-- SEX POLITICS RELIGION ARTS -- SERIOUS AND HUMOROUS --
It is just a place to come with an open mind,
though ours are not always-Please tell us if they're not!
I have been to and seen many town hall meetings and as much as I appreciate political concern, I have no patience for ignorance, heated passion or anything that cannot be logically applied to an issue, and backed up with relevant facts. It embarrasses me that our media play unedited, live town halls which demonstrate our worst instead of our best intellectual thought.
I don't care what someone's position is; it never holds value to repeat something or to say it more loudly; and doesn't not change its truth. Loud idiots should never have an advantage over thoughtful, intelligent people.
When others across the globe see rednecks talking about "death panels", and for that matter, when one of those rednecks was a VP candidate, it makes America look like a nation of JerrySpringerUniversity graduates.
I respect my conservative and liberal friends alike, as long as they don't confuse emotionality and quickened anger for "Americanism".
Personally, if I were a congressman and I held a town hall, I would lay down the law that there is as much a right to hear as a right to speak. When one speaks in a disrespectful way, just as in my classroom, I would immediately dismiss them.
These politicians, who fail to manage a respectful, intelligent discourse, should not have town halls, plain and simple.
If people scream, chant or disrupt in any way someone else's right to civil communication, and they refuse to leave, tazer them and drag them out. They may protest as loudly as they like outside the meeting as long as they don't disturb communication among those who came to advance real political thought.
American media who play unedited, live reports, are irresponsible and the people who see live reporting know they can misbehave and get on the air. Both are wrong, but ultimately, it is the media's responsibility to avoid being an unfiltered megaphone for idiots.
A recent story broke in the National Enquirer that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner. It is already spreading in mainstream British papers and will no doubt hit our networks soon. Despite the bad taste this publication puts in my mouth, they are most often correct in matters of political seriousness. John Edwards was but one example. Normally, I wouldn't care about, much less morally judge one's politics by their personal lives, but I can't help but to find it interesting that the party of Christian conservatism who has waved their fingers at far too many others, is the party with the most sex scandals.
The only thing that makes this an issue, is that of hypocrisy among self-righteous dominionists. Clinton never pretended to be a religious person, though clearly a man of strong faith and conviction. I just find it so interesting that a huge majority of evidence suggests the Dem ticket has the most "family values"; personally, I say Sarah should keep getting laid as long as she can, as she will not be very hot much longer. She will age quickly before our eyes. As with most movie stars whose only appeal is sex, hers is only a couple of years away.
Sarah Palin is a typical housewife in midlife crisis, having realized her mediocrity despite her clear intellectual yearning. She wasted her youth and squandered her formal education, lackluster at best. Like many beautiful women, as her beauty faded, she sought other ways to get attention. People no longer liked her just for being cute.
In politics, she is still young, but her "cuteness" is soon gone. What is left is a sarcastic prose, a grating voice and a penchant for low blows. Her affairs only fit into a psychological profile of a woman who has coasted on sexual allure without any intellectual substance.
Much has been made recently about the potential dangers of religious zeal and fervor. Though it is not a new subject by any means, as there has been conflict between thinking and believing since the beginning of the written word.
Even before the enlightenment more than 300 years ago, when science began to crush many commonly held beliefs like 'the world is flat' or that we weren't meant to fly, philosophers considered every position that came to conclusions without sufficient evidence to be invalid and delusional while others saw fit to kill millions in the name of God if they refused to believe the way they did.
There was a very pacifist atheist movement that seemed to peak in the '60s, exemplified by John Lennon whose song, Imagine, stated an aspiration for a world where people walked 'hand in hand' and had no religion. That generation seemed satisfied with feeling intellectually superior to those who lived by faith.. These anti-establishment figures seemed to accept 'live and let live' as their mantra.
With the rise of the sexual revolution and drug experimentation, the right wingers worldwide decided they had to act affirmatively, not only within the confines of the church but to re-cross the line into government. The US seemed to be the place where this would least likely happen as there was a strong statement of belief in separation of church and state. But in the early eighties, we saw the rise of a disease that not only inconvenienced the sexually active, but killed them.
People like Jerry Falwell proclaimed AIDS had been sent by God to punish sinners. A thunder on the right made a minority of very loud evangelicals believe they were actually a majority, the "Moral Majority". They convinced enough people in the middle that conservatism was a good idea whether religiously inspired or not. Reagan was elected only 4 years after the fall of Nixon, and though he was nowhere near religious, he traded on the terminology of faith and managed to attract people from both the right and middle.
