Paranoid Belief

The scientific community does not exist or set out each day to prove religion wrong. The religious community acts as though it does precisely that. Similarly a typical scientist does not set out to prove that he is right. The goal is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. When scientists founded a field to study rocks and the earth’s strata their purpose was to gain knowledge about our planet. If we can reveal facts about the Earth’s history by studying sedimentation layers perhaps we can answer questions about where we came from, what our planet was like in days long past and more importantly, where it may be headed. The life sciences allow us to learn more about the history of life and death. A deepened understanding of both has enabled us to live longer, happier and healthier lives. The space sciences tell us about the origins of our planet and its ultimate fate and have provided countless technological advancements benefitting us all.

Running parallel to the primary endeavors of these and nearly every other branch of science are residual observations and discoveries. You see, sometimes in pursuit of one bit, you may find an entirely different bit. These secondary observations often address questions more compelling and often more critical than those on the primary track. Even more beautiful than unexpected knowledge is the discovery that seemingly unrelated bits of information and entire bodies of knowledge can become unified by corroborating the findings of one another. Although a troublesome fact for some, the planetary sciences, life sciences, earth sciences and social sciences are unified. Evolution and the evolutionary sciences provide support to and gain support from all of them. There is great beauty and strength in how each of them intertwines to provide an integrated view of who we are. For evolution not to be a fact, you would need to disprove all that we know about our planet’s history, our medicine, our biology, our genetics and countless other varieties of science and knowledge. There is real convergence. The entire body of scientific evidence points exactly to what you would expect if life was not created by a divine and watchful creator from a revealed text, but is instead a result of an entirely unfeeling, unguided series of evolved chances over unthinkably enormous amounts of time. Recognizing and understanding how evolution works allows us, through the intersections with various branches of science, to cure disease, improve our food, preserve species and begin to know a little about who we are.

The sciences move along quite innocently, in oblivion to religion and other dogma. There is nothing that should be exempt from study and no knowledge that cannot be pursued. The search for knowledge moves us forward. The search for knowledge may be what defines us as human.

Religions around the globe and uninterrupted in time find great threat in the ways of science. Science has a history of knocking down previously unrelenting walls of religious “knowledge”. Quite accidentally, religious foundations have been eroded by the constant abrasion from the strong flow of science. Nearly as long as this has been happening, theists have been on the defensive. In a world where we all utilize science in our every-day lives we have become accustomed to a reliance on science to keep us healthy and happy. Theists know this but still they deny.

Religious bodies historically do all they can to destroy and discredit knowledge gained from the scientific process when it discredits once held religious truths. I have found it odd that these theists set out each day to fight a war that only they are aware of. Science generally does not set out to prove religion wrong. There is deep paranoia in thinking that you are targeted when in fact you are not. I liken it to the animals I come across while running in a nearby nature preserve. The rabbits, birds and squirrels are convinced that I am there to eat them. They stop their pursuit of food and sex to deal with my advancements. Of course I intend no harm. I simply run a trail; usually unaware of their presence.

And so it goes with science and religion. One side sets out to advance the world through knowledge, and the other to retard it. One side operating innocently and unfettered by dogma, and the other convinced that they are conspired against.

What Do You Know?

I just came upon this chapter from my 2nd book, Reason For Life. I liked it.

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.
~Jules Renard


Yesterday a friend, in reference to my overt atheism, asked what evidence it would take for me to change my mind, to recognize or admit that there is a god. My beer and I gave a flippant one or two sentence answer not unlike other responses to the same question that I have given numerous times in the past but that I cannot recall right now. I suppose I have been asked that question or pondered it with friends at least a hundred times in my life. I do not think that my reflection is unusual. In fact, everyone on earth with full or nearly full cognitive ability has confronted that question in one form or another at least a few times.

The devout normally set the evidence bar extraordinarily low. Billions of people see sufficient evidence in such things as a successful pregnancy, a car accident that kills only half of the occupants, a timely “B” on a report card or success on the battlefield. These individuals, as author Christopher Hitchens keenly observes, make the incredibly self centered assumption that the universe is somehow here to accommodate them and that their creator is directly interested in their particular situations and well-being. These believers, I think, make up the majority of humans today. They seek to prove or justify their otherwise credulous position of faith in one of the revealed religions and what has been termed a personal god. These are defending the books, tablets, plates or whatever communication method their favorite god chose to use to spread the word slowly to literate humans.

This raises the question of why these gods do not appear to be interested in communicating with the illiterate, pre-literate or even blind. After all, early Homo sapiens, thousands of years before written communication, must have pondered existence, life and death to some degree—maybe even with the same clarity as you and I. Does god think that non-readers do not need to experience first hand the glory of his word? I can now only assume that god hates non-readers.
There is another category of believer that may not seek confirmation of a sacred text but instead looks to confirm or deny the existence of a general creator, designer or “first causer”. These folks too often see all the evidence they need in the beauty of a sunrise, the astonishing variety of life or the simple fact that they are here with anything at all to ponder. This, in my opinion, is a more defensible position than trying to defend sacred texts. The trouble with this perspective is that it is limited by the capabilities of the evolved human mind and concedes nothing beyond our contemplative powers. Humans like to follow the links in a chain of events one by one until they get to the first link. Unfortunately in this quest the human brain only take us back so far before we encounter barriers wrought with mystery. We cannot see the first link-- probably because of barriers in our own human brain. What humans tend to do in situations like this is make extrapolations and assumptions based on analogy. Within the constraints of the human mind the only assumption many can make is that if “something” is here as opposed to “nothing”, then that something must have been created by someone (almost universally thought of in terms of a human male). These answer seekers are happy to stop there but the problem lies in their failure to ask the same question concerning the creator of their creator. See, it never ends. If you feel like every “thing” needs a prior thing to create it, each answer simply creates one more question and subsequently no real answer at all.

Clearly there is some explanation somewhere for existence. I feel that the explanation could very likely be well beyond the contemplation possible within our brains. Your dog “knows” that at certain times of year it is very cold outside and that inside is the place to be. The dog cannot begin to fathom even the simplest concepts of insulation or home heating systems and will never be able to even with the most concentrated training. It is silly to even imagine a dog trying to imagine such things. I think that for now it is similarly silly to imagine a human trying to contemplate the root of existence. Ok, if I don’t think we can find these proofs on our own, what sort of revealed proof do I think would suffice for me?

Since I have already shown this to actually be either one of two questions, I will try to answer them both separately. First, what would I consider to be proof of a god as revealed in one of the so-called revealed texts? This is the version of the question that most people really mean to ask. My short answer would be absolute peace and prosperity on earth for one day. No death, no war, no suffering. Everyone and everything on earth has a successful day. Additionally, whatever god this is has to clearly state to every man woman and child which revealed text is the revealed text. They should also give us some time to ask some questions and get some points clarified once and for all. I would also like a quick explanation of the need for so much injustice and suffering on earth. These do not seem like particularly lofty or unusual demands.
Incidentally, when I read the previous paragraph, well after I wrote it, I came to the realization that what I have asked for as proof corresponds pretty nicely with what most religions describe as heaven. I find it interesting that the state which I and most humans would describe as ideal in human terms is indeed the state that is promised to us upon death. Wouldn’t a “real” heaven consist of pleasures and niceties that could only be described by a deity and not made up by any human longing for posterity? Wouldn’t the sacred texts tell us that we are promised to know all digits of pi or something that would include super knowledge? How about a promise to explain to us the origins of the universe—even if that is simply a short tutorial on how god did it? Wouldn’t that be interesting?

There is still another problem with the heaven on earth request. When you think a little about it, it is very human centric. See, humans need lots of things to die each day to have successful human days. Imagine a 24 hour period when all bacteria, viruses, insects and human parasites are allowed to flourish. With some more reflection I am sure I could easily think of a long list of catastrophic consequences should everything on earth flourish absolutely for 1 day. Such a day, while very positive for these non-human entities, would lead to horrible consequences when things got back to normal the next day. What I guess I was really asking for is a day when humans are successful--everything else be damned. This, it turns out, is a very selfish position that assumes, once again, that the revealed god is interested only in human well-being. It is almost as though the current situation of Darwinian natural selection and survival of the fittest is the most equitable, non-judgmental system for maintaining life’s balance. It is perfect. What we have already, in a very real sense, is heaven on earth.

The second kind of proof I have identified is that of a first cause or other creator not of the revealed texts. Although this is not the spirit of the question that most people intend to ask, this is the one that likely has an answer somewhere. Honestly, I am not sure if “proof” is the correct word here. Sure, it seems that somewhere there is an answer for the question of how it all began. Proof would normally imply evidence to confirm or deny. Since we cannot reasonably deny that we are here, I am not really looking for proof. I am looking for the how rather than the if. This question does not require religious divinity or adherence to any sacred text in its answer. The fact that this question is more likely to have an answer does not make it easier for me to speculate that answer. Perhaps the question is answered only after thousands or millions of years of study by intelligent beings like humans. Perhaps the answer is in mathematical research or space travel far in our future should we survive sufficiently long enough to find it. Maybe there is no answer because there is no question. Humans assume that there should be “nothing” and that an act had to occur to have “something”. Why should it be that a state which contains “something” is less likely or less natural than a state which contains “nothing”? Can’t a state of “somethingness” be the base state with the unasked question of why there is nothing?

Whatever the reality, we should continue to follow the links in the chain backward and continue to ask the question until we find the answer or find the question not relevant. We must keep looking. Research and discovery has served mankind very well up to this point. It is not yet time to give up. I know one thing for sure; it does us no good to dismiss the question at this infant stage of human inquiry or to pretend that a pope or ayatollah has the answer.

Are You Designed?

Occasionally I receive emails and posts from people asking me to consider "new" arguments in favor of their particular god. Evidences range from scriptures to current events to personal visions. These days, and over roughly the last 10 years, I can count on "intelligent design" (ID) discoveries making their way into my in-box. In a way I can appreciate some of the submitters as they attempt to use critical thought and reason to defend their position. Among the many possible theories put forth, this one stands nearly alone in its attempt to appear scientific. Still, I am not sorry to say, it is a childish defense of the defenseless. The volumes published in support of ID have been exhaustively discredited by the scientific community using the exact same techniques used to cure disease and send spaceships beyond our solar system.

I received another one today from a Facebook friend. In homage to my friend and the first ID submittal of September 2009 I reprint here a chapter from my 2005 book Damned If I Do...Damned If I Don't.

"It was very nice of our loving Designer to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases He designed."
~Steven Reuland

There is a bit of a struggle emerging between religion and science over what should be taught to our children attending public schools. The fact that there is such a struggle is not surprising or new and either is the subject. Theists are proposing that a new theory on how we got here is allowed equal time with accepted scientific subjects in our schools. The latest theory that theists put forth is called Intelligent Design (ID). Essentially ID says that life is too complex to have started and evolved without the help of a supernatural, intelligent designer. Because of the historical troubles that theists have had in getting their religious views advanced in our public schools, ID proponents are careful to refer to it as a scientific theory rather than a religious belief. Of course though, religion is at the heart of the matter. ID proponents don’t want just any old designer myth taught in schools, they only want theirs. In this case “theirs” is Christianity.

ID has been around at least since ancient Greece, perhaps unnamed or named something else but present nonetheless. It was marginally popularized in Anglican archdeacon William Paley’s 1802 book “Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Diety”. This is the book that described a watch being obviously designed by a watchmaker; a concept refuted beautifully by Richard Dawkins in his 1996 book “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design”.

Ultimately ID is the crux of all religion. God did it. God made it. God started it all. No proof required. End of argument. If ID is not a new theory you may wonder why we are hearing so much about it lately. As I said, it is merely another ploy in a centuries long list of ploys to get Christianity taught in the mainstream, and in this case, taught in all public schools to all school children. A secondary appeal is, I think, much more interesting, and much more bothersome. ID is just what the doctor ordered for the more intellectually minded theist. These folks have been itching for something to help them resolve the conflict between their rational, intellectual side, and their irrational, myth believing side. To them ID smells and looks enough like science to make them feel as though their views are justified and thoughtful. They’re not looking very closely at the issue and they don’t intend to. As a rule, religion asks you not to look too deeply. To advance their pseudo science they find a smooth talking preacher to spin some official sounding phrases and deliver them to the huddled masses. These churchgoers are at once delighted that this really smart fella in a nice suit has figured out how god did it. He must be right because he even uses big, official sounding science words.

Of course, ID is not testable and therefore simply not science. It is the age old explanation used by theists to explain things they do not understand. From why the drought damaged the crops to why the Sun appears to move across the sky each day---god did it. People have used this easy out for ages to keep from have to work on searching for the truth. What happens when you ask them how ID happened or how it works? No answer. How about the question of who designed the designer? Usually no answer on that one either but if you get one it is likely to be the boilerplate response that god didn’t need a designer or creator because he’s always been there. That’s creationism, and that’s religion. They may even tell you that this is not a matter for science but for religion. You may be told that religion and science do not conflict in answering such import questions because they are mutually exclusive and do not seek to answer the same questions. Don’t fall for that disarmament tactic. This cop out must make theists feel good about the role of religion but it is an incorrect and cowardly position. Religion and science do play in exactly the same space—the space of life. Religion has always tried to answer questions of biology, astronomy and cosmology but has forever gotten it wrong.

Aside from being yet another untestable proposition from theists, ID proposes some inherently flawed suppositions and arguments. For example, why would a god “design in” all of the imperfections observed in biology today (see “The Panda’s Thumb” by Stephen Jay Gould)? In a 2000 article entitled “Intelligent Design Coming Clean” William Dembski, the apparent modern day ID torch bearer, says that all engineering and design is a compromise and therefore results in the suboptimal. What a cop out. We’re not talking about automobile door hinges being designed in Detroit; we’re talking about a supernatural deity designing a universe.
Perhaps the most flawed and fundamental supposition is the oft cited “Irreducible Complexity”. This flawed argument was used by Paley when he discussed the eye and plays well to the modern ID contingent. Paley and his ID teammates state that an eye is a highly complex machine consisting of many interwoven and dependant parts. No argument from me here. They go on to say that you cannot remove any part of an eye and still have a functioning eye. In other words, what good is part of an eye? It is here where they aren’t thinking clearly. This basic incorrect assumption has been refuted over and over again but I will give you my quick summary. In an adaptive evolutionary system, an eye, like any other entity, evolves over time. In this evolution that leads to what we call an eye (still evolving), the organ likely serves many different but related purposes. It seems quite natural that in a world (the Earth) powered by a star we call the Sun, primitive organisms would evolve ways to detect its presence and absorb its energy. Certainly we can imagine that an organism powered by the Sun would benefit from being able to detect it. A single cell on the surface of this organism, by chance mutated to be light sensitive, would give it an advantage in seeking out the life sustaining light of the Sun. Clusters of such cells would be even more beneficial by doing a better job of detection. Eventually this cluster could evolve to gather the sunlight and provide more detailed information to the brain about the intensity, direction, etc. This Sun-powered organism would be in a position of advantage over another Sun-powered organism that could not detect light at all or as well. Eventually, over eons, you have a Sun detecting organ that is sufficiently formed into what we call an eye. Certainly removing any single piece of this evolved light seeking organ would result in a less capable or even incapable organ but such a reverse engineering exercise is not relevant in the evolutionary process. We have observed many eyes in many beings and know that this ability to detect light has evolved separately in many different ways with the same basic ability to detect light.

Darwin’s Theory can indeed account for the complexity that we observe in nature. We know how it works. We see it work. It does add up. There is no need for supernatural explanations when we have a perfectly observable explanation already.

Why are theists afraid of science, scientists and the scientific method? I guess a better question is why don’t they trust science when it comes to matters of early life history or early human history? All but a very few lunatics trust their own lives to science every day even if they don’t deeply understand their interactions with the world around them. Millions board airplanes each year with no argument to the contrary that the enormous aircraft will get airborne, climb to 30,000 feet, fly at 500 mph, navigate a featureless ocean and arrive at their destination, perhaps 10,000 miles from their departure point, within minutes of the estimated time of arrival. Most people on board that aircraft couldn’t fully comprehend the technology, developed using the scientific method, required to make the aircraft’s toilet flush. Most certainly don’t understand aerodynamics, jet propulsion, radar, or GPS navigation. Still, they are entirely willing to trust that experts do understand this stuff and that they will arrive safely at their destination. If you want to know how an airplane flies you are free to discover aerodynamics for yourself by reading all of the text produced over the years and refined by scientists. The information is available to you whether your intention is to understand it or refute it. Such cannot be said of religion or ID.

Most theists don’t really know how the light and heat gets from wherever it comes from to their homes. Regardless they will flip on that light switch and turn up the thermostat for a cozy evening of bible reading.

Despite what the bible says the Earth is not the center of the universe. Back in the day, heads rolled for stating otherwise. So why the disconnect and mistrust? Why won’t theists open their eyes and see that whenever religion and science go head to head in search of truth science always prevails? The scientific method and indeed the human ego guarantee that scientists are forever seeking out new evidence and new answers. It is a self correcting mechanism sure to always bring us closer to the truth through hypothesizing, testing and observing. It works and we all live by it whether or not we know it or want to.

Do theists know that all of the natural sciences independently converge to support the age of the earth and the validity of evolutionary theory? If any of the sciences had one iota of evidence disproving evolution a new path would be forged and a new explanation for the existence and variety of life on earth would be sought. If you want to understand or refute evolution, jump right into any of the applicable sciences and start digging. There you’ll find years of evidence behind you and years of discovery in front of you. All that is needed to find something new and unknown is a keen eye, a sharp mind and a perspective uncluttered by the debilitating effects of myth.

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol died this week. Here's a timely quote from the man often regarded as the founder of neo-conservatism.

“The idea of building socialism with the common man who actually existed — as distinct from his idealized version — was sheer fantasy, and therefore the prospects for ‘democratic socialism’ were nil.”

Marriage Hocus-Pucus

I have an acquaintance that is a Presbyterian “pastor”. Pretty obviously I do not know him from his place of business, but instead from regular weekend recreational gatherings. In our little Saturday morning group, most of us know each other’s occupations and professions. This past weekend during the usual idle chatting he said that he has been particularly busy lately. It seems that he has lots of weddings to conduct and prepare for. You see, he not only performs the unnecessary but common religious wedding ceremony, but also the obligatory pre-wedding marriage counseling. I say obligatory because he revealed that all religious institutions in my county have signed an agreement that such counseling is mandatory for every aspiring couple. Apparently if you live in Porter County you cannot walk down the aisle until you discuss your intentions with a man of the lord. It may be of particular interest to you that I too am an official, fully legal, recognized, ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. You too can step into this privileged class for free by contacting them on their web site. In the eyes of the U.S. Government my religious credentials are no different than my Presbyterian friend’s, Jessie Jackson’s or indeed the Pope’s.

Back to the marriage counseling. I am generally not at all a fan of counseling of any type. I suppose that some of it in some circumstances can help people though some difficult situations. Still, it is too touchy-feely and imprecise for my liking. The whole racket is even less palatable to me when the “ordained” get their hands in the psychology business. Maybe it is because I know this particular clergyman personally, but I don’t think so. From what I can tell he is an intelligent, thoughtful and nice enough guy. Still, my sense of right and wrong was offended when I heard him say that he is considering calling off or delaying a marriage because he found out that the prospective bride had failed to discuss her financial inheritance during their sessions. Her fiancée knew about it—that wasn’t the problem. He was upset because he didn’t know about it. He should be mad at the almighty for not telling him. God has probably been busy too. I don’t find him any less qualified than the average pastor on the street. See, he is exactly like all of them—human and nothing more than human. No closer to divinity. No closer to perfection. No more enlightened on the vastly complex matter of love and marriage. I would argue no more qualified than anyone else, especially those that he counsels, to judge a proper or improper marriage. The factors that predict a successful marriage, and I’ll bet that there are some, would be best run through a statistical computer program with the go/no-go result delivered to the awaiting couple. Even then you probably don’t have all of the information you need. The only two people that really know the real truth about the relationship and the potential marriage are the two preparing to enter the marriage.

I can’t think of a better word than “appalled” for how I felt as I listened to this common discuss his duty as a man of religion to pass judgment on couples in love. I kept my mouth shut at the time, but I was simply appalled by the very thought of this mortal passing judgment over no less mortals on such an important, complex and often utterly unpredictable matter. What, besides some hocus-pocus church “law” mandating counseling, makes people accept this as a right of passage? Is it this man’s imaginary divinity, or proximity to divinity, that makes this sham palatable? This unquestioned religious privilege provides the cover for mortals to exercise such absolute control. Not only is it a nice power trip for the authorities but it is no doubt a source of financial reward. Churches rely in large part on handouts or donations to provide income for the elders. Long ago the smart ones added what can appear to be actual customer services to their list of ways to make money. In this case you get genuine marriage preparation whether you want it or not.

As you may imagine there are many scientific studies available that reveal the truth about the likelihood of couples staying married or getting a divorce. Our clergy friends would be best served by having couples fill out a simple demographic survey and then running the numbers through very simple calculations. Violla! You’ve got a scientific likelihood of marital success tailor made for each couple.

Consider some of these scientific observations on marriage and divorce:

Multiple studies show that children of divorce are twice as likely to get divorced than those from intact marriages.

Many studies show significant variation among all states in our union. Should we move to ban marriage by geography?

Many studies show that blacks get divorced at higher rates than whites and Asians respectively in the United States. Should we ban marriages based on race?

Some new studies have shown as much as a 53% increased risk of divorce for smokers.

An article Slate magazine shows that parents of girls are nearly 5% more likely to divorce than parents of boys.

The National Center for Health Statistics found that nearly half of all marriages in which the bride is 18 or younger end in separation or divorce within 10 years. For brides 25 years and older, only half as many marriages end up broken.

How do religious beliefs factor? One study shows these divorce rates: Jews-30%, Born Again Christians-27%, other Christians-24% and atheists only 21%. Should the religious be prohibited to marry? Maybe only Jews? Come on—be serious.

Look at some of the most recent findings from the highly regarded Barna Group study:

The highest-divorce groups (per marriage):
Downscale adults (39%) [i.e. income <$20,000, no college]
Baby Boomers (38%)
Members of non-Christian faiths (38%)
Self-described social and political liberals (37%)
African-Americans (36%)

The least-divorced groups (per marriage):
Asians (20%)
Upscale adults (22%) [i.e. income >$75,000, college grads]
Evangelicals (26%)
Alcoholics (28%)
Self-described social and political conservatives (28%)

What to do about these numbers? Should all individuals falling into a highest likelihood category be denied marriage while all in the lowest likelihood demographics group marry freely? Of course not. But, if you are serious about a body like the clergy, or the government, or the Frank Cress Marriage Judgment Organization allowing or disallowing marriages, you should approve of basing decisions on sound input and actual, observed behavioral patterns and social science statistics.

I do not advocate the application of these statistics in marriage decision making. Although it would be better than the hocus-pocus the clergy pulls off, it still doesn’t take into account the myriad of subtle factors that accumulate to determine the ultimate fate. Today we are unable to capture those in even our most thorough and professional attempts and utilizing cutting edge statistical correlation techniques. What’s more is that passing such judgement is not consistent with the freedom that most of us still value.

I don’t even approve of parents or siblings getting involved in the important decision choosing or sanctioning a mate. Sure, you can discuss your plans with your friends and family. You can weigh their thoughts and observations against what you feel and know to be reality in your relationship. No harm there. I have never understood people that fret over what their parents or brothers and sisters may think about their decision to marry. There is almost nothing more personal in one’s life, other than matters of life and death or children, than the decision to spend YOUR life with another person. Make that decision on your own. Be honest with yourself and with one another and choose the right patch. Please stay out of other people’s very private and very important business.

Rich Man, Poor Man

There will be rich, and there will be poor. History shows us, no matter how you govern or how you distribute assets, some will not be good at being governed and some will squander assets.

It could be strongly argued that United States citizenship is an asset. Citizenship is a coveted distinction. Millions from all points of the globe come here to reap the benefits of U.S. citizenship. Freedom, equality, peace and opportunity await those that can become Americans. These desirable societal traits are in short supply throughout the rest of the planet. Certainly citizenship in certain other countries is an asset as well, but U.S. citizenship is the overwhelming favorite prize.

Many people in possession of the U.S. citizenship asset have squandered it to a point where some of the significant value to them has been erased. “Compulsory” educations have been squandered by those that drop out prior to graduation. This mistake early in a life creates a bleak picture and stacks the deck against future success. Still there are more opportunities within your reach. Second chance education programs, financed completely or in part by government or private programs willing to give you a nudge, abound. If that isn’t enough, there is a thriving economy oblivious to your educational background awaiting your participation. In my fifth decade of life I never cease to be amazed at the number of ways to make a living in this country, indeed the world. There are countless ways to secure food, clothing, shelter and health care. Opportunities await even those unwilling to take the traditional route.

If you fail to seize any of this precious opportunity awaiting you as a U.S. citizen you have failed to live up to your part of the American deal. You have squandered on of the most fundamental and unappreciated assets of all—citizenship in the United States of America. A system with any public assets requires contribution from all. If the input/output model is lopsided we are destined for doom. You cannot continue to pour gasoline into a leaky tank and at the same time continue to increase the size of the leak.

One can live an entire life in ignorant to the opportunities availed them and blissfully unaware of the impending collapse they help to ensure. Is it fair to allow your repeated reluctance to seize opportunity to be a burden to the rest of society?

