PoliMike

Psychological Christians

2011-02-21T02:44:00.000-08:00

(Note: this does not apply to all (or perhaps even most) of psychology or psychologists. I mean to blog about the most dangerous parts and ones.)

The efforts of psychologists to pathologize aspects of the human condition remind me of the Christians' view that man is inherently and inevitably by his nature corrupt and evil. Additionally, just as Christianity offered a solution to the view of life it propagated, so too has Psychology offered a solution. In fact, both the psychologists and the Christians have offered us many, many solutions. In Psychology we have the different theories and schools of thought (and not to mention drugs). And in Christianity we have the different denominations and even offshoots of the faith. But while they both provide multitudes of choices, we still must accept their own premises.

Their ideas of the good life, or rather the mode of existence worth striving for, are importantly similar in that they are both idyllic: Christianity's heaven ("Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst."), and Psychology's conception of a life without any stress, any grief, even from loss and any feeling of lacking. Though I do not believe Psychology has reached the extreme of Christianity yet, I do see psychology as approaching it.

As the psychologists identify an increasing amount of different behaviors and attitudes as being pathologically significant, the scope of what the good life could (or even may) be becomes narrower and narrower. This obviously has a powerfully normalizing effect on society, similar to that of the tyranny of monotheism.

On the timing of Palin's quitting

2009-07-03T20:58:00.000-07:00

If Palin's decision to step aside as governor of Alaska were part a political strategy to bolster her chances of winning the nomination/election in 2012, then why did she do it the Friday before July 4th, when no one is paying attention to the news?

There might be more to this story. Perhaps a looming scandal to surface? I sure hope so.

Is The Interregnum Too Long?

2008-11-25T16:55:00.000-08:00

There seems to be somewhat of a vacuum of leadership between the time the US president is elected and the time he finally takes office. This has been amplified this time around by the financial crisis and by Bush's extreme unpopularity, rendering him bereft of any political capital (even less than other lame duck presidents.)

All this has me wondering if the interregnum is too long. I did a little research, and it seems that other countries have much shorter interregnums. President Sarkozy of France took office ten days after being elected. Recently in New Zealand, John Key, leader of the wining party in last month's election, was sworn is as prime minister 11 days after last month's election. Although, it might be that given New Zealand has a parliamentary system of government, Key, being the leader of the opposition, was more apprised of day-to-day operations of the government than he would have been in a presidential system.

Curtailing the interregnum would not necessarily mean curtailing the transition period. After the president succeeds to the office, the preceding president and his staff could remain in Washington for some time to aid in the transition process. An incoming president immediately taking power needn't cause chaos. If he didn't yet have the operational knowledge of governing, he could simply defer to the preceding president on those troublesome areas.

Texas: a swing state?

2008-11-08T22:14:00.000-08:00

In the 2008 presidential election, McCain won Texas by a margin of about 11.7%. Obama won New Mexico by a margin of 14.7%. If NM is considered to be a swing state, then why not TX? Given its increasing Hispanic population, I would bet that by 2012, Texas will be in play.

Asymmetrical Regulation

2008-09-28T21:37:00.000-07:00

In a recent blog post, economist David D. Friedman made a good point about government regulation: while the ideal is a government policy of complete non-involvement in the economy, once the government does get involved, there are instances in which less regulation is worse than more regulation. The problem arises when the government provides insurance (for an investment, property) with no strings attached. The sub-prime mortgage crisis is one example of this, as Friedman explains.

Another example of this is how the government provides disaster-relief for areas which are known to be disaster-prone. This policy produces an inefficient outcome since the residents don't pay the full cost of living in such areas. Ideally, under a free-market system, local residents/communities would have to pay the cost (through insurance premiums, if they wish), which would adequately disincentivize people from living there, without the federal government being involved at all. However, being that the government is involved, a more efficient policy would be to require the local governments to pay a premium to the federal government, compensating them for their effort. This way, the federal government would impose some disincentive on choosing to live in these areas, given that the local taxes would have to be higher.

Rational Tribalism

2008-09-20T23:13:00.000-07:00

Personally, I think its wrong to lump people into groups. In my opinion, people should be judged on their own merits as individuals. However, I've thought of how tribalism might exist even if everyone were philosophically opposed to it.

Imagine a club which has a history of having exclusively black members. However, the current members don't particularly care to carry on the tradition. Race is irrelevant to them. They are charged with selecting one new member from a list of five candidates, one of which is black, four of which are white. For a candidate to be selected, he needs a majority vote from the members. If no candidate attains a majority, then there is a runoff.

It just so happens that the candidates' resumes are all equally impressive, making it difficult for the members to choose who to vote for.

Given that the selection process imposes some cost (time, energy, etc.) on the club and that a runoff would impose an additional cost, I believe that the black candidate would win even though the members have no racial preference. The reason is that his race is a Schelling point, a kind of meta-expectation, that the members would naturally arrive at. Each member, wanting to avoid a costly runoff wants to vote for a candidate that others will also vote for. Given the history of the club preferring black members, black-ness is a natural schelling point. Each individual member has no personal preference for the black candidate, but he votes for the black candidate because he expects others to vote for him. It's kind of a positive feed back loop.

This all depends on the relative strength of the schelling point. By that I mean, it depends on how costly extending the selection process would be verse the cost of taking the risk of not selecting the best candidate.

Is Pakistan Not a Sovereign Nation?

2008-09-13T22:43:00.000-07:00

In reaction to Russia's invading South Ossetia, Georgia in early August, president Bush condemned Russia for violating the "territorial integrity" of a sovereign nation. A few weeks later the US launched missile attacks into Pakistan absent permission of the Pakistani government.

Could the hypocrisy be any more obvious? Not that Bush wasn't already a hypocrite given his preemptive invasion of Iraq, but this must set a new record for how long it takes a government to make a statement, then go back and completely contradict that statement through its actions. I wish the mainstream media would call Bush out on his hypocrisy. They have raised questions about the US's violating Pakistan's sovereignty by crossing into its territory, but I haven't read/seen any pieces questioning the US's moral authority (or lack thereof) to condemn the actions of other nations given its past actions.

On Taxes, Does It Matter Who Wins?

2008-09-08T10:02:00.000-07:00

Given that the Democrats will almost certainly continue to control congress after the 2008 elections and that the bush tax cuts are slated to expire in 2010, does it really matter who is elected? Only congress can lower taxes, not the president. The only thing President McCain could hope for would be a shift in power in the 2010 midterm elections. Even then there's no guarantee that he'd get his tax plan through. I'm sure there would be at least a few republicans against it (like he was against the 2003 bush tax cuts) and the Democrats, even if they lost the majority in the senate, would still be likely to have enough seats to filibuster it.

On Kids Believing in Santa Claus

2008-08-22T22:17:00.000-07:00

I used to think that lying to your kids about Santa Claus was overall a plus. Sure they're upset when they learn the truth, but the fun and excitement they derive from Santa is well worth it.

Recently I thought that there is yet another reason to have your children believe in Santa Claus: it teaches a good lesson, that authority can lie to you. It gives them a healthy dose of cynicism that will make them less likely to be brainwashed into believing other fantastical and baseless ideas in the future. If my parents lied to me about Santa, maybe I'm being lied to about God or the lethality of marijuana.

However, I'm not so sure it actually works out this way. It might have the opposite effect. It might be that the experience is so traumatic that children seek to avoid such epiphanies in the future. They become generally less curious about things for fear that it might lead to extreme disappointment. After all, the majority of the American public (I think) have gone through this and yet they still cling to idiotic and childish beliefs.

Maybe it depends on the delivery? Maybe when you break the news to your kids you need to carefully explain what they should learn from it?

The Bob Barr Effect

2008-07-28T19:44:00.000-07:00

The media seem to take for granted that people who plan on voting for Bob Barr, the former republican congressman turned Libertarian candidate for president, would otherwise vote for McCain. I don't think this is necessarily correct because while Barr has many conservative positions (and overall he's probably more to the right than to the left), the main issue of his campaign, the issue he spends most of his time talking about, is defending civil liberties, which appeals much more to liberals than conservatives. And given Obama's recent cave-in on warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity, Barr is looking even more attractive to liberals these days.

Thoughts on The Traveler's Dilemma

2008-07-19T21:24:00.000-07:00

An airline loses two suitcases belonging to two different travelers. Both suitcases happen to be identical and contain identical antiques. An airline manager tasked to settle the claims of both travelers explains that the airline is liable for a maximum of $100 per suitcase, and in order to determine an honest appraised value of the antiques the manager separates both travelers so they can't confer, and asks them to write down the amount of their value at no less than $2 and no larger than $100. He also tells them that if both write down the same number, he will treat that number as the true dollar value of both suitcases and reimburse both travelers that amount. However, if one writes down a smaller number than the other, this smaller number will be taken as the true dollar value, and both travelers will receive that amount along with a bonus/malus: $2 extra will be paid to the traveler who wrote down the lower value and a $2 deduction will be taken from the person who wrote down the higher amount. The challenge is: what strategy should both travelers follow to decide the value they should write down?

