politics – Page 7 – linsenbardt.net

October 25, 2006

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.

October 10, 2006

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.

October 10, 2006

Let’s get this straight…

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

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.

It’s that simple.

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

October 4, 2006

You know it's bad when…

So, Dr. Macarthur sent me this link from Washington Monthly titled “Time For Us To Go.” In light of the Rep. Mark Foley scandal, amongst other things, even die-hard conservatives are saying that it’s time to give up congress and get some more liberals in there. It is interesting to hear their perspectives, especially pointing out the benefits of having some checks and balances between the White House and Capitol Hill. There’s also quite a bit of historical perspective, comparing Republicans of today with those of yesterday.

Either way, here are some of the blurbs…they’re worth a skim. At the very least, the conservative voices writing these articles are “fiscal” or “economic conservatives,” i.e. ones I can respect…so they aren’t messing with the “church and state” border very much.

Let’s quit while we’re behind
By Christopher Buckley

Bring on Pelosi
By Bruce Bartlett

And we thought Clinton had no self-control
By Joe Scarborough

Give divided government a chance
By William A. Niskanen

Restrain this White House
By Bruce Fein

Ideologie has taken over
By Jeffrey Hart

The show must not go on
By Richard A. Viguerie

P.S. If you don’t vote in November, I may have to hunt you down…

October 4, 2006

You know it’s bad when…

Let’s quit while we’re behind
By Christopher Buckley

Bring on Pelosi
By Bruce Bartlett

And we thought Clinton had no self-control
By Joe Scarborough

Give divided government a chance
By William A. Niskanen

Restrain this White House
By Bruce Fein

Ideologie has taken over
By Jeffrey Hart

The show must not go on
By Richard A. Viguerie

P.S. If you don’t vote in November, I may have to hunt you down…

September 20, 2006

Net Neutrality

So, I was flipping through ArsTechnica yesterday and saw their article about a survey being run around the Senate Commerce Committee regarding Net Neutrality. From the article:

The poll also found that many Americans have no idea what net neutrality is, or why they should care; only 7 percent said that they had even heard or seen anything about net neutrality. When pollsters introduced the concept to poll takers, they described it solely as “enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee.” When presented this way, 19 percent of respondents said that net neutrality was more important to them than “delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice,” which received a 66 percent backing.

Now, since I know the majority of you don’t know what Net Neutrality is, let me give you the Wikipedia definition:

The phrase Network Neutrality was coined by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu to describe networks that don’t favor some classes of application (for example the World Wide Web) over others (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).

You can read the full article for further information, and there are plenty of news articles around, but here’s the key: Net Neutrality is essential for keeping the internet as it stands today. The legislation is built to allow internet providers to allot certain speeds to certain services.

Let me explain this as simply as I can. The internet is finite: there’s only so much of it. Right now, if I want, I’ve got access to 100% of the internet. If the internet was not “neutral,” as it is now, then companies like AT&T and Verizon could say: “hmmmm…let’s just allow Andy to use 20% of the internet and use the other 80% for whatever we want, like telephone and television services.” Or even better, “hey, why don’t we have Amazon and eBay pay extra so they can each have 10% of the internet, while forcing everyone else to use and share 20% between themselves.” Why is this bad? Well, because my internet will be slower, and any new companies would be forced to use that limited amount of it until they could afford the premium to venture into the rest of the ‘Net.

Essentially, using the “Information Superhighway” metaphor, it’s like letting big companies with their semis full of products drive across the country on I-70 with no speed limit, but forcing the entire US population to drive along Route 66 (including all the stoplights).

Net neutrality is an important issue. Perhaps not as important as gay rights and an illegitimate war, but important just the same. You need to vote in November so that the internet stays the way it is, rather than favoring the large corporations, thus stifling any and all creativity and competition.

I leave you with a quote from the guy running the Senate Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens:

“They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a truck. It’s a series of tubes.”

Seriously…this is they guy “leading the charge,” so to speak.

September 20, 2006

Oh, politics…

Mom called with a bumper sticker she saw on the way home:

“Somewhere in Texas, there’s a village missing their idiot.”