AIDS was initially thought to be simply sexually transmitted, but soon they discovered it could be transmitted through other means. This factor slightly quietened people like Falwell, but a huge new generation had already sprung forward, reacting to this biological imperative that was perceived to threaten the very continuation of the species. Resultantly, conservative, pro-big business, religious flag wavers, literally swept away a huge Democratic lead in the US legislature which had held since FDR.
If the 60's and 70's were a 'sexual' revolution, the 80's and 90's have been a 'fear' revolution, as the right began to reverse many freedoms and to prevent others from ever coming about from race to reproductive to marital rights. Despite the election of Democrat, Bill Clinton, there was still a deep undercurrent of religiously driven conservatism. But both sides liked Clinton as he sounded like a Southern preacher, but demonstrated his intelligence as a Yale-Rhodes scholar. He and his Yale lawyer wife seemed to be taking America and the world back toward the middle.
His presidency came to symbolize the conflict between religion and thought, values and results. And despite the results Clinton achieved in every category, the prevailing notion that conservatives continued to push was that religious values were more important than social and economic justice.
By this time, the atheists were no longer comfortable with a sense of intellectual superiority, but they began to affirmatively organize and frankly achieved a level of evangelical zeal equal to the religious right, though admittedly in smaller numbers.
With both sides feeling cornered and threatened, politics has become more and more polar. Though strange bedfellows, the atheists and other minorities formed an alliance against well-organized and funded right. The advantage the right had over the left was that there was a commonality of Christianity. Though lacking fervor, they were homogeneous. The right wing had convinced moderate Christians you had to be an atheist/communist /"pinko-fag" if you were voting for anyone other than those whom God had endorsed from the right.
Now with a conservative Christian (in name only) as President, proclaiming a mission to attack the 'axis of evil', in response to what he conveniently considered Christianity vs Islam (and everybody else), the right-wing had the US government there to officially advance their mission.
"You're either with us or against us," became the war-cry for George W. Bush, but it went further than foreign wars but resounded a sense that part of America had been disenfranchised and world opinion had been ignored.
Atheists began to speak with greater zeal than ever. They were angry. Websites and even "churches" of Atheism began to demand equal access to the pulpit. Armed with their heroes, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and now, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have formalized their attack. And with the apparent failure of Bush's religious war they are feeling muscular and vocal. Hitchens morphed from a gentle, open minded, concerned academe, to a hell-fire and brimstone evangelist, with the same angry fervor as Bush. Hitchens even resoundingly celebrated the recent death of Jerry Falwell saying, "If there were a hell, Falwell would be there now."
Many atheists now are on a mission to remove what they consider a danger to society, ignorant religiosity. They truly believe we must act now to prevent the Religionists from committing new genocides in the name of God.
Now, we have both sides screaming at each other and the middle looking for an escape. Moderate Christians came back toward the middle and elected Democrats and began to exhibit tolerance for those with whom, in some cases, they differed spiritually. Meanwhile, now there is a resurgence among atheists who separate themselves from the extremists among them by calling themselves "agnostic" (not-knowing).
Please watch these films to get a sense of where Dawkins began and where he is now.
The premise in this introductory chapter, SLAVES OF SUPERSTITION, of a British TV series, ENEMIES OF REASON, is that society appears to be retreating from reason. Apparently harmless but utterly irrational belief systems from astrology to New Age mysticism, and clairvoyance to alternative health remedies, are booming. Evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins confronts what he considers an 'epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking'. He considers 'the dangers the pick and mix of knowledge and nonsense poses in the internet age', and passionately re-states the case for reason and science.
48min2sec
Here, Dawkins asserts that belief in a god is irrational and inflicts great harm upon societies. BBC's Jeremy Paxman interviews Professor Dawkins about "The God Delusion".
9min35sec
Most recently, Hitchens' celebration of the death of Falwell. Watch as Hitchens demonstrates what EXACTLY Jerry Falwell is and stood for, a malevolent bigoted bully:
9min45sec
Most have seen plenty of examples of extreme religious zealots, so I will avoid supplying examples of the hatred expressed by those who profess love in all religions.