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium for the game 'The traveler's dilemma' is for each player to guess $2. What I find interesting --and please, correct if I am wrong -- is that if we alter the rules of the game slightly by removing the $2 minimum (and let the players choose negative values), then it becomes a game very similar to the dollar auction where there is no equilibrium, where the iteration escalates causing great loss to both players.

If player A guesses $2, then player B should guess $1, which means player A should guess 0 and so on...

So I guess the rational strategy would be to not play at all?

Smoking Ban Makes Me Less Healthy

2008-07-14T13:01:00.000-07:00

As a health conscious person, I try to avoid second-hand smoke as much as I can. If there weren't a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, then I would limit my patronage of those places that did allow tobacco smoke anyway. However, as a result of the government ban, it seems that more smokers are smoking outside on the sidewalk. Sidewalk-smoke is less avoidable than restaurant smoke, so as a result, I'm more exposed.

Most people understand that the smoking ban forces people who aren't concerned with their health to be healthy, but I don't think most people considered that it would be at the expense of those who actually do care about their health.

Should we want to be blamed?

2008-06-29T21:41:00.000-07:00

Suppose a poll were conducted asking the American public this question: given that global warming is a real and dangerous phenomenon, do you have a preference as to whether or not it is anthropogenic? How do you think most people would respond?

The rational preference is yes because if humans were the cause of global warming, then we'd be in a position to stop it. Despite this fact, I suspect that most people would have the opposite preference. (I don't have any evidence to back up my claim; I'm basing it entirely on conjecture and my own experiences with people.) Accepting blame comes at a cost to one's ego (even if its merely by association to one's species), and I think a lot of people are unwilling to pay that cost, even if doing so would allow them to proceed to take corrective action, improving quality of life.

By now, most people do agree that global warming is caused by humans. But if this poll were conducted, I think the results would be a partial explanation of what took us so long to take the blame.

Definition of Government

2008-06-25T09:46:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking a lot about government and how to properly define it. One concern I had was that of arbitrariness. What I mean by this is how to distinguish the state from other forms of authority. If one owns a large estate and makes rules for how the inhabitants live, does one act as a government?

I believe the answer is no. My definition of government is common governance of a collection of multiple, differently owned pieces of property. Furthermore, anarchism is the condition of a collection of multiple properties having no common governance. Revisiting the question I posed, the estate owner is exercising property-authority (authority over one's property), not government authority (authority over multiple properties).

Something else to consider: a society could be stateless yet non-anarchist. Such is the case for a lone piece of property. To demonstrate my point, imagine if there were only one man left in the world. Obviously, he would be stateless (which sounds funny to say), but would he be an anarchist? Not really. Both anarchism and the state require multiple properties.

I think that my definition is useful, albeit in a limited way. It doesn't attempt to resolve the problem of how to establish the legitimacy of property ownership, which is integral to understanding a society's government-status. For example, what if a government were to simply declare that it owned all the properties? Would the society suddenly become stateless? I think not, but for reasons which are outside of the scope of my definition. However, I might write about this and other issues in later posts.

Could Animals Be Protected in a Free Society?

2008-06-22T21:05:00.000-07:00

The answer to this question depends on the status of animals. If animals are property, then the answer is no. However, I think that there could be a libertarian argument made for animals as being protected as parts of the environment.

For example, while I may own land, I do not have the exclusive right to the river that flows through it. Yes, I have the right to swim in it, build a bridge over it, but I would be going beyond my rights if I installed a large fishing net and captured all the fish that went through, or if I dumped toxic waste in it. In this sense, the river is common property to all the land owners whose land it flows through. The reason is that what happens in one part of the river affects the other part. It is a continuous entity.

I think the same could be applied to animals. Think of the wildlife that run through your property as the water in the river. In a similar way, you do not own the animals. They are common property, parts of the environment. Say, five people each own property bordering a forest, and each person uses the land for hunting purposes. It would be wise for them to establish a rule on how much each person could hunt per season, for fear that one greedy hunter would leave little for everyone else. And if they so desired, they could establish a rule as to how to treat the animals.

So the point is that while animals do not have rights, they are not private property either. Just as the government ought to have the right to punish air polluters, it is permissible for the government to set some standards in regard to how animals are treated. The question now becomes, where do we draw the line? If I breed the animals myself, then it'd be a stretch to say that they are still part of the common realm. In which case, the government might not have the right to intervene if I were to abuse them. However, some where down the line, the animal's lineage could be traced back to the wild. It's tricky.

Weak Anarchism Vs. Strong Anarchism

2008-06-20T12:23:00.000-07:00

What's the real difference between anarcho-capitalism (free-market anarchism) and anarchist communism if neither ideology could advocate the use of force to implement itself in society? (If it did, then it would be advocating a form of government.) Therefore, what separates different brands of anarchism is not the government policies they advocate (which is the policy of terminating it), but their forecasts for what a post-state society would be like. The anarcho-capitalist proposes the abolition of the state, and he predicts that an entirely free-market economy would take hold, providing for all goods and services. The anarchist communist, too, proposes the abolition of the state, and he predicts that a socialist, classless society would take hold, with common ownership of the means of production.

What I propose is a new term, weak anarchism. Weak anarchism allows for a temporary government to help bring about a particular type of stateless society, whereas strict (or strong) anarchism believes the best thing the government can do at any point in time is to cease existing. The anarcho-capitalist, for example, might advocate a temporary government security force to give time for private security firms to come into existence.

In my opinion, weak anarchism is the only way for the various branches of anarchism to have any meaningful differences between each other.

Internally Inconsistent Argument Against the Welfare State

2008-06-17T13:07:00.000-07:00

Many conservatives/libertarians have made the argument that the welfare state has "destroyed the black family". Under the welfare system, single-mother families were nearly on pair, in terms of financial viability, with traditional two-parent families. In other words, participant fatherhood wasn't particularly rewarded in black society as it would have been absent government intervention. This, as the argument goes, had a lasting cultural impact.

This may or may not be true, and, indeed, if it were true, it might be a good argument against the welfare state. However, from a libertarian perspective, this would be problematic. If libertarians wanted to argue against welfarism on account of the taxation that is required to fund it and the economic and moral issues that are resultant from that, then I wouldn't see a problem. The problem arises when they argue against the giving aspect of welfarism.

Imagine a wealthy organization that is funded entirely through voluntary donations. Now imagine that this organization gave money to the would-be welfare recipients instead of the government. Wouldn't the socio-economic/cultural impact be exactly the same? If so, then the implication would be that these people do not know how to spend their own money, and it might even be wise for the government to step in and ban this organization from giving them hand-outs (which of course would be anti-libertarian).

The way I see it is that the government never forced the recipients to choose between the traditional family and welfare handouts. And if it were so that fatherhood was beneficial for more than financial reasons (which it is believed to be), then they should have recognized this fact and acted accordingly. To say otherwise would be oppose financial personal responsibility, a tenet of both libertarianism and conservatism.

Ron Paul Should Run Third Party If He Loses The Nomination

2007-12-15T20:12:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination to be president has generated a lot of enthusiasm over the past few months. The amount of donations Paul's campaign has received has rivaled that of his opponents. Paul's campaign also can claim to have a lot more grassroots volunteers than any other campaign.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that Ron Paul has made some considerable progress in the polls recently, winning the nomination is still an uphill battle. He's still below 10% in Iowa and New Hampshire, and their primary elections are less than a month away.

Ron Paul's best shot at winning the White House would be for him to run on the Libertarian Party ticket. It is rare for a third party candidate to win, but Ron Paul has a lot of things going for him that other third party candidates didn't.

1. Money
Think back to '92. Ross Perot was able to get 19% of the popular vote. Why? Because he had a lot of money. So does Ron Paul. (And he'll get a lot more by tomorrow.)

2. Message
In my view, the reason why Perot didn't win the election was that he didn't have a strong message. He had broad stances on things which many people agreed with, but he didn't seem knowledgeable of the issues, nor did he have a consistent philosophy. Ron Paul has both. I would even say he is inspiring. How rare for a politician!

3. Disaffection
This is probably true for every election, but the people are sick of the two party system and having to choose the lesser of two evils. If the election comes down to Hillary v. Rudy, then the voter doesn't have a real choice. I mean, is there any real difference between the two?

4. Broad Appeal
Ron Paul gets almost as much support from liberals as he does from conservatives. His stances transcend the political spectrum. A lot of voters have libertarian views, but are frustrated because there are no viable candidates that can represent those views. Ron Paul would be such a candidate.

Regardless of all of this, Ron Paul himself needs to be convinced to run. So far, he's nearly ruled out a third party candidacy. Although if he does lose the nomination, I'm sure there will be a huge push to get him to run. I hope it's successful because he's the only chance this country has at being the land of the free again.