This, of course, inspired me to look for more of the like, plenty of which can be found at the end of a simple Google search:

“‘God’ is not spelled G.O.P.”

“Nobody died when Clinton lied.”

“My child is an honor student.? My President is a moron.”

“Annoy a Conservative.? Think for yourself!”

“One nation, under surveillance.”

“Don’t blame me, I voted with the majority.”

“Re-Defeat Bush in 2004!”

“If you can read this, you’re not the President.”

“My border collie is smarter than your President.”

“Osama still has his job.? Do you still have yours?”

August 31, 2006

So, let's all agree that…

As per an article at ABC News titled “‘Schwarzenator’ vs. Bush“:

——————————————————————————–

[Assembly Bill 32] would generally require California to roll statewide emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a cut of about 25 percent. “I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science,” Schwarzenegger declared forcefully at a recent United Nations summit. “We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”

President Bush, however, continues to cast doubt on the consensus in the scientific community that man-made emissions cause global warming.

“I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There’s debate over whether it’s man-made or naturally caused?,” the president told reporters in June, hours after an extreme thunderstorm felled an elm tree to the ground just outside his White House door.

The president expressed similar sentiments last March: “The globe is warming. The fundamental debate is, is it man-made or natural ? but put that aside.”

(After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such debate.)

——————————————————————————–

Amen, ABC News… Preach on!

I guess I just found it rather humorous that ABC News actually printed that…yet I’m glad they did…? It just surprised me that ABC had a sense of humor…? At least someone did their homework on this subject…

August 31, 2006

So, let’s all agree that…

As per an article at ABC News titled “‘Schwarzenator’ vs. Bush“:

——————————————————————————–

President Bush, however, continues to cast doubt on the consensus in the scientific community that man-made emissions cause global warming.

The president expressed similar sentiments last March: “The globe is warming. The fundamental debate is, is it man-made or natural ? but put that aside.”

(After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such debate.)

——————————————————————————–

Amen, ABC News… Preach on!

June 18, 2006

Review: An Inconvenient Truth

So, since Brooke and I are without cable, we decided to go see a movie…well, we wanted to see this one, anyway. We saw “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s latest attempt to explain to the American public about the dangers of global warming, a battle that he’s been fighting since the 1970s.

You may wonder why all the reviewers love this documentary, and why it’s creating a stir in the news media, reigniting a decades-old argument about the validity of global warming and whether humanity causes it. I was rather curious how interesting this documentary could be, but I was pleasantly surprised. The movie generally recounted a “slide show” (i.e. beefed-up PowerPoint) that Gore has presented many times over the years, talking about the evidence supporting the idea that mankind has caused, if not accelerated, global warming on Earth. The show is interspersed with testamonials by Gore talking about how he became interested in the subject, and how events in his life (including the 2000 “election”) shaped his mission to educate the world about this problem.

It was certainly scary to see the statistics. He showed graphs and pictures depicting history and modern times…showing CO2 levels taken from ice core samples over 600,000 years…and how the current levels are unbelievably higher (as in, they never crossed 300 ppm [parts-per-million] over that time, but are now well above that and will cross 600 ppm by 2050 at current rates). He showed how the polar ice caps have noticeably decreased in size, and that ice melting in Greenland could stop the flow of the gulf stream, effectively shutting down the “engine” that prevents Europe from entering another ice age.

He informs the masses, he addresses the critics, and he calls for action, whether by switching to more energy-efficient light bulbs and hybrid cars, or by running for political office yourself to make a difference. He makes you see the evidence for yourself and understand it. And, on a side-note, it’s interesting to note how confident he seems in presenting this story, as opposed to some interviews and debates during the 2000 election. This is the voice of someone who believes in this cause and will do what it takes to get the job done.

You should go see it, if you can. And, believe you me, if you drive a large SUV, you’re getting a copy of it for Christmas…

And since I couldn’t say it better, in the words of another great reviewer:

“In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.”

— Roger Ebert; Chicago Sun-Times