Green With Remorse

Reduction of our dependency on foreign energy is aspired to on both sides of the aisle. Both parties find this to be an appreciable goal, if for different reasons. What are the motives for each party though? The Right understands the market, economic and national security effects of becoming more energy independent. We should utilize domestic energy sources, to include expansion of our ability to produce oil at home, and the rest of the world can begin to search for other consumers and customers. When I say "the rest of the world" I primarily mean the Middle East. I am certainly right-biased on this topic. I would love nothing more than to pull the economic pacifier out of that region. As I have written elsewhere, the Middle East won the geographic lottery of the mid 20th century by sitting atop stores of natural resources craved by thriving nations with thriving economies. The West had a burgeoning need and literally taught these underdeveloped nations how to meet that need. Sure, Western oil companies profited, but the rags to riches story in those desert lands is probably unsurpassed in history.

This good fortune could end as quickly as it started. Without Western dependence the Middle East will have to learn to play well with others and find another way to raise capital or face great economic and resultant social peril. Based upon what I've seen out of the region over the last 50 years I do not hold much hope. Even with the energy good based fortune they have received they have arguably done a poor job of maintaining effective economies and governments. Imagine that region with 30 percent less money. 50 percent? 75 percent? Not pretty.

The matter of dependence is sort of interesting in this case. Though it is said that we are dependent on them, I think that it is in truth quite the opposite. Face it-if we had to get all of our energy tomorrow from regions outside of the Middle East for some reason (nuclear war?) we could recover fairly quickly. We could ramp up our own oil production and continue alternate resources. A quick change like this would absolutely cause us some grief, but we could, over a relatively short period of time, adapt, innovate and advance. I do not think the picture in the Middle East is quite as optimistic in reciprocal. If we reduce our consumption of their oil by 100 percent tomorrow the Middle East would without doubt be in for great trouble. The region has not shown a great propensity for innovation. I sincerely doubt that they would find some other natural resource fancied by the West. Given their current societal misgivings, I also doubt that they would find a way to scratch some other global itch in the realms of technology, manufacturing, service or elsewhere.

Fortunately for me, I do not lose sleep over the artificial and perilous economic conditions of those nations. Such is the game of global existence. Learn to be self sufficient or learn to produce enough of what the rest of the world will pay for, or face the consequences of being left out of the game. Another important characteristic that I think is currently missing in the Middle East is tolerance. There is a great deal of religious based intolerance in the region that will make it difficult to seek and maintain the global relationships necessary to thrive in global economies. It is all about global marketing. I think this is the generally accepted position of right-thinkers and capitalists.


Not so on theLeft, I'm afraid. What does keep me up at night is something I do not see in any political dialog anywhere. How would the Western political left respond to such a global reality? Who do you think the Left would blame if over the next few decades the Middle East had an economic and societal collapse on a heretofore unseen scale? I am quite sure that the "hate America" Left would blame any adverse conditions based on reduced American dependence on foreign energy squarely and comfortably upon our own shoulders. Unquestionably they would see it as our fault for stopping the influx of money. What would the Left propose as a solution? I am not exactly sure of the detail, but I am sure that it will cost us money. How could the left sit back and watch other nations fall into disrepair knowing that we had once sustained them? They could not.

So, if the left gets their wish for us to get green or whatever tactic moves us away from foreign oil they will immediately demand reparations and sustainment. For our cruel abandonment of these nations we would owe them decades or centuries of alimentation. Now we would give them money, not in return for valuable energy resources as we had once done, but for nothing. If not for nothing, for the peace of mind of leftists everywhere. Don't think it can't happen.

Selfish Politics

The Obama administration's tactics are working. They are fooling Americans, or at least preying upon human tendencies for self-preservation. I find that the tactics have even fooled me from time to time. Every other day it seems we hear about a new tax or "surtax" or whatever being levied upon "only the highest wage earners." When I come upon such a story, the first thing I do is read or listen closely to see if the new tax applies to me or someone else. So far references to these high wage earners have not included me, and I feel lucky.

There in lies the problem. The Obama administration's policy is wrong and harmful whether I am directly and promptly penalized or not. Like many Americans I have begun to personalize this struggle between socialism and capitalism. There is a tendency to take a very short term and selfish view of "what it means to me" or "how much will it cost me next year?" Sane enough considerations, I suppose, but it cannot stop there. Narrow minded and nearsighted thinking are not effective ingredients for sound social decisions. If this is the best I can do, I am no better than the mendicants licking their chops in wait for the next Obama handout.

Still, perhaps it is too much to expect individuals to consistently consider long term benefit over short term self-indulgence. How many among us could put aside personal well-being for the long term benefit of society? Many on the left claim to represent such interests. In fact those interests are said to be the advantage of the socialism to which they aspire. Those that believe this bunk are still thinking much to selfishly. That socialism offers comfort to some for a short period before arduous collapse is a too often and well visited fact.

We all, myself included, need to see past the headlines and past our own immediate interests if we seek to preserve the United States.

Time and Weather

It is a nice spring day in northern Indiana today. There are many animals running around my yard enjoying the weather and feeding on all that the spring rains have provided for them. The 2 hawks in the neighborhood are making a hell of a racket. It got me to thinking that the days are past when humanity's success was directly connected to weather. Sure, we're still connected but it doesn't seem to be like it was even a couple hundred years ago. Back then a nice wet spring meant abundant crops and healthy animals to hunt. A family, town, state or nation was in for good times when mother nature cooperated. Cooperative weather almost guaranteed a successful year. Today we can run along just fine through good weather and bad. A strong crop means a break at the grocery store for some of our food. A weak crop means we eat something else.

Northern Indiana is going through hard times. High unemployment and home foreclosures pretty much reflect the situation in rest of the country. The wildlife is oblivious.

A Thought

Liberals support the troops, just not when they fight wars. I support Barack Hussein Obama, just not when he is in charge of anything.

Government Entrapment and The Blame Game

For at least the last 8 years republican administrations have caved under pressure from the left in almost all aspects of government. The party demonized of late for divisiveness and insensitivity has proven to be the true party of unity. The Republican Party has actually moved further to the left than at any stage in our history (or at least in my observation of history). A general migration from right to left has been the norm since the founding of our great nation. This is a compromise of conservative values with concession to liberal values. Those of us self-labeled conservatives are so labeled because we aim to preserve governmental and societal ideals. As I have discussed elsewhere, there is no question that our nation has benefitted from abandonment of some convention. Still the need to retain what is best and foundational to our democracy is of primary import.

In the struggle to conserve knowing what to abandon and what to hold steady is the tricky part. Sometimes our desire for movement lets us fall prey to any movement disguised as progress no matter the surety of impending harm. Sometimes conservatives stray from their ideals not because of ignorance, but because of fatigue. You get tired of the name calling in the popular media and the public scorn when you buy a Ford pickup instead of a Toyota Prius. Even those that should know better often get fooled by rhetoric from the left. Even those that understand the damage being done can lose their resolve and with it their willingness to put up a fight. No matter what we do to appease the left we either move too little or too slowly for liking. And we can always take comfort in knowing that despite our caution, despite our warnings, despite our sense of right and wrong, whatever ill befalls any nation on earth will be blamed on us. We did not preempt. We did not rescue. We did not give enough money.

Despite the accusations, the Republican Party has been in a very real and measurable way the party of unity. In contrast have you ever seen a democratic administration lean toward a more traditional conservative approach to government? Have you ever seen them move toward smaller government? Have you ever seen them move further away from socialism rather than toward it? Of course you have not. The movement of the pendulum has long been right to left. For unity’s sake we continued Clinton era gross social program spending. We made some cuts, but not as much as real conservatives would have liked. For unity’s sake we agreed to bail out banks, beginning the process or nationalization, against our better advisement. For unity’s sake we walked on eggshells in the “war on terror.” Our military became a nation building force on more or less a Red Cross mission for which we were not prepared and for which there is no reasonable end. For unity’s sake we gave affordable mortgages to our most unqualified and highest risk borrowers. Simple data mining and seat of the pants experience told us that these loans would not be repaid. Reality was ignored to appease the name-callers. Talk to someone today that lived through the last 10 years in the banking and mortgage industry.

Under the constant pressure from the left we walked with them toward their goals. It should come as no surprise that the repeated concessions to liberal scorn have weakened our nation. Upon exit and turnover to this democratic administration, republicans left behind a legacy continued big government and high spending, albeit not as high as most on the left would have liked. Now, without shame, the left blames republicans for the inherited deficit while at the same time plans to expand that deficit ten fold in the coming years. They essentially forced the Bush administration to accommodate leftist pursuits and expenditures then blamed them for leaving behind the inevitable mess. Not to say that republicans hold no responsibility for their actions. They should fully take the blame for taking the conservative high road and trying to bring unity. The right moved left at the behest of left. We’re told that we didn’t give enough ground. We are told that with even more spending and accommodation we could have avoided current economic crisis. It is like being invited to someone’s house for dinner and being arrested for trespassing after you eat their crappy food. This is even more troubling if you didn’t want to attend in the first place. My only hope is that after 8 years of Barack Hussein Obama’s socialist and apologist destruction, we are fed up enough to take back our country and swing the pendulum back toward the right and back toward the U.S. constitution.

Come On...Think About It

You can come up with all the opinion and expert statements you want that claim torture is not an effective means of bringing about desired behavior and/or eliciting confessions or information helpful to a war effort. The truth is that we all know it works because it works on all of us. We have all been coerced into giving information that we would not give initially. It is all a matter of degree. How much does one person want the information versus how much does the other person care about protecting that information. It is counter to human behavior to think that increases in pressure do not result in increases in desired behavior. It is beyond human. Make me uncomfortable and I’ll do almost anything you want me to and I’ll tell you almost anything you want me to. I know the leftists among you will capture the 2nd half of that last sentence and interpret it as “tell you almost any lie or anything you want to hear”. That simply doesn’t hold. You will do exactly what you are told to do. That is to say, in the case of POW torture, you will give the information that you have. It is Pavlovian. Good treatment, including a cessation of torture, awaits those that decide to give small bits of information.

You are a war captive. You are in a foreign land. You are away from your family and your mud hut. You are being tortured. You have noticed that the techniques today are less enjoyable than the ones they used yesterday. And yesterday’s more so than the previous day’s. You are told, and you trust, that this trend can continue. You are convinced that should you give false information, it can be easily falsifiable. You suspect that they know some of what they ask you—enough to corroborate what you tell them. You are now more uncomfortable and more frightened than you have been at any point in your life. You feel like your life is close to completion. All you can think of is that this must stop and how you must ensure that this does not happen again. Are you really going to give false information? Do you really want to face your captors after they found out that you gave them a false lead? You want to go home.

That it is still used world-wide is proof that it works. I gave that last sentence much thought before I wrote it. Could it be that torture is simply a fun thing to do for some people regardless of how effective it is? I found that to be unlikely. Investment in time and money to sustain a prisoner and engage personnel to select certain ones for intense long periods of interrogation would not be prudent for even the most imprudent war machines. Isolation and quick death are more likely treatments for worthless and hated captives. We torture because it works. We don’t talk about it because it works.

Torture is military business. Torture is an intelligence gathering technique. For this and other reasons, neither side of a torture scenario likes, or is legally allowed, to discuss the effectiveness of the methods. You will not find much disclosure of exactly what we do, how we do it, or how well it works. I spent the first 2 years of my nearly 12 years of U.S. Air Force active duty career with the Electronic Security Command (ESC). With the ESC I was deeply embedded in the intelligence world, working under the direction of the National Security Agency (NSA). That the ESC existed was not a secret (interestingly there is not even a wikipedia page). However, I cannot and will not tell you about the mission, means to accomplish that mission or how effectively that mission was accomplished. Later I was with Headquarters Air Force Special Operations for about 7 years. I could not prove to you today that anything I did or saw really happened nor would I attempt to. At the end of my military career I spent about 3 years at the Air Force Flight Test Center developing the B2 Stealth Bomber. Again, in the interest of national security, the details around what we did in that remote California desert are not open for discussion. It can cost American lives when you discuss national defense business. Loose lips sink ships. Disclosure of torture methods and accounts of their effectiveness are afforded the same Uniform Code of Military Justice protection.

The one perspective I see missing in the media frenzy over torture is recognition that our own troops have divulged information under duress at the hands of our enemies. Those that have endured torture at the hands of our enemies also don’t like to talk much about the goings on. Who can blame them? Repression of life’s most horrific experiences is a common human survival technique. I have heard accounts, some first hand, of American POWs that experienced torture while captive Japan, Germany, Korea and Vietnam. Occasionally there were feelings of deep guilt for having succumbed to torture. Our own prisoners gave information to their captors or abetted them by undermining their own position or relationships with fellow soldiers. American troops are human. They are not weaker than foreign military personnel. Torture works on us just like it works on our enemies. The tortured prisoner may not even know the damage done by divulged information at the time. Surely it is admissible that one would slipp and give a single name, a seemingly benign aircraft specification or capability, a flight takeoff time, landing time or duration, a weapon characteristic, or a simple tactic. Each of these by themselves does not seem like much harm. These bits when combined with equally mundane information gathered through electronic or other human intelligence methods can bring down an army.

Given the understandable unwillingness of military professionals to discuss such important matters, there are still allusions to their occurrence. Jennifer M. Board wrote in her Texas Tech University Thesis:

"the policy by 1971 was that we were encouraged to try and get ourselves in an environment where we could write a letter and encode a secret message, where we could get in front of a reporter who might be able to get something out," Jerry Singleton believes this "second line of defense" was necessary to guard against the overwhelming guilt that every prisoner experienced when he succumbed to torture.”

“During one session a new inmate, Lieutenant Gerald Coffee, expressed doubts about his ability to withstand the torture. Risner encouraged him to resist until he could resist no more. He assured Coffee that each prisoner experienced torture and understood the guilt that came with giving in to their captors. In the first months, Risner attempted to prepare the men for what he knew was ahead and give them the courage and the strength to withstand it. He encouraged a faith in God by saying, "Remember Jerry, our Lord will never ask us to endure more than we are able to endure."

"Prisoners would often slip into depression after torture, often because they were critical of their own performance after conceding to the Vietnamese."

There are even terms for those that resist successfully and those that do not. We have the Resisters and the Participators. I trust that we did not create an empty category called Participators.

As might be expected, the Resisters, approximately five percent of the prison population, faced the harshest treatment at the hands of their captors. Resisters were those prisoners who refiised to accept communist indoctrination and worked against their captors. During indoctrination sessions, Resisters earned the contempt of camp officials by stubbornly voicing resistance to the communist propaganda, and were isolated for intensive treatment.

Here Jennifer Board quoted a veteran:

“Throughout the thirty-two months that I was a prisoner things we discussed would invariably get out to our captors. It resulted in people getting mighty suspicious of one another and they broke up into little groups, going around together with people they thought they could trust and a lot of people came under suspicion and h turned into a pretty vicious thing, actually, before we got out of there.”

I do not mention the behavior of our own military personnel to cast them in a harsh light. I know we are the best trained military in the world. Torture works. I do not place an ounce of blame on our brave soldiers. We are human. Some very influential liberals have a very frustrating tendency to hold absurd positions that are counter-intuitive and entirely untrue. They throw all sorts of distracting arguments into the fray to keep opponents reacting on their terms instead of directly responding to the actual issue. Their methods even fool well meaning citizens into helping with the charade. When will they stop pretending?

Humane vs. Human

We do things to make prisoners of war (yes, that's what they are) uncomfortable so they will give us information. CBS News listed and explained our methods thusly:

”The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques.”

The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Call these whatever you like--torture, enhanced interrogation, whatever. For the record I'll go ahead and call them torture if you like. The argument should not be over semantics and definitions. I found it torturous tonight to not eat another few pieces of pizza because I knew I should not. That torture did not seem to me to be especially brutal and I would certain allow it to be used on our prisoners of war. The real debate is more appropriately around what sorts of torture, if you will, we should do to war prisoners to extract information from them and what things we should not do. We should all see the need to conduct ourselves in a way that is appropriate in pursuit of our national defense and national interests, but at the same time allows us to maintain an appropriate level of civility. We should endeavor to continue setting the example for others to follow.

We accept isolation of prisoners from their homeland as appropriate. We accept confinement in a prison cell and loss of freedom as appropriate. The world seems to accept these basic treatments. So, we are willing to allow some very, very harsh treatment already. Isn't this harsher than making someone listen to heavy metal records they don't like (under this scrutiny my 2nd U.S. Air Force roommate is a war criminal)? Harsher than making someone get naked when they would rather not (under this scrutiny my junior high school gym teacher is a war criminal)? Harsher than grabbing someone’s attention? Our techniques are conducted under the supervision of authorities intent on seeing that they don’t get out of hand and injurious. These employed "enhanced techniques" are laughable by almost any standard. Have we turned into a nation of cowards unwilling to defend ourselves? We invented or chose these "lite" techniques because we are trying to maintain civility. Our techniques, water boarding included, are less cruel than college frat-boy pranks. They are not crimes of humanity. Have we really lost civility as a nation if we’ve employed the six techniques? Really? Come on---really?

On the other hand, horrible, painful, and physically damaging techniques have been performed on men, women and children for ages.
Drilling hands
Eye removal
Limb removal
Blowtorch to skin
Dragging behind car
Breaking limbs
Hang from ceiling/electrocution
Binding and beating
Clothing iron to the skin
Head in a vice
Acid baths

Those listed are some of the Al Qeada techniques taken from their own manual. They do this stuff to our people. When Jessica Lynch and her fellow soldiers from the 507th Maintenance Company out of Fort Bliss, Texas were captured they were treated to some of this. Some were murdered on a soccer field in plain view of Jessica and buried there so that the young Iraqi children could play on top of their graves. We should also not forget Somalia and the well documented treatment of our soldiers under Islamic care in that armpit of humanity. There our soldiers’ bodies were dragged through city streets. Our soldiers’ heads were impaled sticks and paraded around to the delight of our compassionate captors. Interestingly the above Al Qeada tactics don’t need much explanation. Usually the name says it all—Al Qaeda doesn’t seem to mince words. I’ll call those things torture too just as I will the frat party pranks we perform on our captives. Now, you can see clearly that there are varying degrees of torture right? We have chosen arguably more humane targets and methods. Paradoxically we have not chosen more human techniques. On the contrary, and sadly, it is much more of a human norm to employ very painful and permanently damaging and deadly techniques. That they are performed elsewhere, and that they are even common human behavior does not make these actions acceptable for us to employ.

Face it though--the liberal, anti-war types don't even recognize the need for armed conflict at all so why would they approve of anything that made us wage war more effectively even if it is somewhat compassionate? The whole matter seems silly to me. This is war. War is hell. In war I can sear your body in half with a 10 inch long phosphorous round, but I cannot exploit your fear of non-lethal spiders or caterpillars? I can turn a city block into ashes with a smart weapon, but I cannot make you stand naked in the middle of a room? I can send missiles into your lap from a ship 40 miles offshore but I cannot slap you in the belly? Something just doesn't add up.

Some have put up the argument that the information is not always accurate. I don't even care if some of the information is false or deceptive. If only a very little is truth, dangerous truth, we benefit. Only the silliest among us would forgo handing out this treatment to a prisoner knowing there is a possible payoff of incredible life savings. I’ve got a little exercise for you parents or anyone at all with loved ones in their lives. Say your beloved (child, parent, husband, wife, boss) was taken hostage by someone that famously operated as a crime duo. Say in a bout of good luck you captured that person’s partner in crime and had them at your leisure. Where would you stop your attempt to get from them details about where your loved one is being held and how best to safely retrieve that loved one? Would you care if someone made them cold? Would you care if someone grabbed their shirt to get their attention? How about if someone slapped them in the face? Right in the face? I can guarantee you that I would personally and gladly dish that out treatment in the first 5 minutes before things got serious. They can tell me all the lies they want. All I need is the one piece of truth. Even if one captor out of 100 offers truth, you’ve saved 1 loved one.

How does extracting 1 piece of information that saves the life of your loved one differ in extracting 1 piece of information that saves the lives of hundreds, thousands or even millions of loved ones? Is it not immoral to allow someone to keep private information that will surely save more lives than it costs? A little water boarding or belly slapping and we can save a battalion, a neighborhood, a city or even a nation. What could be more humane?

A Simple Matter

This sham of a military commander disgusts me with his dead fish, weak-ass salutes to the professional military guard assigned to protect him and his desecration of American values. Watch him the next time he saunters down the stairs of Air Force One. In these first 100 days I can almost see the shame in his eyes when he is asked to perform such military honors. Today he knows he has no right--he'll get used to the irony.

When I was in basic military training I saw drill instructors absolutely blow their tops because a single airman out of the 1.5 million enlisted force could not learn a perfect salute. We read about why to salute. We read about how to execute a proper salute. Pointed, level fingers and thumb. Firm, straight wrist. Snap it to your belt buckle and run it directly up your shirt button line. Lock it in at the top. Upper arm parallel to the ground and and pointing exactly sideways, not an inch toward the front or rear. Index finger pointing directly at the right corner of your hat brim, your eyeglasses or your eyebrow. When the salute is returned it follows the same precise sequence in reverse.

Not a difficult routine by any stretch but one that does have a prescribed procedure that has been taken seriously for years by drill instructors, recruits, soldiers, seamen, airman and veterans of every generation. The next time you watch a ceremony involving veterans of war at a local parade or funeral, watch the old soldier as he salutes. He'll want to do it correctly for this occasion, just as he did 50 years before. I would bet that he practiced once or twice the night before.

I learned how to salute in pretty short order, but I had basic training classmates that worked in their spare minutes for days to get it just right. Sitting up in bed at night, in the laundry room, or while pushing a broom with their left hand, they would practice. The military takes very seriously these matters of tradition. As we were taught, it is not only for tradition and paying honor to those that came before you, but a matter of demonstrating that you can understand and execute simple instructions. If you cannot execute a proper salute how can you be expected to follow the wiring diagram for a $100 million airplane or understand the detail of a $1 trillion stimulus package?

On the other hand, what should I expect from this anti-American community organizer? In fact, I would probably be as insulted if he did snap to proper form and perform a proper and honorable salute. He has clearly shown that he does not appreciate the sacrifices of men and women in uniform over 2 centuries that led to his election as President of the United States and assignment as Commander in Chief.

All Apologies

Let me be the millionth person to show my disdain for Barack Hussein Obama's pathetic apology tour. Kissing France's ass? Bowing to the leader of the Muslim nation that supplied the majority of the 9/11 hijackers? This guy is falling over himself to show the world how sorry we are for having run amok.

BHO said to the world while standing on French soil no less:

“In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world,”“Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

For the first time I agree with him. We have been arrogant, dismissive and derisive. Clearly we are the dominant, dare I say, superior nation on planet earth. When we are arrogant, it is because we know that we saved a world from evil regimes when others could not. When we are dismissive, it is because we have no time to look back. We have no time to slow down and help Europe feel good about making poor decisions, putting their own existence in jeopardy. When we are derisive, it is because too many fail to recognize how lucky they are to have a big brother come to their aid with mighty money and mightier men.

I am so frustrated by people that cannot accept winning. Today I watched the 2009 Masters golf tournament. These are competitive men that fully understand the disappointment of losing. Likewise they understand the joy of winning. Winners are an elite group. In any competition, including nation against nation, there can be many losers and only 1 leader, 1 winner. Why is it that liberals are not good winners? They appear to be embarrassed by the very thought of victory. Winning is nothing to be ashamed of.

Lest we think that this apology tour is his first, we must remember his words to the Germans last summer:

“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. (cheers) At times we struggle to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people, we’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”

This gem I cannot excuse. Really, do we need to apologize for an unapproachable human rights record? This is the nation that invented equality for the world to see and aspire too. The world is full of human rights failures—we are not one of them. Why the propensity for anti-Americanism? BHO and his awesome wife are the most extreme anti-Americans to ever call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home. Take the lovely Michelle’s often quoted gaffe-- "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." His wife is not his only anti-American confidante. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger, 2 men described in his “Audacity” book as mentors, are true, documented, card carrying anti-Americans. Another mentor of his, Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist Party. The list goes on and on—William Ayers, Harold Koh, Ingrid Mattson, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi. Their speech is hateful and racist beyond anything ever spouted by a president’s mentors or spiritual advisers. This man keeps suspect company.

I supposed now that I have written this I understand the problem is not that Barack Hussein Obama is uncomfortable with winning. It is not that he is showing modesty for living in the greatest nation with the greatest human rights record. The real truth is that he does not believe that he is leading the greatest nation on earth. He does aspire to bring us back into the fold. He aspires to normalize our behavior, our government, and our economies with those in the rest of the world. He is convinced that doing so improves the United States. Any admission that the United States is already the greatest nation ever would not allow for his revolutionary plan.

Getting Closer Every Day

Socialism Defined:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
3. An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

Why can’t we stop pretending that we are not headed at least toward socialism? Could the anointed one himself deny it? In a way I would respect the man more if only he would admit his socialist agenda. Is he afraid to? Does he somehow think that he is not a socialist? If he read those 3 definitions above and then regurgitated his own policies from his first 90 days in office, could he possibly say that he has taken the United States further from those ideals? Point #1----check. Point #2----check, almost verbatim. Point #3----check.

Socialism is a proven failure. There are many examples. I suggest reading F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom for the best examination of socialism and its faults. One important thesis in this book is that socialism ultimately leads to fascism. His work famously examines Nazism as a product of socialism. Interestingly, prior to Hayek, others had tried to say that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism. Hayek’s work quite convincingly argues otherwise. Hayek’s book aside, it is not hard to see the socialist/fascist/Nazism relations through the prism of history. In fact the proper name of Nazism is National Socialist German Workers' Party. The allusion to socialism in their marketing was, I assume, carefully chosen and not accidental. Many of the points from the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party speak precisely to the relationship with classical socialism.