However, often misunderstood and mischaracterized, there are many peace-loving Muslims. This film, THE COLLAPSE OF ATHEISM is presented by a highly cross-denominational Turkish Muslim, Harun Yahya and is one of a series of religious films. However, this one should not be mistaken as evangelical in that it simply offers one of the most reasoned presentations of creationism and a long series of debunking of what through time, have been accepted scientific principals.
The man many refer to as "Bush's Brain" and the one Bush called "The Architect" has turned out certainly to have been the greatest architect of adversity to ever guide the political decisions of a President in the history of the institution.
That he won many elections for Bush, no one would doubt, but with such small margins it was a rough rub for most that he advised the President to rule as if he had a mandate. One thing for sure, we will never know what kind of Presidency would have occurred without the catalytic events of 911.
Inevitable, ineffectual investigations into the inside of the longest string of American political corruption in history have only touched the surface of a beast of many heads. As Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove resigns, many proclaim this is the end of the trail, but it is not enough for him or any other traitors to simply quit their low paying government jobs only to parachute into a huge, high paying private sector opportunities.
Just as the death of Hitler was not the end of worldwide fascism, Rove moving into an undercover position will not end the deepest and widest corruption ever to hit Washington and consequently, billions around the world.
It would be our biggest mistake to forgive what he and many others have done simply because of this symbolic act of contrition. Even as scapegoats go, Libby being convicted then pardoned, was no justice. Rove resigning is no less a thud amidst demands by the public for a resounding solution.
Recently, when asked whether he was leaving to avoid congressional scrutiny, Karl Rove told the WSJ: “I’m not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.” And Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has made clear he’s not going to determine his subpoenas based on whether Rove stays or leaves.
Leahy issued the following statement this morning, explaining the Senate Judiciary Committee “will continue its investigation” into Rove...
"The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House."
From the outside it diverts attention away from the remaining cancer, when we cut away only one of the tumors. Sadly, in this case the analogy would be more accurate to suggest one of the tumors has simply been moved into hiding. America is screaming for the cure and they are giving us aspirin.
There is no doubt this is not the end of Rove's influence on this or other despots. As easily as a housewife can do telemarketing from the home, Rove can continue to advise crimes, lies and deceit comfortably from his home while he continues to draw a government paycheck for rest of his life. He will now be free to accept money legally from conspiratorial thinktanks like PNAC (Project for the New American Century) and from other campaigns who wish to cheat their ways into office.
Rove has left behind him a President, Vice President, Attorney General and hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators scattered throughout the executive branch. He has illegally invoked "Executive Privilege" in order to avoid accountability for his crimes, and like a little boy who burns down the house, he simply runs away and thinks all is forgiven.
Nothing has changed. Justice has not been done, and those who have committed the highest crimes ever are simply being ushered out quietly and their silence is being taken as a poor substitute for solution.
Let's make this clear. 150 attorneys were hired at the justice department whose job it was to investigate, prevent and punish crimes of election fraud, while in reality it is clear they were hired for no other purpose but to allow and to perpetrate the fraud themselves, constituting the formalization of treason.
If America accepts this as appeasement, we will only encourage the further degradation of our institutions. The only real justice is impeachment, conviction and execution of punishment of all the participants in this rape of America by the rich and powerful against the rest of us. The citizenry must demand that those remaining, do their jobs and cleanse the remainder. And the problem will remain unsolved, as the rich will still have all the money they have thieved from those who go to work every day. Even after punishment, we face years of repair.
In the long term, however, repair without reparations is a lingering public punishment. Long after the heads of this conspiracy are brought to justice, congress must have the courage to retake the funds from the robber-barons.
I only offer a solution but certainly no prediction of this outcome. What I cynically believe is that Americans will continue to simmer while others come to a boil and die, much like frogs in a pot. The heat slowly rises; he doesn't notice, thus failing to jump out; he eventually dies.
I only pray America will prove me wrong by demanding tenacious and thorough reform.
After years as an internet warrior and educator I thought I would give up on anyone bothering to take a course in Critical Thinking or Logic. It has often been futile to try to reason with some people who had no clue there are actual rules as to what is a reasonable argument and what is not. I thought I would propose a common sense list of the most common fallacies and my own simple examples. Keep in mind, though many of these look very familiar and feel comfortable, this is how you "Fail" to be logical, so please don't mistake this as an endorsement of these techniques.