Georgia Governor Holds Prayer Vigil on State's Capitol

2007-11-14T12:08:00.000-08:00

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue yesterday, along with a large crowd which included many other fellow lawmakers, held a vigil on the steps of Georgia's capitol to pray for rain. Georgia has been suffering a horrible drought in the past few months, and I guess this is the good governor's solution.

Read more about it here.

This is pretty sad. I mean, forgetting about the fact that it was a blatant violation of the separation church and state, it's sad that elected officials even have the desire to take part in this nonsense. Why doesn't he just do a rain dance? No, we laugh at silly tribal rituals like that, even though we're not much better.

In the article I linked some residents were quoted as saying that they didn't think the prayers would do any good, but that it was good that it was uniting people. So unity is good even if that which unites you is bad?

Unity has the effect of strengthening that which fosters it. In this case, the unity strengthens the religious sentiment in their society, which is bad. If they can't find anything good to be united by, then their society is in a pretty sad state, and they just shouldn't be united at all.

A Possible Scenario If Ron Paul Wins The Nomination

2007-11-12T16:26:00.000-08:00

If Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination, a large sector of the republican electorate would be passionately opposed to Paul on their number one issue: the war on terror. I don't think they would accept defeat.

Given how much the neoconservatives and Ron Paul differ on their policies on this issue, the neocons might splinter off and run their own candidate, despite not having the nominal support of the republican party.

It will probably be a Giuliani-Romney ticket. Here's why.

They're the most viable Republicans in the general election. They have the most money, and are leading in the polls. I think that McCain is too loyal to the republican party on principle to not support the nominee, regardless of who it is. Giuliani and Romney are also very similar to each other. They're both from the northeast; they both have liberal records on social issues. One would want to include the other in his ticket so that the other wouldn't run and divide the vote.

But again, there is a problem. Given their liberal records on social issues, a Giuliani-Romney ticket would not adequately represent the evangelical vote. Mike Huckabee would jump in to fill this void.

Even though in theory a Romney-Huckabee ticket or a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket would have wider appeal, they wouldn't work out well in practice. In the former ticket, there's nothing stopping Giuliani from running on his own; in the latter there's nothing stopping Romney from running on his own, thus dividing up the conservative vote. The purpose of the primary process is to prevent this from happening by excluding all but one candidate in a given field. (This is especially important in a first-past-the-post election system like ours.) But if Paul were to win the nomination, then a lot of conservatives would view the '08 primary as illegitimate. As a result, there would be a sort of electoral anarchy. In such an environment, it makes sense for the strongest candidates to unite to defeat the weaker ones. In this case, I believe they are Giuliani and Romney.

So as a result, we'd have an election with a lot of choices. Sounds good to me!

This is just a theory. I'm not that confident that it would actually happen, but it is interesting.

Why Robertson Endorsed Rudy

2007-11-08T21:03:00.000-08:00

Despite his disagreements with Giuliani on the very issues that he has based his televangelist career on, Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president yesterday. The endorsement is believed to help Giuliani's efforts in courting Christian conservatives, with which he's had some difficulty.

I've been thinking about why Robertson would endorse someone like Giuliani. (I mean, if you know anything about Pat Roberston, you know he is one of the most socially conservative figures in American politics.) I've come up with two theories. One is simple: Robertson made a strategic political decision to associate himself with the likely-winner, even though doing so meant he had to foresake his core beliefs. The other is more complicated/interesting.

I think what motivates the leadership of the Christian Right is less the “values” they advocate, but more the basic desire to control people. Religion is just a convenient utility to that end. (In fact, this is probably the main reason religion was invented.) If this is the case, then Giuliani and Robertson have the same goal. They're both control freaks who want to increase the power of the government; they just have different ways of going about acquiring that power.

Rather than faith, Giuliani uses fear to control people. This is why every other word out of his mouth is "9/11". He uses that word so much because the very thought of it makes people feel scared and vulnerable. When people are vulnerable, that is they feel they can't properly protect themselves, they're eager to find someone who can. In civilized society they look to the government. Unfortunately, this protection comes at a price: individual liberty. The more scared you are, the higher price you're willing to pay. Giuliani knows this and he's just getting started.

Given Giuliani's stances, you'd think he'd have zero support from the Christian Right, but its his lust for power that attracts some of them. Seeing who does and doesn't support Giuliani will be a useful way of categorizing them.

Remember, Remember The Fifth of November

2007-11-05T23:32:00.000-08:00

Today has been very exciting. Ron Paul's campaign was able to raise 4 Million dollars in 24 hours. That is the most any Republican Candidate has raised in one day this cycle. I think that Paul will be able to hit his December 31^st target of 12 million dollars. The media attention he gets from this historical day will translate into more and more donors.

I think what happened today is more important than most Ron Paul supporters realize. Its not just about the funds that Ron Paul's campaign has acquired, but the media attention he will likely get. Even if Ron Paul weren't to spend a dime of today's donations, today would still be a HUGE success.

Check out this snapshot graphing the November 5^th donations.

Also, donate if you haven't already (and even if you have).

Who's a Greater Threat to You, Bush or Bin Laden?

2007-10-30T22:44:00.000-07:00

The Bush Administration and Al Qaeda have a symbiotic relationship. Neither would be nearly as prosperous today if not for the other. If not for Bush's policies, Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be as popular as he is today in the Muslim World, nor would Al Qaeda's recruitment levels wouldn't be as high either. If not for Osama Bin Laden, Bush would not have been able to convinced Americans to go to war, get away with violating our civil liberties or, most importantly, win re-election in 2004.

While Neoconservatism and Jihadism are based on opposing worldviews (democratic liberalism, islamic fundamentalism), they are mutually beneficial. Neither movement would be able to justify its actions without the other.

Neoconservatism succeeds by convincing us that Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to our way of life; Jihadism succeeds by convincing Muslims that Democratic Liberalism is a threat to their way of life. The beauty of these ideologies is that adopting them causes them to be true. If we accept a neoconservative foreign policy and instigate wars, then Islamic Fundamentalism will be a threat to us; if Muslims participate in Jihadism and commit terrorist attacks against Westerners, then Liberal countries will be a threat to them.

This is a greater point of how warlike ideologies operate. One depends on another of a different philosophical base. It is a system that ensures both ideologies will prosper despite their apparent differences.

So in answering the original question, I would say that President Bush and Osama Bin Laden play equally vital roles in a dangerous phenomenon that is happening today.

Note: I used the term “Jihadism” rather than the more widely used “Islamofascism” because the latter term is entirely false. Radical Islam is neither corporatist nor is it nationalist, both key traits of fascism.

A Good Question to Ask Someone Who is Moderately Religious

2007-10-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

Below is an exchange I had with a good friend of mine who I would describe as moderately religious.

Me: Do you believe in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?

Friend: Yes.

Me: Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God?

Friend: Yes

Me: If humans were ever to contact these aliens, do you think we would find that they believe in Jesus or even know his name?

Friend: [confused smirk]

Being religious is about compartmentalizing one's mind. In order to function in society, and even to have meaningful relationships with one's peers, one must be rational most of the time. Rationality precludes religion, so people simply suspend reason for that tiny area of their life. Asking them this question forces them to confront this contradiction.

Ron Paul needs to sell himself better.

2007-10-22T18:34:00.000-07:00

I agreed with everything Ron Paul said last night at the Fox News debate in Florida. He truly is a dream-candidate for me (with very few exceptions). However, in order for him to get more support, he must be more politically savvy in the way he delivers his message. I understand that part of what makes Ron Paul great is that he speaks his mind, but I also think he can afford to be more calculating while still staying true to his beliefs. If he wants to win the Republican primary, he's going to have to convince the voters that he is a true conservative, not some anti-war liberal.

Below is the video of Ron Paul at the debate last night along the some of my criticism/recommendations.

0:11 – He should have just left it at Federalism and state's rights. That is a true conservative position that Republicans are familiar with. Talking about how contracts between individuals must be protected was irrelevant to the question asked.

1:38 – Bash regulation, not corporations. When Republicans hear someone criticize corporations, they immediately think of some anti-capitalist liberal like Michael Moore. He could have gotten his point across by advocating deregulation (a word republicans like) and criticizing lobby groups (everyone hates lobbies, even Republicans.)

3:24 – Anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul knows how ridiculous a comparison this is. Yes, Hillary says she's anti-war but isn't, but there are many more differences between them that would have gone over better with the crowd. He is against corporate mandates, against repealing the Bush taxcuts, against expanding federal programs and he is pro-life, just to name a few.

8:05 – This was a good opportunity for Paul to list his conservative credentials: he is pro-life, he is pro gun rights, he has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted for an unbalanced budget, he wants to eliminate many federal departments like the Department of Education.

Another recommendation I have for Paul is for him to talk about Reagan more. The Republican Party's deification of Ronald Reagan can not be overlooked if one is vying for it's nomination. Ron Paul should talk about how he was one of the few Republicans to endorse him in '76, talk about how he was one the few Republicans in congress to stay true to Reagan's philosophy of small government by never voting for an unbalanced budget.