Excerpts from the full text of the 25 Point Program:

-We demand the nationalisaion of all (previous) associated industries (trusts.)
-We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
-We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
-We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race
-The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

Was Nazism socialism? You tell me. Are we headed in the same direction? You tell me. From education to business, to banking, Barack Hussein Obama is stepping us closer to if not aligning us precisely to the ideals of socialism that led to or maybe even sprung from the Nazi party. Is this the realization that it will take for common liberal voters to understand the perilous nature of our current situation under our current leadership?

I’m no alarmist or conspiracy theorist. I do not think Obama is a Nazi nor has anything akin to the horrible intentions of the Nazi party of the early 20th century. I merely suggest that we are heading in a direction that places dangerous amounts of control in the hands of the government. You must have high levels of government control over economic interests to create and sustain fascist, totalitarian dictators. To control the purse strings is to be the puppeteer. This is in direct opposition to the unique ideas of our founding fathers. They were very careful to limit the control of government. The constitution is brimming with that caution.

Our nation faces a turning point. We are lucky that it is still a decision point. The decision lies in the ballots we are still free to cast. We the people.

Unbelievable?

Why do so many Americans find it hard to believe that a religion like Islam would compel followers to irrational behavior, even murder? It is text book delusion that allows an individual to overlook their own foibles and criticize others for the same. As an atheist I am uniquely qualified and capable of judgment where the theist is not. A believer in the United States, likely a Christian, needs to look no further than the mirror for irrational beliefs and behaviors. Look at the silliness their own religion inspires in belief and action. Stand up, kneel down, “he is risen”, no meat on Fridays, no soda until Easter, can’t buy alcohol or a motorcycle on Sunday, and the list goes on and on. From my perspective those are incredible wastes of energy.

There are some even more irrational and more dangerous beliefs that get taken more seriously. An alleged virgin birth is at the heart of Christianity. Nobody has ever witness a virgin birth outside of the religious text. Even that one was not witnessed by the authors, only reported upon. Surely adulterous or unmarried women have made this claim throughout the ages in hope that they would be believed by the credulous and spared some very negative consequences. These other claims have always been false, as was the first.

Same goes for death resurrections. Despite much hope, no evidence there either. Without evidence we play the odds and call it a hoax or a misunderstanding.

Noah’s ark is another great fable held true by biblical literalists. I only wish old Noah had taken the time to itemize his cargo. Apparently there were several million mating pairs on that old boat. Because of Noah’s laziness countless species were caught and released only to have to wait centuries for rediscovery. In the 10 years between 1997 and 2007 almost 1100 new species were discovered in the Asian Greater Mekong area alone. I guess Noah quickly went to the Greater Mekong and captured all of them thousands of years ago. Even if he was too lazy to document his cargo he could have at least given us some tips on how to gather millions of species from microscopic to house-sized, in one location. We could have learned how he fed them, maintained the peace and then redistributed them. Many species, as we know, have very complex or finicky diets. Noah went through all the trouble to gather the appropriate food for the animals and again didn’t bother to pass along the wisdom. We didn’t “rediscover” thousands of those plants for centuries either. I often wonder why this inspired man and his god held so much contempt for those species already extinct. After all, it is a scientific fact that more species had already seen extinction than were alive at the time, a fact still true today. Why would such a tremendous effort be taken to capture a single snapshot in time of life but fully ignore the countless already expired? Puzzling.

Only a short time ago in the context of history Christian gods ordered death to scores of unfortunate women deemed witches. Christianity does not stand alone as a cause of tragic violence.

All of this we believed and still believe. Why is it then that we cannot understand that Islam has inherent beliefs that will surely spell the end of western civilization? Their god makes all law for humanity—sharia law. Sharia law is unacceptable by western standards and is in direct opposition to many of the things we hold dear under our constitution. Sharia law mandates oppression of women and the destruction of all non-Muslims. So it is written and so they proudly demonstrate. Muslim leaders, even in America, are not shy or apologetic about these goals. You need only open your eyes and ears. Some signs you might see are bomb-laden teens taking out buses fully of riders, hijacked airliners crashing into the world’s most impressive structures. You can listen to speeches by Islamic leaders her and abroad for slightly more subtle clues. It is all there in plain sight and plain English. We make concessions in the schools, concessions in the prisons, concessions in the workplace and even concessions in the courts.

Again, why so hard to believe that one religion feels that its own sacred text should be reflected in national or world law? Islam does not stand alone in this endeavor. How many times have you heard (or said?) that the United States is a Christian nation with morals and laws based on Christian values? You have certainly heard this expressed openly and widely many, many times. You may even believe it yourself. I happen to think it mostly untrue. If you think it is true or especially if you think it is proper, you have already made the same leap as Muslims. You find it quite normal to live in a country where your religion has reflection in the courts. Well, so do Muslims. Many Americans desire a religion based law, as long as it is their own religion or one close enough to tolerate. Muslims want exactly the same thing although they tend not to stray far enough to allow “close enough” religions to rule. Only Islam will suffice.

So, if so many of us understand or accept the concept, why is it so hard for us to believe that someone from a far off land with a far off religion believes it too? Some among us feel that religion and government should still be united as they have been throughout the world and throughout the ages. That there is debate on this issue in the United States is the only reason you are familiar with the term “separation of church and state”. The battle now is which church and which state. The holy war is underway.

Another Reason To Stay In School

We have the best medical care in the world. Our system is the one that best allows for growth and innovation. We are the world's doctor. Sick people come from all points of the globe to get leading edge treatment. No doubt idiots among us head to far off places for alternative healing methods ranging from faith healing to homeopathy. That some are duped does not make those things effective.

Canada is always a convenient example of a socialized health care system in our own hemisphere. They are very much like us in many ways and close enough to us to keep an eye on. Canada's health care system is well documented and notoriously behind that of the United States. Infamously long wait times for procedures from the routine to the critical. A comparatively laughable (or tragic) shortage of medical technology that we take for granted here in the United States. At one point not too long ago there was one MRI machine in Ottawa, a town of over a half million residents. Several thousand people were on the waiting list to get MRIs. I've had a few in the last couple of years--closed and the new "open" technology. I'm kinda sick of them.

Mortality rates for our most common cancers are several percentage points higher in countries, including Canada, with socialized medicine. Wait times for referrals to specialists are to blame. Still some see the need for change. You are almost twice as likely to die from breast cancer in Britain as you are in the United States. The death rate for prostate cancer is nearly 3 times as high. Does that seem better than what we have? Astonishingly you are nearly 4 times as likely to die while undergoing any kind of surgical procedure in Britain as you are under our system. Britain is not nearly as bad many other nations. This is why the world looks to America for medical advancement. It starts here. The statistics show that we are more effective overall than all those other countries even with the uninsured and underinsured factored in. If you find your way into the United States legally or illegally you benefit from unsurpassed medical care.

The democrats just aren’t happy with the best medical care system in the history of the world. They want to make it more European. Barack Hussein will reform health care. I use the word “reform” in the generic sense (re-form) to mean something more like “reshape”. I make the distinction because the word “reform” has taken on a meaning saddled with implications of necessity and improvement. When the democrats use the term health care reform doesn’t it sort of have a built-in supposition of something that is needed and finally coming? It does for me. Anyway, they will change our system.

Buried in among all of the detail of what BHO’s team is beginning to tout is essentially a vision of higher government control of the United States health care system. Of course, married to that control is cost. There will be distractions in the bill dealing with “improving” the already unequaled health care in this nation, but do not be fooled. The primary goal of a re-formed system will be to insure the uninsured. Having lower income citizens pay less or nothing for health care, and higher income citizens pay more is in fact a penalty system. Another socialist penalty system. The system is already skewed toward socialism and the democrats have every intention of continued and further skewing. In the end it all boils down to who pays the bills.

We will likely see a mandate for all employers to provide health care to their workers, similar to the one offered up by Bill and Hillary. This was so thoroughly scorned by small-business that it was set aside. I say that we let capitalism be our guide. If you do not want to work at a place without health care coverage as a part of their compensation package, go elsewhere. Others that do not care about health care coverage from their employer will likely be drawn to such places. If employers have trouble keeping a supply of workers because they do not offer health care, they will need to offer it or some other form of compensation to be competitive. This is how the system works today, and it is working just fine.

I have heard people say that they "feel sorry" for the uninsured and that it is "unfair" that everyone does not have equal access to medical coverage. Their perception is that there is a randomized, scatter shot health care distribution system in the United States. Of course, there is no such thing. Health care coverage is largely correlated with income. There is certainly no randomized income distribution in place. Income is largely correlated with educational achievement, even free, public educational achievement. It goes then that health care coverage is quite accurately correlated to and predicted by educational achievement. In fact, a study by the Rand Corporation and cited in the New York Times shows that education is the single most consistent factor throughout the world in predicting access to effective health care which leads to a long and healthy life. It is more correlated than race and much more relevant than income. Health care coverage is far from random. Quite literally, the easiest way to achieve higher health care coverage rates, one for which the government control is already in place, is to get more people to take advantage of the free compulsory K-12 education. Graduate high school and you’re pretty much guaranteed good health care.

Studies show that the chronically uninsured number about 10 million in the United States. That is about 3 or 4 percent. These are the people that go for extended periods without participating in a contribution based health care insurance program. This number is far below the actual number total number of uninsured, which is around 45 or 46 million. How many of those uninsured could afford it but lack the foresight? How many of them drive late model cars, talk 1000 hours per month on a wireless phone, choose to smoke cigarettes or even choose to abuse costly illegal drugs? Why should we assume that everyone makes the same good choices? There are people that show no foresight in any aspect of their lives. Why should we expect them to invest in a health care plan when there are already social programs, like mandatory emergency room care, in place to ensure that they do not go without health care?

How many of the chronically uninsured have consistently shown responsibility in life choices? The numbers I suspect are not very high. Statistically these are the same people that choose not to embrace the best of what life in the United States has to offer. They are on the abusive side of most aspects of society. They often choose crime and incarceration over conformity and freedom. They choose in alarming numbers not to complete a public education provided for them. A series of poor choices leaves them out of the capitalist system. Although the relatively high consumption in these demographics might be misinterpreted as capitalist activity, it only shows participation in half of the game. Consumption without contribution is not a capitalist principle. These are the people that drain the system, not enable it. Health care coverage is quite literally an input/output based system. High life input equals quality health care. There is absolutely nothing unfair about a system that rewards responsibility and contribution. What is unfair though, is a system that penalizes responsibility and contribution through redistribution programs intended to sustain the irresponsible.

Republicans like to oppose the democrat proposal, but usually choose entirely ineffective arguments. Pointing out that it is socialist does not work. Democrats already know this. Pointing out that it will mandate more government control over citizens does not work. Democrats already know this. Using the argument that it will cost too much or that rich will pay for the poor does not sway liberals one bit. They don’t see that as a negative. In my own conversations with liberals I have had to come to the realization that they want earners to pay the way for non-earners. The want the higher compensated to pay for the lower compensated. They want more government control, not less. At its core this is a clash of ideals. No arguments of logic will turn the tide. The proof will be in the pudding and the pudding will take ten or even tens of years to make.

Friedman Economics Revisited

This past weekend I was pretty bored. I spent some time on-line looking at social/political videos available on public access video sharing sites. I thought now was as good a time as ever to see what I could find from Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago economist. Friedman is a Nobel Memorial Prize winner and was called "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it" by The Economist. Before his death in 2006 he was, among other things, an ardent capitalist, anti-government regulation and an unparalleled authority on the Great Depression. His account of the Great Depression and the government's hand in bringing it about is the most informed and understandable work on the subject available. We are lucky that he was well published and even oft filmed.

I wondered if Friedman would have much to say about some of the policies we are seeing implemented by the democratic socialist party of the United States, currently chaired by Barack Hussein Obama. While he certainly did not know Obama’s specific agenda, he was familiar with the economic ploys championed by the redistributionists now running our nation’s capital. While I’ve read some of Friedman’s books, on this day I was feeling a little lazy and opted for the audio/video option.

What I saw was not surprising. In a way his recorded words were both at the same time satisfying and frustrating. It didn’t take long before Friedman warned that “domestic debt is only a bad thing when it reflects an increase in government spending. The real problem with government is not deficit but spending.” Ouch. Was this 2005 video somehow channeling Friedman commenting on the 2009 federal budget?

At another point the economic visionary said that we need to cut government spending from around 40% of the national income to around 15%. I think this comment was from the early 1990’s. If we were at 40% then, I wondered what shape we were in today. A quick investigation found many sources stating that were around 53.9% over the last couple of years. This is the statistic that you hear referred to when people say that you work until July 7th (or whatever) every year just to pay all of your taxes—commonly called Cost of Government Day (COGD). I still wonder what the figure is for 2009/2010. I think I just found it on frontpagemag.com. David Solway says that BHO is driving the national debt to about 65% of GDP. Wow. If 15% is considered optimal by the world’s foremost capitalist what would he think of 65%?

On another video Friedman told Charlie Rose that he “never saw a tax cut he didn’t like”. I love that. I don’t think he’d be too happy with BHO’s proposed “tax cuts”. The reason is that in reality they are on tax cuts at all. They are more appropriately termed rebates and ironically targeted at those that have no tax liability at all. That’s extra money back in the pockets of non-contributors that pay no taxes in the first place. I was happy to see him say something that I do not every recall reading in any of his works. Friedman, like me, supports a flat tax. Throwing out the progressive tax scheme could be the first step to abolishing the current system which penalizes higher earners.

One of the videos was shot in black and white and appeared to be at a university somewhere in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s. The radical leftist student body proved to be a fine model today’s radical leftist student body. They rudely interrupted Friedman with political statements and erroneous rhetoric. One future leader dragged out the old standard that the only reason that the United States is prosperous today is that it was founded upon the blood and sweat of slavery and colonialism. Friedman responded that this was simply not true. He said the mistake is in assuming that it is a zero-sum game. They think that if one man benefit, another one must always lose. This is certainly is not the case. Friedman pointed out that there were other reasons for spotty prosperity. He offered that the wheel had not yet been invented on parts of the African continent by the end of the 19th century. Such lagging abilities would surely make competing on a world scale impossible. In the end, said Friedman, “colonialism has always cost the mother country more than it got in return”.

The great economist described himself as a “Republican with a capital R and a Libertarian with a capital L. Not a bad combination and probably pretty close to my own views. This made me wonder if perhaps he was an atheist like me too. I found a transcript from a 2004 interview with David Asman that addressed his faith directly:


DA: One thing I haven’t heard you talk much about is faith. Describe your own faith. Your faith in God…your faith in people.

MF: Well, faith in people and faith in basic principles of human freedom are very important. But faith in God is not. I would describe myself as an agnostic.

DA: But not an atheist.

MF: Not an atheist. The proposition that there is a God is not capable of being proved either false or true. And that’s what I mean about being an agnostic.

DA: The problem with faith, they say, is that faith is the evidence of things unseen.

MF: Yes, it is. There are statements which are capable of being contradicted by experience. Those are scientific statements. There are statements which can not be contradicted by any experience such as: “There is a God.” And those are statements of faith. And faith plays a role in everybody’s life. Everybody has a faith of some kind. But my faith is not theological.

This too is very encouraging. Milton was a man of reason to the core. Of course he did not take the courageous step to actually call himself an atheist like I do (read my books to see my defense).

Friedman applied the same sound reason to the immigration issue too. He said that he would like to see free immigration but we would have to get rid of the welfare state. He said in that same black and white video that people don’t come here to make a living the way his parents did, they come to feed on the state. You can only have free immigration where you do not have a welfare state. Great stuff.

Finally he got down to the business of speaking to the greatest benefit of capitalism. I’ll leave you with the wisest, most important words I’ve heard him speak.

”I never said that wherever you have capitalism you have freedom. I’ve said the opposite. Wherever you have freedom you have capitalism.”

Read Milton Friedman now!

How Far Does the Apple Fall From the Family Tree?

Barack Hussein Obama’s aunt is an illegal alien living within the borders of the United States. One more time—Obama’s Kenyan aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is living illegally in the United States. His dear old aunt, on his father’s side was ordered to leave in 2004 after overstaying her welcome. Zeituni has bounced around the eastern half of the country a bit to try and evade some of the initial deportation hassles but has found some comfort in a publicly subsidized handicap accessible apartment in Boston. She is a welfare recipient. I’m paying for another illegal. This one is known to be here. This one is known to be here by her millionaire relative. This one is known to be here by her millionaire President of the United States relative.

Can you even imagine this? What does our beloved Commander in Chief think? First of all, he knows her pretty well. She illegally contributed to his campaign for president. Even more interesting is that she was a figure mentioned in his famous memoir. For a while he claimed he “didn’t know” she was here or here illegally at least. How can this bright family man not know such a thing? Unfortunately ignoring a deportation order is not legally a criminal act, but instead an administrative violation. Now that BHO knows that we know about his non-criminal illegal aunt, he is quoted as saying he “hasn’t done anything to help her stay”. Isn’t that a bit of an escape tactic? I think it is technically incorrect as well as unethical. Any citizen that knows of someone living illegally within our borders is obligated to report that person to the immigration authorities. (My own mother is not a United States native but she has lived here perfectly legally for nearly 50 years--so, I’m good). At this point he is knowingly harboring a fugitive, is he not? If she was my aunt I’d call the police. Especially if was sworn to uphold the laws and sovereignty of the United States. How in the hell can this guy be expected to uphold any law in the United States if he cannot uphold the single law that defines the United States? If we have no borders or no difference between citizen and non-citizen are we really a sovereign nation? If the head guy doesn’t understand that basic tenet how can we expect him to contemplate the finer points of economies or anything else?

Sure, I realize that there are thousands of illegal aliens here waiting second and third deportation trials. I realize that there is a huge red tape chasm that lots of these people are fortunate enough to find and fall into as a way to stay in this horribly oppressive country. Those people are unethical and freeloaders. It happens and we all realize that it shouldn’t. Isn’t our president above that though? Shouldn’t he lead by example? Why doesn’t he identify her and send her on her way back to her native land? If he cares enough for her well-being he could surely put her up in a decent abode. If for some reason he does not care for her well-being, I’m cool with that too. I don’t care either, so that would make 2 of us.

This situation makes me wonder why her asylum was denied in the first place. What is it about her situation or background that makes her a bad prospect? I’ve done about 15 minutes of grueling research and I cannot find the answer to that question. I can find many others asking the same question, but no answers. Perhaps she innocently fell outside of a quota or allotment. I think those quotas are too high anyway. Perhaps though, it was something more than that. Was it something else that made her risky? There are lots of interesting things that mark people as bad candidates for asylum or citizenship. I would love to know what old Auntie Z was up to.

I grew up just south of Chicago. I know plenty of families that have proclivity toward unethical and shady behavior. Now I know another one. We all do.

Job Survival of the Fittest

I am learning about economics. I read books and pay closer attention to the media coverage. It has become apparent to me, as it should be apparent to anyone, that an economy is a vastly complex set of rules and behaviors. What always strikes me is that an economy seems so hard to define and predict. There are so many working parts that even if you know the basic rules it is difficult to know what will transpire. The risk associated with investing in the stock market is but a small example of this complexity. I’m always trying to figure out if “a” caused “b”. The more I learn about economics, the more questions I have.

Lately unemployment has been of interest to all of us. Rising rates, in some areas unprecedented in recent history, place strains on our economy and create turbulent political conditions. All of this recent attention has gotten me thinking about what is really so bad about unemployment a couple of percentage points higher in the United States. How does a nation suffer when unemployment is high? What percentage of a nation’s employed is employed for the sustainment or betterment of the nation and what percentage is employed to satisfy only that a high number are employed? Is it really possible that a country can function quite well with 6% unemployment but quite poorly at 8%? Do just a few percentage points really make that much of an impact to the overall functionality and viability of a country?

It would be apparent that when some percentage of a potential workforce is not working, something doesn’t get done. What is it that doesn't get done? Do we need those things done? What happens in the short and long terms if they get left undone? In other words, I need to know if the newly unemployed were doing things that were somehow necessary. Or, were they not necessary or at least less crucial to mankind than the work performed by the rest of the people that remain employed? Is it possible that we are just keeping some portion of our society employed for employment's sake? I recognize that it is good for a society to have all people employed and earning money because it maintains happiness. But, do some have jobs that just don't matter to the survival of a society? Are they digging holes only to fill them in again? Is their only benefit to society that they appear employed and can stand side by side with all the other employed? Does some employment differ in that it is only to avoid unemployment?

Let's imagine a small tribe for a demonstration. If we have a tribe of 10 members, all adults, what things will be necessary for them to accomplish to ensure survival and some amount of happiness tomorrow? Let us imagine for this illustration that only food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and maybe a little research to allow for growth or avoidance of future catastrophe are required to sustain this tribe. These would be our fields of work. If we have 10 people that can provide all that they need perhaps with a mix of direct effort and trade, what happens if we add an 11th person? In our case, let us say that the 10 can provide just fine for themselves as well as the new 11th member. This new member does not have a unique skill that can move the tribe forward. The tribe could choose to make this new member "unemployed" or they could find a way to keep him busy and thereby "employed". Let’s say that they decide to take the high road and make their new member happy by providing him some work and associated pay. This new position, say "hole digger and filler" would keep the new member busy and allow for him to take some pay. This pay would make the person happy and in turn contribute toward the overall happiness and stability of the tribe. In this case, since no new skills or contributions are present, this pay would come at the expense of the other 10. This new member does not really add value to our tribal economy. This may be easier to imagine if you took your workplace and added 10% to the staffing levels next Monday morning. Chances are you would have people standing around trying to find something to keep busy. These additional staff members would get paid out of the original budget without bringing in any new capital. In any event, let’s say that the original 10 tribe members are willing to tolerate this diluted economy for some time. We have 11 relatively happy people.

Now let’s say that some external pressures are put on the tribe, say drought, and difficulty in securing food. Decisions will have to be made. In this crisis the inability to conduct trade with a neighboring tribe because of higher trade prices puts pressure on our tribe. The original 10 people now supporting the 11th can now choose to keep the finances diluted and risk ultimate peril to the tribe or they can choose to stop paying the new member to dig and fill in holes. The first member to lose his job would be the hole digger/filler. This member's pay would be absorbed back into the pursuit of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and research. It appears that this member’s employment was not crucial to the society in any real sense other than providing happiness for the new member and aiding in the universal happiness of all members.

Wouldn't we say that this 11th person’s employment is "optional" for our tribe? The layoff of this worker has no detrimental impact on the tribe aside from a possible increase in behavioral instability. In fact, the layoff has a very positive effect on the tribe in that it allows them to survive. Can we apply this same logical model to our modern society? I wonder if it is possible that the positions we are losing as our unemployment rate reaches above 8% are as optional as our 11th tribal member’s job.

I trust capitalism as a great regulator in a way very similar to natural selection. Those societal traits that are necessary for survival will ultimately flourish under strained conditions. Those that are not necessary may flourish in “times a plenty”, but will languish when pressures are placed on society. Although there is human decision and intervention required, it is self adjusting in a very real way. This theory, like evolution by natural selection, to some appears to be inhumane. It is really neither humane nor inhumane. If you think about it, it is literally a subset of Darwin’s naturally selection. Certain behaviors survive and go forward while others succumb to the pressures and fall prey to competitive and more viable behaviors. Societal behaviors are selected that allow societies to survive. Societies that exhibit behaviors counter to success eventually wither away and are replaced by societies that exhibit behaviors that permit growth. The unfortunate part of it all is that, as in genetic natural selection, now and then a societal trait reappears, a mutation if you will, that must be suppressed and selected out again.

I have been in the workforce for 30 years and have seen the market adjust as pressures ebbed and flowed. I have felt the direct and indirect consequences of these adjustments. At times it can appear inhumane because of the human decision component so obviously present in most any job loss situation. If you back up to a perspective far removed from the emotions of it all, say as an entomologist observes an ant hill, you will see that the “decisions” are very formulaic, even innate, and somewhat removed from individualistic callousness perceived at the actor level. Still we cannot help but feel compassion for the losers and contempt for the benefactors. I feel these things and so do you. I won’t pretend to try and make that pain or anger go away. I just want us all to try and remember that in the end it is neither good nor bad. In fact, in the long term, it is the only option that supports survival of an economy and ultimately a species. Economic natural selection as a subset to Darwin's evolution by natural selection.

Celebrity In The Whitehouse

Democrats, more so than Republicans, appear to enjoy making celebrities out of their politicians. Sure, some actual celebrities have turned politician, but I’m talking about something different. Democrats loved having Clinton in the limelight when I'm not sure he was always interested in being there. He seemed pretty happy to have some fun outside of the limelight. Longstanding liberals seem to love their new guy. They've got President Fresh Prince of D.C. enjoying his new life, strutting his stuff out in front of the camera. He's everything they want--young, handsome, athletic, intelligent, polished, good with teleprompters, and utterly clueless about how things work in Washington and world politics. Believe me, that’s just what they want. He’s got no idea what is happening in the back room, and that will eventually be what brings him down. The actions being taken in his name, from the stimulus package to the recent bail-outs and everything in between are already proving to be inexcusable. These are not his inventions, his plans. They are hard line, old school leftist pursuits that have finally found a medium and a messenger. BHO defends them with well crafted speeches and a bright smile. It’s a downward spiral though that will ultimately land him on the ground in a pile of failed policies.

