Category: politics

Posted on

Disturbing-ness…

“Has any human being always been there? As any scientist always been there? Who’s always been there? God! Who should you always trust first, God or the scientist? God!”

The quote above came from a guy speaking to a stadium full of young children, asking the kids questions and having them yell responses back. And yes, they were the responses you expect.

So, Crooks and Liars, an admittedly left-wing blog, highlighted a documentary on HBO called “Friends of God.” Sadly, as I don’t get HBO, I haven’t seen the documentary, but Crooks and Liars linked to a downloadable video (“right-click” and choose “Save Link As…”) of a 7 min section of it that is a bit disturbing to me. I mean, these are things that I knew were going on, but to actually hear and see it is…well…”disturbing” is the only word…

The scary part is, and as this video highlights, what the kids are being taught, and how they’re being taught to think. One kid says he wants to get a Nobel Prize becoming a Biochemist and working for the Institute for Creation Science. Sure, a noble pursuit (hah! so “punny”…), but at the same time, the blindness that I see in the next generation is frightening. Another teenager referred to how “one-sided” public education is, and there is some definite truth to that…but at the same time, if the sides were reversed, would it be any different? Shouldn’t the separation of church and state be protected?

I guess I’ve tried telling myself that “things will change” once the current generation in power ages on, and once my generation and later ones take over…but things like this make me think it’ll be more of the same. And it’s not something I look forward to…

Posted on

MLK for today's world…and for whom?

So, I regularly listen to the On Point radio broadcast on NPR (yeah, I’m that dorky…) via podcast, and yesterday, they were talking about Martin Luther King, Jr…  More specifically, they were discussing whether he would be with today’s Republicans or today’s Democrats.  From the summary:

“King personified Christian activism in politics, they say — and so do we. King said judge not by the color of skin but by the quality of character, they say — when they oppose affirmative action. King did not speak up for gay marriage, they say — and conservatives don’t either.  Progressives are appalled”

The idea is that both sides want to claim him for themselves.  For example, the Conservatives say that because King was a preacher, he’d be against gay marriage.  Liberals say that because he was for equality in all things, he would be more sympathetic to their cause.  The Conservatives also use his classic “I Have A Dream” speech to say that King wanted full equality in the workplace, so he would be against Affirmative Action (because that entire program goes against equality), while the Liberals say that sure, King was for equality, but he would want Affirmative Action to stay in place until equality was assured (which it obviously isn’t, yet).

At the link above, you can find quotes from the show from the people interviewed, as well as a recording of the 40 min. broadcast.  Rather interesting to hear…

The thing that really got me, though, is the parallels I see with Christianity in general.  These people were basing arguments on his singular speech.  What do we, as Christians, do with Jesus?  Don’t we try to fit our faiths, no matter what they are, on reported events and sayings from 2000 years ago?  I mean, Dr. King died less than a century ago and people are already claiming that he believed things to suit their needs!

Perhaps we need to step back and take a different perspective on fitting our idols into a proverbial “box.”  If we can’t figure out what a person would believe in today’s context, when they’ve only been gone for 50 years, how can we fit something from 2000 years ago into today’s world?

Posted on

MLK for today’s world…and for whom?

So, I regularly listen to the On Point radio broadcast on NPR (yeah, I’m that dorky…) via podcast, and yesterday, they were talking about Martin Luther King, Jr…  More specifically, they were discussing whether he would be with today’s Republicans or today’s Democrats.  From the summary:

“King personified Christian activism in politics, they say — and so do we. King said judge not by the color of skin but by the quality of character, they say — when they oppose affirmative action. King did not speak up for gay marriage, they say — and conservatives don’t either.  Progressives are appalled”

The idea is that both sides want to claim him for themselves.  For example, the Conservatives say that because King was a preacher, he’d be against gay marriage.  Liberals say that because he was for equality in all things, he would be more sympathetic to their cause.  The Conservatives also use his classic “I Have A Dream” speech to say that King wanted full equality in the workplace, so he would be against Affirmative Action (because that entire program goes against equality), while the Liberals say that sure, King was for equality, but he would want Affirmative Action to stay in place until equality was assured (which it obviously isn’t, yet).

At the link above, you can find quotes from the show from the people interviewed, as well as a recording of the 40 min. broadcast.  Rather interesting to hear…

The thing that really got me, though, is the parallels I see with Christianity in general.  These people were basing arguments on his singular speech.  What do we, as Christians, do with Jesus?  Don’t we try to fit our faiths, no matter what they are, on reported events and sayings from 2000 years ago?  I mean, Dr. King died less than a century ago and people are already claiming that he believed things to suit their needs!

