I'm finding the fractures in the religious right to be interesting. Much of the religious right has lined up behind Romney, who is still legitimately in the race. A lot of evangelicals, however, look like they'd rather vote for a no-hoper than a Mormon. And Huckabee seems to be deliberately drawing out a losing campaign for the express purpose of sucking votes away from Romney.
I'm wondering how conservative Catholics, Jews, and Mormons feel about their colleagues on the religious right? Certainly, they can't feel like full partners in the movement. (I don't particularly see a Catholic or a Jew getting any better treatment from the religious right than Romney has.)
My problem with Huckabee stems from my perception that he wants to impose his religion on the rest of the country. We've got the fairly explicit comments he made in South Carolina suggesting that the Constitution should be re-drafted to bring it more into line with christian fundamentalist principles.
We've also got the way that he keeps taking cheap shots at Romney's religion. Similar attacks were made on Brownback earlier in the campaign.
(The Christmas card seems to have been released by an "independent" group sympathetic to Huckabee. Huckabee did not condemn it or call for the group to stop, even after it was brought to his attention. His refusal is widely interpreted as tacit approval.)
I've taken my fair share of cheap shots at Romney, but it really ticks me off when his religion becomes this sort of an issue. The fact that Huckabee considers such attacks to be a prime campaign tactic convinces me that I should vote for almost anyone other than him.
It even convinces me that I would vote against a McCain/Huckabee ticket for fear that McCain wouldn't make it through his term, and we'd end up with a president trying to impose a christian fundamentalist version of sharia law.
This country has elected a Jehovah's Witness, a Quaker, and a Catholic to the presidency. I think that the country is better for having people of diverse viewpoints in the presidency at different times. I have very little patience for people who try to exploit religious intolerance for political gain.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Voting and the License to Complain
I've always regarded informed voting as my license to complain. People who don't cast an informed ballot shouldn't be complaining about how things turn out.
I'll be renewing my license on Feb 5. I'm not sure which color ballot paper I'll use for my renewal, but I'll be there. I like complaining too much.
I'll be renewing my license on Feb 5. I'm not sure which color ballot paper I'll use for my renewal, but I'll be there. I like complaining too much.
An Independent View of the Two Parties
I find that third party activists tend to see things differently from people who favor the name-brand political parties.
On the economy, both parties will continue to sell favors to the highest bidder. The highest bidders will be the same people they've always been. The Republicans sell them favors via changes to the tax code. (Then they advertise that they have made these huge tax cuts that don't add up to much when they get down to the average taxpayer.) The Democrats sell them more direct favors in terms of spending and incentives.
On national security, aside from rhetoric and the occasional meatball who runs around invading random countries who haven't actually attacked us, the differences tend to be measured in percentage point funding differences rather than real differences in substance. Both parties contributed to the "containment" policy that eventually won the Cold War. Both parties helped fight the great wars of the 20th century.
Iraq is important, but the most important aspect in this election is where we go from here. Bush's policy (promising to use our soldiers to act as a buffer between sides in a civil war for at least a decade), is distinct from the way that I see things happening under either McCain or Clinton.
I see McCain using our continued involvement to pressure real political reform inside Iraq. I'm not sure that policy will work at this point, but there's a good argument that it is worth a try. I see Clinton starting to withdraw troops and using the withdrawal schedule to try to pressure for real political reform inside Iraq. (ie, I see her offering to slow the withdrawal schedule if benchmarks are met within Iraq.) I'm not sure that policy works either, but at least we have a chance to get our military ready for the next time somebody actually does attack us.
At this point, more than half of the Iraq legislature has signed a letter asking us to leave. The ministers and government officials who are asking us to stay are representing a minority opinion.
Petraeus did a great job giving the politicians another chance to rescue the current situation. Unfortunately, I see the administration and the hawks too busy crowing about the reduction in violence, and not busy enough trying to fix the political situation so that it doesn't flare back up again in a few months. We seem determined to blow yet another opportunity.