All of this guy's actions smack of being hurried. As has been pointed out, he is preying on a population fearful of economic collapse. Surely he recognizes that there will be quick approval for anything seemingly aimed at saving the economy or anything marketed as change from the Bush way. The stimulus package may have fooled some early on, but it has turned a few heads. Maybe the time has already come and gone for HUGE, bad decisions going unnoticed.

While smart enough to understand the value of good timing, he seems to be one of those leaders prone to decision making and action, regardless of the action. I've worked for people like him. If you can get their attention for a few minutes they’ll almost certainly let you have your way. It is the “yes-man” management style. I see it clearly in BHO. With all of the crap he’s throwing out there under the guise of change and action, it looks more like he’ll agree with anyone in his office and make a "decision" to let them do whatever they are asking to do even when he does not fully understand its implications. Some leaders tend to make no decisions and others make too many. He makes too many. When you make too many it is akin to making none at all.

BHO does this for all or any of 3 reasons. First, he's still trying to campaign on this "change" platform. Movement, any movement gives the illusion of progress. Action in his mind equals change. He promised change and this is the only way he knows how to make it appear to be happening. With this style he is not showing much confidence in the intelligence of his nation’s population. He must assume that no matter the damage done, he can market it as progress or ignore it.

Second, he could be distracted. Distracted by what, I don't know. Fame? Fortune? Power? Decorating a new house? Getting the kids settled? March Madness? He's got a lot of really cool stuff going on right now.

Lastly, and I’ve said it before, a background check shows that the guy is in way over his head. Decision-making on a national or world scale is so far beyond the experience of this community organizer that he does not have a fundamental understanding of the far reaching implications. In my own professional life I have grown over the years from managing the simple to managing the complex. They are vastly different realms. BHO was as unprepared for his presidency as any commander in chief in the history of our nation. I would venture to say that he was as unprepared as any serious presidential candidate in our history, let alone an elected president.

No matter the reason, this is classic uncontrolled, scatterbrained behavior. I wish I worked for the guy. I'd submit some crazy plans that had great benefit to me, confident that I'd get them all approved. It is obvious that this is exactly what powerful D.C. democrats like Nancy Pelosi are up to. BHO will either not catch on or he will catch on when it is too late to undo the damage. With all the smoke and mirrors I don’t think that the average left leaner will ever figure it out. Hopefully they’ll have a republican president to blame it all on in 2013 or 2017.

Stem Cell Economics

Barack Hussein Obama has lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research federal funding. Read that sentence again--I'll wager that you made the same intellectual assumption and mistake as I did. BHO did not lift a ban on stem cell research, which there was not one, he lifted the ban on federal funding of that stem cell research. That is quite something different. I think the battleground has been more portrayed as one over the legality/illegality of such research.

There is yet more subtlety to the actuality. Apparently the most recent President Bush lifted the absolute ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research during his time in office. The trouble with his lifting of the ban was more over where he drew the line between acceptable and unacceptable research. He positioned his boundary at a point where he felt he could prevent some weird unacceptable level of destruction or manipulation of stem cells during or after the research. I can only assume that this was a faith-based boundary. President Bush, like perhaps most conservatives, sees stem cells as human life. This is fundamentally the same argument as the one over abortion. Is it life, or is it not life? i feel that an embryonic stem cell is not the equivalent of human life. I am not however here to belabor that argument. Based on what I think I know, I am 100% in favor of aggressive embryonic stem cell research. I do not classify such research or even destruction of cells as murder.

Another common objection to embryonic stem cell research or any stem cell research for that matter, is that it could lead to some less than desirable results and applications. I suppose it could. I am not exactly sure what those would be right now, but I can imagine a dastardly outcome. Human cloning is one eventuality that generates some fear. I have written elsewhere on human cloning and I am not sure that it is entirely without some benefit. If human cloning is conducted with evil intent and enabled or forwarded by enhanced stem cell research funding, then I guess it goes that stem cell research funding has indirectly resulted in a downstream negative outcome. There are countless things in society that have both positive and horribly negative outcomes based on the same technology or inputs. Discovery of molecular and atomic structure has led to some tremendous advances for humanity---and to biological and nuclear weapons capable of wiping out mankind. Automobiles have given us mobility and associated freedom to explore in ways only imagined just a handful of decades ago. According to a BBC news report about 500,000 people worldwide die each year in automobile accidents. Road accidents are the single leading cause of death among men aged 15-44. Since the automobile was invented, more than 20 million people have lost their lives in related incidents. Still we do not ban them.

Back to my original intent. Ah, but I do have a single objection to the recent ruling. Namely, it is the federal funding stipulation that I can do without whether enacted or only increased by this administration or any other. I object not for any paranoia based fear of government monkeying with our genetics, but only for my complete confidence in capitalism being able to drive innovation and research more effectively than bureaucracy.

Expansion of government tentacles is something I am almost universally averse to. Perhaps I am especially sensitive in this day of trillion dollar "stimulus" spending. If that is sensitive, go ahead and call me sensitive.

Truth Be Told

I've gotten some redemption recently, but not the kind I really like. A position I have long held is now proving to be popular and corroborated as being correct. Liberals in Washington want socialism in the United States.

Years ago when I first began to read seriously and write about politics I came upon some that held the position that we are moving toward socialism. I read that our most influential democrats were quietly supporting and working to institute socialism right here under our very noses. At first, despite the clear evidence, it seemed too crazy to be true. Maybe the fringe conservative writers I had discovered were somehow disgruntled, conspiracy theorists or just sabre rattling. I mean, how could members of congress and even our own president be socialist?

The more I read, the more convinced I became that my sources were correct. Thinking back, I'd say that David Horowitz at frontpagemag.com was probably the first to really show me what our liberal politicians were up to. You couldn't find this same accusation in what would be considered the mainstream conservative media. Don't even think about the mainstream liberal media reporting such a fact. Not long ago speaking candidly about liberals as socialists was considered an underground, fringe, paranoid and even counter-productive approach.

Gradually over the years this observation grew a little more mainstream. It was a slow progression that really didn't take hold until Barack Hussein Obama got elected. I saw it coming. i saw it growing more and more popular during the election. Still, the major conservative outlets like FoxNews didn't really speak about the socialist intention very often nor did they seek guests that held tightly to this position. There seems to have been a drastic change since the election. All of a sudden I don't feel like I'm on the fringes of conservative politics. I hear it all the time now. Several times today in fact.

It is the unmistakable truth. Liberals are pulling us more toward socialism as conservatives seek to conserve capitalism. Liberals avoid using the word socialism as they try to institute aspects of it. Maybe they don't even want a purely socialist society here in the United States, but maybe they do. There is no denying that with each taxation/redistribution program that Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi introduce we edge ever closer to pure European socialism and ever further from pure American capitalism. With those 2 points on the societal continuim not a single democrat could argue that the liberal agenda takes us closer to one and further way from the other.

Pure American capitalism died long ago but much remains worth conservation. Conservatives struggle to retain what remains of pure capitalism. There are already numerous examples of fiscal redistribution that most of us take for granted but could be considered socialist leaning. In practice, many of the welfare types of services are socialist in nature, even if that was not the original intent. Taxation of the "haves" and redistribution to the "have nots" is a reality in American life that most of us tend not to notice. If you convince yourself that these are temporary aid programs the pain is not so obvious. In truth though, the majority of the redistribution has become sustainment in nature rather than temporary.

I almost get the sense that observant conservatives knew the truth all along. Something tells me that stating the obvious was somehow seen as counter-productive to the conservative movement. Conservatives, being conservative, tend not to be accusational, at least until the facts are so overwhelming that they are left with no other choice. The conservative "movement" can be a slow moving beast for that very reason. The propensity to only participate in fair fights not only often keeps conservatives from throwing the first punch, but it keeps them from even blocking the first punch thrown at them. It seems the gloves are finally off.

Want Obama To Fail

I saw Rush Limbaugh on CSPAN tonight. When he said he wanted Obama to fail, he meant exactly what I said he meant.

Back in the USSA

Ok, we aren't just headed there--we are there. We are officially entering the age of the United Socialist States of America. Our president and presiding congress have successfully changed the dialog of our nation. Empowered by an exiting republican president that was constantly undermined, second guessed, coerced and blamed for trying to find accommodations, the democrats have finally succeeded in breaking loose the underpinnings of capitalism.

Most citizens are unaware. This troubles me. I am more troubled by those that are aware but will not resist. I'm yet more troubled by those that are guilty of crafting this plan and are now executing it on a vulnerable nation. Throughout history vulnerable nations have been led astray, usually to their own demise.

Today it is commonplace for our most influential news and popular media outlets to support an agenda of overtly socialist redistribution. That means they are in favor of taking the money from those who earn the most and giving it to those that earn the least or none at all. Under cover of a housing and mortgage crisis, we hear plans to allow homeowners to back out of current mortgage contracts, which they originally negotiated, and move to "more affordable rates and monthly payments." All orchestrated and funded by our new government. We have successfully removed yet another aspect of personal responsibility. We've replaced it with government support for bad personal decisions, bad business decisions, and certainly bad government decisions. I almost want to go out and buy a second and third home that I cannot afford, comfortable that over the next 8 years of Obama's socialism I will get some help to bail me out. I may even be able to keep those homes that I cannot afford. Sweet.

Think of our nation's economy as sort of a balance scale where equal weight on either side results in an even balance and sides that are equal in height. Let's say that our weights are gold coins. When you move too many coins from the "revenue generation" side to the "government expenditures" side you will get an imbalance at some point. The revenue generation side has to have a way to renew its coins each year at a rate that will at least keep up with the demands of shifting to the expenditures side. If the expenditures side asks for more each year the generating side must figure out a way to generate more. Unfortunately each time it transfers a coin to the expenditures side it also transfers a portion of the ability to generate more coins. The expenditures side doesn't care, so it wants more coins each year. Eventually the generation side cannot keep up with the demands of the expenditures side and begins eating into its own revenue stores. Each year it makes less money and gives more away. You have fewer and fewer people contributing the revenue side and more people consuming the expenditures side. Soon the scale is severely out of balance and nothing can be done to generate more coins or convince the spenders that they don't need more coins. This has happened to various socialist and communist nations at various rates.

Nations starting with a strong overall work ethic and a population that understands and respects the input/output model can flourish the longest before ultimate failure. I'm afraid that we are not entering our socialism phase with this optimum level of preparedness. We are already a nation where 10% of the population contributes 90% of the funds for the government to spend. We've got 10% of the people on the revenue generation side and 90% on the revenue expenditures side. In this respect we are a nation doomed for rapid socialist peril. Yet our new administration continues to ask for more. No more contributors but more contribution. The scale has been tipped so far to the one side that we cannot hope to put enough coins on the other side to tip it back to a balance point. We must start taking coins off of the expenditures side and put them on the productive side where they can be used to figure out ways to make even more coins.

Unfortunately this administration is not ready to take corrective action but is all to ready to continue the irresponsible financial displacement.

Oldest Trick In The Book

Barack Hussein Obama's only acts to date have been to offer the furthest left spending plan in the history of this nation and then pretend to be utterly surprised and confused that conservatives won't "compromise" with him.

BHO has thus far done nothing as president to back up the words he spoke as a presidential candidate. He did not write this bill. He has not at all attempted to unify. If BHO is such a unifier why was this stimulus bill crafted by liberals behind closed doors. Wouldn't someone genuinely interested in bi-partisanship call an open session with members from both sides of the aisle to work on a stimulus package? That is the only way to prevent any political bill from swinging too far in either direction. In a way, it shocks me that something so imporantant would be worked on by anything less than the full representation of our country. I'm sure republicans play this same shell game too. I don't like it from them either.

Not only was this stimulus bill written by only half of our team, was clearly written with the intention of slipping in all the the pork they've always wanted to. I watched tape this morning of Rahm Emanuel stating that as a politician you never want to miss out on a good crisis. He explained that a time of crisis is the best time to get done the things you've always wanted to do but circumstances were not sufficiently dire. In a time of crisis you can coerce others into making rash decisions so as to not look indecisive in a time of grave need. Sounds dirty but not surprising.

This morning I heard something that sounds almost unthinkable to me. Republican representatives were complaining that they were actually handed the enormous stimulus plan in PRINTED form. In the past, the accepted means of presentation was a Microsoft Word or portable document format (pdf) file. When such a computer file is used it is easily and routinely searched for key words and phrases, making the review process much simpler. No such luck with this document. Republicans were given a printed document containing confusing language, external references and other content that made it quite difficult to review in the publicized time constraint. It seems to me that this is a very intentional tactic. A huge plan, created in secret, delivered in printed form and shrouded in an artificial deadline. All these ingredients suggest a democratic party intending to force a hasty republican acceptance. Looks like they got what they wanted.

Won't Get Fooled Again

Republican senator Judd Gregg withdrew yesterday as commerce secretary nominee. He did so essentially on the grounds that he too had been fooled by Barack Hussein Obama's unification rhetoric. He said "I'm just going to be a little too conservative" for Obama's administration. While perhaps the most recent and maybe most visible, Gregg is not the only conservative that should be ashamed his naiveté.

What on earth gave Gregg and others the impression that BHO wanted to move toward the right? How is it that a professional politician accustomed to partisan politics can make such a rookie mistake? Did he really think that the long history of divided liberal and conservative ideals could be undone by a charlatan with nothing but the most liberal of backgrounds? Really, how could anyone have been tricked by this guy? The liberal MSM hysteria around BHO blinded too many, political professionals and private sector alike.

Once again the conservative tendency toward trust and fair play has been used against them. Liberals, if nothing else, have been able to maintain a consistent hatred and disgust for conservative ideals. Right or wrong, they hold their ground. Their unflinching hatred for conservative ideals is at once their biggest weakness and greatest strength. Those on the hard left never see any virtue in conservatism and would never fall prey to such a trojan horse. On the other hand, they summarily dismiss conservative offers even when they would prove to be helpful.

The only excusable action by Gregg is finally figuring out that he had been duped. Others have come back to reality upon reading the trillion dollar stimulus package. Same old, Same old. Stay tuned for more awakenings in the next 90 days.

Perspective is Everything?

I've never been fully adult when an economy took such a ride downward. I lived through some economic spoil in the early 80s but that was really before I cared to try and understand much about it. Later there were some downturn in the early 90s, but I was in the USAF which gave me some padding.

This recession is the first where I felt like I was in the midst of things. Jobs dropping all around me. Not just on TV, but friends and close business associates. The immediacy of it is what feels strange to me. Sure, some predicted this collapse for various reasons, right and wrong, over the last several years. It seemed to me start very, very slowly and then quickly build momentum. Almost like the whirling of a flushed toilet. Peaceful at first, easy to stay afloat. Suddenly you are spinning helplessly with no control and no hope. Then you're gone. So far I have been fortunate and avoided the flush.

There is something about the way it came on that seems peculiar. The more it was talked about prior to the presidential election, the quicker it seemed to happen. Chicken and egg I guess. Did we talk about it because it was moving in on us so quickly? Or, did it come on so quickly because we talked about it so much. I don't mean this to be some mysterious, divinely inspired, self-fulfilling prophecy. More so I mean that it feels largely hype-based to me. Did the media play a large part in talking us into the reality with which we are now faced. Easy for me to say, I suppose, not having been severely harmed.

I'm pretty sure I don't think there is any underlying conspiracy either. I have done some reading on economies and economic collapse specifically. Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago economist, wrote quite intelligently on "The Great Depression" in the United States. I recall that he observed a significant psychological momentum component to that terrible event. The hysteria of possible bank collapse fueled actual bank collapse. Over and over again. Larger and larger. Faster and faster. I know that there are actual economic reasons behind our current recession, but I do not rule out a significant psychological component. Maybe the perceived strengths and weaknesses of an economy are as important or more important than the actual strengths and weaknesses. I just wonder if economies are simply so fragile and nebulous that perception is in fact the reality.

Dumb-Ass News Comment of the Day

This morning as I was being forced to watch CNN the stupid news-person said something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing obviously):

"all of these republicans said that they wanted to like and support Obama prior to his inauguration, but now they voted against his stimulus bill. Why won't they do things that will make the president want to like them back, like approve his stimulus bill?"

What an idiot.

That Didn't Take Long

Barack Hussein Obama’s (BHO) proposed economic stimulus bill will stand as an historic moment in the career of a political charlatan. Every single republican in the House of Representatives voted against it. He did not sway even a single moderate republican. Just as importantly, 11 democrats voted against it. The big unifier failed in his first and maybe most important try.

This is a significant failure in a couple of ways. First, it was the first real act of a new president with a unification agenda. Here was his chance to make good on the primary theme of his campaign and presidency. Second, this was supposed to be an attempt to control a world economic downturn. In reaction to his loss, BHO today said he expects that we can “…put politics aside and do America’s business right now.” In other words, republicans should change their minds about this bill and let it pass. For the sake of unity--pretty please. Of course, he could mean that they should clean the slate and rethink the content of the bill in a significant way, but I doubt it.

This so-called stimulus bill is nearly 700 pages in length and approaches $1 trillion. I have not read it. I do not think that I would disagree with absolutely everything in it. I know that I disagree with much of it. I have seen summaries that indicate to me that it is business as usual for the socialist wannabes in Washington. On a more personal note, I read an interesting analysis by Tevi Troy, former deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. In his view the bill is a significant move toward socialized medicine and contains elements detrimental to our current world leadership position in healthcare, especially with respect to information technology. Incidentally, I did not read that analysis until after I had written nearly every word of this chapter. With the healthcare reform and all the rest it has to be obvious to all that the bill has been brewing on the left side of the aisle long before BHO came on the scene. Does anyone really think that he started with a blank sheet of unity paper and a change pen? Of course he did not. He likely hasn’t even read the damned thing but had it summarized for him. I am not saying that he is surprised by any of the subject matter, only that he did not write it.

His failure to unify shows us either of two things. First, he is the political idiot I said him to be. He let the standing democrats dupe him into submitting a far left, oversized, partisan, old school, divisive, pork filled plan that he did not agree with. Or, he is not a unifier, but is a leftist, partisan, divisive, pork planner. Old school leftist. It is also possible that he is the likes of which we have never seen. An idiot in any case.

Observing the aftermath of this failure is going to be interesting. I hope the republicans that jumped on the bandwagon to give this guy a chance to prove himself are ashamed at their gullibility. I hope the democrats that were convinced that they had a silver bullet are disappointed in the status quo. Over the last 12 months I heard so much optimism out of people that should know better and I could not understand why. Obama’s preaching prose never betrayed his far left intentions. I wasn’t fooled. Putting the words “change” and “unification” in every other sentence does not make them come true nor does it disguise the content of the rest of the sentence.

Could there be a backlash from the republicans in Washington? Could there be a backlash from the millions of U.S. citizens that swallowed the unification speechifying? This first bill will likely anger and embarrass Washington’s republican politicians. I expect a high degree of scrutiny will be maintained as they work with this administration on refining this bill and all other actions to come. I’m equally hopeful that the citizens of this country will regain consciousness even if it takes a bit longer.

Did BHO or anyone else think that puffy words and a smooth gait would mask the far left political agenda now in control in Washington? Nancy Pelosi did.

Success Equals Failure

Once again the CNN, Toyota Prius, leftist crowd is appalled by statements made by their conservative opposition. This time, and not his first, Rush Limbaugh has come under scrutiny. Last week Rush said something to the effect of wanting Barack Hussein Obama to fail as president and in his presidential endeavors. This stood out among the plethora of comments wishing him a successful presidency. I always wondered what is one-time detractors meant when they said they wished him well. Did they really mean that they had given up and wanted BHO to be successful in making the changes to this nation that he ad campaigned on? To me that seems like almost giving up on your views and admitting defeat.

In reaction to Rush's statement I heard one CNN anchor say “This is supposed to be a time of unity.” Are they looking for blind acceptance based unity? Do we really need to agree with BHO’s every move for unity’s sake if nothing else? That kind of unquestioned, blind fellowship has proven historically time and time again to be very dangerous. Once again opposition to leftist ideals results in feigned disgust which will eventually lead to name calling and labeling.

I am again surprised at the short memory of our leftist friends. How can they question the sanity of anyone expressing dissatisfaction in a standing president? Can’t they remember their own behavior up until the very moment of inauguration? In my lifetime I cannot recall a president treated with more disrespect than President George W. Bush. Look, the left even wanted him to fail in fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about that one. They wanted their own nation to lose a war. This generation of leftist leaders invented the whole “I want my country to lose this war” thing back in the Vietnam era. They dusted off the old mantra almost immediately when we entered the war on terror. In comparison Rush Limbaugh’s position seems relatively supportive.

Sure, his statement was bold, but if you take a closer look, how appalling is it really? I do not know Rush Limbaugh so I cannot speak for him. Nor do I even pretend to know his intent. I actually don’t care. If I take that term at absolute face value I’d have to say that I completely agree with Rush.

To me this hope for failure can be summed up simply by saying that some of us believe that BHO’s success in implementing and institutionalizing change will, in the long run, be more damaging to this nation than would be his failure. Given his way, he will do more harm than good. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of harm and good.

BHO’s ideas may in fact satisfy short term objectives and result in what could appear to be advancements. He will eventually, though, compromise our national identity and foundational tenets. Take for example the redistribution of money from productive American citizens to unproductive citizens and non-citizens. This will play very well in the short-term focused liberal media. They will feature “disadvantaged” families getting new winter coats for free or getting money for education. We will see thousands if not millions of people filling meaningless, unnecessary government subsidized jobs paid for by our most productive private sector taxpayers. The nationalization of America’s banking system is one of the best examples of a move in the wrong direction. Under this program people that got in bad financial situations like getting involved in balloon loans or other financial commitments that they cannot keep, will get “bailed out” by productive taxpayers. This stuff will look terrific on the CNN, but it can’t last forever. Eventually all redistribution programs will fail when the input capital runs dry because the output of the capital serves no real purpose or results in no return on investment (ROI). Anyone with any business acumen at all knows that the proof of investment is your return on that investment. The redistribution programs have no such positive ROI.

Your end result is a country with an expanded class of dependant citizens and a contracted class of people to support them. This takes us a critical step toward socialism, if not a step deep into socialism. We would be a country doomed to implode around its own financial mismanagement. A successful Barack Hussein Obama presidency will leave us with a damaged nation. Further from the ideals that made this a great nation and unquestionably further from the ideals of our founding fathers. BHO's success equals our failure.

BHO A Unifier?

Barack Hussein Obama ran his campaign for presidency on 2 major themes--change and unification. I will not argue the change that most certainly is underway. Though, I don't think it is the kind of change that he wanted some to believe. This change is not away from the status quo, but only away from the conservative status quo. His every intention is toward a hard leftist, socialist agenda--perhaps "for a change". Promises of unification were lies believed only by the credulous. There is no doubt that these most gullible citizens on either side of the aisle feel unified today. It is quite easy and satisfying for those on the left to believe that the chosen leftist has finally gotten through to the dark side.

You don't really think that BHO's sheep are excited for unification through compromise of liberal ideals, do you? Certainly not. They are for the kind of unification that is more accurately termed "conversion". They don't want BHO to meet the conservatives in the middle. They want conservatives to buy the rhetoric of George Bush's failure and repent for their sins by changing their evil ways.

The real message behind his unification myth was apparent to me from the beginning of his rise to fame, but was made vividly evident when I heard the beloved inaugural address. Yesterday I posted the entire text of the address along with my running analysis. Rarely has one's lies been more betrayed. Please take a few minutes to read his address below and see if you find the same very carefully and very intentionally chosen phrasing that I find. Keep in mind that this address was not impromptu. They never are. Instead, it was crafted with surgical precision over hundreds of hours by skilled speech writers and communications professionals. Each and every sentence, each and every word deliberated to communicate exactly the intended message. These are words that will live as long as the history of the United States lives. This is not a fact lost on Barack Hussein Obama. Read carefully.

Inagural Address Analysis

I was all but forced to watch Barack Hussein Obama's inaugural address at a work meeting no less. I probably wouldn't have watched otherwise, only because I knew what was going to be said long before it was said. But, since I was somewhat captive, I figured I'd give it at least partial attention. It went by quickly and still with only partial attention I heard enough to justify my fears. What little I heard gave me reason to take a deeper look into this man's carefully chosen words, or more accurately, the words chosen by his speech writing staff.

I must add that along with my disgust at nearly every one of his points was an equal disdain for his dime store preacher enunciation and cadence. He seemed to feed on the enthusiasm of the crowd like a rock star. I couldn't help but see the justifiable pride within this man had turned to the ugly overconfidence of an egomaniac.

Anyway, here is the exact text of his address with my comments interwoven.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Comment: The first half of the first sentence he speaks as president shows us that he feels the United States is in need great help. He is humbled by the very thought of the carnage left behind by his predecessor.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

Comment: Again, “look at this horrible mess you’ve left me with Republican administration and George Bush”.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

Comment: Again, a nation in desperation. Although Barack Hussein is afraid to mention Islam, he does at least mention a network of violence and hatred. Of course, his anti-capitalism/pro-socialism views now appear with the blame of our nation’s economy downturn squarely upon the shoulders of those the productive class of citizens that in actuality provide 90+ percent of the taxes that sustain our nation and the majority of the populace. Likewise, no mention of the very liberal lending policy mandates that led to the widespread (and predictable) inability of borrowers to repay. The mention of health care is a clear advertisement for his coming socialist reform. Of course, the unsubstantiated global warming statement.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Comment: This is the regurgitation of the cries of the leftist crowd. I have the same class of fear, but interestingly, mine is based not on the actions of the last 8 years but of dread of the next 8.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
Comment: This is “Okay, maybe I won’t solve all of the problems overnight like I said I could.”