Ron Paul is not going to win if he's only going to rely on the popularity of his position on the war. He needs to emphasize his views which would be popular among Republicans. He is, after all, trying to win the republican primary.

Why Ron Paul Has a Shot

2007-09-30T11:20:00.000-07:00

1. New Hampshire is a libertarian state.
The fact that New Hampshire is arguably the most important state to the primary election helps Paul more than any other candidate. I predict that voters from the live-free-or-die state will appreciate his libertarian, small-government positions.

2. In many states (including NH), Independents can vote in the Republican primary.
This is important for Paul since a lot of his positions would appeal to non-republican voters, e.g. the war, drug policy.

3. Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican candidate.
In a 10 man race, a candidate can win with a minority of the vote. As Ron Paul has stated himself, being that all the other republican candidates support the war, the pro-war vote is significantly diluted, so the anti-war republican-primary voter (though a minority) only has one option: Ron Paul.

4. Electability.
The American people are overwhelming anti-war. Considering how pro-war the rest of the republican candidates are, it seems doubtful that the republicans will keep the White House in 2008, unless Ron Paul is their nominee. This adds to Ron Paul's attractiveness to even pro-war voters, who would rather have an anti-war president who is at least a republican than an anti-war Democratic president.

5. Fundraising
Enthusiasm for Ron Paul's candidacy has definitely been on the rise. He recently raised $1,000,000 in less than 6 days.

I'm still not convinced that he has a great chance of winning the primary, but I don't think its a complete long-shot. I think his biggest obstacle is pessimism. Many people agree with his views, but write him off because they don't think he stands a chance.

In order to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, you might have to change your party affiliation. Look into your state's laws regarding this issue.

Habeas Corpus and The Vague War on Terror

2007-09-20T22:18:00.000-07:00

"The War on Terror" is a conveniently vague title. Most people believe to have an understanding for what it means, but it has never been officially defined. Despite its elusiveness, it has been used as a justification for two wars and the erosion of our civil liberties, most notably that of habeas corpus, the right of a prisoner to challenge his detainment in court.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not technically a "natural" right, but rather it is a procedural safeguard which is absolutely essential for protecting all of our actual liberties. Without it, there is no way to ensure that the government isn't wrongfully imprisoning someone, or imprisoning someone for entirely the wrong reasons, e.g., protesting against the government. What's to stop the police from arresting people and making them disappear for criticizing the administration if they're unable to challenge the grounds upon which they've been detained?

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminates the Writ of Habeas Corpus for “enemy combatants”. Many people might not be disturbed by this since it only applies to terrorists. But the fact is, under the (constitutional) law, no one is a terrorist or any other kind of criminal unless he has stood trial and been found guilty of such. The president now has the authority to indefinitely detain anyone he SUSPECTS is a terrorist.

The War on Terror has been very unfortunate for our freedoms, but even more danger lies ahead. When most people think of a terrorist, they think of a bearded fellow from the middle-east with a hard-to-pronounce name wearing a turban. There is not, however, a clear definition of what a terrorist is. The great danger is that the government can justify further eroding our liberties by invoking this archetype, then after they have grabbed their extra authority, they can conveniently broaden the definition. As an example, I have heard about a case in which a group of animal rights activists were charged under recent terror legislation for bombing a meat-packing facility with no people inside. Is that what you think when you think of a terrorist?

The problem is knowing where to draw the line. Left unchecked, proceeding presidents might continue to extend the definition of terrorism to include more and more crimes. I've even heard people suggest that inner-city gangs should be considered terrorist groups because of the harm they inflict on their communities. It is unwise to leave such important distinctions to be made by fleeting presidencies or whimsical legislative bodies. This is why the Writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined in our constitution. Constitutions can only be so self-maintaining. It's up the people to make sure the government does the legal and moral thing, that is to respect its founding document.

When a Soldier is More Than a Soldier

2007-09-17T15:10:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot blowback from the above ad that moveon.org put out. Many republicans, most notably presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, have blasted both moveon.org and the democrats for not immediately distancing themselves from the ad.

Dick Cheney said today "It's bad enough when politicians turn their backs on a war they voted for and supported when it was popular. But no one in politics, regardless of party, should hesitate to object when an American soldier at war is mocked and insulted.''

Now, first let me say this is just political posturing. The republicans are exploiting this as an opportunity to embarrass the democrats for being disrespectful toward a soldier and to distract the public from a failed war policy. But regardless of the disingenuousness on the part of the republicans, the question still stands: Is it wrong to criticize, or blatantly insult soldiers?

Usually it is wrong, but not under these circumstances. General Petraues is a soldier, but the minute he testifies before a congressional committee and defends a politician's policy (in this case the President's), he becomes more than a soldier. You can't blame soldiers for simply following orders, or just carrying out policy, regardless of how bad that policy he is. But as soon as they start serving in a political capacity, then they make themselves vulnerable to political attacks like all other politicians.

This is an important point because it means politicians can't just hide behind well-respected official to try to advance their agenda. Don't like how this soldier is being treated? Then don't try to showboat his respectability by having him vouch for your policy goals. Part of the reason why soldiers are respectable to begin with is because they stay out of the political fray.

The Advisory Branch

2007-05-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

The Senate Judiciary Committee has done a good job of showing Alberto Gonzales to be nothing more than Karl Rove in an Attorney General's clothing. After months of interrogating countless Justice Department officials, it is clear that our justice system has been politicized to levels unprecedented in recent history. What the Committee has not been able to do, however, is force Gonzales out. Despite blatant unethical (while perhaps not officially illegal) behavior and widespread condemnation from both sides, Gonzales refuses to quit and the President refuses to fire him. So what is a committee to do?

Their apparent solution is to propose a vote of no-confidence, which is exactly how it sounds: the congress will pass a resolution expressing discontent with Gonzales, asking him to quit. In reality, this no solution at all; it's nothing more than a fancy way of submitting a complaint.

Considering this and all the talk of so-called "non-binding resolutions" condemning the President's plan for a troop surge earlier in the year, one must wonder how this congress views itself. Do they think they are merely an advisory board, whose purpose is to timidly complain when the President does something they don't like?

We need a congress that is willing to act, not simply express disapproval. This week they caved in on the Iraq funding. They will no longer include a timetable for withdrawal in the war funding bill, even though the president absolutely needs congress to fund military operations. If they continue down this path, they will set a dangerous precedent for other congresses in the future to act qua a privy council, only to have their recommendations laughed off by a grossly over-powerful chief executive.

The Noble NRA

2007-05-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

Imagine a bill that would make it illegal for suspected terrorists to own guns. Who would oppose such a bill? Not the Democrats: they don't really believe in the right to bear arms. Not the Republicans: they don't really believe in the right to a fair trial.

The NRA, being the noble, liberty-supporting organization that it is, is opposing this bill, for specifically the right reason.

As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties."
- Chris Cox, NRA executive director

Punishment is taking away rights. If you commit a crime, the government can take way your right to movement (imprisonment), your right to property (fines) or even your right to life (capital punishment). Before the Government can do this, however, it needs to try you in a fair and impartial court. The same is true for your right to bear arms.

See the full story here.

Bush Vetoes War Funding

2007-05-01T19:18:00.000-07:00

Earlier today the President delivered a speech explaining why he vetoed the emergency war funding bill passed by Congress. A full transcript of his address is available at nytimes.com.

Bush claims that this bill imposes an “artificial” timetable for withdrawal. Furthermore, he says that setting a timetable would signal to the enemy when to “mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq” , as if the insurgents aren't attacking with full force already.

The President failed to address the Democrat's argument for setting a timetable, that doing so would communicate to the Iraqi Government that our patience isn't limitless. Bush himself has spoken favorably of setting benchmarks. Why not actualize them into policy, rather than have them exist as mere rhetoric?

Bush has not learned from his past mistakes and instead continues to stubbornly “stay the course.” Ignoring his record-low approval rating and the increasing unpopularity of the war, Bush will continue to become more and more irrelevant. I wouldn't be surprised that if by the summer, the congressional leadership are able to muster enough votes to override his veto.

What Dawkins Didn't Say

2007-04-25T01:29:00.001-07:00

Below is Richard Dawkins on The O'Reilly Factor, aired on Monday, April 23.

Basically, O'Reilly's argument for the existence of God is that nature/the universe is complex, therefore something must have created it. In other words, complexity requires a designer. Dawkins' only response to this was that science is “working on it.”

What he neglected to point out was that even if science had no idea of how to explain the complexity, there is still no particular reason to believe in God. If complexity requires a creator, then wouldn't that creator also be complex thus require a creator himself? The ultimate question is: why does anything exist? Introducing God into the question serves no explanatory purpose.

I was disappointed that Dawkins failed to rebut O'Reilly's argument. He hurt atheism's intellectual credibility. Although, this aired on Foxnews, so it doesn't really matter that much.