I realize many will think it is intellectual crap and "everyone has a right to an opinion" but this entire list is accepted by all logicians from Aristotle on as the wrong way to argue. It presupposes that "not everyone has a right to an opinion" if there is no sufficient basis.
Please note: We don't use bibles as reference sources for logic. Some of you may chose to print this and use it as a pocket map of how to beat people in an argument. Feel free to do so! If you are one who likes to show people how they are wrong, this should be helpful.
As you listen to those who try to persuade you, remind them that saying it twice, or loudly and stylishly doesn't make them right. If you chose to use the techniques below as a roadmap to winning arguments I make no warranties as to how people will accept them only as to how they are.
Some may consider this academic and some humorous; you be the judge.
Relevance
Appeal to force -Physical I will kill you if you don’t give me an A. -Emotional I will tell everyone you are gay if you don’t give me an A.
-Appeal to pity I have only one arm therefore you should give me an A.
Appeal to the people -Direct Vote for me and you’ll all get A’s. -Indirect Come on, everybody’s doing it. -Bandwagon They all voted for me; you should too. -Vanity I love a man in uniform. Dress for success! -Snobbery My shirt has an alligator on it; yours has "Sears", therefore I’m more stylish.
Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem) -abusive Don’t speak to him; he’s a fag. -circumstantial Don’t speak to him; he doesn’t have any money. -Tu quoque “you too” You are a murderer. > You are too, so who are you to talk?> So, murder is okay. -or- -2 wrongs make a right You had an affair, so can I. Accident (Misapplied rule) Why can’t I play my stereo loudly; it’s a free country. Straw Man (picking it apart/or attacking something that it isn't) Jesus wasn’t really perfect; he lost his temper once in the temple; Anger is a sin, so don’t follow sinners like Jesus. Missing the Point Crime is going up, so we should put everyone in jail. or Bush-There are terrorists, who hate our freedom, therefore we should give up our right to privacy and free speech. Red Herring Students participate in peaceful protest> Communists participate in peaceful protest> Don’t protest or you’re a communist.
Weak Induction
Appeal to Unqualified Authority
My preacher said you could get AIDS from kissing.
Appeal to Ignorance/Lack of evidence
He hasn’t proved he is innocent; therefore he is guilty. or vice versa - He hasn’t proved he is guilty; therefore he is innocent.
Hasty Generalization
Affirmative Action in 30 years hasn’t solved all the problems of racism over the last 300 years;
therefore, it will never work.
or
Bush- Diplomacy hasn’t worked so far;
therefore, war is the appropriate next step—immediately!
False Cause
He got AIDS because he is immoral and promiscuous.
Slippery Slope (Compounded Exaggeration)
If I join the army, I might kill someone; if that person was working on a cure for AIDS and; as a result of my killing him, he fails; then millions of people will die. Then everyone who didn’t get AIDS will feel so bad they kill themselves.
Therefore, I shouldn’t join the Army.
Weak Analogy
Dogs don’t like cats, so blacks should not marry whites.
Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy
Begging the Question
I am poor because I don’t have any money.
Complex Question/Assumptive Follow-up Questions Without a Foundation
Have you told your mother you’re gay?
Are you still having an affair with your secretary?
How much pot do you smoke each week?
False Dichotomy
Either you study for this course or you will never finish college.
Suppressed Evidence/Missing/Forced Choice
Situation- John has AIDS. Mary Knows it. Mary tells Susan she should have children with him because he is so smart.
Equivocation (not be confused with “Ambiguous”)
Quarterbacks pass well; therefore, John, the Quarterback will pass his Logic course.
Amphiboly
I saw a man outside.
Meaning- I was in my house when I saw a man outside my window.
0r - I was outside when I saw a man.
Composition (Mixed is as good as separate)
I love pizza and ice cream therefore put some pizza and ice cream in the blender, it should be delicious.
or
Nitric Acid does not explode. Glycerin Soap does not explode.
Therefore, nitroglycerin would not explode.
Division (Separate is as good as mixed)
A car will get me across the country. Therefore, a carburetor will get me to Chattanooga.
Amid political warnings the bill could fail, Reid scheduled a vote on limiting debate on the measure for Thursday evening, in a bid to drive the contentious reform through the Democratic-led Senate.
It is the lack of shots that were heard around the world today as the US Senate failed to shove an incredibly unpopular immigration bill down the American throat.
