Recently James Dobson, head of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family, and Barack Obama, presumed Democratic nominee for President in the November 2008 general election, have been trading barbs regarding religion and politics.
This started when Barack Obama had spoken in 2006 to a liberal Christian group called Call to Renewal, saying, among other things, that Biblical scripture passages shouldn't necessarily guide public policy and government programs. He asks if should we follow Leviticus, where slavery is permitted and shellfish is prohibited, and labeled an abomination. Obama instead says Christians should help those that may not believe as they do by explaining their points of view from a universal stand point. This way public policy can be truly for the public, rather than for a specific group.
Dobson has said this is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," and Obama is wrongly quoting Old Testament passages, thus "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology." Dobson also says that by explaining Christian views in universal terms that we would be governing by the "lowest common denominator of morality." He also claims this is "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
This is a double-edged sword for Dobson. Many of the passages that cover the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible are located in the Old Testament. The New Testament covers the time line of human history from around the time of Jesus Christ and later on. The reason I bring this up is because Dobson is one of the leading anti-gay Christian fundamentalists; most of the passages they use to promote their flagrant bigotry is taken from the Old Testament. This is also where slavery is promoted and women are labeled chattel and certain eating behaviours are banned.
Also, a lot of conservative Christian fundamentalists tend to forget that, were Jesus alive today, he would be considered a dirty liberal hippie by those that supposedly follow his teachings. He preached kindness and virtue and turning the other cheek and helping your fellow man and giving to the poor and healing the sick. Now I wouldn't presume that the whole of Christian faith and the Bible teaches only liberal tenets. By all means, it teaches many different aspects of the religion, but those teachings are not relegated to conservative or liberal. They are simply Christian.
I also do not intend, with this posting, mean to offend those who may disagree with me. I enjoy discussion and believe intelligent debate and differences help bring us together and understand each other better. But what I get frustrated with is the Christian Right who too often focus on being anti-abortion, anti-gay and pro-death penalty. They too often forget about also being anti-war, anti-all death (abortion or death penalty alike), pro-tolerance, pro-helping the poor and defenseless (read: some form of welfare, whether government is involved or not) and pro-environment.
I like what Obama has to say in this matter, and not just because Obama is my character and Dobson has forever left himself at the bottom of the intelligence ladder. Rather, I enjoy anyone who says, let's focus on the important things, what is truly wrong with the world and try to fix it together, with my fellow man.
Let me know what you think?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Playing with the Electoral College
I found a new favourite political site! You should check it out. It's called 270toWin.com, and it allows you to change the way the Electoral College would play out, based on who wins what.
I've decided to post updates on here what the EC would look like based on polls from reputable polling companies and/or news sites. So not what the national polls is on Obama vs. McCain, but rather, what the polls say for a particular state. I've re-found another site, one that I followed back in 2004; it is another, very good political site, called Electoral Vote. He updates his sites daily, whereas I'll just do weekly. As you may know, the candidate that wins the popular vote of a state, wins that state's votes in the EC. You need 270 EC votes to win the Presidency outright, thus the name of the site.
I'll then post the changes and a picture of said EC, assuming I can figure out how to insert photos on here! :) Hopefully these two sites will not be upset I'm using their information to post updates to the 2008 election on my blog, but we'll find out. In that regard, I will always acknowledge their better-ness on this topic. I certainly could not do that they do. But I'd like to keep updated as much as possible this year, so hopefully this will help! I may get updates more than weekly as we get closer to Election Day, this year November 4, where things can change more quickly.
Also keep in mind that polls this far from the actual vote are not even close to being 100% reliable, but still interesting to think and talk about.
So to kick things off, here is the current Electoral College vote, as of June 22, 2008.
According to the following Electoral Map, Obama would win 317-194. That's not really even close, which is pretty interesting, considering all the players. One important fact to point out is Florida (the state in 2000) is a dead heat, 45-45. But Ohio (the state in 2004) is leaning Obama by 3 percentage points. Yes, this is within the statistical error, but is important to note, considering he is black and a lot of folks in Ohio would not vote for someone like that. I know, because I know a lot of those people, unfortunately. That's how it is here. This will be very interesting in the days and weeks and months ahead. If you'd like to see where I came up with this info, I can send you the spreadsheet I'm saving this to.