Religion Dishonors The Dead

2007-04-23T15:59:00.000-07:00

As a non-religious person, tragedies in general are kind of annoying to me. Not only is the tragedy itself upsetting, but it is nearly impossible to avoid comments about God and religion. It makes me feel like an outsider, a misfit. Not only do I find this to be annoying, but recently I have come to the conclusion that it is disrespectful to the victims to invoke religion.

People use religion, in part, to make themselves feel better about death. It is a way for them to ease the anxiety they feel when thinking about death. Religion minimizes death by telling us that we will “go to a better place” when we die. But how can we properly honor the victims when we try to convince ourselves that their death doesn't matter?

In minimizing death, religion also minimizes life. After all, this life pails in comparison to the promise of heaven, so why care about it? Why care if your loved ones are killed? They're in a better place, right?

The way you honor someone's death is by acknowledging that it was a great loss, not by parroting comfortable lies that tell us that it wasn't much of a loss at all.

Numbers Aren't Everything

2007-04-17T15:15:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the tragedy that befell Virginia Tech on Monday, many people have been making the point that we are paying disproportionate attention to it, that more Iraqi civilians died in Baghdad that same day, 129 to be exact.

The reason the Virginia Tech Shooting is more news-worthy than some mass-killing in Baghdad is because it was much more unexpected and it was closer in proximity. But beyond this, I believe it would be rational to care less about this tragedy if it'd happened in Iraq (or any other country), even if Iraq were a peaceful place where such a tragedy were just as unexpected.

The first reason is that most of the people that Americans know are other Americans, so it is much more likely that any given American would personally know someone who was affected by this, as opposed to if it had happened in another country.

The second reason is that the VT shooting happened within the context of the American way of life. This should be interesting to Americans because it might suggest that life is more dangerous than they had previously thought. If it could happen in Virginia, it could probably happen in any other state in pretty much the same way (which it has.)

If we take the "all lives are equal" statement to its logical extreme, then it is wrong to mourn the death of your sister more than the death of a stranger whom you've never met. This makes no sense. All tragedies are not equal, and using the sheer numbers as a measure is overly simplistic. There are many more variables to consider.

Divorce Isn't Such a Bad Thing

2007-04-08T22:41:00.000-07:00

Traditionalists like to cite the high (and rising) divorce rate as evidence of the moral bankruptcy of modern society. It is an effective citation since most people seem to agree that divorce is a bad thing, though I do not think this is necessarily the case. In fact, in and of itself, I can think of only one reason that divorce is bad, that is that the parties involved are breaking “a promise” that they would be together forever.

Can you really blame people for getting divorced when society offers such a limited set of options? It's either you commit for a life-long affair, or none at all. According to our culture, people are meant to be eternally attached to another person. This isn't true for everyone. Couples should be able to determine their own level of commitment. If they want to be together for the rest of their lives, that's fine. If they want to plan on being together just until their kids are grown, then thats fine, too.

A misconception about the divorce rate is that it is equal to the rate of bad marriages. How do you know that years ago, when the divorce rate was lower, there weren't just more unhappy, loveless marriages? Indeed, being in a bad marriage is worse than getting divorced.

To me, the high divorce rate means that people are less tolerant of unhappiness. This is generally a good thing, but it is a tragedy when children are involved (albeit an exaggerated one, since kids are often better off not living in a household with unhappy parents). I would be interested to know the percentage of divorced couples that don't have children (or only children that are grown up.)

Abstinence Kills

2007-03-25T21:16:00.000-07:00

In his effort to warm up to the Christian Right, John McCain refused to answer a simple question, the answer to which is obvious to any reasonable person. See below.

Q: "Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

The Christian Right are generally opposed to promoting the use of contraceptives, even for purposes of stemming the spread of HIV and other STDs. Their argument is that by informing people of contraceptives and how they work, you're promoting sex in general which leads to more disease being spread. This obviously makes no sense because all common forms of contraception are 95%+ effective. Additionally, I'm of the belief that sex need not be promoted; human nature alone is enough of an incentive to compel people to have sex.

I concede that abstinence is the surest way to guard against STDs. But that's just not realistic. While it may be true that teaching abstinence would have the effect of dissuading some from having sex, those that wouldn't be dissuaded would not be well prepared for sex, and thus would be more likely to contract and then spread STDs. (Also, studies show that teenagers who adhere to abstinence are more likely to engage in oral sex and anal sex, which is more dangerous than vaginal intercourse.)

The real reason the Christian Right are opposed to teaching safe sex practices is because they're against premarital sex, period. It has nothing to do with public health concerns. Their goal is to prevent people from having premarital sex because it is against their religion. In fact, their policies are actually detrimental to the public health. This is yet another example of how religion harms society.

Scientology vs. Christianity

2007-03-20T20:13:00.000-07:00

In the past year or so, there has been an increasing amount of criticism (largely in the form of satire) aimed at Scientology. It has been my observation that most Americans find Scientology to be humorous and completely absurd. I agree that Scientology is absurd, but being that most Americans are Christian, it is my opinion that they are being hypocritical in criticizing Scientology. If we examine both religions, they appear to be equally absurd. See below for a comparison.

According to Scientology:

Any mental illness should be treated by taking large quantities of vitamins absent any kind of psychiatric drug.

Mothers should be completely silent during birth, while not using anesthetics.

Humans are covered with the souls of aliens called Thetans.

A dictator of a galactic confederacy brought billions of aliens to Earth 75 millions of years ago in spaceships that resembled modern-day airliners.

Absurd things believed by Christianity:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them – Matthew 4:8,
This implies the earth is flat. Being that the earth is round, it is impossible to view all of the earth's surface from any point, regardless of how high it is.

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. Timothy 6:1-2 It is clear that the Bible does not condemn slavery.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13 Just one example of many of the Bible's hateful bigotry and violence.

According to the Catholic Church, all forms of contraception are immoral, even within the confines of marriage! (Note: not all denominations of Christianity believe this.)

In the Book of Jonah, Jonah lives inside the belly of a whale for three days.

According to many biblical scholars, studying the lineage of biblical figures implies the earth was created six thousand years ago, despite vast scientific data suggesting Earth came into being about 5 BILLION years ago.

As I've said before, one faith cannot argue against another faith. One form of delusion is no more valid than any other form of delusion. Before Christians start poking fun at the absurdity of Scientology, they should look at their own religion objectively.

The Collective Presidency

2007-03-14T21:06:00.000-07:00

There's a point that's often made about President George W. Bush which I find interesting. It is said that while his administration is corrupt, Bush the human being is not. How could this be?

The problem with Bush is that he lacks the intellectual capability and confidence to lead. He has to defer to others and trust in their judgment. This is attractive to people who have risky and/or corrupt policy goals, because its an opportunity for them to realize their agendas without being held accountable (or so many of them might think). The result is a president who is a mere representative of others' interests.

Take this recent controversy over at the Justice Department. Allegedly, Karl Rove instructed Alberto Gonzales to fire eight prosecutors for political reasons. Because of the vacuum of leadership, Rove is able to advance his own corrupt political agenda at the expense of the President's popularity. (Granted, Rove has suffered severe blows to his popularity in the past few years, but keep in mind that Rove is not a politician. Popularity ought not be a priority of his.) Someone like Rove would be less likely to pull these tricks under other administrations, since past presidents would probably have been smart enough to see the kind of weasel he is. Under other presidents, he would probably have been shutout or fired.

The same goes for Wolfowitz and the other neocons who worked behind the scenes to convince the President to invade Iraq. Bush was the perfect opportunity for them, since he was naïve enough to buy into their insanely idealistic ideology. Other presidents wouldn't have been willing to take such a risk as to invade Iraq, but Bush is an unintelligent president, who needs to defer to others; Wolfowitz knew this.

Bush's legacy will be that dumb people don't make good presidents. That's a rather obvious point if you ask me. It's a shame we had to learn it the hard way.

Libby Should Be Pardoned

2007-03-08T14:56:00.000-08:00

...…by President Pelosi, if he provides information that would lead to the impeachment (and removal) of Bush and Cheney.

This is my response to those who sympathize with Libby because he was the “fall guy.” Granted, the conventional wisdom is right in this regard, but it makes no sense to excuse the behavior of a fall guy unless he comes clean about what (and who) he is “falling” for. The only way for Libby to redeem himself and rightfully earn a pardon is by implicating Bush and Cheney.

Socialized Medicine and Self-Ownership

2007-02-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

-Gerald Ford

The US healthcare system is not in a good state. Nearly one sixth of the US population is uninsured. Our Healthcare system is very expensive and is continuing to get more expensive. It accounts for 15% of the US GDP, higher than any other country. Healthcare costs are also the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

The dismal condition of the healthcare system has prompted many to call for the government to provide more healthcare services. Some have even suggested that healthcare should be entirely funded by the government universally for all citizens, like in Canada and most European nations.

While, sadly, I must admit that many European countries have socialized systems which are superior to our own healthcare system, I am nonetheless opposed to Socialized Medicine (though I firmly believe there need to be radical changes made to our healthcare system). Most of my reasons for taking this position are typical, that healthcare is a service best left to the market forces of the private sector, and that the high taxes it would entail would hurt the economy. But there is yet another reason to be opposed Socialized Medicine, one that is rarely mentioned but no less important.