The bill began with the pretense that the biggest problems involving immigration were legislative and could be solved by simply passing a new law. The law they insisted was coming, amounted to what more than two-thirds of Americans considered immunity for 12-20 million illegal immigrants. The warcry was, "Bring them out of the shadows." But it occurred to most Americans that these workers are nowhere near the shadows as they have been demanding to be treated as US citizens when they are not even here legally.
The Senate pretended they were doing everyone a favor by committing us to trillions more in debt. The House pretended they had nothing to do with it, but those who failed to speak out against the bill are ON THE RECORD having remained silent and they will be held accountable in 2008.
The Senate originally tried to press this through quickly without even discussion, as if the people would not notice and would hail it as "progress". Many publications shed their objectivity and lied to the American public telling us it was a "popular" bill when a full two thirds of Americans ultimately opposed the core points.
One may ask, "who do I vote against in 2008?" Well, a place to start is to become aware of who voted on what. This is difficult as the Senate intentionally tried to keep most of it off the record by making several voice votes which results in our having no complete record of their intentions. The best measure will ultimately be, who spoke agaisnt it from the beginning.
Meanwhile, here is the list of votes leading to the final death of the bill, lest it raises its ugly head again. Maybe now we can get on with enforcing the laws we have and listening to the American people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Read carefully and decide who within and how to punish the Senate for ignoring the American people, or if, in fact, they should be rewarded for trying to ignore the will of the people.
In the most recent Democratic Presidential Debate in New Hampshire, it was said and hardly heard when Candidate Dennis Kucinich screamed the most common sense yet most financially opposed medical plan, the single payer plan. Basically, an extension of Medicare to all Americans, it is a plan that would cut out the middle man, which is opposed by the sacred cows as Big Pharma, the AMA and insurance companies have effectively touted it as a death knell for quality medicine in America.
What they don't point out is that the death knell went in years ago as we are by far the worst quality medical providing nation of all industrialized nations. Yes, the best is available, but only to the rich but the real measure is the availability to all. On this the US loses in every category to countries like Costa Rica (population 3-million; avg. per capita income - $300/month) and Castro's Cuba (recently highlighted in Michael Moore's Sicko). The numbers are clear when by every measure America appears to be a third world nation.
We are 48th in life expectancy and the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies. A little embarrassing to those of us who still care about little things like children and living. Supposedly our constitution guarantees the "inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ; however, it seems rather difficult to exercise these rights when you are dead.
Of course, many Americans have swallowed hook, line and sinker, the notion that insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical professional have a natural right to living like kings on the highest medical profits in the world. It's not hard to believe America falls for it after the billions that are tacked onto our medical care in the form of lobbying and advertising by the monster that our medical establishment has become.
Some facts to consider:
Medicare spends a lower percentage on administration of medical care than any single provider in the world at close to 1%.
A record 46.6 million Americans, including 8.3 million children, have no health insurance at all.
If allowed to actually negotiate with drug providers they could cut drug costs by 48% just as the Veteran's administration does; a fact few realize as our congress pushed this through literally in the middle of the night as Big Pharma twisted arms and threatened political lives during a prolonged vote. That's right; the median price difference for the 20 drugs most frequently used by seniors is 48.2 percent.
Some relevant questions:
If the US offered a free education to those who can perform, would there be any shortage of medical professionals?
If the US, a country of 300-million people cut out the middle man could we not cut out the middle man and save that 30+% of profit that is tacked onto our medical costs and put that money back in our pockets?
If we had a single payer i.e simply offering Medicare to all US citizens, couldn't we be at least as efficient as Cuba or Costa Rica?
If we treated people before they got sick wouldn't we live longer - as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
Would we really miss any of the doctors, Pharma and insurance executives who might quit if we deprived them of guaranteed 6 figure incomes and replaced them with people driven by a love of helping people?
Would either doctors or patients miss the current bureaucracy of processing medical insurance claims and the fear that some executive will say, "no" to your life?
Would it somehow make us less American to get something back for the tax dollars we put in?
To paraphrase our former President, Richard Nixon, "you're not going to have America's healthcare system to kick around forever."
I have been to and seen many town hall meetings and as much as I appreciate political concern, I have no patience for ignorance, heated passion or anything that cannot be logically applied to an issue, and backed up with relevant facts. It embarrasses me that our media play unedited, live town halls which demonstrate our worst instead of our best intellectual thought.