Assuming I've done it correctly, you'll also see a picture of said EC after this. Click on it to view it in more detail.
Let me know what you think? Again, for more in depth coverage of the 2008 election, be sure to check out 270toWin.com and Electoral Vote! I couldn't do this without them.
I've decided to post updates on here what the EC would look like based on polls from reputable polling companies and/or news sites. So not what the national polls is on Obama vs. McCain, but rather, what the polls say for a particular state. I've re-found another site, one that I followed back in 2004; it is another, very good political site, called Electoral Vote. He updates his sites daily, whereas I'll just do weekly. As you may know, the candidate that wins the popular vote of a state, wins that state's votes in the EC. You need 270 EC votes to win the Presidency outright, thus the name of the site.
I'll then post the changes and a picture of said EC, assuming I can figure out how to insert photos on here! :) Hopefully these two sites will not be upset I'm using their information to post updates to the 2008 election on my blog, but we'll find out. In that regard, I will always acknowledge their better-ness on this topic. I certainly could not do that they do. But I'd like to keep updated as much as possible this year, so hopefully this will help! I may get updates more than weekly as we get closer to Election Day, this year November 4, where things can change more quickly.
Also keep in mind that polls this far from the actual vote are not even close to being 100% reliable, but still interesting to think and talk about.
So to kick things off, here is the current Electoral College vote, as of June 22, 2008.
According to the following Electoral Map, Obama would win 317-194. That's not really even close, which is pretty interesting, considering all the players. One important fact to point out is Florida (the state in 2000) is a dead heat, 45-45. But Ohio (the state in 2004) is leaning Obama by 3 percentage points. Yes, this is within the statistical error, but is important to note, considering he is black and a lot of folks in Ohio would not vote for someone like that. I know, because I know a lot of those people, unfortunately. That's how it is here. This will be very interesting in the days and weeks and months ahead. If you'd like to see where I came up with this info, I can send you the spreadsheet I'm saving this to.
Assuming I've done it correctly, you'll also see a picture of said EC after this. Click on it to view it in more detail.
Let me know what you think? Again, for more in depth coverage of the 2008 election, be sure to check out 270toWin.com and Electoral Vote! I couldn't do this without them.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Tackling Five Modern Myths Created by Liberals
I recently wrote in my online simulation about an article that said there were 5 modern myths created by liberals and went about "debunking" them. I looked at what that author wrote, and came across looking at it a different way, and figured I should post that info here as well.
Let me know what you think?
The original article: Tackling 5 Modern Myths Created By Liberals
Just some points I would like to raise:
On Bush lying about WMD's: You are correct in saying that prominent Democrats also pushed for war. I agree. They should not have. But just because someone on my team says something in agreeance with someone on the other team, does not make it OK for the other team to do it. I don't like saying that they lied about WMD's. It's nice for a bumper sticker but not for formulative and intelligent discussion. Mislead? Maybe. Lied, not likely. Mostly they are guilty of being overly optimistic. They put forth all the good reasons for why we should go to war, and quelched all the bad things. Now that means the Bush Administration does not have faith in the American public. Perhaps for good reason. But when you give all the pros and none of the cons about something as serious as war, you can't be surprised when a lot of people agree with you, given they don't know the whole story. Do I think we should have gone to war? No. But we're there, so no reason to re-hash dubious dealings of the Bush Administration, it won't get us out any faster.
On Al Gore in 2000: I've read that as well that most of the MSM outlets concluded that Bush would have won any recount in Florida during the 2000 election. I have no problem with that. Makes him legitimate. Great. What I do have a problem with is the repercussions: the Federal Supreme Court saying the State cannot count its votes? This was unprecedented and they knew it; they even put an asterisk saying well this applies this one time and can never be used in the future. By doing so, they started off the Bush Years by being irrelevant and an obvious rubber stamp for the Administration's positions when brought to court. That is unfortunate. I also find it highly illogical for so-called small government Republicans turning to the Federal government for help in an obvious states' rights issue. Had the Court not stopped the recount, it would have gone forward. But, had it gone forward, the House, per the Constitution, would have voted for who they believed should be President. He would have won anyways. Fine. But the way they went about it was wrong, and I must say ill-advised. I also have a big issue with the un-counted votes, specifically those struck from the voter rolls incorrectly. You can recount all the already counted votes already, but they would never be included, so yes Bush would have won.
