Return of Reason

The earth is flat? Truth is tricky.

2008-08-11T09:31:00.001-07:00

On a non-political subject, I just read an amazing article from BBC news. It is about people who still think that the earth is flat. Of course, the article is fun to read just for face value, but it quickly lead me to think about a conversation we had on Traci's blog.

The general agreement in the discussion was that talking to people about controversial subjects is tricky because people confuse opinions and truth. More specifically, people sometimes mistake their opinion for the truth. That can be aggravating alone, but I also find the opposite true. Sometimes people claim that a truth (which they might not like) is just somebody else's opinion. I wanted to express that point in the discussion, but I couldn't think of a good example that wouldn't (possibly) stir up controversy. I would personally argue that this is the root of the evolution controversy, and very likely, some other modern issues.

Hopefully, nobody I know would argue that the earth is not spherical, but if you met somebody who did, how would you discuss 'truth' with them?

Paris Hilton for President

2008-08-06T10:26:00.000-07:00

Thanks to my wonderful wife, always on the lookout for celebrity related info, for showing me this video from Paris:

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Adfunny videosFunnyOrDie.com

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

It's in response to this ad from the McCain camp:

What's weird is that the Paris video is so much better than the McCain one. She does a great job of making fun of McCain being old and how he's dumb enough to try to compare her and Barack. Why is it that her spoof video contains more policy information than ads from either campaign? Both groups would be smart to talk to the people that helped her plan that response.

What country do I live in?

2008-08-04T05:55:00.000-07:00

This weekend government agents walked into a library, demanded to take some computers and didn't have any court documents allowing the seizure. Where do I live? I'll give you some hints. I don't live in a dictatorship (officially). The 4th amendment of my constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Figured it out yet? A couple more clues.... the people who have the power to fix this blatant misuse of power (my country supposedly has a legislative branch to check powers) don't do anything but go along for the ride.

In case you are thinking, "a library is a public place, maybe it's ok to take property from a public place without a warrant." Our government (it's one founded on freedom by the way) doesn't bother trying to be so subtle. The "war on terror" also involves taking the personal property of Americans because they choose to travel. How far can they go before people start to notice?

Obama campaign helps Clinton with logic

2008-03-13T07:18:00.000-07:00

NPR just posted a really funny response from the Barack camp to a Clinton e-mail.

This could be my least aggravated post yet. It's refreshing to see that the people involved with Barack think like I do. I feel like I could have written that response to the e-mail myself. It's given me hope for politics.

The senate sucks enough to get me back to blogging

2008-02-12T13:35:00.000-08:00

It's been a long time since I took the effort to post something. It's tempting to think that things have just been better; maybe less things have pissed me off. But more likely, I was wasn't paying attention.

Today I stopped to read Slashdot and found something to make me mad after only two articles. The Washington Post reports that the Senate has voted to give immunity to the telecommunication companies for violating our privacy (at the request of the government). Now, rather than be held accountable for blindly following the requests of the government they will likely be forgiven and will not have learned any lesson from the mistake.

I'm confused that a company would let the government's overzealous desire to monitor it's own citizens fool them into disregarding their customer's privacy. Didn't they notice that the war could have been avoided with some careful consideration rather than drastic action? Or the PATRIOT Act? We also had to let them listen to our phone conversations and read our e-mail? And it's not that I'm against them reading email of terrorist suspects, just get a warrant and read all the e-mail you want.

The worst part of all of this isn't that there are enough stupid senators that would vote for something like this, but that the 3 most likely presidential candidates all supported it. (Technically Hillary didn't vote at all, but that is even worse in my opinion). Apparently even a president who is a step in the right direction still isn't going to be perfect, what a surprise. It feels good to vent again.

Thank you, Olbermann

2006-12-01T09:50:00.000-08:00

Keith Olbermann gave a perfect response to Newt Gingrich's recent comments on restricting free speech last night. My biggest hope is not that Gingrich hears the response and repents, but that as many Americans as possible hear Olbermann's remarks.

How can we take seriously a run for the president from a man who wishes to restrict our free speech? It's a scary time if his advisers thought that restricting our freedoms would appeal to a large base in America. Let's hope that other possible candidates speak loudly against Gingrich's remarks so that we have a solid person to stand behind.

What is going on in Iraq?

2006-12-01T05:40:00.000-08:00

Does anybody (other than Israel) want us in the middle east? ABC News is reporting that Iran is giving weapons to some Iraqi militia. This news comes on the heels of the Iraqi president suggesting that Iran should help stabilize Iraq. As if those two countries aren't enough of a mess, Hezbollah in Lebanon is reportedly training Iraqi militia as well.

Taking that information into consideration, we see that two different countries are fueling the fire, and the people we put into power in Iraq are asking for help from one of the fire starters. How are we supposed to succeed in a situation like that?