It has to do with self-ownership. If the government assume responsibility for caring for our bodies, then it would have a stronger case for regulating them. Since the government would be paying for health services, the sickness of one would affect the wallets of all.

As analogy, think of all the laws and regulations governing automotive transportation. First, you need to acquire a license to drive at all. The car you choose to drive needs to be registered with the government. It needs to be inspected annually. Once you’re finished with all that, there are laws governing how you drive, like speed limits, stop lights, stop signs, etc. All this makes sense, because driving is and - by its nature - has to be in the public sphere. The choices that one driver makes could potentially endanger the lives of other drivers on the road, so the government is well within its rights in this area (with the exception of the seatbelt law, of course).

But what if personal health were in the public sphere? What if the personal health choices of one individual affected everyone else? Well, the answer is that the government would have a plausible argument to govern our health choices just as it does our driving choices.

This phenomenon is already taking place. Recently, Trans fats were banned in New York City restaurants. Responding to critics who said the regulation infringed on personal liberty and personal responsibility, proponents of the ban argued that it was justified because the negative health effects of trans fats were being paid for by the taxpayers (in part). This argument is used to justify other infringing regulations too, like smoking bans in bars, seatbelt laws and laws relating to marijuana and alcohol.

Socializing our healthcare system would be a step in the wrong direction with respect to personal liberty. This is an important point because it highlights the relationship between a free-market economy and civil liberties. The more services the government provides for us, the more it is in a position to demand more authority over our lives, regardless of the initial compassion upon which the service was based. Gerald Ford’s words continue to ring true.

Principles Aren't Everything

2007-02-04T21:56:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton is often criticized for lacking core beliefs. Her detractors claim that she changes her views based on whatever is the popular position at any given time, rather than her principles. Her husband received similar criticism, though to a lesser extent. Most people would consider this a negative quality of hers, and it a lot of ways it is, but there some positives aspects of it, which I think are overlooked

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

-Friedrich Nietzsche

Many politicians cling to their principles because they’re not smart enough to tackle complex problems. For example, if your political beliefs are limited government, being strong on defense and that “traditional values” should be promoted, then you can simply apply these beliefs to any issue, without actually understanding it. If the economy isn’t going well, then you rely on your limited-government principle to tell you that taxes should be lower, or if America is under a terrorist threat, then you rely on your strong-on-defense principle to tell you to invade some country.

George W. Bush is the perfect example of a president who is too principled. Throughout his presidency, he has remained almost unwaveringly faithful to his principles, even while his principles have failed miserably when put into practice.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s important for a president to have principles, just not at the expense of intellectual curiosity. A president shouldn’t constantly second-guess himself, but while he is crafting his proposals he should explore a large variety of different viewpoints. This is a mature way of approaching the issues. Sadly it is an approach that has been absent from Washington in recent years. Hopefully that will change soon.

Porn Is Better Than Religion

2007-01-27T23:41:00.000-08:00

A church in Ontario, NY is hosting a breakfast-discussion entitled “Porn and Pancakes ”. The purpose of the event is to warn people of the dangers that porn poses. “It's everybody's dirty little secret in America and it needs to be addressed. It needs to be spoken about openly so people can get healed,” said parishioner Paul Forget.

DISCLAIMER: I am a firm believer in religious freedom. When I say we should combat religion, I mean we should do so within the limits of respecting peoples' rights.

Christian Conservatives are against pornography. Many evangelical leaders want porn to be more restricted, censored or outlawed altogether. Their excuse for being against pornography is that it harms society, which it doesn’t. (In fact, evidence suggests that increased access to pornography has lessened the incidence of rape and other sex crimes.)

They really only oppose it because its written in their mythical texts that masturbation is a sin (despite the fact that most doctors believe it is a healthy practice). I’m against outlawing porn, even if it does harm society, but if we’re going to outlaw things because they harm society, then it makes equal sense to outlaw religion, (though outlawing religion would be equally wrong).

Religion is much more harmful to society than pornography. It is an effective tool in getting people to commit irrational, outrageous and sometimes self-destructive acts. There is a long, long list of religiously motivated crimes, including unjust wars and mass genocide. The most recent danger religion has posed is in the form of terrorism. Religion is also a strong motivator for people to try to control the private lives of others. (Banning porn is a great example.)

The defining aspect of religion is “faith”. There is such a positive connotation attached to this term in our society, but really, what does it mean? In terms of religion, faith is believing in Moses, Jesus, Allah and other mythical characters without a shred of proof. Why is this considered a good thing? This is a very illogical approach to take. Things ought only to be believed if there is evidence to justify believing in them. Since Religion can’t back up its claims with evidence, the only way for it to be successful is by brainwashing people into thinking that faith is a virtue, while if you think about it, faith is just intellectual laziness.

In theory, it’s obvious that faith is harmful to society. It teaches people to not think, to accept the answers they’ve been given without any degree of skepticism or investigation. But in practice, is it harmful for people to have a little faith? What’s wrong with people being a little intellectually lazy in one area of their lives? Well, on the individual basis, it’s not that harmful. For most people, religion is a minor aspect of their lives. But for a sector of the population, albeit a minority, religion is a very big deal. The real problem is that if the vast majority of people see faith as a virtue, even if they’re just passive about it, it makes it harder for us to condemn religious fundamentalism.

Since all brands of religion are based on faith, then there can be no argument about which brand is more valid than the other, for the simple fact that faith rejects the whole concept of argument.
Moderate brands of religion and fanatical brands are intellectually no different. They’re both based on faith and thus both irrational. It is hypocritical to condemn religious fanaticism yet accept moderate religion because it is more preferable or less (obviously) harmful. If we’re going to combat the ideologies of Osama Bin Laden and Pat Robertson, we need to be consistent. As a society, we need to reject the root of religious fundamentalism, which makes it possible to exist: faith. Ultimately, faith is a package deal. Either we accept all of it or none of it.

Culture of Life or Culture of Slavery?

2007-01-22T15:39:00.000-08:00

Today marks a great day in American history. Thirty-four years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that women have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. President Bush, being an abortion-rights opponent, delivered a message by telephone to an annual pro-life rally saying, "We've all got to remember that a true culture of life cannot be built by changing laws alone. We've all got to work hard to change hearts,". He continued, "The sanctity of life is written in the life of all men and women. And so I think, go forth with confidence that a cause rooted in human dignity and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens cannot fail."

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the 'right-to-life'... You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Leonard Peikoff

Christian Conservatives pride themselves in being in favor of a “Culture of Life”. This sounds innocent enough. I mean, “life” is a good thing, right?

Not if it’s at the expense of liberty. The Culture of Life agenda could be more accurately entitled “The Culture of Slavery”. The movement demands that their values be imposed on others without consideration of the right to privacy or of the concept of self-ownership.

If America is a free nation, then women must have full reproductive rights; if America is a free nation, then people must be allowed to choose how and when they die, WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

It’s also worth noting that the pro-life movement is not a cultural movement. It is a political movement. Pro-lifers want their values written into the law regardless of what the culture would dictate.

The Nanny State versus Family Values

2007-01-20T12:49:00.000-08:00

The city of Bangor, Maine just passed a law making it illegal to smoke in a car when a minor is present. Similar legislation is being introduced in the New Jersey legislature. And in California, a bill is going to be proposed that would prohibit parents from spanking their own children.

These are unjust, unwise pieces of legislation. They are a direct infringement on personal, parental and familial privacy. You may agree that what these laws are banning is bad. I know I do. But generally speaking, do you trust the government to determine how to and not to raise children? Do you trust it enough to let it to involve itself in a profoundly personal and private matter? I certainly don’t.

Who’s to say what exactly the right thing to do is in terms of children and family, anyway? Every child is different; every family is different. For example, the California bill, if enacted, would prohibit parents from spanking their children who under four years of age. Where did they come up with that number? What’s wrong with spanking a three year-old? Or maybe it's best to refrain from spanking your child until he’s five. It’s silly to make laws that govern all families and all children. Parents should be the ones to settle these issues.

Additionally, parents should be allowed to make wrong decisions. Freedom is about allowing people to do things that you don’t necessarily agree with, perhaps stupid and irrational things. The benefit of this is that you get to live you life the way you choose without interference. The family is such a private realm. If freedom isn’t safe here, then it isn’t safe anywhere.

Bush to Cease Warrantless Wiretapping

2007-01-19T10:12:00.000-08:00

The Bush administration finally gave in and is going to seek court approval for domestic wiretapping. Initially, the Administration claimed that going through the judicial process would hinder their intelligence-gathering efforts. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, “I don't think the judiciary is equipped at all to make decisions about what is in the national interest of our country”. Yet on Thursday, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales flip-flopped, saying that seeking court approval won’t affect the “speed and agility the government needs to protect our nation from the terrorist threat."

