on track. It's not a free lunch--that's not the contract. People should have to do something to get welfare. I appreciate Obama's pragmatism. But I don't appreciate the extreme elements of the Democratic party who are why I am still registered as a Republican.

Saturday Night Live strikes again...

Obviously anyone with a brain will not let either of these clips affect the way they vote... but they sure are funny:



Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:

First Presidential Debate

Watched the majority of the debate. It's hard for me to be objective but I'll try.

I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.

So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?

First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.

It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."

Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.

Enough of the Pastor Stuff on Both Sides...

I've had enough of the "death by association" pastor stuff. McCain obviously doesn't agree with Hagee on everything and Hagee doesn't agree with McCain on everything. I pronounce anyone "dumber than a door knob" who thinks that the gyrations of an obscure pastor hammin' it up for a crowd that wants to see him perform must obviously be exactly what Senator Obama thinks.

This is the height of illogic, it's not even worthy to be called the ad hominem fallacy because it's attacking Obama through the back door. I guess you would call it the circumstantial fallacy, attacking the circumstances of the person to smear the person's ideas? Let's come up with a new name, "Smearing someone by finding anything even loosely associated with them that we don't like" fallacy.

I once had liver. You don't like liver. Ah, logically, then, you must not like me.

Come on--are we really this stupid in America??? Obama wasn't there. Obama didn't say these things. How many people agree with everything their pastor says? How many people go to church because of the preaching?

Good grief. If the American people and the media (especially FOX news) are this stupid and unable to reason like homo sapiens, then there's no hope for our future. We're no better thinkers than your garden variety slug.

We will no doubt be taken over in the next 100 years by some other nation smarter than we are.

Hillary Clinton's Demographic

The Saturday Night Live skit this past weekend seemed so true it almost wasn't funny.



In it, Amy Poehler gave three reasons why Hillary should be the Democratic nominee:

1. I am a sore loser.
2. My supporters are racist.
3. I have no ethical standards.

I don't think the first one will be true, and the third I think mainly applies to her election. But...

You have to wonder about a candidate who thinks she should be the candidate because most of her support comes from uneducated whites (54% I think of her supporters in West Virginia don't have a college degree) with a racist bent. My reaction at her demographic is rather to pray for greater education in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Is it a coincidence that many of these are also some of the states with the worst performing school systems in the nation?

And so Hillary says, vote for me because I'm electable and Obama isn't. Isn't this tantamount to saying America is more likely to vote for her because most Americans are uneducated and prejudiced?

Perhaps Obama is not the perfect candidate--but there's something wrong when American turns ignorance and racists into electable virtues. Yeah, that's the candidate for me.

The Status Quo of the Union

Last night Bush showed me why Obama will win this election. There was nothing of any interest in Bush's talk whatsoever. We've heard it all before and none of it changes anything.

Cursed earmarks! Who cares? In fact none of the electable candidates give us any sense of anything new at all--except Obama. That's not an endorsement; it's an observation of why he will win the election.

Frankly, he scares me a little. I like his heart. I like his priorities. I'm a little afraid of what it would look like in reality.

Economy--I think taxation tends to cripple an economy. That's why an Obama scares me in this area even more than a Clinton. But by the same token, this 600 dollar stimulus package, funded courtesy of money borrowed from China, makes no sense to me at all. Strangely, Huckabee has made the most sense to me on this issue.

Foreign Policy--Obama will immediately go light years toward healing our relationships with the rest of the world. I hope he will not plot some precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Ironically, although our invasion of Iraq was the defining stupidity of Bush's entire presidency, I am not gun ho about setting timelines. We screwed up. We bear some responsibility for the damage control.

Education--Obama will heal the short sighted approach to education known as "No Child Left Behind." Tell me, is it more important for a student to be able to know how to get along with others and fit into the world or to get a good score on a Geometry test. You take the test in Algebra 2, Bush, and if you pass we'll talk about what is most important to learn in the public schools to succeed in life.

Immigration--It is hypocritical in the extreme for Americans to get indignant about illegal immigration. We have looked the other way for twenty years, and businesses have been happy to have the cheap labor. We bear some blame for this problem, and now we're going to get "righteously indignant" that they're here--especially big business Republicans. Go take a log out of your own eye.

The Christian attitude to have is to be compassionate toward the non-criminal illegals. I guarantee we can find sins you commit equal to their crossing the border against the law (ever walked along a train track--it's against the law). In God's eyes, you're not worth one dime more than them. And the only practical thing to do is to secure the borders and find a way to mainstream the good people who are here. Say what you want, but this issue teems with hypocrisy, prejudice, and economic suicide.