On the economy, both parties will continue to sell favors to the highest bidder. The highest bidders will be the same people they've always been. The Republicans sell them favors via changes to the tax code. (Then they advertise that they have made these huge tax cuts that don't add up to much when they get down to the average taxpayer.) The Democrats sell them more direct favors in terms of spending and incentives.
On national security, aside from rhetoric and the occasional meatball who runs around invading random countries who haven't actually attacked us, the differences tend to be measured in percentage point funding differences rather than real differences in substance. Both parties contributed to the "containment" policy that eventually won the Cold War. Both parties helped fight the great wars of the 20th century.
Iraq is important, but the most important aspect in this election is where we go from here. Bush's policy (promising to use our soldiers to act as a buffer between sides in a civil war for at least a decade), is distinct from the way that I see things happening under either McCain or Clinton.
I see McCain using our continued involvement to pressure real political reform inside Iraq. I'm not sure that policy will work at this point, but there's a good argument that it is worth a try. I see Clinton starting to withdraw troops and using the withdrawal schedule to try to pressure for real political reform inside Iraq. (ie, I see her offering to slow the withdrawal schedule if benchmarks are met within Iraq.) I'm not sure that policy works either, but at least we have a chance to get our military ready for the next time somebody actually does attack us.
At this point, more than half of the Iraq legislature has signed a letter asking us to leave. The ministers and government officials who are asking us to stay are representing a minority opinion.
Petraeus did a great job giving the politicians another chance to rescue the current situation. Unfortunately, I see the administration and the hawks too busy crowing about the reduction in violence, and not busy enough trying to fix the political situation so that it doesn't flare back up again in a few months. We seem determined to blow yet another opportunity.
Experience and the Presidential Race
I think that comes with the territory. Whichever candidate(s) have the most experience are going to go with the sort of campaign that we've seen from Hillary and McCain. "Ready to lead," that sort of thing.
Whoever has the weakest resume can't exactly say "Vote for me! I have the least experience!" So they're going to point out that they are less invested in the power structure. The irony is that most people tend to concentrate on those areas where they feel the most competent/comfortable, so areas where these people have the least experience are precisely the areas that are most likely to be left on autopilot--run by experienced members of the power structure.
The things that trouble me about both Romney and Obama have to do with their lack of experience in certain areas (especially national security). I do like the way that both of them have presented their domestic policy agendas (ie "Mr Fix-It" and "The Healer"). I think that there is room in the White House for people who try to work in that vein.
Whoever has the weakest resume can't exactly say "Vote for me! I have the least experience!" So they're going to point out that they are less invested in the power structure. The irony is that most people tend to concentrate on those areas where they feel the most competent/comfortable, so areas where these people have the least experience are precisely the areas that are most likely to be left on autopilot--run by experienced members of the power structure.
The things that trouble me about both Romney and Obama have to do with their lack of experience in certain areas (especially national security). I do like the way that both of them have presented their domestic policy agendas (ie "Mr Fix-It" and "The Healer"). I think that there is room in the White House for people who try to work in that vein.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Toughness and the Democratic Candidates
Being able to stand up to a hailstorm of Republican attacks is an important qualification for a Democratic candidate. Both candidates have demonstrated that they can give as good as they get on that score.
The Republicans, for their part, have already demonstrated that they are gearing up to slap whoever wins. Hillary bashing has been a favorite Republican pastime for more than a decade and a half. And I've heard some things said about Obama by Republican media personalities that I don't care to repeat here. The Democratic candidate is going to have to deal with (and already has been dealing with) incessant negative attacks, so he or she may as well get used to it.
It is absolutely puerile and more than a little boring. On the other hand, it seems to be what the American people demand in a candidate and a campaign. I think that the Democrats are tired of nominating people who wilt the first time that somebody distorts their record.
Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to have forgotten how to run a substantive campaign altogether. Vague promises of tax cuts with no thought of what to cut to balance the budget seem to be the order of the day. Once they have power, they auction off tax breaks to the highest bidder, letting only token amounts trickle down to the bulk of the taxpayers. (The bill just gets charged to our childrens' credit card.)