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

Comment: Blames the Bush administration of being fear driven, divisive and in a state of disarray.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Wow! This cuts right to the chase. Bold criticism of George Bush and republican ideals in general.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Comment: Here’s where he emboldens everything I stand squarely against, all in one small paragraph. Religion, combined with blaming perceived problems on conservative social ideals.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

Comment: Not much I can argue with here.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

Comment: After a brief bit of sanity, he’s back at it. Blaming again capitalists for running “sweatshops” in the emerging United States. And, the obligatory mention of slavery as though they are still influencers of our national conduct worth mention.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Comment: I love the military too!

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Comment: Sure, I’ll give him that this nation was built partly upon an unparalleled work ethic, but this seems again to be a shot at “big business” and evil bosses.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

Comment: BHO appears to be telling us that although we are in a situation no different than we were a year ago, even prior to the “crisis”, we must not relish the passing of the evil suppressor and embrace the way forward. Thank god for Barack Hussein.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Comment: Blah, blah, blah. Now we’re going to solve all sorts of problems that nobody really paying attention recognizes as existent or compelling.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

Comment: Interesting challenge. I think what is actually by those who question his grand plans is “who will pay for this?”

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Comment: So much to address in this one. He speaks only to his supporters here as he points out how the world has left the conservatives behind to drown in their old world thoughts. And don’t question his high tax, big government, handout based, minimum wage increase plans. He tries to give merit to our free market capitalism but then cannot help but extend government’s control over it, thereby making it less free market. He is lost in his own delusional views of a nation that only favors the prosperous. 10 percent of the population (the prosperous) pays 90 percent of the taxes and thus provides support for the rest of the population (the least prosperous or un-prosperous). The final sentence in this paragraph is an attempt to justify redistributive, socialist policies that are surely forthcoming.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Comment: A direct accusation of the Bush administration’s policies at GITMO, alleged domestic spying and other imagined privacy infringements. Thrown in is the leftists view that what the world thinks our policies and behaviors should be is the right course for us and that we have somehow lost our position as world leader. I ask BHO who he thinks is indeed the world leader today?

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Comment: This is the appeal to diplomatic solutions to our problems with Islam mixed in with an insinuation that since we are now on the right path, the BHO path, the world will allow us to grow our power.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Comment: I hope this is not a middle eastern nuclear threat he speaks of? Again, another reference to George Bush ruining the planet. Only BHO can save the planet.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Comment: This is the rhetoric of the left…adding obviously digressive views to a progressive and progressed society somehow makes it stronger. Hmmm...I don’t buy it. Would we really be better off with 150 million Muslims in this country? I can’t see it. Of course, those that disagree with his blindness are segregationists and haters.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Comment: Ok, is he fuckin’ blind or what? This guy knows Islam as well as anyone (he is a Muslim, in the eyes of Muslims). He knows good and well that there are no plans for, friendship forging, inclusion and assimilation. Muslims don’t play that game. It is their way or the highway. I’d like to say he is stupid and ignorant in this case but I’m afraid that’s not the case.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

Comment: Socialism. Socialism. Socialism.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

Comment: Bravo!!

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Comment: Again with the religion. I’m ok with the rest.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

Comment: So, with the demand to “return to these truths”, the accusations against conservatives are: laziness and dishonesty, cowardice and foul play, intolerance and lazy intellect, disloyalty and unpatriotic behavior. Man, this guy is great. Actually these are most of the things I accuse liberals of being. Odd, isn’t it?

This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

Comment: I’m sick of leaders saying that god has called upon them for action. God is behind us now people. George Bush said that too. Which was right? The Christian/Muslim or the Christian?

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

Comment: Sure, he has to point out his race again and how rising to his current position is a miracle.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

Comment: Man, this guy is really full of himself. “Let us mark this day with remembrance,”. Look how far we have come? We are progressed only now that he is president, I suppose. Not yesterday, but now.

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Comment: This egomaniac is already trying to secure his legacy as the savior of man. He will meet the test where others have failed. He had the strength, courage and blessings of god. He saved the ideal of freedom.

Numb No More

I'm becoming numb to the fact that we're about to swear in this idiot as our next president. I have to fight the numbness. Believe me, I hope for the best from this new administration but I just can't see much good coming from this inexperienced imposter of a president or any of his minions.

Harsh you say? I've decided that I am not taking the high road on this one. Conservatives all to often hold back their true feelings and opinions in the interest of fair play and etiquette (okay, not Ann Coulter). Conversely, liberals have been calling President Bush a moron since day 1. I beg you to find 1 example of "prominent" liberals giving him any credit at all for anything positive. Just last night on Sean Hannity's new show the liberal guest would not even admit to crediting this administration for keeping the United States safe from terror (Islam) attacks since 9/11. He's just a single person and cannot take credit, they say. On the other hand, they give this single leader grief for every other thing that may happen. If a missile injures or kills a civilian in Iraq through collateral damage, it is this president's fault. If a soldier makes an imprisoned Muslim terrorist pose nake for pictures, it is this president's fault. If there are terrorists at all in Iraq, it is this president's fault. Just a very short time ago when gas prices soared it was this president's fault. When the price of gas dropped recently, not a peep of credit for this president. In fact, not a peep at all really. I'm not even sure that he should be credited for somehow having an impact on the price of gas either way. The left would simply rather not talk about anything where they may be forced into saying something nice about someone they are so deeply invested in discrediting. Don't get me started on how they treat Vice President Cheney.

So, don't expect kinds words from me aimed toward this inbound president and his administration. I will admit no good whatsoever. I don't care if Barack Hussein Obama personally finds a cure for fuckin' cancer in a White House basement lab, he's not getting an ounce of credit from me. I'd rather give my accolades to the test tube or Bunsen Burner than to this shifty community organizer. I think I'll go with "shifty", "unprepared", "unintelligent" and "incapable" as my favorite adjectives for BHO.

My stubborn position is an exact reflection of the behavior displayed by CNN, The New York Times and others over the last 8 years. There are examples of this media bias everywhere every day. Just 2 weeks ago I was at the gym getting a little cardio. There are 6 or 7 television screens all tuned to different channels. Side by side were televisions tuned to FoxNews and CNN. The close proximity of them to one another made obvious the contrasting perspectives on the situation in Gaza between the Israeli's and Hamas. The differences were sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle. The overarching perspective of CNN was that Israel is the aggressor and Hamas the victim. Their guests were often Palestinians or Hamas sympathizers pleading the case for their victimization. Only inches away was the screen with FoxNews. Almost a completely different story there. Their general perspective was that Hamas was the aggressor and Israel only doing what it takes to protect their people and interests. Look, Israel and Hamas are fighting for advantage based on silly, centuries old religious texts. At least this is what they use as their motivation and justification. Therefore I feel that both sides share almost equally the burden of fighting over what is essentially fairy tale. That said, when I examine this particular skirmish, if I had to assign 'aggressor' and 'victim' tags I would assign them to Hamas and Israel respectively.

BHO, then, will get only one-sided coverage from me. I refuse to even look for any good in anything that he does from this point forward. I will admit to nothing positive. Part of me wishes that all conservatives would take this approach over the coming years. The other part of me says that the conservative collective should continue on the high road and support whatever is best for this nation and ultimately the world. I'll leave the practicality to others in this case.

One Step Up, Two Steps Back

Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another.
~Juvenal, Satires



Most would contend that man has evolved to be a kinder, gentler being since the beginning of our species. We look back on our sometimes barbaric history confidently pleased that we have made things better. With the passage of time our behavior has become, well—more civilized. Sure, we still abuse, maim and kill, but for the most part humans like to heed the laws and constants that keep society from falling apart. The basic ills of murder, theft and the institution of slavery are all pretty much universally abhorred. No question, there are still places on the globe where these things are tolerated more than commonly held as appropriate, but all in all, we behave fairly well. We have progressed and this progress seems good. How do we ensure that we take 1 step forward without taking 2 steps back?

Listen to your elders, they say. Our elders often maintain that the general state of affairs was better in times gone by. Every generation has probably said it. With time there is a real or perceived digression. There is the sentiment that the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. In my own middle age I sometimes long for a return to the good old days. Still, no doubt, there has been progress in humanity, so how can both perspectives hold true? The elders do hold wisdom and do hold valuable knowledge about the ways things work and the way other things did not work. Still, we must sometimes leave them behind in the name of progress. Conservatism is defined as the desire to preserve the best in society while opposing radical change. Finding value in the way things were is a high concept for the conservative.

I support the conservation of our best ideas and ideals, but not all conventions are worth perpetuation. An absolute conservative takes preservation to an extreme that I find uncomfortable and unconscionable. When the concern is protection of ancient myth, I break stride and instead seek to overturn our wretched past. Putting too much stock in our myriad of mythical religions has never been the way forward. The most unchallenged convictions so far are the religious beliefs and derivations thereof. Their tenets stood strong for eons but have hardly been the foundation of progress in the last several hundred years. Where religion once provided the rule of law and personal governance it no longer can be used as a guide. The problem lies in the very nature of religion as a god’s unerring, unchanging word. When you paint yourself into that corner you limit and ultimately terminate your ability for growth. The theist cannot apply acquired knowledge without admitting the error in what was once held as divine truth. This too often allows for a paradox where reason loses to emotion. Don’t get me wrong, my reservations with religious ideals aside, I do find wisdom in my elders and mostly share with them their goals of conservation.

Similarly, the liberals have their own preoccupation. Theirs is the error where nothing at all is without question. Liberals appear to think that everything was screwed up yesterday, and the perfection of man is attainable if only we’ll keep on trying. They seem to advocate change in any situation if only for the sake of change itself. This delusion of perfectibility is where I break stride with the liberals. Their search for ultimate refinement leaves in its wake a trail littered with sound ideals waiting hopefully for another chance. Admittedly there are countless observations once held true by the majority that have long been dispelled by time’s unyielding eye. There has been societal progress. The point of this chapter is that we must question all things held as truths to allow for progress while at the same time we must conserve universal truths so as not throw the baby out with the bath water. Change for change’s sake may make you feel progressive, but does not equal progress for mankind. We have progressed, and continued progression is likely unavoidably human. This is the point where my conservative atheist views pit me in a struggle against myself. Conservatives tend to lean toward over-conservation, probably as a way to retain their religious convictions. Liberals tend to lean toward change for change’s sake, probably as a way to protect and justify their love of progress. I’m like anyone else, I suppose. I want to maintain or conserve the positions I feel are good and at the same time overturn those things I think are bad. I want to pick and choose. I want to have it both ways. This is the only reasonable approach to progress and to learning in general. Most, if not all, learning and progress is attained by building upon the past not reinventing it.

How do we know what to protect and what to leave behind? Are there universal truths born of time tested observation that remain unchanged and should remain unchallenged? Should anything stand unchallenged? Are some of our truths genetically fixed so that we almost universally recognize and honor them? My gut tells me that some behaviors ingrained in our DNA over eons of evolution are beneficial for our species, even in this modern age. In our never-ending search for something better, we will sometimes uncover behaviors that are indeed instinctual and “in our genes” but at the same time not consistent with humanity and modernity. An example can be found in human reproduction. Humans are capable of reproduction, usually around the age of 13 or so. Most societies today have taboos against sexual activity and pregnancy at such a young age. In the United States and throughout the West the expected age of pregnancy is getting later and later. People are expected to finish compulsory education, college and get well on their way into a career before child rearing becomes a priority. Such considerations were not as important 100, 200, 300 or 3,000 years ago. In the 21st century delayed parenthood is a practical policy. Our society and economy are structured in such a way to make it difficult to establish for oneself a career and sound emotional foundation without a great deal of dedication to individual development well into our 3rd decade of life. There will be occasions when we will have to overcome our evolutionary history in the interest of doing what is right for modernity.

Is it productive, in the interest of social progress, to break down all truths and positions once held or should some remain intact and unchallenged? If we make everything fair game for scrutiny, do we not risk the fall of some valid icons of fact and norm? I think everything should be open for some level of question and reevaluation. We must allow for social scrutiny to enable progress. Sure, hallowed ground will be challenged and lost but hopefully the utility once recognized will, in the end, be reinforced. We must also recognize that we will often lose the ease of our past, if only temporarily, for the gain of our future. This can be the hard part. It is also true that proper absolute truths, ingrained in our behavioral DNA will come under attack; appear to fall, or indeed actually fall, for some period of time. I offer the conventions of 2 parent households, absolute equality and the value of economic competition to name but a few that are currently under attack by liberals. Hopefully and ideally, those that most long for the return of fallen truth will witness its return to favor.

Are we taking the fastest path to progress when we allow the most universal truths to be challenged or does the diversion slow us down? Should we be in a hurry to progress? Is the fasted path indeed the best path or should treading lightly and deliberately be preferred? Maybe opening our best ideas to question and subsequently proving them not worthy of change is the best way forward. The effort expended in the process of questioning any idea is an educational experience that should drive home the merit of the idea, should there be some. The value of that idea should be apparent and the idea should live long after survival of the inquiry process. Failures made along the way can be the best way to strengthen our understanding. Unqualified inquisition may not always be the quickest way forward, but it could be the most effective.

What is progress anyway? Is progress to be measured in life-expectancy, total population count or in degrees of freedom and human rights? In an evolutionary model, absolute population count is the measure of success for a species. It is said that we are simply a collection of cells optimized to replicate our genes. That organism which has the highest count is said to be dominant in many ways. Our brains tell us that there are things more important to humanity than increasing the total number of humans. We speak of quality of life and freedom as ideals far more frequently than we speak of maximized proliferation. It is by most accounts a virtue of civilization that we endeavor to optimize the conditions of life for present generations and generations in the foreseeable future. In some sense though, I am still unsure that anything short of reaching the highest possible human population is really in the best interest in of ensuring the survival of our species in the long term. Assuming that survival is our primary interest.

Could progress be defined as the preparation for future generations at all costs? Or does progress mean optimization of the conditions of those alive now? What if there is no tomorrow? It is a fact that someday there will indeed be no tomorrow. Would it not have been smarter to have optimized for today instead of betting on a future that never came? Concern with improving the present and living for today could be a choice that a species unsure of tomorrow would take. Lower organisms routinely expend all of their energy stores in an effort to stay alive and grow today at all costs. Humans, with our unique awareness of the future, our posterity and indeed our own demise, have evolved the ability to plan in great detail for known future conditions.

A return to a singular, selfish, short-sighted position doesn’t seem very human. Short sighted behavior does not appear to be in the best interest of our probable future as a species on the planet. The game changed in a drastic way as soon as populations gained the ability to sacrifice tomorrow for the benefit of today. The power to change the future can be a wonderful but dangerous thing. General environmental concerns and global warming are the concerns that come to mind first. Shouldn’t we plan for tomorrow just in case?

Why progress? Why should the goal of humanity be progress of any kind? Is progress the only way? What is wrong with stagnation? Could the human species, again with our unique awareness, decide that what we have today is just fine? Imagine humanity content to make tomorrow exactly as comfortable, humane, free and prosperous as today. Unquestionably there are countless among us that settle for just that. As a collection, I do not think we are capable of such stagnation. Although it may feel like we are empowered more so than the single cell to decide our path, I do not think we are. Progress, by almost any definition, is inevitable. Whether we seek only to maximize our numbers, or improve living conditions, or plan for our future generations we seem to strive to do better tomorrow than we did today. Are we doomed to constant dissatisfaction with the present or is hope for tomorrow the only light at the end of the tunnel? At the end of the day, tomorrow is all we have.

Pants on Fire

The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with the human ambition.
~Carl Sagan



Man, it’s not cold like it was when I was a kid. It was a lot different in the 1970s. There must be something to this global warming stuff. I mean it was really cold growing up in suburban Chicago. We had so much snow that the side roads were covered with a 2 inch layer of permafrost until almost April every year. At least that’s the way I remember it. My own parents remember it being worse yet when they were kids. I wonder if it really was that much worse, or even different at all. Maybe there are other explanations. Maybe the snow on the roads until April had more to do with the poor snow removal in those days than massive amounts of snowfall. My seat of the pants perspective may be misleading me to only remember what I want to remember. I am in my mid-forties now and I have lived in and visited snowy climates all over the world. I’m sort of bored with snow at this point—I hardly notice it. I was not bored with snow as a 10 year old boy. Could it be that only my perspective has changed?

Perspective is everything; I’ve come to find out. There are enormous gaps in perspective in the world these days. Some people like Elvis, others do not. Some like Ginger, others like Mary Ann. Some are “pro-life”, others are “pro-choice”. Some of these perspective battles are fun; others are down-right deadly. Global warming, as it is named by those that believe in it, is closer to the deadly side than it is the fun side.

In keeping with fashion, extremists on either side of this issue have taken over the air waves. This is no surprise and seems to be a trend in the media. As is usually the case when extreme views and extreme viewers are involved, they do not even want to listen to each other. This global warming issue has become so polarized that it seems to me that neither side wants to bother with the facts. It is easier for them to look only for data that supports their own viewpoint. This is a common ploy for people that want to avoid the truth for whatever reason.

Millions are duped each year by fortune tellers and psychics. Fueled by their own deep seated desire to believe, they see only corroborating evidence. The decrees of psychics are sufficiently vague and sufficiently unverifiable to make any reflection almost impossible. “You will have a change in your professional life” is corroborated not only when you land that new big money job you’ve been shooting for, but also when you get a new comfy chair in your cubicle. It is easy to blame the unsophisticated for unsophisticated behavior, but it is not only the unwitting believer that falls prey to wishful thinking. Sometimes even the otherwise incredulous climatologists can fall prey to their own politics and emotions. Judgment can be impaired by wishful thinking. This unwillingness to stick to the facts or listen to reason is most apparent when you watch news talk shows or political talk shows on television. Each side is so heavily invested in their own truth they will not be troubled to listen to the other side. And with good reason. The other side is spouting the same familiar class of rhetoric and extremist bullshit as they are. Seeking facts is no longer as important as defending the position. For me, this war being waged in the media is not worth waging anymore. One thing for sure is that it is no longer worth watching. Lay-people like me cannot determine fact from fiction.

Every time that I hear we are in a cold spell or a warm spell in Chicago, I wonder if some other place on the planet is experiencing the opposite phenomena at that same moment. That data proved to be difficult for me to find in my 15 minutes of research, but I’ll bet it is out there. I did do some very quick research, though, and found some data on temperature extremes and norms over the last 100 years or so. Like you, I have seen the overwhelming evidence supporting both sides of the global warming debate. I set out with absolutely no idea of what I would find. Let’s take a look. This sets of data consists of record high and record low temperatures in various locations throughout the world.

Record High Temperature
Location, Temperature, Year
Libya, 136, 1922
Death Valley, 134, 1913
Tel Aviv, 129, 1942
Queensland, 128, 1889
Argentina, 120, 1905
Antarctica, 59, 1974
South Pole, 75, 1978

Record Low Temperature
Location, Temperature, Year
Vostok, -129, 1983
Russia, -90, 1933
Canada, -81, 1947
New South Wales, -9, 1994
Morocco, -11, 1935
Argentina, -27, 1907
Alaska, -80, 1971

I noticed with only a quick glance that the dates for these record low temperatures seemed to be pretty recent in many cases. Surely several of them were after the industrial revolution began polluting the environment. In fact, the average date for these record low temperatures is 1953. So, pretty much worldwide, the trend in extreme temperatures is skewed toward record cold temperatures occurring more frequently recently with record warm temperatures occurring further in the past comparatively. One side of the global warming debate would have you have you believe that the earth is getting so extremely warm in the last 100 years that these relatively recent record lows would not be possible. Of course, there very well could have been many more extreme low temperatures over the last millennia, but nobody was measuring them and passing down the facts. The record high temperatures can be revealing too. These occurred on average in 1931. This is comparatively longer ago than the record colder temperatures. If you and I were looking only at this data, I could make a case that the globe is becoming dangerously cooler by the year.

For good measure I have thrown in some numbers for my beloved Windy City. I found a table that contains the average July temperature captured for quite a few years. Here are some that I found. I promise that I took these year ranges randomly except for wanting to find some prior to the industrial revolution and some well after.

Chicago – Average July Temperature
Year, Temperature, Year, Temperature
1895, 72 1997, 73
1897, 73 1996, 70
1898, 76 1995, 76
1899, 74 1994, 72
1900, 73 1993, 74

Looking at these July temperatures it is quickly evident that there is not much of a range. In fact, the temperatures from the late 1800’s average out to 73.6 degrees and the more recent years average out to 73 degrees. The 100 year old dates are actually warmer in Chicago than the more recent dates. Once again, with only these facts, I could alarm you with stories of how dangerous this .6 degree cooling is for mankind.

I still don’t exactly know who to believe. Maybe humans have changed the temperature of the earth, maybe we have not. If we have, we must answer some questions.

How much have we altered the climate?
Once we get agreement that we have indeed altered the climate, we must quickly assess the situation in the hopes that we can take corrective action, if necessary. We must first work to discover how much change we have brought about. I have thought about the question a little and I think that the typical “n degrees” globally figure that we see frequently in the press may not give us the right precision for our cause. It seems to me that the climate change would manifest itself regionally in different ways. One degree here...not so bad. One degree there…very bad. We hear that terrible things are happening to our ice caps that could have a drastic effect elsewhere. It would be important for us to understand this deeply. What will this same temperature change mean to the African deserts? The North American sub-tropics? The Asian tundra? We must understand each and every region globally to fully understand how climate change will impact humans. We need to know if human life is in danger or if new and drastically different migratory patterns will emerge. If there is measurable change in our climate it would seem to follow logic that some regions may indeed be, as a result, more hospitable to human life, not less. Admittedly this will not do us much benefit if it takes massive human migration or if we end up with fewer overall hospitable places overall than we have today. What if, accidentally, we have made the world better for humans, though? Before you execute me, I think this is very unlikely given the nature of evolution by natural selection, but it is worth a thought.

What are the consequences?
After we determine what exactly we have done to our environment we need to understand the consequences upon us now and those well into the future. If they are inevitable, what can we do to prepare for them? We need to know the real impact to human life. While I specifically mention only human life, I am including understanding the impact to all plant and animal life because of our obvious inclusion in the food chain. This is a good time to reflect upon something said by American biologist Edward O. Wilson.

“If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.”

Admittedly, all I ultimately really care about is human life. Other considerations are prudent, however. Wilson’s observation on insects is only one of a slew of other possible misfortunes; misfortunes that could indirectly lead to human catastrophe.

How did we do it?
Once we understand fully what we have done, and the consequences, it would do us some good to understand exactly how we did it. We hear a lot about carbon fluorocarbons (CFCs) and some other substances researchers have termed “greenhouse gases”. We need to study exactly how these interact with our home planet’s atmosphere and determine if they can actually create climate change on the scale we have observed in the previous paragraphs. Perhaps the greenhouse gases are partially the cause, but partially red herrings as well. This is one area where we need to leave no stone unturned.

Can it be corrected?
Only through full understanding of how, can we have a shot at turning it around. First, we need to know the things that we need to stop doing to our planet. We can then work to stabilize the situation. We would need to find ways to reverse the damage we have already done. Any corrective or reversal actions must be undertaken with great caution. We must take great take great care not to introduce new mistakes as solutions to previous mistakes. This is akin to bringing in snakes to end your rat problem and creating for yourself snake problem.

Why did we do it?
All the while as we search for answers to these important questions, maybe we should ask ourselves why. Why did humans introduce chemicals into the atmosphere that eventually caused us problems? Through deep understanding of the how, perhaps we can understand why we did it. I’m not sure that this will help us overcome any damage, but maybe it will. Reflection on this question could benefit us in at least a couple of ways. First, we could stop demonizing scientists and the large governments and corporations they work for.

Beginning with early deforestation by tribal peoples and moving on to the industrial age, we humans generally had the best of intentions for mankind. We see it all the time. Humans exercise incredible ingenuity to solve our immediate concerns with no realistically possible perspective on the longer term consequences. We put additives in our food and later find out that they may cause cancer. Surely the scientists and food producers did not intend to inflict this damage, but eventually we discovered the problems through the same scientific method that created the problems. There was a time when asbestos lined the inside of the walls of our homes and workplaces to keep us safe from fire. For this, asbestos is quite effective and no doubt saved countless human lives. We discovered years later that contacting asbestos or especially inhaling the tiny fibers is very harmful for humans. Lawsuits were filed and actions were taken to either minimize our exposure to asbestos or replace it with something less harmful (we hope). Today the continued use of such a dangerous material is inexcusable and criminal. It just occurred to me that at one point in our history it was probably criminal not to use asbestos as a fire insulation material. It is all about perspective. Once environmentally damaging substances are identified, continued use or propagation of them must be punished unless of course to stop would bring about more damage.

It does us no good to blame science or corporations for the damages unless it can be proven that someone knowingly cause more harm than good. It is quite possible that some scientist somewhere very early in the industrial age spoke of the possible ill long term effects of dumping waste into our atmosphere. Here we are on another slippery slope. Sure, it may turn out someday that this scientist was right, but was the world scientific community wrong for not listening to the warnings in the first place? I think not (usually). Science, while certainly not a consensus machine, does operate within the laws of society. There are detractors to every theory. Those detractors must prove their case to their peers. Right or wrong, one guy saying that there is a problem does not usually get the complete attention of any scientific community. This is a reality that has served us fine and we owe much to it.

The same people that were bitching in the early 1900s that “the man” wasn’t creating enough factory jobs for the working class are complaining today that the factories are damaging the planet. Sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. We must not look to point fingers. For each of the questions we ask we must also be careful not to put forth only doomsday scenarios. Surely doomsday scenarios should be considered but our most likely scenarios should get fair treatment as well. Global warming is a problem that must be held far above political squabbling. The planet is our only hope. What a tragedy it would be if humans got their collective acts together enough to end all wars, cure all cancers and feed all hungry mouths only to find that we irreparably damaged our only planet. Of course, maybe we didn’t have anything to do with it. We gotta find out.