Perhaps we need to step back and take a different perspective on fitting our idols into a proverbial “box.”  If we can’t figure out what a person would believe in today’s context, when they’ve only been gone for 50 years, how can we fit something from 2000 years ago into today’s world?

Posted on

Heckuvajob, Rummy…

In honor of our fallen comrade:

“There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don?t know that we don’t know.”
— Donald Rumsfeld, trying to clarify the war on terrorism

Posted on

I Voted

So yeah, I got up bright and early and hit the polls at 7:20 am… (bet you’re surprised, eh Mom? Happy Birthday, by the way… ;-)) Overall, the experience was rather positive… In years past, I’ve always just voted absentee rather than visit polls in Kirksville, so this is actually the first time I’ve ever voted on election day.

Regardless, I had the option of using the electronic, touch-screen device, or I could have used the more traditional “scan tron” paper ballots… There were more people using the touch-screens, but still a good number using paper ballots. The touch-screen machines were quite easy to use and also included a roll of paper to print your votes, as well as store them within the machine. I’ve been reading through various articles about how easy it is to have an election stolen (great article, but a long read…) with these electronic voting machines, since many of them (the Diebold AccuVote TSX in particular…) have no sort of secondary printer to, in effect, “back up your vote.” In case of a recount, my vote can still be compared between the electronic copy and the paper copy that was printed and stored within the machine… So yeah, I felt much more comfortable about the whole experience after using that machine…

Note: If you want to watch the HBO documentary “Hacking Democracy,” regarding Diebold’s shenanigans, you can watch it on Google Video (for free)…it’s about 1.5 hrs long, but worth it if you don’t want to watch election coverage tonight…

…however, I did have one complaint, and that was with the actual voting using the machine. In years past, when I’ve done my absentee, I could always not vote on a particular issue or judge I knew nothing about… Unfortunately, each circuit judge on the ballot (and there were many…) had a “yes” or “no” option, not an “abstain”… Perhaps you could have just hit “Next” and skip over them that way…I dunno…and I didn’t try… I figure all those judges are doing alright, so whatever… 😛

For those that voted, what “methods” of voting did you have? Were there voting machines with rolls of paper included, or were the completely electronic with no paper “backup?” Were there lots of people still using paper ballots?

Regardless, I participated in the process of government today…

Tonight’s returns should be pretty interesting….

Posted on

Top 11 signs Dubya thinks he's president of a college fraternity

From Too Stupid To Be President.com

11. Encourages minions to run three miles in 100 degree heat then taunts them as he rides his bicycle.

10. Greets interns by letting one rip.

9. Refers to everyone only by the nickname he has bestowed.

8. Should have been gone after four years, but he just won’t leave.

7. Amasses enormous institutional debt throwing private parties for his friends.

6. Cheats to secure a second term.

5. Resorts to belligerence rather than admit a mistake.

4. Has summers off.

3. Encourages others to perform community service, but only shows up for the cameras.

2. Smart kid provides him answers using a hidden audio transmitter.

1. May be kicked out of his house before the end of term.

Posted on

Top 11 signs Dubya thinks he’s president of a college fraternity

From Too Stupid To Be President.com

11. Encourages minions to run three miles in 100 degree heat then taunts them as he rides his bicycle.

10. Greets interns by letting one rip.

9. Refers to everyone only by the nickname he has bestowed.

8. Should have been gone after four years, but he just won’t leave.

7. Amasses enormous institutional debt throwing private parties for his friends.

6. Cheats to secure a second term.

5. Resorts to belligerence rather than admit a mistake.

4. Has summers off.

3. Encourages others to perform community service, but only shows up for the cameras.

2. Smart kid provides him answers using a hidden audio transmitter.

1. May be kicked out of his house before the end of term.

Posted on

Submitting Sheep vs Doubting Sheep

So, I listened to an On Point podcast from NPR, where Tom Ashbrook was interviewing Andrew Sullivan, author of “The Conservative Soul.” Sullivan, an Englishman, came over to the US years ago and supported Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan-era Conservativism, not the form that has been in politics more recently (i.e. small government, less control over the people vs big government, big spending, more control over liberties). The crazy thing is that he said that Bill Clinton was actually more of a conservative than the people in power now (i.e. balanced budget, smaller government). More specifically, something Sullivan said struck me as interesting:

“The capacity to doubt yourself, to question yourself, is a critical element of Western liberty. My view is that it’s also a critical part of faith. If you’ve never doubted something, you’ve never really believed it. You’ve just submitted to it. You haven’t allowed yourself to question something, and faith for me is a journey between doubt and faith. It’s a dialogue within yourself and with others as to what the truth is. It isn’t this acceptance of the truth and then the imposition of it on the world, and the claim that God justifies everything.”