Health Care--There are smart enough people to figure out how to insure everyone without killing the economy or watering down quality. Politics is the only thing that keeps such things from happening. This will happen. The question is how.

Environment--Whatever you attribute it to, the climate is warming in ways that are going to change the complexion of the planet significantly in the next 50 years. My advice, move away from Florida. Those expensive beach properties are going under water.

The only appropriate course of action is to work aggressively on the use of hydrocarbons. And why not, we should be working on technology that eliminates our use of oil period, foreign and domestic. The ethanol kick is a joke.

If I had the time, resources, and know how, I'd be building a pedal powered car to go back and forth to work in right now. Yes, you could finagle the gear ratios and maybe give a little help with a battery to go 40 and 50 miles an hour without great effort. Man, I'd love to build something likethis and stick it to the oil industry and OPEC. Again, only big business has kept the right things from happening in these areas.

My thoughts, filled with my frustration with how politics nurtures insanity.

Can't Teach a New Dog Old Tricks

Apparently Bill Clinton's stump speeches for his wife failed in South Carolina. The press of course had a hand in it, for they were discussing his antics out where everyone could see them. The result apparently was to push the South Carolina primary even more in Obama's direction that it would have been.

Now, mind you, my political eyes in 1992 and 1996 were a little different than they are now. But I have never thought of Bill Clinton as an ideological purist. I do think of Hilary more in those terms (no disrespect intended by the first name, but the fact it is what comes out first says something about America's conception of her).

To me, Bill Clinton has always been a slick talker, someone who confuses most people with a barrage of figures and sentimental stories that impresses the average individual but may in fact mean absolutely nothing. John Edwards has his flavor to me this election.

But it seems to me that we're into a new generation. The Boomers don't seem to get hypocrisy the way the Millennials do. (We GenXers never made a difference because we were sitting in front of the TV with our 2 liters not paying attention). I saw a microcosm of this at a church I was at where everyone in that generation seemed to coo and oo and ah a certain pastor that to me was obviously faking it. He was later found in a hotel room with one of the church members.

So go on Clinton if you want, try the same old same old with the Boomers. Maybe you'll convince enough of them to vote for your wife. But for me, if I were to vote for your wife, I would have to block you out of my mind. For me, you're making me think--"Who's running for office anyway?" and "Isn't she big enough to run for herself?" and "You're a fake."

Did I mention that Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama today?

Iowa Caucus Night

I'm ready to predict who will be the next President of the United States. It will be Barack Obama. His speech was the best of all the speeches, the freshest, the most statesmanlike, and the one that most speaks for change.

The second best was Mike Huckabee's. I don't know if he will be the Republican candidate. Frankly I think it will be either him or John McCain. Guliani won't go the distance, I don't think. Romney is a fake pretty boy and won't fly.

Huckabee's a better speaker than McCain, but man the media don't like him (both FOX and MSNBC's commentators clearly don't take him seriously). Neither are attractive enough to capture America's superficial imagination. For Huckabee, the teeth just look too much like, well, exactly what you would expect a Huckabee to look like.

Hillary Clinton's speech was a disappointment. She just doesn't have the juice. Edwards went on and on. All right man, you were doing good for the first four minutes. I didn't hear Romney because he chose to go on at the same time as Huckabee.

From what I can tell, FOX chose to show him rather than Huckabee, even though he was the loser. HA! Good political move for Romney, since his people likely watch Fox.

I don't know if Obama has the wisdom to make the changes that I do believe America needs across the board--education, economy, foreign policy, energy, climate change. But I'm predicting tonight that he will not only be the Democratic candidate, but the next President.

The blog for my philosophy class

I have shown extraordinary restraint in the substitute assignment I have created for my philosophy class. I was away at a convention so had them talk on a blog to substitute for a missed class.

Peek in if you'd like:

http://www.iwuphilosophy.blogspot.com

Carmona's Surgeon General Testimony

Dr. Carmona, the outgoing Surgeon General, testified about a week ago before a Senate committee and indicated what I don't think any sane person finds surprising. He testified about the strong political interference by the Bush administration in what he was allowed to talk about during his tenure. Consultation with C. Everett Koop and other former Surgeon Generals confirmed that the level of interference was more than in any other administration for the last 30 years.

This is infuriating to me because, as a biblical scholar, I am well acquainted with non-specialists setting boundaries for truth on matters about which they are not competent to speak. Religion and politics both have a tendency to avoid the question of truth while shouting for truth louder than anyone else. Truth really doesn't care about such politics. An administration can issue a statement insisting that pigs can fly, but the truth doesn't care. Go ahead, throw them off the White House and we'll see.