Introduction to my latest book "Reason For Life"

The words "I am" are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you.
~A.L. Kitselman


I am not a schooled scientist. I utilize the scientific method regularly to traverse the landscapes of both my professional and private lives. Most of us do, or should. This book contains some scientific commentary that has passed my admittedly sometimes-cursory scrutiny and on some occasions the greater scrutiny of others. Just as I am not a scientist, I am not sure that I am a philosopher either. I will provide philosophical perspectives, both my own and those of others. Philosophy seems to me to be opinion. So, maybe we are all philosophers in that respect.

This book, like my previous “Damned” book, contains both fact and opinion. Arguably, the reader could confuse represented fact for opinion and opinion for fact. Where I have wanted to make clear my intention, I have cited references, individuals or direct quotes in paragraph. I recognize externalized references in footnotes or at the end of a book give a reader a place to begin further research should he desire. As this book is not intended to be a great work of science, coupled with the reality that I do not have the means to employ a significant research staff, I have not provided such externalized references. I fought with this decision somewhat. In addition to the comparatively light nature of this work, I have another quite valid reason for omission of citation. It has occurred to me during my own reading and research, at least in the last 10 years or so, my behavior has changed. Both professionally and personally, I notice that if I truly want to delve into a particularly interesting or controversial passage, my starting point is now most often the World Wide Web. Utilizing the internet I can now, more conveniently, find things like direct quotes, varieties of publications or commentary on most anything I choose. Certainly, the reader/researcher must learn to recognize valuable, reliable sources and filter out the less trustworthy. The web is generally a pretty efficient, self-adjusting machine. The most credible information is usually pretty easy to find if you pay closest attention to the organizations and sites that are generally respected. Just as there is information on the internet that must be meted out, the same is true of content on the shelves of your local library. Researchers must always beware. I trust that readers of this book are more often than not connected to the internet in their homes and therefore will find the on-line information much more readily available and comprehensive than that in a small town library or distant college or university. Of course, I still find printed books very valuable, as I hope you do, and continue to read them daily to gain deep familiarity with an author or subject. The simple fact is that the internet has put at the fingertips of most readers access to literally a worldwide library of information almost infinitely richer than any single traditional library. I would even bet that most readers first research books and authors on the internet before they purchase them (maybe on the internet, too) or borrow them from a library. Therefore, if you find either disagreement or sparked interest in something between these covers, I trust that you will seek enlightenment on the internet first.

As I set about to categorize each of my chapters as either religion or politics, I noticed that this is not so easy. Some chapters do not obviously fit into either one or the other, but more appropriately into both. That politics and religion are tightly intertwined is more evident than ever before in my accessible memory. In this country, the United States, the political right calls on religion for answers to today’s pressing socio-political questions. They give god an opinion on such things as abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, creationism, intelligent design and evolution. In writings attributed to them, gods did not directly comment on these subjects (a confirmation of god’s human, ancient historical origins) as revealed in the sacred texts, but believers twist the revealed words in ways that suit their political objectives and personal needs. Additionally, it came about that there were many pieces in this book that touched on our current war. Any way you look at it, the war on terrorism, the war on Islam, the Iraq war, the war in the Middle East, or however you want to term it, is a war fueled by religious fervor. The political state of world affairs makes it impossible for me to strip from it religious ideology. They are the same.

My sense is that this connection has always been present, but that I just did not always take notice. Unquestionably, this has long been the case in the Middle East and with our Islamic neighbors. Recently it is more apparent to me because our worlds have collided--again. The average American, despite certain religious convictions, is not so resolute in belief to put it at the forefront in daily decision-making. Most tend live morally, ethically and reasonably without constant reflection to revealed texts. American theists choose their battles carefully so as to not focus too much attention or scrutiny in their direction. They do like to stir the pot when the stakes are low. I mean, who honestly cares about prostitution or gay marriage except for prostitutes (& Johns) or gays? Most American theists are apt to fight to abolish things that if abolished would not have an impact on their own lives. Not so with Islam. Muslims attack everything with their religious bullets. Women’s rights, from voting to driving to travel to showing their faces in public, are daily concerns for the Muslim. Women are barred from participation in things that American women have taken for granted, often since the founding of our nation. Not just women are kept from free pursuit of happiness. Music, alcohol consumption, dancing and other sinful pursuits are universal taboos in the Muslim world. In Islam, religion is your life. Religion guides nearly your every move. As a Muslim you would not typically go more than a few hours without performing religious rituals. Surely there are extreme examples, but no society is immune from the backward thinking and anti-progress interests of religion. Everywhere dogma and life are hopelessly entangled. I think this is reflected in the chapters of this book. Hence, you will not see the religion vs. politics division like in my first book.

Like my first book, I did not set out to write on a specific theme. If there is a common thread other than conservative atheism, it is unintentional. This book is somewhat less about my foundational conservative atheist convictions and origins and more concerned with topics that I have encountered in the news or in everyday life. That said, it should be no surprise that this book is less autobiographical than my first. While there is no doubt that it contains insight into my character, the focus tends to be more consistently outward in observation and reflection on world affairs and humanity, with a few exceptions. This direction change was not an entirely intentional one. Instead, it came about as an evolution. The more personal and foundational details of my life were covered in my first book as I tried to provide background on how or why my views are what they are. As I compiled the words that would become the contents of this book I noticed a more desperate tone, and a more critical perspective. I do not attribute the difference entirely to a more sharply honed sense of awareness. I think instead that it came about because I perceive the situation in the world today is truly more desperate than at any other time in my entire life. The United States is engaged in a world war with Islam, an enemy that most of our own citizens still fail to recognize or identify. Religious dogma will not relinquish easily its position as the chief basis for incontestable suppression of progress.

At the same time, we are at war with ourselves. The phenomenon that we call “political correctness” effectively continues to erase the lines between right and wrong, the reasoned and the absurd. Perhaps half of our population is convinced that America is an evil, imperialistic aggressor. The popular media believes that our capitalist, representative democracy is the cause of the world’s ills when in fact it is the primary source of global stability. A world without a democratic United States as our founding fathers envisioned it is a world vulnerable to the depths of tyranny.

The solutions to our problems do not lie very far from the center of the line separating the political left from the political right, the blue from the red. The further left or further right you venture, the more you begin to lose sight of reason. Unfortunately, the most powerful and popular voices are, very often, all too far from the balance point. We are a nation being torn apart at the center. If you agree with my premise, you should find much confirmation and agreeable perspective in this book. If you disagree with my premise, I hope you will at least respect it as reasoned. Either way, if my words at times shake you, it is because I am trying to awaken you.

Conversation With a Believer

For me it is a difficult thing to give what is both an intelligent and quick response to the inquisitive theist. When I am approached in social situations and questioned on my atheism, I just seem to have a hard time formulating, what should be for me, a concise response that captures my position and at the same time illustrates for them the folly of their own. The situation normally dictates that there is not much time for discourse. The half-hearted and slapdash response leaves me feeling as though I have done more harm than good for my stance. I always think of really cool things I should have said after my opportunity has passed. It is not as though I haven’t thought about my position or that I do not have a strong one. On the contrary, there have been periods in my life where I have participated in daily discussions on life’s most important issue. I write about this stuff a pretty good bit. I am a reasonably clear communicator. I’m not the nervous sort or at all ill at ease in social situations. Still, I feel that I have not done my best.

So, what is my problem? Upon reflection, I have been able to uncover at least two related reasons for my frustrating form of stage fright. First, I always seem to be caught by surprise by these queries. I’m pretty sure that this is a result of my second excuse—lack of practice. How often have I had the opportunity for proper debate? Not very. Most of my discussion on the matter would be more appropriately termed collusion with the like minded. We dive deeply into the facts, split the hairs of reason, provide justifications for our positions and answer questions that we think could be asked. I get plenty of conversation; that’s not the problem. One thing that is harder to come by in my life is an actual question asked by an actual antagonist questioner. I simply don’t hang with these people very much. Or, at least I don’t hang with them in situations where discussions of religion are appropriate or comfortable. The office is not usually the right place. Either is the auditorium at the eighth grade concert band recital or in the racquetball court at my local gym. Recently I have vowed to break the tradition of convention somewhat, and expand the boundaries of acceptable and appropriate venues for such debate. I’m trying.

Opportunity aside, there are other reasons for my bitten tongue. I do not know how to say this without sounding ostentatious, but some people just wouldn’t understand. Many people do not possess a functional level of understanding of the necessary scientific fields of geology, astronomy, biology, physics or archaeology to name but a few. I have neither the time nor the heart to fill the gaps left by their inattentive school days or lazy adult minds. Why go through the bother with little hope of payoff?

In other cases my hopes are higher, but just as frequently dashed. I encounter many very bright people every day that I know to be quite capable of understanding complex information and relationships. These poor souls have the ability but tragically lay it to waste. They could understand atheism as the only truly defensible position, but they choose not to think about it. These are the closed minded rubes stuck on hollow convention that sometimes accuse me of closed mindedness for not accepting their myths. Some people just will not listen to reason. For them, the damage is done. To them, I can neither offer help nor hold hope.

I’m not entirely sure which group bothers me more, the unable or the unwilling. As the unable are simply lacking the cognitive ability to get the facts straight, I will not blame them all for their impairment. Some of the unable are not entirely without blame. I’ll cut them some slack if they lack the nature to understand but I cannot completely forgive those that didn’t nurture their nature. There are some that chose early on to disregard educational norms and have squandered opportunity. There is accountability in their neglect, and I hold no pity for them, only disappointment.

The wholly capable but unwilling too give me cause for grief. For them I cannot help but feel that society has wasted an investment. All of this ability, reason and acquired knowledge wasted on an adulterous marriage to ancient and dark traditions. I suppose now that this is the group that troubles me most. They are so close yet so frustratingly far. How can one so effectively apply reason in some aspects of life and so thoroughly ignore them in search of guiding principles?

Well, I have decided that their problems are not my problems. I will not continue to ignore my position by honoring and respecting other’s foibles. Belief is too important and too destructive to go unchallenged. I will exert greater effort to state my position from this point on. Still, I need the practice. Until I reach the point where my game is honed by sufficient repetition, I will have to make due with the old standby—preparation. I’m not on the spot right now. No pressure. I need to use this time to build my game plan. What will I be asked? What are my best responses? I now will build my encounter of a Christian believer, the sort that I most often come upon.

Believer: You don’t believe in god?
Me: Right, I don’t believe in god. Your god or anyone else’s god.

This states squarely for them my position. It also begins to call into question their own belief. Many believers do not often confront their own disbelief in other personal gods.

Believer: Why don’t you believe in god?
Me: Belief is simply no longer consistent with what we know about the world and our universe today. Religion’s proclamations have, over the years, fallen one by one in the face of evidence. The “inspired word” of your god places the earth’s age at approximately 4000 years. This once absolute truth is now known to be absolutely false. It was once a crime to proclaim that the earth is anything other than the center of the universe. This is also patently false. There are examples so numerous that to address them would result in a text larger than the bible. As man gains wisdom, god’s wisdom is lost.

This is an attempt to show that reason and rules of evidence can indeed be applied to matters of faith once thought to be protected from such inquiry.

Believer: How did we get here then?
Me: This I do not claim to know. I do know that the biblical account of a divine being creating a man from dust and subsequently a woman from that man’s rib is as absolutely absurd as most of the other words in the bible and other similar books. The search for the real origins is certainly a more desirable option and will accomplish more to benefit man than continued reliance on simple beliefs in simplistic child-pleasing stories.

This statement indicates that I am not another religious charlatan with monopoly on the ultimate truth. I can be open minded with regard to questions of the ultimate truth but at the same time I am steadfastly opposed to the continuation of ancient stories as guiding principles.

Believer: How, then, do you know the difference between good and evil?
Me: I live in accordance with the same base sense of right and wrong that you do. A sense that has been developed over eons through natural selection and further honed by our emergent large brains and societal structures. Each one of us is here today because each and every one of our ancestors was a survivor. Your ancestors were all winners of the game of life. The game of life is assuredly one of struggle, conflict and death but also one largely based on tolerance, cooperation and collaboration. Your ancestors, long before the scribing of your religious texts, were masters of it all. It is to them that you owe gratitude for your understanding of right and wrong.

This is my attempt to explain right and wrong without divinity. We all have a sense of good and bad. What I’ve done here is address evolution without mention of evolution. The attentive believer will see my allusion while the ignorant will perhaps glean insight to life’s logical procession.

Believer: What do you tell your children?
Me: I tell them that we do not know that answer to the ultimate question and that it is always better to seek answers and truth than to find false comfort in tradition. Incidentally, if religion is not presented as a viable option for children nor ingrained as an absolute truth, they will not need to invent it for themselves. If religious texts are not held sacred, but instead seen for what they are, they cannot be distinguished as containing any more answers to life’s mysteries than Huck Finn.

Honesty is the best policy, even with children. This statement touches on the brainwashing nature of religion. A child soaked in myth will absorb some. A child left to his own devices will seek answers rather than settling for them.

Believer: What if you are wrong?
Me: I’m not wrong. It is tremendously more likely that the 100,000 concocted religions are wrong, yours not exempted. It is only even possible for a maximum of 1 answer to be correct. What’s more is that the correct answer does not necessarily need to come out of the pool of 100,000. The number of possibilities is so large as to be effectively infinite. The odds are simply not in your favor. On the other hand, I am not stating an answer to the origin question as you and your 99,999 competitors are. I am simply stating that your specific account and all similar accounts are astonishingly unlikely, statistically and otherwise. In fact, when they are examined more closely, even giving them a statistical chance is generous. Poor reasoning, inconsistencies, self-contradiction and obvious fabrication all add up to options that should not get any further consideration (let alone tax exemption).

Believer: You and your children will go to hell.
Me: Fuck you

Back From a Break

Here we are eating the last hours of the last day of 2008. I've been out of pocket for several months now. First, I took a new job going on 2 years ago which has kept me pretty busy. I also worked pretty hard to finish my second book this summer, Reason For Life, which I published in late May. I mostly stayed away from updating my web site and posting on this blog because I was sick of writing and even sick of my own thoughts at times. Not that I am doubting my own views but simply weary from thinking deeply and capturing those thoughts in writing. In fact, I've even grown tired of the thoughts of others. I don't think I've read a complete book since spring of this year. This is quite rare for me as I normally have at least 1 or 2 books in my face in any given week.

As I think back on the year that was 2008, perhaps the combination of my own personal factors along with the ever present presidential election was just too much for me to face every day. My thoughts turned away from politics and more toward work and finding time for exercise and a little recreation. Not that I didn't pay close attention to politics in this tumultuous year, but I didn't seem to want to evaluate anything for anyone beyond myself. Obviously I think the election will prove to have gone in a horrible direction for anyone that is strongly capitalist, anti-socialist and interested in preserving the best of the best nation on earth.

What I thought I'd do beginning tonight is a little exercise in getting my expressive juices flowing again. I'll choose chapters from Reason For Life and post them here weekly. I'll try to post the ones that seem relevant to what is transpiring in the world today. Some of the chapters penned over the last 2 years or so dealt with time sensitive issues that have passed currency. I will include them where appropriate with hope that at least some of my opinion and prediction will have proven close to reality.

Majority Rules

There is a great deal of talk around the water cooler about war these days. If you have been paying attention, it should come as no surprise that I have been doing a little thinking about why we humans choose to fight wars. In the modern world, wars are usually waged nation against nation. There are, of course, some exceptions. Civil wars are fought within a nation because of internal strife. Lately we have seen an example of a war fought on one side by nation (technically nations) but on the other side by a non-nation entity, a culture, a religion.
War is social unrest at the macro level. In the simplest example, one nation is unhappy with the will and behavior of another nation. Most would agree that a just war is when the majority of one nation or entity is unhappy with and threatened by the behavior of another nation or entity. So, in the very simplest terms, war is, or should be, entity majority vs. entity majority.

I think it is necessary to take a few steps back from the common nation vs. nation struggle to get a clearer picture of how and why we get in these situations. Is there any way to keep man happy? Is there any way to bring happiness and contentment levels up to a point where we can live among one another in something nearing absolute peace?

Religious zealots and totalitarian dictator types aside, most would argue that the only just and ethical way to rule a social group is with a government which represents the people. By the people and for the people, I think it was said. The will of the people is the supposed foundation of democracy and the government of the United States. Is there a better way to ensure peace?
Totalitarian government fails because the leaders always control all of the power and money and the people are left with little of either. Eventually the majority of people end up brining down the minority power either by mutiny or societal collapse. Socialism, perhaps more slowly, results in failure too. Socialist countries go against the grain of human nature. Some humans want to excel and get ahead of the pack. A socialist government does not allow excellence outside the small confines of government officials. Socialist governments grow to unfathomable and unmaintainable sizes. Sooner or later they collapse under their own weight. Eventually these flattened societies push back against the behemoth governments and breakdown occurs. When you rule out the other even less popular and effective forms of government, you are left with good ol’ democracy, where the majority rules.

Rule by the majority is not without its own problems and questions to answer. What if the majority in power inflicts great pain on the minority? I suppose that “wrong” is “wrong” universally, in a moral sense. Even if a majority wants to kill the entire minority, it must still be morally incorrect to do so unless it results in less death overall. Still, majority rule is, by definition, the most equitable way we have invented to bring satisfaction to a large group. Obviously, some absolute restraint must be placed upon that majority to ensure that we do not have horrible social inequities or catastrophes.

Still, even a majority rule with appropriate constraints does not guarantee absolute peace. Let’s take a look at this from the bottom levels of government and work our way up. In cities and counties in the United States we do not see significant disagreements between majority and minority that lead to war. Unrest for sure, but not war. Democracy and even some other government types are mostly successful at this level, in this respect. This is likely due mostly to the size and geographic proximity of the group being governed. When we begin to examine inter-state disputes, though, we begin to see some trouble. In the latter part of the 19th century, then certainly already a democracy, we had a long and bloody civil war in our United States. We called it, appropriately enough, “The Civil War”. This was our war between the states. Surely other examples of wars within nations come to mind. States, it seems, are more difficult places to maintain peace. At the next level up, nations are always fighting other nations. We, still a democracy, are currently involved in a war that is taking place with several nations mobilized in a fight in a couple of other nations against an enemy with no national identity. Clearly not nation against nation, but this is an unusual case where religious zealots have occupied several nations in the Middle East and have consequently brought upon themselves the wrath of the greatest military force ever formed on this planet. Democratic nations fight in wars, but I do not know of any cases where they were the clear aggressors.

You can satisfy some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Truer words have maybe never been spoken on the subject of government. No matter how you organize to avoid social disputes or how you respond to them when they happen, they will continue to be a part of life. Competition, maybe even armed competition, you could say, is in our blood and in our DNA. Each one of us is evolved from only the ancestors fit enough to win the competition for life and death or at least delay that death long enough to bear a child. Whether fortunately or not, I am still unsure, we have also evolved brains that allow us to contemplate our violence. We understand that killing is, under almost any condition, is something that we should avoid. That recognition is one that separates us from other animals. Human societies must cherish that recognition and strive to take every reasonable precaution to minimize conflict. I do not mean to sound all touchy-feely, anti-war, peace-nik here. I was in the military and I would kill to defend the United States. Despite our awareness of how wrong it is to kill, there are occasions, unfortunately, when we must kill on some scale to prevent death at a larger scale or even to prevent a loss of basic human rights. So far, democracy is the most peaceful system we have seen. I do not know who said it first if it wasn’t George W. Bush, but democratic nations do not wage war with each other. This statement is mostly true. Other than the case of our civil war, if that even counts, I do not know of any war between two true democracies. Our Civil War was fought for a very noble cause and only served to further the democracy, strengthen it, and make it a more true to its name. Our own Civil War included, numerous historical studies have shown that democracies are more peaceful internally than other types of regimes. The very nature of democracy is to encourage majority rule (“by the people, for the people”) and, more importantly, to utilize peaceful persuasion techniques, to the degree possible, to build overwhelming majorities. This system requires that most people are mostly reasonable most of the time.The major barriers to world peace today are “undemocratic” nations and religious zealotry. Coincidently, often the former is driven by the latter. I know that there are examples where this is not the case, but very often it is. Democracy is not perfect, nor is atheism. Each of their track records is quite positive despite what popular opinion may be, especially in the case of atheism. The observers of world affairs and the purveyors of popular opinion need to wake up and take a dose of reality. The world’s most pressing and potentially terminal problems today find their fuel in religion and/or dysfunctional regimes. It may be a classic case of the chicken and egg syndrome. I do not know which of our problems is worst or which came first. There will not be anything close to peace on earth so long as any significant part of our world falls into either of these two categories.

A Taxing Evasion

Income taxes levied upon the citizenry makes the United States government work. The United States does not stand alone in the collection of funds from the population; all countries do it in one way or another. You pay some portion of your earnings every year and in return you get a wide array of national infrastructure and services plus an armed force for your defense. In theory, even if not totally in practice, who could argue with such a nicely reciprocating system?
Plenty of people do argue. Yesterday I heard a somewhat troubling radio commercial arguing this point exactly. They just didn’t come out and say it, but message is clear if you lift the thin veil. You know the theme—there is an attorney with a desire to sell you his service which he says will relieve you of your overwhelming tax burden and “pay almost no taxes” at all. We have grown almost immune to such claims. People are always trying to figure out how to pay fewer taxes. This time it was the “pay almost no taxes” part that struck me. In a country sustained by taxation through representation this seems a counterproductive, un-American and almost alarmingly tolerated endeavor. I can fully understand an attorney prepared to aid citizens who have been wronged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If the IRS has, through some type of negligence or impropriety, caused you financial harm, by all means defend yourself and correct those damages. This commercial, however, promoted something entirely different and, unfortunately, all too common. This was legal service for people who have gotten themselves into trouble with the IRS through their own stupidity, and now wish not to pay their share of what is due. I do not understand someone that can proudly advertise and benefit from defrauding their own government. Now I know what the attorney would say to me in his defense—“we are simply using the laws that this country has put in place to protect its citizens.” That may in fact be true. Finding loopholes and clever contortions of laws still does not make cheating the government out of money it is due any more ethical than withholding pay for any other reason. It is wrong no matter how you slice it.

Let me risk contradicting myself. I completely understand and sympathize with people that are fed up with the “fed”. I am the first to complain about how my money is spent once Uncle Sam gets his hands on it. I am in the top 10% of income earners in this country (not as difficult to achieve as you might think), and therefore am a part of the group that pays 70% of the total income tax collected each year. That’s right, 1 person out of 10 pays carries the tax burden for 7 out of 10. Think about the imbalance that this statistic illustrates. Still, it is not as lopsided as some would like. Just last night I saw Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich say in a televised interview that he thinks the top 10% do not pay enough and should be called upon by the next president to contribute more. Imagine that. One person carrying the load for 6 others is not enough for this guy. This is the socialist based position that the successful have somehow benefited at the expense of the less successful and therefore owe a debt to national redistributive programs. Unfortunately Kucinich is not alone and shares this position with most Democrats.
Given that I alone foot the bill for 6 others to live in this land; you can understand that I may have some dissatisfaction with the system. Still, I pay my taxes fully each and every year because I desire to maintain this great country. At least we all benefit equally from the tax input, right? Not really. The other 6 citizens that I support get much more in return per dollar than I could ever hope for. Even if we all took from the public pot equally, I would not get as much per dollar as the lower contributors. This is far from the case though. Those at the bottom of the tax bracket consume more tax money than the top contributors. I have never collected any public funds for my basic survival or any other reason, for that matter. No welfare, food stamps, WIC, public housing, education grants, disaster recovery, unemployment, job training, transportation assistance, incarceration or anything else. For me, the benefit of paying my taxes lies in the many other things that make this a great and free nation. I do not benefit from the money that goes into social programs designed solely to sustain lower contributors, like some of those mentioned above. Still, I pay.

It is clear that I think I pay more than my fair share. And, I do not feel like my money is always well spent. Anyone that knows me knows that whenever I see an example on the street of tax revenue waste, I always say that those are my particular dollars being wasted. We probably all feel that way to some extent. Sure, the waste I point out to friends totals up to substantially more money than I pay in, but the message behind my frustrated sarcasm should not be lost.
Among the more effective ways to stop the waste is to exercise the power of the vote to keep our most socialist minded Democrats out of office (maybe we should get 1 vote for each dollar we contribute to the government?). Democrats, once in office always want more of my money and continue to pour it into dead end social programs. I think for starters that I could support a candidate that realistically wishes to institute a flat tax. I mean an absolutely flat tax. We would all pay a single rate no matter your income, gender, race, family status, sexual orientation, family size or any other factor. The current graduate tax penalizes strong fiscal performance. I’m not sure how long this penalizing system can continue before it collapses in a socialist pile of mediocrity. As a side bar, I could even support a flat tax on consumption. Care would need to be taken to ensure not to stifle our economy which is largely consumption based.

I’m not sure exactly what rate would be appropriate for a flat tax to generate sufficient income for the country. There are some examples that have worked in the 25%-30% range, but the governments and economies in which they operated differed from ours in ways significant enough as to question their validity here in the United States. I know the rate would be somewhere between 0% and 100%. Duh. As obvious as that sounds, it is also obvious that neither extreme would result in any government revenues. There is a mathematical model called the Laffer curve which is used to find the sweet spot where maximum tax revenues are realized. There is a theoretical point where any further raise in the tax rate actually lowers tax revenues. I’m not so sure that maximizing tax revenues is a goal that all nations should strive for except for periods where some contingency calls for higher government productivity or perhaps during a war to ensure the common defense. Otherwise perhaps we should seek a point in the curve that represents maximum economic performance with maximum tax revenues realized. I am no economist, but those 2 points may necessarily converge.