Most key to that quotation is: “If you’ve never doubted something, you’ve never really believed it. You’ve just submitted to it.” I think this is a really important point that isn’t made very often, or that many people don’t connect with. You can’t simply believe something because you were told to. You can’t simply listen to Pat Robertson and James Dobson and believe that they’re infallible (even though they both think that they are). That goes for both sides of the political spectrum.

I guess I’m just thinking that, in today’s day and age, we tend to go along with things without questioning them. Without questioning ourselves. I think even some of us believe that we must be unquestioning of faith in God (or any other religious belief), in believing that His words are infallible.

But we forget that doubt and faith are completely intertwined. I think Sullivan made a very good, and interesting, point in putting it the way he did. We must always question our beliefs, whether in faith or politics. We must not abide with listening to campaign ads without looking at the evidence ourselves. We must not think that just because my church endorses a political ideology or policy, it’s correct. We must have doubt before we can believe.

There’s a very big difference between being a simple follower, and being an active believer.

Posted on

Let's get this straight…

So, I noticed today on Facebook that there are a few groups with titles like: “Missourians Against Human Cloning (Vote NO on Amendment 2)” and “Say “No” to the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” For those that don’t know, here’s the actual wording from the Amendment regarding cloning:

2(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

38(d).6.(2) ‘Clone or attempt to clone a human being’ means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

For some reason beyond my comprehension, there are actually people in the state that somehow thinks this provides a constitutional means of protecting human cloning. No, really…you read it correctly…it completely abolishes the idea of human cloning. Why? Because in order for you to clone a person, you need to implant the embryo into a uterus for development. Does that also disallow somatic transfer (i.e. transfer of DNA from one cell to another). Yes. Because you have to implant it in a uterus. You cannot “grow” a human (or any other mammal) outside of a uterus.

So, if someone could please explain to me how people are seeing this as “constitutional protection” for human cloning, I’d be very happy to hear it…’cause it makes no sense to me. There are over 900 members in these two groups on Facebook, and it’s beyond me as to why this is so confusing. And they keep re-quoting the wording from the Amendment…like that’s some kind of defense. They only re-quote it because they don’t understand what it says and hope you won’t either.

One of the other arguments against it is that, with passing Amendment 2, you’ll target “underpriviledged women” so that they can sell their eggs for research purposes. Hmmm…let’s see…is that mentioned and outlawed?

2(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

Yes, yes it’s outlawed! Oh, and even the following:

2(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

So, let’s review: Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 strictly outlaws cloning. Amendment 2 does not allow cloning. If you say that Amendment 2 allows human cloning, or provides a market for the sale of human embryos, you are lying.

It’s that simple.

Here’s more information on all the ballot measures we’ll be faced with on November 7th.

Posted on

Let’s get this straight…

So, I noticed today on Facebook that there are a few groups with titles like: “Missourians Against Human Cloning (Vote NO on Amendment 2)” and “Say “No” to the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” For those that don’t know, here’s the actual wording from the Amendment regarding cloning:

2(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

38(d).6.(2) ‘Clone or attempt to clone a human being’ means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

For some reason beyond my comprehension, there are actually people in the state that somehow thinks this provides a constitutional means of protecting human cloning. No, really…you read it correctly…it completely abolishes the idea of human cloning. Why? Because in order for you to clone a person, you need to implant the embryo into a uterus for development. Does that also disallow somatic transfer (i.e. transfer of DNA from one cell to another). Yes. Because you have to implant it in a uterus. You cannot “grow” a human (or any other mammal) outside of a uterus.

So, if someone could please explain to me how people are seeing this as “constitutional protection” for human cloning, I’d be very happy to hear it…’cause it makes no sense to me. There are over 900 members in these two groups on Facebook, and it’s beyond me as to why this is so confusing. And they keep re-quoting the wording from the Amendment…like that’s some kind of defense. They only re-quote it because they don’t understand what it says and hope you won’t either.

One of the other arguments against it is that, with passing Amendment 2, you’ll target “underpriviledged women” so that they can sell their eggs for research purposes. Hmmm…let’s see…is that mentioned and outlawed?

2(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

Yes, yes it’s outlawed! Oh, and even the following:

2(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

So, let’s review: Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 strictly outlaws cloning. Amendment 2 does not allow cloning. If you say that Amendment 2 allows human cloning, or provides a market for the sale of human embryos, you are lying.

It’s that simple.

Here’s more information on all the ballot measures we’ll be faced with on November 7th.