Vilsack could be decent

2006-11-30T13:43:00.000-08:00

Forbes is reporting that Vilsack is going to run for president in 2008. After reading the initial rundown of Vilsack's views, I have to say that I like his strengths. In a time where our oil dependence is causing problems on a global scale, I'd argue that a desire to invest in alternative fuels might be one of the most important qualities in our next president. I hope to read more about Vilsack's views on some controversial topics like stem-cells and gay marriage. I would love to see a Democrat run for office that I could stand behind.

Hanson points out our problem

2006-11-30T05:38:00.000-08:00

The media seems saturated with news of how Islamic extremists are killing people and polarizing people along religious beliefs, but rarely do I see a well thought out story about the long term consequences of our actions.

The OpinionJournal's article by Victor Hanson is a well written look into how the extremists are causing us to lose sight of our core beliefs. His points about how we have stopped supporting people who push the edge of free speech opened my eyes to the importance of accepting, and defending, the most radical views among us.

Hanson touches on the societal class issue that has been discussed recently and points out the irony in our contempt for people below us in society.

We especially ignore among us those who work each day to keep nature and the darker angels of our own nature at bay. This new obtuseness revolves around a certain mocking by elites of why we have what we have. Instead of appreciating that millions get up at 5 a.m., work at rote jobs, and live proverbial lives of quiet desperation, we tend to laugh at the schlock of Wal-Mart, not admire its amazing ability to bring the veneer of real material prosperity to the poor.

We can praise the architect for our necessary bridge, but demonize the franchise that sold fast and safe food to the harried workers who built it. We hear about a necessary hearing aid, but despise the art of the glossy advertisement that gives the information to purchase it. And we think the soldier funny in his desert camouflage and Kevlar, a loser who drew poorly in the American lottery and so ended up in Iraq--our most privileged never acknowledging that such men with guns are the only bulwark between us and the present day forces of the Dark Ages with their Kalashnikovs and suicide belts.

Though Hanson doesn't spell it out, he is suggesting that the best way to preserve our way of life is for the most fortunate among us to fight for the freedoms of the whole country. Physical fighting isn't necessary when what needs to be defended is our right to say and think what we want. It is possible for everybody to see the difference between good and evil and to support the good while naming and not accepting the evil.

Pragner motivated me

2006-11-29T06:36:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in my first post, I gained the motivation to start a blog during my recent vacation but I didn't follow through till I was motivated by Dennis Pragner's recent article. His post is a great example of how people's judgments can be biased by their religious beliefs. Here's my issues with his post.

He should not be allowed to [take his oath of office on the Koran] -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Is he serious? Do we really want a country based on religious freedom to be based on religious biases? I'm confused. Maybe he'll explain in the rest.

... all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

There, he figured it out. Wait. I took that quote out of context? He means that each individual should share a common holy book? That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.

America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress

I think that he meant "I'm interested in only one book", because he isn't in the position to speak for Americans and I wish he would avoid it. He has one question that is pretty easy to answer.

Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?

If people elected somebody to office that would prefer to swear on Hilter's book, then I'm also sure that they wouldn't mind him using it as a testament to his being the best senator he can be. Hopefully, our country won't come to that.

Pragner talks about how countless Jews have taken their oaths on the bible while not believing in it as the holy book. For a long time people believed that the earth was flat but when a person stood up and said "it's round" it wouldn't make sense to argue "but other people think it's flat". Showing that people have made a mistake (or approved of an error) before does not mean it should continue, or the person who points it out should be chastised.

He also does a good job of adding in some scare tactics at the end of his writing. I'm not sure how he knows that using the Koran will likely "embolden Islamic extremists" but it sure sounds scary. The decision should be made based on the reasons behind the request, not anything else.

I love that Ellison was elected. Having a country of religious freedom ruled by a single religion seemed a bit odd to me. If Ellison wants to show his dedication to his new job by swearing in on the most important book in his life then I'd rather him do that then swear in on a book that means little to him.

Welcome

2006-11-29T06:05:00.000-08:00

I've started this blog with the hope that people will start thinking logically and critically about their world views.

Over this Thanksgiving weekend I read an article in Wired about prominent atheists calling for people to leave their gods behind and embrace science as the future. There has been a rise in similar stories recently; all of them about scientists frustrated with the influence of religion in schools and politics. I share their frustration and am just as sad/angry when I see some of the antiquated Christian views influencing our countries policies.

I don't share their belief that the only way to fix the problem is for everybody to leave religion completely behind. People will not leave leave their faith behind, but people of faith are not incapable of making good decisions. Religious people can remember that our country was founded on freedom. Religious people can remember that our country was not founded to be a theocracy. Religious people can remember those things and act appropriately.

Hopefully my posts will help spread my belief that we need to become a country known for rational thought, and not for religious biases.