In any case, once the tax is levied and the money collected, it must not be wasted or redistributed unevenly. All people should benefit from equal distribution of funds. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but after several long minutes half immersed in serious economic thought; I think that great care should be taken to ensure that all citizens share equally in the redistribution of collected tax revenue. Easier said than done, I’m sure. I propose that any program that by design consistently distributes this public money disproportionately to the rich, the poor, the middle class, the artist, the cook or the CEO, must be avoided. I am crazy about this equality thing. Federal tax revenues, at the very least, must only be spent on programs that are likely to benefit everyone equally. If the expense is not for everyone’s benefit, it is by definition a specialized interest. Such specialized interests are best funded by specialized interest groups with a stake in the outcome. This means things like defense, national transportation, energy, police, fire protection, space exploration, compulsory education, disaster recovery, medical research and perhaps a few more, but not many, should be publicly funded. As soon as someone gets the urge to fund a tennis court, an art exhibit or job training for high school dropouts, the idea must be shot down. Oh, and I shall be appointed the single position responsible for deciding which programs are in and which are out.

In summary, I am in passionate support of equality; equality of taxation and equality of distribution. No protected or coveted classes. An equal rate for all, and equal access to the goods and services provided should be a palatable approach that even Democrats would have a hard time disagreeing with, but somehow I doubt it.

The Mythical Atheist

I have a tattoo on my right arm of the American Atheist symbol and a statement beneath it stating “Religion Stops A Thinking Mind.” If I find myself in a place where sleeveless shirts are appropriate this tattoo can be a good conversation starter. I guess I knew that before I got it. This sort of attention is part of the reason people get tattoos.

Reactions to my tattoo are many and varied, though some dare not to speak to me once they have read it. In a line at a local fast food eatery, waiting to go down the slide at the water park or sitting on a bench at the gym, lots of people take a gander. I can see many strangers struggling to make out the text without calling attention to the fact that they are doing so. Usually once they have seen it they keep their distance. I catch them throwing wondering glances my way, trying to see if I act like an atheist should or if my horns are showing I suppose. On occasion someone will ask me what it means. I do not have a canned response, but I usually say that it is an atheist tattoo and means what it says. If we are in a situation where further conversation is possible or appropriate, sometimes they will choose to take it further.

This is where it can get interesting. These people have already distinguished themselves as curious and somewhat courageous by asking a stranger to elaborate on what is obviously a controversial subject. I usually get one of two responses—neither of which is indifference. “Hey man, that’s cool; I totally agree” is not as uncommon as you may think. “Hmmm, that’s interesting” is another one that I hear by folks that feel like they should say something. This one is either followed by dead silence, which again I do not see as indifference, or statements of disagreement. The ones that want to amp up the level of disagreement are usually, as you may have already supposed, Christians. Although I encounter a wide variety of religious folks from many faiths around the world in my professional life, my tattoo is not visible in my work attire. Consequently, these conversations happen most frequently in other social settings. The Christians that want to talk about it are typically pretty strong minded, at least in their religious convictions. Their questioning and approach reveal a lot about their own level of faith and especially their misconceptions of me and other atheists.

I live in Indiana. My home is at the edge of a reasonable daily commute to Chicago, which I have done every work day for more than a decade. There is a small town flavor but yet we are a big city suburb. If circumstances are favorable and if these neighbors of mine so desire, one of America’s largest cities awaits them. Museums, concerts, athletic events, big business, shopping and all else that city life has to offer is nearby should they choose to visit. Don’t get me wrong, I am not disparaging the small town life in any way. I chose, in fact, to live there and raise a family there primarily because of all of the positive aspects of the more rural, suburban environment.
My point is that often those in such small towns NEVER get any exposure to positions that could call their own lives into question. Most feel, and tell me, that they have “never met an atheist before.” I would bet that most have not met many non-Christians before. Despite their statements, I would hazard to guess that they had unknowingly encountered an atheist before, even in small town Indiana. Most atheists do not wear their lack of belief on their sleeve as I literally do. Their previous encounters with atheists went undetected by them. The ones that seize this opportunity to speak with me do so under what I can only describe as a sense of obligation. They feel I am wrong, and a sinner, and need direction from them to find my way back to belief.

This is where they often like to test my commitment to atheism. Again, their hope lies in my possible conversion if only I could witness as they have. They must feel as though my conviction is shallow and ready to be overturned at the first sign of a weeping statue, or a Virgin Mary shaped like a potato chip.

I establish, in short order, that my lack of belief in any fairy tale, theirs included, is no passing fancy. Once they recognize that I am not going to convert for them, they begin with the “hard questions”. This is where I get a good picture of what their own beliefs are all about, and especially of the misconceptions they have of me and my fellow atheists.

Very commonly they ask “how long” I have been an atheist. This seems quite a natural curiosity on the outside, but I have uncovered a common ulterior motive. What they really want to ask me is: “what happened?” They want to know why I do not believe like everybody else. They wonder if there was some sort of event or disappointment in my life that moved me to the dark side. I presume that if I did tell them of some conversion event they would try to persuade me that it was god’s will or maybe a test of my faith. See, that’s one way believers justify the unjustifiable.

Another common question is on the subject of morals. How do I, they wonder, profess to lead a moral life without god—their god. One Christian recently even said to me “so, with you, morals are out the window, right?” Look at that statement and imagine a complete stranger saying that to you. This is a very judgmental accusation and quite insulting. People that say such things to me do not realize the fact that such an insulting question is in itself a test of my morals and constraint because it could easily be met with violence. No need to worry though. I realize that they just do not know any better. I will not go into how I answer this question but I usually begin by pointing out some of the many the horrible acts of violence and prejudice in the bible. This usually makes the point of discounting the bible as the high water mark for moral behavior in the 21st century.

Another thing they struggle to internalize is my absolute lack of belief in anything. I must believe in something, they say. I’ve been asked: “Isn’t there an empty feeling inside of you?” Sheesh, these people just want to believe in something. It is as though they need to. No wonder the televangelists of the world take advantage of these rubes. Their amazement at my choice and ability to not believe is, I think, a projection of their own weakness onto me. They are too weak to go it alone and think that I should be too. I was honestly asked if I awaken each morning only to think about the greatness of Charles Darwin. I said that I certainly do not, and that I look at Darwin no differently than I do Louis Pasteur, Alexander Graham Bell, Leonardo DiVinci or Capernicus. All great figures and thinkers in history to be sure, but not included in my daily reflections. This question that was asked of me about Darwin resonated in me in a way that somehow no other question regarding my atheism had to that point. It made me think to myself how these people cannot fundamentally understand a life without worship. Any kind of worship, it seems, would suffice. I also thought about how this once probably useful survival technique has now become such a dangerous and universally exploited human behavior.

I have been asked if I worship evil or the devil. My answer is that I no more believe in their silly icons of evil than I do in their silly icons of supposed good. This is really one of my favorite questions because of the undetected but obvious irony. You see, believers are the ones that believe in the devil (duh!). They are the ones that had to invent him as an explanation or maybe a scapegoat for all that goes wrong in their world. The idea of a devil, for me, is just as crazy as that of a unicorn or an elf.I look for worldly and evidential explanations for the good and bad that is life on this earth. This is the only way to advance civilization and to solve the problems we face today. To do otherwise is a very dangerous thing. When those lazy and poor explanations suffice, you have effectively ceased looking for solutions.

A Soldier Worth A Forture

In paying close attention to the popular news outlets during this time of war and pending mid-term elections, I am observing a liberal tactic used to debase the war on terrorism and Islam. Liberals obviously do not agree with the war on Islam or our motivation for being in Iraq. They are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort from over-emphasizing difficulties encountered to under-reporting successes. Their approach is a simple one, not unfamiliar throughout history. The leaders of the Left and the liberal media seek out those most ravaged by war to solicit comment on the worthiness of war. From beleaguered generals and commanders to grieving mothers like Cindy Sheehan, the Left picks at the wounds of war ever so carefully in a lazy attempt to discredit a nation on the defense—their own nation. Liberals find support and perhaps find themselves in the battle weary, war torn soldier.

It is no surprise that soldiers, airmen and seamen returning from the realities of war no longer see the value of nation vs. nation or ideology vs. ideology. The highly trained, formerly eager killing machine is now convinced that there must be a better way. The opportunistic media and other Leftists show inexcusable irresponsibility by choosing to pick on the low hanging fruit that is the shocked soldier. Should we rely on the 8th graders to extol the virtues of education upon exiting the classroom after taking their algebra final exam? Of course not. The weary 8th grader cannot be fully expected to recognize the value of cumulative education while still reeling from an exam chock full of seemingly useless processes and procedures. A disgruntled or skeptical perspective is perfectly understandable. The veteran’s perspective is due the same appreciation and sympathy. You cannot blame the veteran for his mistrust of war nor his disenchantment. The soldier’s experience is a very individual one. On the battlefield, the importance of the mission to his nation can be lost in the immediacy of death. When surrounded that closely by death for days, weeks and months on end, it must be natural to long for peace and to wonder what could be worth such suffering. Nothing, it must seem, is worth the loss of a loved one or close friend. This perspective is understandable but what is lost is the focus on the larger picture. Loss of life, while tragic for friends and relatives, has proven to be an oft-necessary sacrifice throughout human history for populations defending territory and ideology. In the case of the United States at least, we fight wars for national security purposes or to protect a way of life that we feel is best and right.

Liberals do not seem to understand what motivates young men and women to enlist in the military service and ultimately serve in a war. Liberals can understand the returning soldier’s position if not his insight or perspective. I contend that it is patently unfair to ask those returning from the throes of war to comment on its worth. Of course, war is terrible. Of course, we must avoid war at almost any cost. Of course, it is equally true that war is sometimes justifiable, necessary and inevitable. I see no evidence contrary to the fact that as long as there are people there will be competition for resources. The struggle for survival is the cost of life. Rare is the man whom, having suffered the losses of war will think another is justified. The great general that lives to command multiple wars is a treasure as he does so out of love for his country in spite of the suffering he knows too well. This rare breed understands the high stakes and comprehends their full worth.

A population that has not recently witnessed war will see some advantage over a nation whose population readily knows the horrors of battle. 20th century American philosopher Eric Hoffer captured this general human behavioral property in his 1973 book, “Reflections on the Human Condition”.

“The ignorant are a reservoir of daring. It almost seems that those who have yet to discover the known are particularly equipped for dealing with the unknown. The unlearned have often rushed in where the learned feared to tread, and it is the credulous who are tempted to attempt the impossible. They know not whither they are going, and give chance a chance.”

(Funny note: Whenever I cut/paste a great quote, like Hoffer’s above, into my Microsoft Word application the Grammar Checker invariably suggests that I consider revising it because it contains problems, usually “Wordiness”.)

Certainly, there must be some battle-hardened soldiers in the ranks to provide the experience necessary to avoid history’s mistakes but a nation cannot depend on the enlightened veteran. The returning soldier is the truest hero of all. There has to be some level of blind optimism in even the bravest, insightful soldier. A sort of denial of the outcome that we all know is possible even if we cannot imagine the depths of the suffering possible. Liberals cannot understand the pride, dedication and sense of responsibility that motivate a person to answer the call to fight for their country. However, their inability to understand this motivation does not mean it is somehow wrong or nonexistent. Could it be that they feel threatened by and are running from their own confusion and fears in much the same way that religious people react to evolutionary science? Hoffer again may have sensed this human behavior in his 1955 work, “The Passionate State of Mind”.

“You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.”

Young people establish nations with their blood. As they grow older and the nation passes through the ages, new generations of young men and women need to arise and provide for the defense. The man willingly prepared for battle is, even for the most democratic and anti-imperialist nations, among its most treasured assets. A nation, even a peace-loving nation, has a secure future only so long as the willing soldier remains a renewable resource. I do not suggest that we mislead or misinform our young citizens and military members or give them a false sense of safety. Instead, I think that we should take care not to drive from them the selfless dedication not yet extinguished by the experiences of warfare or the rhetoric of the anti-war, anti-defense crowd. To corrupt or effectively impede this flow of brave warriors is tantamount to national suicide and indistinguishable from treason.

Podcast Interview

I was recently interviewed by Rich Orman for http://www.dogmafreeamerica.com/ concerning my book, Damned If I Do...Damned If I Don't; Reflections of a Conservative Atheist. Check out the interview here in episode 31. It starts at about minute 28.

To The Victors...

On November 6, 2006, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for killing 148 men and boys that he says conspired a failed assassination attempt on him 1982 in an effort to overthrow his dictatorship of Iraq. I saw video of the verdict being announced. Saddam was visibly pissed off and shouted things like “"Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Of course, a more deserving man than Saddam, there is not. These 148 people were just the tip of the iceberg in Saddam’s regime. There are many atrocities for which he did not have to stand trial. He is known to have been a brutal dictator, killing thousands in his own country that did not fully agree with him including tens of thousands of Kurds. I know Saddam was a bad guy and didn’t have good reason to kill the 148 and countless others. I suppose that the question comes down to what constitutes “good reason”. I guess that is precisely why they had a trial for Saddam and his minions.

I am trying not to sound like a leftist relativist here so I hope you understand my logic and forgive my analogy. Saddam’s troubles aside, don’t we have to be careful here? In the West, we routinely give national leaders freedom to kill in time of war and even as punishment for treason or common murder. If every national leader that has condoned or commanded a killing were put to death upon his dismissal from office, nary a one in the history of the world would have escaped the hangman’s noose, including Bill Clinton, George Bush, George Washington, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy and the rest. Does Saddam really feel as though he was acting normally as any leader would to protect his citizenry in the face of a potentially hostile coup? Who knows? Does he feel that he was acting not as an individual but as a nation under siege? Again, who knows?

I know that there are good leaders and bad leaders making good and bad decisions and doing great and horrible things. If their judges are their replacements or, worse yet, their enemies, we are entering cloudy water. How many leaders have hung at the gallows of those that successfully overtook their leadership positions? Had WWII ended differently, and it could have, would Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman have seen the inside of a courtroom presided over by Adolf Hitler and the Emperor Hirohito? How many deaths would these guys have perverted and charged as unprovoked mass murder and crimes against humanity? I know that I would not have wanted to be in front of that judge and jury.

At some point, maybe right and wrong do not matter and all that counts is winning and losing. The winners always think they are right and usually have the power to persuade. I’m not so naïve to think that the winners are actually always right, but they’ll tell you they are. Ah, perspective. “To the victors belong the spoils”.

A Soldier Worth A Fortune

In paying close attention to the popular news outlets during this time of war and pending mid-term elections, I am observing a liberal tactic used to debase the war on terrorism and Islam. Liberals obviously do not agree with the war on Islam or our motivation for being in Iraq. They are doing everything they can to undermine the war effort from over-emphasizing difficulties encountered to under-reporting successes. Their approach is a simple one, not unfamiliar throughout history. The leaders of the Left and the liberal media seek out those most ravaged by war to solicit comment on the worthiness of war. From beleaguered generals and commanders to grieving mothers like Cindy Sheehan, the Left picks at the wounds of war ever so carefully in a lazy attempt to discredit a nation on the defense—their own nation. Liberals find support and perhaps find themselves in the battle weary, war torn soldier.

It is no surprise that soldiers, airmen and seamen returning from the realities of war no longer see the value of nation vs. nation or ideology vs. ideology. The highly trained, formerly eager killing machine is now convinced that there must be a better way. The opportunistic media and other Leftists show inexcusable irresponsibility by choosing to pick on the low hanging fruit that is the shocked soldier. Should we rely on the 8th graders to extol the virtues of education upon exiting the classroom after taking their algebra final exam? Of course not. The weary 8th grader cannot be fully expected to recognize the value of cumulative education while still reeling from an exam chock full of seemingly useless processes and procedures. A disgruntled or skeptical perspective is perfectly understandable. The veteran’s perspective is due the same appreciation and sympathy. You cannot blame the veteran for his mistrust of war nor his disenchantment. The soldier’s experience is a very individual one. On the battlefield, the importance of the mission to his nation is lost in the immediacy of death. When surrounded that closely by death for days, weeks and months on end, it must be natural to long for peace and to wonder what could be worth such suffering. Nothing, it must seem, is worth the loss of a loved one or close friend. This perspective is understandable but what is lost is the focus on the larger picture. Loss of life, while tragic for friends and relatives, has proven to be an oft-necessary sacrifice throughout human history for populations defending territory and ideology. In the case of the United States at least, we fight wars for national security purposes or to protect a way of life that we feel is best and right.

Liberals do not seem to understand what motivates young men and women to enlist in the military service and ultimately serve in a war. Liberals can understand the returning soldier’s position if not his insight or perspective. I contend that it is patently unfair to ask those returning from the throes of war to comment on its worth. Of course, war is terrible. Of course, we must avoid war at almost any cost. Of course, it is equally true that war is sometimes justifiable, necessary and inevitable. I see no evidence contrary to the fact that as long as there are people there will be competition for resources. The struggle for survival is the cost of life. Rare is the man whom, having suffered the losses of war will think another is justified. The great general that lives to command multiple wars is a treasure as he does so out of love for his country in spite of the suffering he knows too well. This rare breed understands the high stakes and comprehends their full worth.

A population that has not recently witnessed war will see some advantage over a nation whose population readily knows the horrors of battle. 20th century American philosopher Eric Hoffer captured this general human behavioral property in his 1973 book, “Reflections on the Human Condition”.

“The ignorant are a reservoir of daring. It almost seems that those who have yet to discover the known are particularly equipped for dealing with the unknown. The unlearned have often rushed in where the learned feared to tread, and it is the credulous who are tempted to attempt the impossible. They know not whither they are going, and give chance a chance.”

(Funny note: Whenever I cut/paste a great quote, like Hoffer’s above, into my Microsoft Word application the Grammar Checker invariably suggests that I consider revising it because it contains problems, usually “Wordiness”.)

Certainly, there must be some battle-hardened soldiers in the ranks to provide the experience necessary to avoid history’s mistakes but a nation cannot depend on the enlightened veteran. The returning soldier is the truest hero of all. There has to be some level of blind optimism in even the bravest, insightful soldier. A sort of denial of the outcome that we all know is possible even if we cannot imagine the depths of the suffering possible. Liberals cannot understand the pride, dedication and sense of responsibility that motivate a person to answer the call to fight for their country. However, their inability to understand this motivation does not mean it is somehow wrong or nonexistent. Could it be that they feel threatened by and are running from their own confusion and fears in much the same way that religious people react to evolutionary science? Hoffer again may have sensed this human behavior in his 1955 work, “The Passionate State of Mind”.

“You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.”

Young people establish nations with their blood. As they grow older and the nation passes through the ages, new generations of young men and women need to arise and provide for the defense. The man willingly prepared for battle is, even for the most democratic and anti-imperialist nations, among its most treasured assets. A nation, even a peace-loving nation, has a secure future only so long as the willing soldier remains a renewable resource. I do not suggest that we mislead or misinform our young citizens and military members or give them a false sense of safety. Instead, I think that we should take care not to drive from them the selfless dedication not yet extinguished by the experiences of warfare or the rhetoric of the anti-war, anti-defense crowd. To corrupt or effectively impede this flow of brave warriors is tantamount to national suicide and indistinguishable from treason.

Cease Fire?

This past weekend the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1701, establishing a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. On the official United Nations web site they describe themselves as “Expressing utmost concern at the spiralling deadly violence and destruction in Lebanon” (the funny spelling of “spiraling” in original statement). The first paragraph of the UN’s statement also calls for “mapping out a formula for the phased withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces from southern Lebanon, while up to 15,000 United Nations peacekeepers help Lebanese troops take control of the area.” Notice how the wording victimizes Hezbollah and Lebanon. Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, started the most recent skirmish with Israel and now finds themselves and their host nation getting a good old fashioned ass-beating. The official counts on Fox News this morning were 1100 Hezbollah/Lebanese dead and 169 dead Israelis. I’m not surprised that they desire a cease fire. Fighting a real war on equal ground isn’t exactly the comfort zone for Hezbollah and their ilk. Isn’t the protection of a cease fire exactly what a terrorist group like Hezbollah wants? In a cease fire, the only ones really ceasing fire are the ones playing by the rules. Hezbollah doesn’t usually want to play by anyone’s rules but their own (hence the badge “terrorist organization”). The point of terrorism and really part of the very definition of terrorism is to act with force in a time when there is no war and you when you wish to inflict civilian casualties. If you’ve heard that Hezbollah is a humanitarian group or any of the other babble you’re likely to come upon in the liberal press, a look at their official flag should convince you otherwise. The flag has a silhouette of an AK-47 assault rifle being held by a Shiite martyr. At the top it says “Verily the party of God shall be victorious.” It says “The Islamic Revolution in Lebanon” along the bottom. They’re not exactly flying the peace dove.

Hezbollah’s calling for a cease fire is a lot like a kid on the playground picking a fight by slugging someone blindly and then, upon getting his face punched in says “ok, I give up-- let’s stop now.” Once that kid gets back on his feet you’d better keep an eye peeled for another blind shot. A cease fire is exactly what you’d expect Hezbollah to wish for. Under this cease fire they no longer have to take the daily ass beating. What’s more they can replenish their supplies and continue to wage the one-sided terrorist warfare that they are so comfortable with. Somehow by getting beat up, something that liberals are accustomed to from childhood, Hezbollah has managed to come out looking like the poor victim in need of bandages and a kiss on the cheek. Interestingly enough both sides are claiming victory this morning. I’m not sure that Hezbollah can put an X in the win column but I’m also not exactly sure how you ultimately win against a loosely organized band of fanatics staging operations out of suburban apartments.

Now that the war between Israel and Islam is done and it was apparently a win/win situation for everyone involved (yeah, right), Security Council Resolution 1701 calls on the international community “to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and . . . calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon”. That’s the nice little kiss on the cheek. The United Nations has a cuddly relationship with Hezbollah. At the United Nations outpost along the Israel-Lebanon border the Hezbollah flag flies proudly right next to the UN flag. Nice touch. Not only is the United Nations overly sympathetic with Hezbollah, the media continues to embrace the terrorists no matter how overt their aggression. The day after the cease fire I read a headline something like “Missiles Continue to Fall on Lebanon”. The headline failed to include an important fact. The truth is that it was Hezbollah troops bombing their own territory in an effort to get the Israeli Army to run prior to the multi-national peacekeeping force arriving in the next few days. The headline was technically correct but typically dishonest.

I understand the toll humanity pays in time of war. Lots of non-combatants are normally wounded and killed. The United States and other western civilized armies take unprecedented care to avoid civilian involvement. The smart bombs that impress us so much with their ability to enter a doorway after being launched from a fighter jet 10 miles away moving at a speed of 800 mph are also designed to inflict the most possible military target damage while avoiding collateral damage. Compare this with the common WWII tactic of “carpet bombing”. Carpet bombing was when bomber aircraft would lay down hundreds or even thousands of 2000 pound bombs, called “blockbusters”, in the vicinity of a target. These bombs were not guided other than by gravity and a bomber’s scope. At no time in the history of warfare has a military taken more precautions to avoid involving non-combatants than is currently the case with Western warfare led by the United States military. We try not to kill innocents while our new enemies, Islamists, hide behind innocents—literally. I don’t advocate trying to kill civilian non-combatants but I also don’t advocate giving aid to Hezbollah once they’ve had their asses kicked as suggested in the resolution. Where is the lesson in that?

Statements like those made in Security Council Resolution 1701 show a war where there are no bad guys, only victims. If this was the case, there would never be a justified war. There would never be bad nations, only bad governments and bad leaders. This is a very leftist (although in most cases they won’t even admit that there are bad leaders) and debilitating way to deal with enemies and aggressors. If every conflict was entered as though the only bad elements were those at the top of the government, there would never be reason to go to war. The simple solution with be a few key assassinations and “viola!”—peace. Unfortunately that is rarely the case. Ruthless leaders are usually in place because the populace more or less agrees their views. They’ve either agreed all along or they are convinced by their leaders that others are the cause of all of their problems. This is the case in the Islamic Middle East. These people all think that they are without the good things in life because the United States has them all. The real reason for their backward way of life is poor leadership within their own boundaries combined with a correct interpretation of their religious scripture that has them forever pitted against the rest of the world and destined to struggle to stay a hair’s breadth away from the Stone Age. They are bitter because Islam no longer occupies the once storied pedestal above humanity.

I don’t even find myself looking at Israel as the hapless victim here. I see them sharing the responsibility for the battle of gods that has waged in that region for two millennia. It is just that in this case I don’t see Israel as the aggressor. I also think that if every country in that region was more like Israel, democratic, relatively tolerant and capitalist, it would be a much more stable Middle East and a world with little or no terrorism. The only thing the United Nations has accomplished here is to delay the onset of stability and peace to that region at best. Worse yet, they’ve given radical terrorists a chance to regroup, reform, and live to terrorize another day. What may be most tragic of all is that the terrorist approach to solving problems has been legitimized in front of the entire world. It has been done so by a twisted organization on the wrong side of right. An organization that too many people still see as trustworthy, genuine, coherent and representing the best interests of humanity. The United Nations is none of those things. The United States is all of those things.

I Do (With Conditions!)