I am pleased that Bush has decided to obey the law. However, this weakens the chances that the Democratically controlled House will impeach him. This is unfortunate because it is still just as important that Bush be impeached.

Throughout his presidency, Bush has been in violation of the law. As soon as the Democrats take power, he decides to cease the illegal warrantless wiretapping program. If he is not impeached, then we make it OK for the president to break the law as long as his party has control of Congress.

Congress Can Obstruct This War

2007-01-12T12:29:00.000-08:00

Does congress have the authority to terminate the Iraq War?

Congress clearly has the power of the purse and accordingly can defund the war effort. But beyond that, can Congress simply pass a law discontinuing this war?

I believe that the constitution implicitly gives Congress the power to discontinue this war, or any military effort for that matter.

Article I, section 8 of the US constitution proscribes the powers of congress. Here are some excerpts to back up my claim:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…

…To raise and support Armies…

…To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces…

…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In order for the President to engage the military in war, he needs approval from Congress. In the case of the Iraq war, the president derives his authority from Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed by Congress in October, 2002. What if Congress repealed this law? Wouldn’t the president then lose the authority to continue the war?

The President’s job is the execute the law passed by Congress; his is job is not to make his own laws. Similarly, the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In this capacity, his job is to execute wars and military endeavors drawn up by Congress, (and to take emergency military action when circumstances don’t allow time for congressional approval). His job is not to engage in wars or endeavors that go beyond what is mandated by Congress.

Indeed, the constitution grants Congress more authority then it has been utilizing. In my view, not only does the constitution grant the Congress the power to terminate a war, but also to dictate how a war is carried out. However, in most cases, it is wise for Congress to allow the president much leeway in how he conducts a war and how he decides to end a war (partially in the hopes that he will act on the advice given to him by the military leadership). But in this case, considering the dismal job Bush has been doing, Congress might want to consider taking a more active role.

Impeachment of President Bush

2007-01-07T06:55:00.000-08:00

As President, George W. Bush has committed acts that violate both statutory and constitutional law. As I have stated in an earlier post, it is necessary that presidents be held accountable when they break the law. So how should Bush be held accountable?

Well, he should be IMPEACHED AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

Crimes committed by Bush:

Warrantless Wiretapping

In my view, this is Bush’s gravest offense. By authorizing warrantless wiretapping, he has broken FISA and violated the constitution. Not only has he broken the law, but he doesn’t even have a good reason for doing it.

Let me provide some background into the controversy.

In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prescribes the procedure by which the government can surveil Americans who are communicating with parties in other countries. The act set up a special, secret court from which the government must receive a warrant in order to eavesdrop on Americans engaged in international communications, e.g., telephone calls, e-mails. In order for the court to grant a warrant, the government must show probable cause that the target of surveillance is a danger. The FISA Court rarely rejects applications for warrants. In fact, it has only rejected five applications out of nearly twenty-thousand applications since the courts founding and has only modified around two-hundred. Also, under exigent circumstances, the government can conduct emergency surveillance and seek a warrant after the fact.

Despite the fact that it rather liberally grants warrants, Bush has chosen to ignore the court. He has illegally wiretapped Americans without any kind of judicial oversight. This violates FISA and the 4th amendment to the Constitution. Bush claims that he is exercising self-restraint in his warrantless wiretapping. He says that he is careful not to violate civil liberties. But why should we trust him?

We shouldn’t trust him. That is why we have a system of separation of powers, and Bush has breeched that separation.

Signing Statements

When Congress passes a bill, the president may either sign the bill into law, veto the bill or let the bill expire without signing it (which is effectively vetoing it). He may not sign a bill into law and ignore certain parts of the bill. This is called the line-item veto and has been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Despite this, Bush has been engaged in selectively ignoring certain provisions of bills.

Bush has used this self-granted power to expand executive authority. By altering bills, and selectively ignoring provisions, the President has taken on a legislative role. This is a clear violation since, as we know, legislative authority belongs solely to congress.

Some examples:

By using signing statements, the president has granted himself the authority to open Americans’ mail without judicial oversight despite laws to the contrary, and he has granted himself the right to authorize the use of torture, despite laws to the contrary.

Misled the Country into the War in Iraq

You can’t really impeach a president for lying, but you can if the president willfully misleads Congress into voting for his proposal under false pretenses. I’m talking about the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.

The Bush Administration was interested in invading Iraq well before 9/11. Former members of the Bush Administration have admitted to this. In fact, many current and former members of Bush’s administration wrote a letter to Bill Clinton in the 90s, as part of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank, advising him to pre-emptively invade Iraq and topple Saddam’s regimes.

It is clear that the Bush Administration’s desire to invade Iraq was part of a geopolitical vision, not because they considered Iraq to be a threat; however, they tried to garner support by asserting that Saddam's regime was a danger to the United States. They cherry-picked the intelligence to support their now disproven claims that Iraq had ties to Al Qaida and possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Administration went so far as suppressing, threatening and even punishing members of the intelligence community who disagreed with their assertions, e.g. the outing of Valerie Plame.

Conclusion

I should state that I do believe that Bush acts with the best interests of the nation at heart. When he breaks the law, he does so because he believes it is good for America. However good-intentioned, this is unacceptable. This “ends-justify-the-means” thinking is antithetical to the American tradition of government. We can’t give the president (both current and future) this extensive authority for he might be wrong in his judgments, or worse, he might be ill in his intentions.

Impeaching Bush and removing him from office will set an important precedent, that indeed there are consequences for Presidents when they break the law. It will cement an important principle that contributed to the great success of our nation: The Rule of Law. It is essential to our future success that we hold our leaders accountable. We ought not to abandon this sacred pinciple that has done so well for us over the course of our history.

Positives and Negatives of Democratic Takeover

2007-01-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

The Democrats will take control of Congress today for the first time in twelve years. Let’s examine the positives and negatives of this power shift.

POSITIVES:

Accountability

The Republican Congress was little more than a rubberstamp body. They have sat by while the President misled the country into war, made no-bid contracts, illegally wiretapped American citizens and presumptuously cherry picked bills by choosing to ignore certain provisions. Hopefully, the Democrats will fulfill their constitutional obligation and act as a check on the executive branch.

Social Issues

The Democratic party, having less religious lunatics in their ranks than the Republic Party, is more respectful of the separation of church and state. Most of them understand that religion is a personal matter that has no place in drafting policy. Under the Democrats, we’re not going to see distractions like trying to constitutionally ban Gay Marriage or congressional intervention into the Terry Schiavo case.

Foreign Policy

The Democrats will be less arrogant in their foreign policy, being more willing to compromise. The Democrats understand that it is in our interests to maintain alliances and respect international law. They’ll be less go-it-alone type engagements. Thankfully, it seems very improbable that we’re going to start a war with Iran now that the Democrats are in power.

The Environment

The Republicans have been completely out of step with the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and needs to be dealt with immediately. One of the things I’m most happy about the Democrats taking power is that Jim Inhofe -a man who compared environmentalists to Nazis- will no longer be the chairman of the senate Environment and Public Works committee.

NEGATIVES:

Minimum Wage

There is a near consensus in this country that minimum wage ought to be raised. The democrats have been trying to raise it for years, and president came out in support of it. It doesn’t seem like anything could stop this from happening, despite adverse economic effects it will have, and despite the fact that it doesn’t address the root causes of wage stagnation.

Welfarism

It will be interesting to see how Bush’s “Big-Government Conservatism” will interact with liberal populism. Interesting as it will be, one thing is for sure: there will be an increase in the size of government. The Democrats will push for more welfare funding, education funding, etc. Considering Bush’s history, he’s unlikely to restrain this growth in government. Instead, he’ll probably approve it under the condition that it adheres to his “faith-based” policies. Yikes!

Immigration

The Democrats are soft on immigration. Many of them are against building the border fence. They are also in favor of granting amnesty to illegal aliens. All this despite the fact that the influx of immigrants has hurt lower and middle class workers by depressing wages. I hate to be cynical, but it is in their political interests to support an open-border policy because Hispanic-Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Six Years Too Late

2007-01-03T19:08:00.000-08:00

President Bush on Wednesday called on congress to reduce its use of earmarks. He proposed that lawmakers cut by at least half "the number and cost" of earmarks in the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills.

Bush has been a very fiscally irresponsible president. Federal expenditure has increased under his administration and his only response was to cut taxes. In Bush’s six years in office, he hasn’t vetoed one spending bill, while budget deficits have soared to record levels and now all of a sudden he recognizes the need to limit earmarks? Sorry, Mr. President, but you’re six years too late.

The Death Penalty was Wrong for Saddam

2007-01-01T18:12:00.000-08:00

In general, I am opposed to the death penalty; however I make an exception for crimes against humanity. My reason for this is that perpetrators of such crimes are more calculating (I think), so the death penalty could have a deterring effect, which it lacks for regular crimes. This isn’t to say I believe the death penalty is appropriate for every case of crimes against humanity or for every criminal.