The Democrats haven't been able to find their soul for decades now. They have a vague memory that they used to have one, but they can't quite remember what it felt like to take a principled stand. The Republicans know exactly where their soul is--on the auction block.
I'd like to believe that McCain is different. (I know I've admired him for some time now for his stance on campaign finance reform.) I just have to wonder whether he has enough gas left in his tank for one presidential term, let alone two. I'm also unclear about his plan to wrap up Iraq so that we can be prepared for the next international crisis, but I do think that he is likely to act in a moral way to try to reduce the impact on our servicemen and women.
Romney's "Mr Fix-it" campaign resonates with me, but my concerns with him are basically the ones expressed more forcefully by Odie. I haven't made up my mind about him.
And I find both Hillary and Obama to be compelling people, for different reasons. I think that Hillary is an interesting combination of someone who is smart as they come, tough as they get, and with a strong understanding of what is possible and how to get there.
And I defy anybody to listen to a full Obama speech without being inspired to look for a brighter future. Hope is not a bad thing. One of Reagan's greatest strengths was in being able to present a vision in a compelling way.
Both candidates come from the center-left tradition of the DLC (their stands are so similar that the campaign was bound to get personal at some point). I don't see either in the mold of the "Santa Claus" tax-and-spend liberal.
The Republicans, for their part, have already demonstrated that they are gearing up to slap whoever wins. Hillary bashing has been a favorite Republican pastime for more than a decade and a half. And I've heard some things said about Obama by Republican media personalities that I don't care to repeat here. The Democratic candidate is going to have to deal with (and already has been dealing with) incessant negative attacks, so he or she may as well get used to it.
It is absolutely puerile and more than a little boring. On the other hand, it seems to be what the American people demand in a candidate and a campaign. I think that the Democrats are tired of nominating people who wilt the first time that somebody distorts their record.
Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to have forgotten how to run a substantive campaign altogether. Vague promises of tax cuts with no thought of what to cut to balance the budget seem to be the order of the day. Once they have power, they auction off tax breaks to the highest bidder, letting only token amounts trickle down to the bulk of the taxpayers. (The bill just gets charged to our childrens' credit card.)
The Democrats haven't been able to find their soul for decades now. They have a vague memory that they used to have one, but they can't quite remember what it felt like to take a principled stand. The Republicans know exactly where their soul is--on the auction block.
I'd like to believe that McCain is different. (I know I've admired him for some time now for his stance on campaign finance reform.) I just have to wonder whether he has enough gas left in his tank for one presidential term, let alone two. I'm also unclear about his plan to wrap up Iraq so that we can be prepared for the next international crisis, but I do think that he is likely to act in a moral way to try to reduce the impact on our servicemen and women.
Romney's "Mr Fix-it" campaign resonates with me, but my concerns with him are basically the ones expressed more forcefully by Odie. I haven't made up my mind about him.
And I find both Hillary and Obama to be compelling people, for different reasons. I think that Hillary is an interesting combination of someone who is smart as they come, tough as they get, and with a strong understanding of what is possible and how to get there.
And I defy anybody to listen to a full Obama speech without being inspired to look for a brighter future. Hope is not a bad thing. One of Reagan's greatest strengths was in being able to present a vision in a compelling way.
Both candidates come from the center-left tradition of the DLC (their stands are so similar that the campaign was bound to get personal at some point). I don't see either in the mold of the "Santa Claus" tax-and-spend liberal.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Misuse of the Anthropic Principle
The fundies have succeeded in usurping the phrase "Anthropic Principle," along with the names of the serious philosophers and scientists who published articles based on the traditional definition. The fundamentalists spout circular arguments invoking the "Anthropic Principle" to dispute the Theory of Evolution or to "prove" that God exists.
In my mind, God requires faith of his believers. This means that there will never be "evidence" that will "prove" or "disprove" his existence. You are going to have to decide to believe or not all on your own.