Marriage, as we in the West know it today, appears to have come about as a formalization of the natural construct of men and women dedicating themselves to one another. The ancient Romans and Greeks recognized unions as more or less a civil institution which provided property protection, security in business arrangements and a means of combining family wealth. Somewhere in history this union was hijacked by the church and turned into a bond that was reportedly recognized by the god of your choice. What was originally a pragmatic way for tribal members to form strong parenting bonds in the interest of propagating the species has morphed into a religious and ceremonial undertaking almost universally unmatched by any other ritual among humans. While the religious aspects are still quite strong in the United States, there is a very large legal component illustrated by the fact that even if you get married in the eyes of your lord, you’ve got to go and fill out the requisite national, state local forms to be truly recognized as a married couple. Regardless of the formality, the male/female, nurturing, child-rearing relationship has been around probably as long as our species.

I think that the union between a man and a woman is an important one and a key ingredient in creating a strong society. A man and a woman working together for the benefit of one another and/or for their offspring is a stable team that, under normal conditions, benefits society too. A spouse gives you someone to take care of in their time of need and, someone to take care of you when necessary. Committed relationships establish this mutual dependency that typically results in more “grown-up”, responsible behavior. People with this added responsibility are more likely to do things recognizable as constructive such as seek long term employment, save money and secure a home. These people are also more likely to avoid destructive behavior like violent crime, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spreading STDs, and other detrimental activities. A strong relationship doesn’t ensure these positive behavior patterns will prevail in all individuals, but it does make them more likely.

We need to look at the many problems facing 21st century Americans and the breakdown of the family unit is one of them. It is no secret that there are too many single parent households today and that there is a significant correlation with that high occurrence rate to many of our social ills. Among such problems running wild today are very high school dropout rates, teen pregnancy, gangs, adolescent drug and alcohol abuse. See the similarities of behavior between adults and their children based on whether or not they are responsible parents? Parents that stay together more often set a good example and kids with a good example will more often be better kids and ultimately better adults. Divorce is an emotionally traumatic and divisive situation for everyone involved, perhaps especially the kids. Is there a way to get people to make the right decisions, to settle down with the right person of the opposite sex and raise happy, healthy children more often?

How about if we don’t set our goals so high? I think that people tend to marry the wrong person all too often which usually means too young. With today’s view that marriage is supposed to be forever, we find that many adults put themselves in relationships with incompatible people. The stigma attached to divorce causes many of these couples to stay together and even make a terrible mistake…have children to somehow save the marriage. Couples either consciously or unconsciously very often choose to have children in the hope that child bearing and rearing will bring them closer together, make them “grow up” and make for a stronger marriage. Anybody with kids can tell you that the likely outcome is not normally a stronger marriage but one that is suddenly strapped with a much greater burden of responsibility and added pressures. The scenario continues in a familiar way. You stay together for a while and try to raise the child the best you can. Your troubles worsen but you stay together for the kids. Eventually one or both of the parents can no longer live with the deteriorating situation and calls it quits. The definition of marriage and the stigma of divorce have forced them into a situation that 2 normal people unbound by permanence and out from beneath the watchful eye of god would not have encountered. I’m not advocating divorce here, I’m proposing that we don’t put our young people in situations involving children and incompatible spouses.

I propose that we reshape the bond of marriage into more of a contractual agreement. I guess you could say that this is similar to the prenuptial agreements gaining popularity today. My imagined marriage contract is different in at least 1 key way. The marriage contract would not be optimistically infinite in duration but instead would be a 2, 3 or 5 year contract, similar to a professional athletic contract. The marriage contract would be up for renegotiation at these specified intervals. You could have negotiated extensions or you could create a new contract altogether if conditions warrant. You could have early exit opportunities with conditions and penalties. You could have performance clauses. For example, “if you don’t finish your MBA by January 1, 2008, I can terminate with the following conditions”.

Angry, contentious divorces, while they will not disappear completely, should become less common. People will know that this contract relationship is one that could indeed end. This is a key factor that many newlyweds do not recognize for many years. Couples would also realize that they have a responsibility to live up to the contract. Like athletes they would tend to work hard to perform well enough to have a chance at renewal or renegotiation. Maybe more importantly, a disgruntled spouse will now know that there will be an opportunity to end the messy relationship in a short period of time and, with that knowledge, would be less likely to bring children into the picture to help “save the marriage.” I think you would see a world where people go through 1 or 2 contract relationships and finally settle on the right one once they’ve grown up a little and learned a little about whom they are and who they want to be with. If they are thinking properly, this is the point where they’ll introduce kids into the fray. I argue that this will be a stronger relationship and one that is ready for the reality and pressures of child rearing.

I don’t pretend to think that this will solve all of our relationship and relationship related social ills. The problem in today’s inner city is that they don’t often enough establish any sort of formality in a relationship. This may not change much. There will be those, perhaps especially in the inner city, that will continue to avoid ever establishing any formality in a relationship or union. This is a sense of responsibility that they simply don’t seem to possess at this time. For them, I don’t think that such a contract system would be adopted at a significantly greater rate than current formal unions; therefore I don’t see this as a solution to that societal problem. I do think that this will help the majority of well meaning, long-term relationship seeking citizens among us. Once adopted in one layer of society it will become more refined, understood and commonplace. Perhaps even those in the inner city that today avoid formal unions will be less apt to do so if they saw an exit opportunity at a specified date.

I'm convinced that by making “marriage” less permanent we can make child rearing relationships more permanent by not forcing our young people into situations and decisions for which they are not prepared.

Words We Shouldn't Even Know

Wouldn't we all be much better off if we didn't even know these words? How is it that I can't go 1 day without seeing this crap in the media? I'm not blaming the media, I'm blaming the people that invented these words (and the people that are these words). Most of these words have been a part of everyday life for millions upon millions of people for several decades and sometimes thousands of years. They've decided that it is time that we in the United States become familiar with them. They've brought them to the front of our consciousness through brutal acts in the name of a war we didn't all know we were fighting until they brought it to our shores.

Hamas
Fatwa
Al Qaeda
Bin Laden
Jihad
Suicide-bomber
Abu Ghraib
Pelosi
Al Jazeera
Mujahideen
Mohammed (Atta)
Taliban
Mullah
Kerry
Sunni
Zarqawi
Fatah
Michael Moore
Fallujah

Where's the Party?

Ok, I’m a conservative atheist. Pretty confusing on many fronts, but one area in particular that causes conflict is politics. I’ve been pretty clear on my perspective on issues so you know I find myself in opposition to both political parties here in the United States. I know that there are other parties but for the moment they don’t, in reality, have a chance of getting representatives elected. Obviously, I’m not in total disagreement with any party, and it is likely that you, as well, are not. I am squarely against Republicans on just about any issue where the underlying reason for their perspective is religion. These would include things like abortion, stem cell research and censorship. Likewise I’m in disagreement plenty of the time with Democrats (to include communists). I’m not with them on defense, affirmative action, capital punishment and immigration to name but a few.
Where does that put me on Election Day? How can I choose a side when I can’t find total comfort in either? Well, I have to make some choices. In the absence of a perfectly tailored “party of Frank”, I am forced to choose a side that appears to be the lesser of two evils. That’s the hard part, isn’t it?

I’ve devised a method to help me figure out where I stand. I compile a list of topics that are at the forefront of the political debate. Some of them will be important to you and some will not. The point is to compile a list of issues where there is contention. Next I try to think about each position and determine the long term consequences of each. Then I figure out where I stand on each position. I go down the list of topics and choose the team, Democrat or Republican, with which I most agree. Finally I add up all of the results and pick my winner. Of course each topic in the equation is not of the same value. All issues are not equal in societal impact so I must assign a weight to each to indicate the relative importance, at least from my perspective. I use a 1-5 point scale where 1 indicates “not very important to the future of the United States and mankind” and a score of 5 indicates “of utmost importance to the future of the United States and mankind”. You may disagree with my weighting. For example, I give things like abortion a low rating of “2”. I know that it is a topic with great emotional value to many people but in the end it doesn’t have that great of a direct impact on most of us. Those on the right of the political spectrum often argue that it is the ultimate in immoral acts and those left of center say that there is benefit to stopping unwanted drains on society and resources. Conversely, I give defense a relatively high rating because I feel that our very way of life is at risk from attacks by Islamists and other anti-Americans. The best way to make this a fair exercise for everyone is to have agreement on the relative values. It may be possible to get everyone to agree on what the important issues are, and how important they are. That’s where the agreement will end, which is the reason for the exercise and debate. If you don’t like my assigned values, that’s fine; assign your own if you like. Here’s a little example.

Issue (Importance Value), Winner (Democrat or Republican)

Abortion (2), D
Stem Cell Research (4), D
Separation of Church/State (5), D
Gay Rights (1), D
Capital Punishment (2), R
Defense/War on Terrorism (5), R
Social/Welfare Programs (4), R
Immigration (5), R
Censorship (3), D
Animal Rights (1), R
Environment (4), R
Gun Control (3), R
Totals: Democrat=15, Republican=24

Ok, so my score came out “15” points in favor of Democrat ideology and “24” points for Republican ideology. I recognize that this is not an exact science but it is a way for me to internalize my positions and determine how I feel America is best served. I can’t really say that I did this exercise formally as I was deciding where I fit. I kinda did if after the fact to see if I was putting my money where my mouth is. Most of us don’t find our political selves in such a formulaic manner. Most of us do, however, perform such an exercise in our heads to determine what is important to us. You are what you are. Your scores may change a little throughout life and even the categories will change as new capabilities threats and problems emerge. Twenty-five years ago stem cell research wasn’t on our list but perhaps the test tube baby was. Twenty-five years ago we weren’t so concerned with the war on terrorism but we were concerned with the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. Nonetheless, I think your team will stay relatively constant throughout your lifetime, or at least your adult life.

There are still some areas where I face inner turmoil in choosing a team. As you can see, I’ve chosen to side with Republicans in America’s political elections, at least for now. I think that this is the quickest way to get us out of the messes we are in today. My struggle really begins when I think about what is best for humanity in the long term. If you look at my assigned importance values you’ll see that the highest ones are stem cell research, defense, separation of church and state and immigration. Defense is very important to me, especially in light of today’s rampant terrorism. I feel as though Republicans have the right answer, short term but not long term. As long as there is religion there will be war. Sure, there are many reasons to fight but religion always seems to be somewhere close to the center of the conflict. In the end I think that humanity could be doomed if we continue to fight over the ghosts in our myths. That said, I still cannot stand behind the anti-war crowd that is today’s Left. We are at war today. There are great ideological differences in the world that are not going away overnight. We have to deal with them for what they are today. Only then can we concern ourselves with the potentially impossible task of eliminating those differences. It is in this more immediate task where the Democrats are incapable of winning. We must first fight terrorism for what is does and then we can fight it and expose it for what it is. Ignoring terrorism for the short term will be a catastrophe for freedom and democracy and will never allow us the chance to expose terrorism as the religious war that it is. Long term, the current Republican Party does us no good by continuing to promote religion, integration of church and state and legislating against valuable scientific endeavors like stem cell research and cloning. I am willing to set aside the quest for long term victory so we can first take the necessary preliminary steps that will enable us to set about on the ultimate quest.

One day the current war on terrorism will be won by the United States. It will be a long and difficult battle against enemies that, while easy to identify, are difficult to isolate. If properly handled, one of the “benefits” of engaging in this war will be to expose Islam and all other religions for the mythical folly that they are. Once that mission is accomplished we can get on to the business of having a democratic, atheistic society, promoting freedom, capitalist participation and democracy throughout the world. We will have room for the party of Frank.

Sports Fandom

Are sporting events being “dumbed down” or sterilized to make them more appealing to the majority of casual fans that have no direct experience? I’ve been an athlete, a sporting participant, as long as I can remember. I’m pretty competitive and I want to beat you at any competition from Scrabble to motorcycle racing. As a competitor I’ve also always been somewhat of a fan of a wide variety of sports. I’ve often thought about why some sports are so predictable in outcome and others are very difficult to predict. I think there are at least 2 good explanations.

Take NASCAR for example. In a typical season there are many different winners, sometimes even a relative unknown steps up and beats the big boys at a big event. Now, with NASCAR, I think the reason is that on some of those tracks a driver literally almost never lets off of the throttle. They circle the track with the car floored for almost the entire race, at least if not under a caution flag. The guy in 1st place and the guy in 20th place have little difference in how they navigate the track and therefore have little chance of differentiating their skills from the other competitors. Sometimes they even have to run what are called "restricter plates" in the intake systems that essentially reduce the amount of horsepower the engine can make. The advertised reason for restricter plates is that the negligably lowered speeds result in a safer race. Some racers argue that the lower speeds make all cars more equal (slower) which makes it easier for any driver to compete for the lead. This makes racing closer and perhaps even more dangerous. In any event the challenge has been diminished to the point that many people are capable of winning the event. The results therefore rest not primarily on driver skill but other factors that I’ll argue are less relevant in human competition.

Another sport where it is difficult to predict a winner in any particular event is golf. A typical season on the PGA Tour also sees many different winners, usually a few “surprises” where the 150th ranked player in the world wins, and even a couple of “one hit wonders” that never again experience the winner’s circle. In the case of golf I don’t think it is due to a relative lack of skill involved but, in a way, almost the opposite. Golf is such a game of fractions of inches that being “off” only an eighth of an inch when the club head strikes the ball or being a single degree “open” or “closed” with the club face will have disastrous effects on the distance and accuracy of the golf ball. Because of this micro precision, this minutia, I think golfers often play to some degree within the realm of luck or chance. At some point the precision involved is almost uncontrollable by humans. Even on a good day a winning golfer doesn’t really know what made it different from last week when he didn’t make the cut. Did I have a bad day because the grip on my driver slipped an imperceptible amount to the left and caused the club to be consistently positioned differently at impact? Am I not hitting the ball correctly due to an otherwise unnoticeable tightness in my right arm because I was on my home computer for a few hours yesterday? Are my shoes a fraction taller than the ones I wore last week? Are my muscles twitching a little more quickly or more slowly for some reason today? Who knows? I also think that the mental nature of golf is much different than many other sports. In golf the competitor swings at a stationary ball, and does it when he feels like it, sometimes after serious contemplation. In a 4 hour round of golf you only actually spend a couple of minutes performing the athletic move that propels the golf ball forward. A golfer, having hit a poor shot on his previous stroke because the club face was open 1 degree at impact, has all the time in the world to second guess himself and obsess on the last poor shot. Often this breeds even more poor shots, especially under tournament pressure. Most other sports are highly reactionary in nature. In these reactionary sports an athlete lets instinct take over in the course of a race, a volley or whatever. Acting on instinct alone takes much of the mental component out of the equation and lets a good player be a good player. You’ll often hear golfers, and athletes from most other sports for that matter, say in post-game interviews that they were trying not to “over-think” things out there.

Tiger Woods dominates modern golf like few in the sport ever have. His consistency and winning percentage are comparatively remarkable in his sport. Still, some weeks he doesn’t even qualify to play on the weekend and will get beaten by unknown players far down in the world rankings. Tiger doesn’t have to be injured to put in a poor performance. There are simply some weekends where the best in the world of golf only has what it takes to finish 75th.

At the other extreme are sports where it is relatively easy to predict the outcome. I race motocross. When you line up at the starting gate, if you are familiar with the other competitors, you know almost exactly where you’ll finish. In professional motocross it is pretty easy to pick the top 5 in a given weekend. What’s more revealing is that the number 150th ranked rider in the world NEVER, EVER, has a “good day” and wins or even comes close to winning. Skill in this sport is so clearly displayed and differentiating that the best riders always triumph over the lesser skilled except in the case of mechanical failure, crashes or other anomalies.

Racquetball is another sport that I have played at the tournament level and it too is very predictable. You can look at the participant list on Friday night of a weekend tournament and pretty accurately predict where you’ll finish. You can almost certainly pick the winner and the semi-finalists.

I, for one, wouldn’t want to participate in a sport where raw human ability, skill and conditioning were not the primary factors in determining the outcome. If I was the number 1 ranked world competitor, I would not want to have the 40th ranked driver in the world beat me today because his car was 1 mph faster per lap than mine even though we both had our cars “floored” for the entire 300 mile distance. What kind of skill competition is that? No doubt it is fun but where is the pride in accomplishment? Sure, there is a great deal of amazing engineering inside of a typical race car but you could have an engineering contest with a bunch of geeky guys with computers and micrometers to prove the best in that endeavor.

While we’re at it and while the 2006 Olympic Games are fresh in my mind let me take a minute to complain about the futility of judged competitions. Attempting to “win” a figure skating, gymnastics, diving or other similar event seems to me like the pursuit of inevitable disappointment. Don’t get me wrong, I understand and appreciate the talent that these athletes possess, and admire the great physical feats they perform. How though, can an individual train literally for a lifetime and let the outcome of their ultimate competition be based on the opinion of a fat guy from Poland who has never even set foot on a balance beam? How is it that ten judges all in a row, each with impressive credentials, can have such wildly differing opinions on the merit of a single performance? Add in the political, personal and sometimes selfish emotional aspect of being able to decide the fate of an individual representing their country and you’ve got a recipe for impropriety and foul play. Hence, I don’t even consider these athletic endeavors as pure sports and feel like we’d be better off if winning and losing were eliminated altogether. They are more like athletic art or some other form of entertainment.

Now back to real sports. Let me again reflect back to a sport about which I’ve been most passionate, motocross. Often there is a single dominant racer in professional motocross that reigns mighty for 2 or 3 years. I’ve noticed that myself and other informed motocross fans love to watch this guy string together runaway wins. We can’t wait for the professional circuit to come to the area every year so we can go watch this guy as he indisputably dominates the competition. With my appreciation of his talents, I would watch with the same enthusiasm if he was alone on the track, but the competitors in hot pursuit do add some perspective and serve to amplify the achievement.

Sporting events today are more than individual competition. They are big business. Media and television coverage to the masses has ensured that the overwhelming majority of sports spectators are not themselves competitors in the events that they watch. These casual observers want to be entertained by close competition and are not usually capable of knowing the subtleties of the skills involved. They don’t want the predictable outcomes week after week that would be the norm if the challenge was sufficient to truly identify the very best competitors. Casual observers wouldn’t watch predictable events and advertisers wouldn’t sponsor them. Only truly informed fans appreciate the high level of skill involved in a runaway victory. Sure, television viewers switch channels in record numbers on Sunday afternoons to watch the much heralded Tiger Woods win an occasional golf tournament. Would they tune in on the 10th weekend in a row with Tiger on top and the rest of the top 20 essentially unchanged? I don’t think so. They only watch him because they’ve been told he is supposed to win but in actuality he usually doesn’t.

This informed perspective is hard to come by in a television audience where any actual experience may be limited to sports such as soccer, baseball or basketball. The made for TV events have to be modified to widen the field and somehow to keep the fans interested. I’m not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying that a pure challenge is what draws me to participate in sport and it is that participation that draws me to be an interested spectator. Oh, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out a way to blame this one on Liberals or theists.

Freedom Of Religion. Where Does It End?

As citizens of the United States of America we are all fully aware of our First Amendment rights. Simply put, we know we are free to express our opinions without fear of repercussion from our government. Expression can be verbal or physical in form. The protection of free expression is not absolute in that we must take care not to break other laws while exercising our First Amendment rights. The West, particularly the United States, today finds itself engaged in a real war with Islam. Our enemy does not wear a uniform. The battlefront is not a single, identifiable line but instead an encroaching predator engulfing us from all sides and from within. When expression of religious sentiment turns violent or is intended to incite violence, the expression must be stopped. Should we be bound by some interpretations of our constitution to look the other way and, actively or inactively, embrace the new “will of the people”?

The carefully chosen wording of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution makes it very clear that any peaceful assembly is to be allowed.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As I read that amendment for the first time since my days as a student, I was struck by what I felt was curious wording and wondered of the original intent. Is the mixture of religious freedom with freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition intentional in that the freedom to do those things only pertains to expression of religion? Probably not. If not, I would have rather seen this First Amendment made into 2 separate amendments. The first of the 2 amendments could establish the bounds and freedoms of religious expression and the separation of church and state, if you will. This, to me, warrants its own separate decree. The second of the 2 amendments could establish the freedom of general forms expression concerning any topic.

Whether separate or together, the ambiguity in real question here is what is really meant by “peaceably”. I think most of us know what “peaceably” really means. Unfortunately with laws and rules people deliberately look to break them, so lawyers make a living with attempts to provide additional clarity. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes devised the “clear and present danger” test to help determine when exactly expression crosses the line from lawfully exercising your First Amendment rights to conducting criminal activity. Obviously, there is a point when one’s expression becomes, in itself, violent or is overtly intended to incite violence. Islamic protesters stating that Osama bin Laden should step up and perform a deed similar to or worse than 9/11 is a pretty clear show of violence. Columbia Professor Nicholas DeGenova has asked for U.S. soldiers to suffer “a million Mogadishus”, stating “we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and defeat the U.S. war machine” and “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military”. These reprehensible people are making equally reprehensible statements that not only qualify as “not peaceable” but as treasonous if spoken by a United States citizen in time of peace or war. These are quotes that you would expect from bin Laden himself, Saddam Hussein or Teddy Kennedy, but, a professor at a “respected” American university? Of course, DeGenova or anyone else must not be free to say these violent things within our borders. These are the words of a treasonist, a traitor, and a war criminal. Can you imagine a professor in the United States in 1943 stating, and even teaching our young citizens, that Adolph Hitler should create an Auschwitz in Iowa to burn Americans? How about Nazi’s lining the streets of 1943 Manhattan calling for the Third Reich to conduct bombing campaigns on Philadelphia as they had done in London? Of course these things would not and could not have been tolerated. Why is it any different in 2006?

Foreigners and Leftists have taken the concepts of freedom, so beautifully written in our Constitution, and turned them inside out. These very freedoms and protections of freedom are used against us to provide cover to any outrageous expression of every anti-American viewpoint. The framers of our Constitution operated under the misguided impression that the followers of said document, the citizenry, would be pro-American and apt to interpret it in a way consistent with building a strong nation, not tearing one apart. Instead, we’ve reached a point where the Constitution is used against us by social relativists to provide cover for any manner of decadence, to include actively and overtly waging war against the United States from within our very borders. I won’t even blame our forefathers for a lack of preparedness. The constitutional framers could not have reasonably predicted the forthcoming malice and even if they could have, would have created a constitution much different than the current one in that it would have been much more defensive in nature and less optimistic. Consider these perspectives commonly held by today’s constitutional contortionists:

-Our enemy has the right to assemble, recruit and incite violence within our borders during wartime.

-Our enemy has the right to communicate war plans free from surveillance as long as they can manage to have one communication node inside the United States. (Again, I ask you to think of this one in the context of WWII.)

-The people slaughtered on 9/11 were not victims but deserved and caused their own demise by supporting democracy and capitalism.

-Saddam Hussein is not a bad guy.

-Saddam Hussein was never a threat, did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor plans for continued development.

-George Bush is more of an imperialist and terrorist than Saddam Hussein.

-The United States is the greatest threat to peace in the world today.

-There is no connection between terrorism and Islam.

What to do? On the most invasive and least likely track, we could continue to revise the Constitution, through amendment, to reflect the realities facing Americans today. A more defensive set of ground rules could be laid, making twisted interpretation much more difficult, at least in the short term. The likelihood of this happening at all, or at least in time to avert a disastrous collapse of the United States as we know it, is just about nil. Constitutional amendments are only possible with substantial agreement among parties in Washington. Most Democrats will not recognize let alone acknowledge that there is even a problem of encroachment. The second possibility, one really within the realm of probability, is to put in place a judicial branch of our government that is capable of rational consideration and interpretation of the Constitution as originally intended. This will be more closely aligned with the current Republican perspective in most cases. I believe that there is a chance to maintain the integrity of our nation if moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, and centrists can be given a chance to exercise rational thought and apply reason in decision making.

I do not advocate legislation that would result in less freedom, in fact, as I have stated, I think the U.S. Constitution could survive virtually unchanged. We cannot allow the very freedoms that make America great to continue to be used against us, to weaken us. Wildly liberal interpretation leaves us vulnerable to the advances of those that truly don’t understand or value the American concept of true individual freedom. If Americans continue to turn their backs on these attacks from Islam or, worse yet, continue to enable our attackers by giving them the right to conduct their war on our turf, we will fall victim to the occupants of a Trojan horse that we unwittingly have built for the enemy within.

Let's get started

With a little extra time on my hands over the Winter Solstice holiday break I've purchased a few books and started some reading. First, I bought E.O. Wilson's compilation of Charles Darwin's 4 great works (Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals). I've read "The Origin" before and I'm looking forward to The Descent of Man and the Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals as these deal more directly with humans. I've also recently bought 2 books by Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions and The Real American Dilemma. Both books are hard hitting pieces on the social and genetic realities of race and race relations. I have started reading The Real American Dilemma and I really feel like reading this at the same time as Darwin's works is proving to be an eye opener. Darwin speaks pretty candidly about his observations as does Jared Taylor 150 years later. I'll give you more specifics and parallels later. The beginning of Taylor's book made the very interesting observation that discussing race in the United States, and even the world, today has become much like discussing religion. No matter how much you want to infuse either discussion with facts, figures and rational analysis, you are shut down by what can be termed faith. Certainly, religious discussions steer clear of facts in deference to faith and likewise has gone the discussion of race. These books by Jared Taylor make no apologies for their lack of political correctness and have been attacked, not for their facts, which are meticulously gathered and presented, but presumably because the opposition simply does not want the facts reported. This is a very bad state of affairs and one that reminds me of the religious witch hunts in the U.S. and Europe.