The execution of Saddam Hussein was the wrong thing to do for two reasons. One reason was that the trial was illegitimate or, more importantly, it was viewed as such. Being that the all of the judges were Iraqis, I don’t see how the court could be impartial. Also, Saddam was executed less than two months after being found guilty. Regardless of what Iraqi law says, that is not a lengthy enough appeals process for a death penalty case.

The other reason was that the execution further disaffected the Sunnis. After Saddam was hanged there were tons of violent protests throughout the country. My fear is that Saddam’s execution will galvanize the Sunni insurgents and widen the sectarian divide. It would have been better if Saddam were just locked away, having never been heard from again, slowly fading into irrelevance.

Should Ford Have Pardoned Nixon?

2006-12-29T00:11:00.000-08:00

Before I write about this topic, I would like to express my high regard for the 38th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford. He was a principled man. He did what he thought was best for the nation regardless of the political repercussions and despite attacks from both the left and the right. Succeeding two of the most deceptive presidents in our history, he was remarkably sincere. I hope presidents like him do not become less common as the years pass.

"Well, when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." - Richard Nixon

Should Ford have pardoned Nixon? Ford’s rationale was to end the “national nightmare” of the Watergate scandal. Indeed there is a good argument to be made that it was in the best interests of the country to put that awful ordeal behind us. However, in light of the current administration's transgressions, I find myself questioning the late president’s decision.

It’s essential to our republic that the President not be above the law. Subsequently, in order to ensure this, we need to hold presidents accountable when they violate the law. If we fail to hold any particular president accountable, we not only excuse his individual violation(s), but we set a precedent for future presidents to follow. We send the message to future presidents that they are, in fact, above the law.

Nixon was forced out of office. Though he wasn’t impeached, it seems certain that he would have been had he not resigned. So then it is true that he was held accountable, but the questions is was he held accountable enough? Was the punishment exacted on Nixon enough to cancel out the potential precedent?

Well, at the time I probably would have answered yes. But now considering Bush’s obviously illegal warrantless wiretapping, detaining American citizens without charges and of course his tendency to add defiant statements to bills he signs into law, my answer is no; I believe Ford should not have pardoned Nixon. Perhaps if Nixon were convicted or even jailed, Bush would think twice about breaking the law. It’s hard to say, really. But the chance of it having that effect would have been worth extending the “nightmare”.

Voting Should Be an Irrevocable Right

2006-12-27T16:27:00.000-08:00

Florida State Senator Gary Siplin sponsored a bill that would restore voting rights to convicts. According to the bill, a convict would regain the right to vote one year after he completed his sentence. Unfortunately, Siplin is a convicted criminal himself, which could make other lawmakers reluctant to get on board and support the bill.

In some states, felons get their right to vote taken away. I understand the need to punish criminals, but this goes too far. By giving the government the authority to revoke citizens' right to vote, you give it the power to manipulate the electorate to their advantage. This may be a farfetched scenario (though it wasn't at one time), but contrast that with the positives of revocation of voting rights. What good does it do? Is the long-term concern of electoral engineering enough to qualify voting as an inalienable, irrevocable right?

Perhaps you don’t like how criminals vote. Maybe you think that criminals are likely to vote for similarly corrupt candidates. Well, felons constitute a small portion of the population and if it happens that a significant percentage of the population are criminals, then that would suggest a disconnect between the state and society. If criminals are denied the right to vote, then it would be harder to correct this disconnect.

Perhaps you think it is proper punishment for people who break the law. Well, do you really think the threat of losing the right to vote will deter criminals from committing crimes? I suspect most of them aren’t very civic-minded.

In the Declaration of Independence, it is written that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If you think about it, none are more “governed” than convicted criminals. They are the ones that feel the full effect of government and its legislation. Voting is just as essential as other rights, for both moral and practical reasons.

RETRACTION

2006-12-26T14:06:00.000-08:00

Sorry guys, it turns out the law only applies to public institutions and is thus a sound law. I wrongly thought one of the affected colleges was a private school. Here's the link to the actual text of the proposition. scroll down to page 5 to read the law in full.

Michigan Law Banning Affirmative Action is Wrong

2006-12-25T20:08:00.000-08:00

On November 7th, michigan voters approved an amendment to their constitution banning colleges from using affirmative action.

Affirmative action is bad for minorities and it is bad for America. By giving special treatment to minorities, it promotes a sense of racial identity rather than a sense of individual identity. Under affirmative action, minorities owe their successes to the fact that they are a certain race or gender, rather than to their own talents and efforts. Additionally, it makes accomplished members of minority groups suspect. People will think that they don’t truly deserve their success, thus making it harder for them to prove themselves.

HOWEVER,

the Michigan law banning colleges from using affirmative action is wrong. The law is unwarranted government interference into the activities of private organizations. Private organizations have the right to freely employ, educate, form contracts with or otherwise associate with whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they choose. It is wrong for the government to either prohibit or mandate use of affirmative action for private organizations.

It is also worth noting that the government does have the right to mandate or prohibit affirmative action on itself or other public organizations. It may also choose not fund organizations which do or do not practice affirmative action as a way of influencing those organizations’ policies.

Iran Vows to Continue Enrichment, Despite Sanctions

2006-12-24T10:13:00.000-08:00

From their perspective, no amount of sanctions would justify not pursuing nuclear weapons. It's a matter of survival. Can we blame them?

Since Bush made his pivotal “Axis of Evil” speech almost five years ago, the world is less safe. By attacking Iraq, the US has emboldened its enemies to create or maintain nuclear weaponry. It’s common sense, really. If you make a list of three countries, call them evil and then attack one of them without provocation, the remaining two are likely to take preventative action against such an attack. In this case, since the military might of the US is so strong, the only effective prevention is building a nuclear arsenal.

Of course Iran was interested in nuclear weapons before the invasion of Iraq, but now they HAVE TO acquire such weapons.

Va Congressman Stands by Koran Criticism

2006-12-22T17:18:00.000-08:00

Virginia congressman Virgil Goode stands by his statements criticizing Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's intentions to use the koran at the swearing in ceremony. In a letter to his constituents, he suggested that the US limit immigration from countries with muslim majorities or else "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the koran on which to be sworn in.

Something I found that I think is relevant to this story...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

Article VI, US Constitution

Also consider that congressmen don't actually get sworn in during the ceremony. It is purely for show. They're actually sworn in earlier, where they swear an oath to the constitution absent any religious text.

Bush supports minimum wage increase

2006-12-21T09:19:00.000-08:00

While the US economy continues to grow, the median income has remained stagnant these past five or so years. This is certainly troubling, but raising the minimum wage is an artificial solution. It doesn’t address the underlying causes. The question then becomes: what is/are the cause(s) of the disparity?

In my view, there are two primary reasons why wages are increasingly out of step with economic growth. One is that the influx of immigrants willing to work for so little depresses wages, mostly in the service sector; the other reason is that many once high paying jobs are being outsourced to developing countries, mostly from the manufacturing sector.

So now that we know the causes of stagnant wage growth, what do we do?

Well, for service sector jobs, we ought to crack down on illegal immigration. More than that, we should significantly curtail the amount of immigrants we let in legal or not, as the current level of immigration is not currently in our economic interests. No doubt that this would hurt businesses, but the degree to which it would help lower and middle class individuals would justify doing it.

As for the manufacturing sector, we ought to educate members of our society to enable them to do more lucrative jobs. I don’t believe we can stop globalization. The jobs are being outsourced because it is more profitable for businesses to employ laborers who are willing to work for lower wages (obviously). We need to adapt to this new reality by enabling our workers to do higher paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. Examples of such jobs are research & development, investment/banking services, medical research etc.

This idea doesn’t work if most Americans aren’t capable of learning how to do these jobs. This may or may not be true (thought I tend to be optimistic), but it is better than the alternative, i.e. doing nothing or imposing tariffs which would only delay the inevitable.

Study: 9 of 10 Americans have had premarital sex

2006-12-20T20:55:00.001-08:00

...yet we shouldn't try to prepare our youth by informing them of contraceptive methods. That would be ungodly! Nevermind that it is a FACT OF HUMAN NATURE.

The Chrisitian Right remind us of the flaws of democracy. A small, determined voting bloc is capable of wielding disproportionate power at the polls.

In 1968 presidential election, there was a lot of talk of the "silent majority". I believe this phrase is still relevent today, but in a different way. While a large percentage of those who are politically and socially active spend a good part of their time telling us how evil sex is, the vast majority of americans aren't hesitant to enjoy it. Well good for them!

Bush Psychology

2006-12-20T19:58:00.000-08:00

"Absolutely, we're winning."- President Bush Oct. 25, when asked if the US is winning in Iraq.

“Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win.”- President Bush Dec 20, when asked to reconcile above quote with recent statement that the US is in fact NOT winning in Iraq.

I’ve always known that Bush was out of touch with reality, but this offers an interesting insight into his delusional thinking. We have a president who substitutes his desires for truth. He believes what he wants to be true rather than what is true. It’s no wonder he’s so religious.