God will permit people to have "religious experiences," but these will always be dismissable as hallucinations by non-believers. Again, each individual has to decide whether or not to have faith.
The upshot of this is that religion and science are incompatible because religion requires faith, and science doesn't recognize faith as a valid way of identifying "useful" theories or models. (Remember, I am saying that a "useful" theory is one that is called "true" by people who are not being precise.)
While religion and science ARE compatible in the sense that a single individual may choose to be a religious scientist, I do not believe that religion (such as creationism or intelligent design) should be taught in a science classroom. I don't have a particular problem with teaching either in a philosophy or comparative religions class, as long as divergent points of view are also presented.
None of the anthropic principle stuff published by the fundamentalists is able to contradict evolution. It is based on some fairly dubious calculations which are themselves based on some fairly dubious assumptions--all of which are related to the physical characteristics of Earth, not to whether or not evolution is taking place here.
--SCC
In my mind, God requires faith of his believers. This means that there will never be "evidence" that will "prove" or "disprove" his existence. You are going to have to decide to believe or not all on your own.
God will permit people to have "religious experiences," but these will always be dismissable as hallucinations by non-believers. Again, each individual has to decide whether or not to have faith.
The upshot of this is that religion and science are incompatible because religion requires faith, and science doesn't recognize faith as a valid way of identifying "useful" theories or models. (Remember, I am saying that a "useful" theory is one that is called "true" by people who are not being precise.)
While religion and science ARE compatible in the sense that a single individual may choose to be a religious scientist, I do not believe that religion (such as creationism or intelligent design) should be taught in a science classroom. I don't have a particular problem with teaching either in a philosophy or comparative religions class, as long as divergent points of view are also presented.
None of the anthropic principle stuff published by the fundamentalists is able to contradict evolution. It is based on some fairly dubious calculations which are themselves based on some fairly dubious assumptions--all of which are related to the physical characteristics of Earth, not to whether or not evolution is taking place here.
--SCC
Monday, January 21, 2008
Scientific Theories and the Pursuit of Truth
A scientific theory is a model of how the world works. A useful scientific theory is one that is able to provide predictions of what will happen in a given circumstance. (Look at the coverage of the avian flu for an example of how Darwin's theories have proven useful.)
When scientists say that a theory is "true," they are being sloppy. It would be more accurate to describe it as "useful." "Truth" belongs in the realm of philosophy or religion--science cannot tell us what is "true."
Some theories may well be accurate descriptions, but have not yet provided useful predictions. In the minds of several theoretical physicists, string theory is an example of such a beast. If string theorists come up with predictions that are matched by experiment or observation, then it will also be a "useful" theory.
Sometimes useful theories conflict in areas where they overlap. The most prominent (and intractable) current example is the contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity. A lot of very smart people have tried to identify a useful model that reconciles these two theories, and there are even a few interesting candidates for theories out there. These candidates are collectively known as GUTs (Grand Unified Theories).
Unlike theologians, scientist glory in these contradictions. When you find a really good contradiction, you are often on the cusp of learning something new and interesting.
--SCC
When scientists say that a theory is "true," they are being sloppy. It would be more accurate to describe it as "useful." "Truth" belongs in the realm of philosophy or religion--science cannot tell us what is "true."
Some theories may well be accurate descriptions, but have not yet provided useful predictions. In the minds of several theoretical physicists, string theory is an example of such a beast. If string theorists come up with predictions that are matched by experiment or observation, then it will also be a "useful" theory.
Sometimes useful theories conflict in areas where they overlap. The most prominent (and intractable) current example is the contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity. A lot of very smart people have tried to identify a useful model that reconciles these two theories, and there are even a few interesting candidates for theories out there. These candidates are collectively known as GUTs (Grand Unified Theories).
Unlike theologians, scientist glory in these contradictions. When you find a really good contradiction, you are often on the cusp of learning something new and interesting.
--SCC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)