I recognize the "truth" that post-modernism contributes to our culture--the need for science to be humbler than it has been in the past. But what we are witnessing is an immense surge in pre-modern ignorance, hosted by this administration's political maneuverings. I know I may find myself making the same comments about some far left administration voted in in over-reaction to this one. But I'll at least enjoy the justice of reversal for the first week--then Hades will begin, pay back for an administration that has listened to no one but itself.

Also begun last week I believe was the confirmation hearings of Jim Holsinger, a good man who is on the Board of Trustees at Asbury. I feel sorry for him. He is a really nice person whom I'm afraid Washington will eat alive. He will try to do what he thinks is right. In fact, his submission to God may actually lead him into conflict with conservative politics. He will live by the two great commandments over fundamentalist Christian "values." If politics and his God ever come into conflict, he will serve God rather than Cheney.

His theology I suspect is straight down the line conservative evangelical, which is why he is being appointed. I love the man. I would say he has most of the qualities needed for the job--a doctor who loves people and wants to help the nation. What he may lack is the pure pursuit of scientific objectivity.

What Dan Rather and John Gibson Have in Common

We all remember when Dan Rather didn't do his homework on Bush just before the election. He was then still anchor at CBS and irresponsibly aired a story about Bush being AWOL during the Vietnam War. They toasted him for it, and eventually he had to leave off being anchor.

Well, we have the first instance of it in this election. First Steve Doocy of Fox News reported that Baruch Obama had spent the first decade of his life raised by a Muslim father. This itself was a garbled version of the original article in Insight, claiming that Hilary Clinton's camp had found out that Obama had attended a madrassa or fundamentalist Muslim school during the time his mother and step-father lived in Indonesia in the 60's. Double whammy--get Clinton and Obama in one swoop.

Then Gibson repeated it on his program, still without doing his homework.

It turns out that Doocy, Insight, and Gibson were skewed on several points. Obama had only met his father once in his life, and he was an atheist. CNN actually did their homework and contacted the school, which apparently was no different from any other "public" school in Indonesia at the time.

But in the end, none of this matters in the slightest. Obama had a conversion experience in his 20's. He was only 6 at the time he was in Indonesia.

Gibson has not apologized for getting his facts wrong. Doocy at least made some correction.

I am quite comfortable with my sense of bias among the media. Fox clearly leans to the right. Even here, I respect some more than others. O'Reilly, bless his soul, is arrogant and clearly has a right inclination, but I do believe he is honest. I can't think of anyone at Fox who leans to the "liberal."

There are clearly those who lean left at CNN and MSNBC. Keith Olbermann immediately focuses on the negative of any speech Bush makes. He is a kind of left version of O'Reilly. He's honest, but clearly has a "liberal" inclination. But frankly, I can't think of anyone at MSNBC who is as skewed liberal as, say, Anne Colter or Rush Lindbaugh is to the right. And I don't see how anyone sane can really consider Joe Scarborough a liberal. He regularly features Pat Buchanan and vigorously supported the Iraq War.

My favorite media people are those that really seem to try to listen to both sides--and who really seem to listen. I can't think of any of the main reporters for NPR who wouldn't fit in this category, although clearly some of the side program hosts are liberal. I consider Chris Matthews of this sort. His brother holds local Republican office and I honestly couldn't figure out during the election whether he was Republican or Democrat.

And certainly Tim Russert is so fascinated as an observer that I have no idea what his views are. I mean this as a compliment--he is so nerdily fascinated to watch the politics that who knows what he thinks!

Is David Greggory a liberal, like Snow and Fox have accused? I don't know if he is, but there is a point where the data is so clear that a person would have to be skewed even to give time to some possibilities. When the MSNBC correspondant says that the manner of Saddam's death has caused a big PR among Iraqis, isn't it possible that there is no bias here? What if it is so obvious to someone on the ground in Iraq that it would be skewed to pretend the other is even a possibility?

Mid-term elections

It is my opinion that we are witnessing pay back. This mid-term election is not about the Democrats. It's about the Republicans. It's about a hubris that thought it could do anything it wanted without having to listen to the other side. It's about riding the wave of unbridled nationalism after 9-11 that gave the Bush administration and all the most radical right wingers a blank check without fear of recrimination...

Until now. The Republicans are going to lose this election big time in the House and they may just lose the Senate as well. The truth about Bush's foreign policy is now inescapable. Any who are still holding out can wait a year to reread this post. They'll agree with me then.

"How have the mighty fallen," we will say on the evening of November 7. Humility was what was needed. A willingness to listen to those disempowered. Instead the Congress and president did whatever they pleased and ignored the other side.

This is justice and it doesn't care whether we're looking at Republicans or Democrats.