On the famed "16 words": I believe they believe it was truth. It was incorrect and made the correct assertion later they were wrong. Or the closest Bush can come to admitting being wrong and say the assertion was incorrect. There is a difference between knowingly lying and saying something that is wrong, but not knowing it is wrong. That is ignorance. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's worse to be a liar or to be ignorant, but it is blatantly obvious that Bush and his Administration were extremely ignorant in their findings leading up to the occupation of Iraq (war has yet to be declared). It is possible they lied in some things, or someone inside the White House lied to those that didn't know any better, and those folks in turn were ignorant in repeating these lies unknowing they were lies. That is laziness, but the Administration has often been intellectually lazy, that is not a point hard to argue.
9/11 was George Bush's fault: There is plenty of fault held by Bush and Clinton and all those leading up to 9/11. I don't know if there was a conspiracy (outside that of the 9/11 hijackers) and I suspect we won't know for sure until at least 50+ years have passed and when it's finally OK to come out of the closet we'll finally know the truth. It's sad but likely this is the case, as is with most things done in the name of national security. 'Nuff said.
Global warming consensus: In science there are little topics that are in consensus with all scientists 100%. In science there is allowed to be doubt. There is not a 100% consensus on global warming; no one said there was. There is a vast majority of scientists, particularly those that specialize in this area of expertise, and they believe it is a serious thing to be concerned about.
So, in conclusion, as a liberal (well, kinda), I've disagreed with these myths that you have brought about. All of them. I don't like going to extremes, and all the statements I've commented above are extremes. We do not live in a black and white world. It is very grey out there. That said, there are those in politics who like writing bumper sticker slogans and riling up their base. It's their job. The right does it. The left does it. Republicans. Democrats. All do it! It's how politics work. To call them myths is denying there are some issues with what has been brought up. But rather than simply discuss why they may have some validity and where they do not, the writer of this article has taken the exact opposite position of the myths he is denying. Both the myths and the exact opposite stance are incorrect.
And that folks, is having an intelligent discussion.
Any comments?
Let me know what you think?
The original article: Tackling 5 Modern Myths Created By Liberals
Just some points I would like to raise:
On Bush lying about WMD's: You are correct in saying that prominent Democrats also pushed for war. I agree. They should not have. But just because someone on my team says something in agreeance with someone on the other team, does not make it OK for the other team to do it. I don't like saying that they lied about WMD's. It's nice for a bumper sticker but not for formulative and intelligent discussion. Mislead? Maybe. Lied, not likely. Mostly they are guilty of being overly optimistic. They put forth all the good reasons for why we should go to war, and quelched all the bad things. Now that means the Bush Administration does not have faith in the American public. Perhaps for good reason. But when you give all the pros and none of the cons about something as serious as war, you can't be surprised when a lot of people agree with you, given they don't know the whole story. Do I think we should have gone to war? No. But we're there, so no reason to re-hash dubious dealings of the Bush Administration, it won't get us out any faster.
On Al Gore in 2000: I've read that as well that most of the MSM outlets concluded that Bush would have won any recount in Florida during the 2000 election. I have no problem with that. Makes him legitimate. Great. What I do have a problem with is the repercussions: the Federal Supreme Court saying the State cannot count its votes? This was unprecedented and they knew it; they even put an asterisk saying well this applies this one time and can never be used in the future. By doing so, they started off the Bush Years by being irrelevant and an obvious rubber stamp for the Administration's positions when brought to court. That is unfortunate. I also find it highly illogical for so-called small government Republicans turning to the Federal government for help in an obvious states' rights issue. Had the Court not stopped the recount, it would have gone forward. But, had it gone forward, the House, per the Constitution, would have voted for who they believed should be President. He would have won anyways. Fine. But the way they went about it was wrong, and I must say ill-advised. I also have a big issue with the un-counted votes, specifically those struck from the voter rolls incorrectly. You can recount all the already counted votes already, but they would never be included, so yes Bush would have won.
On the famed "16 words": I believe they believe it was truth. It was incorrect and made the correct assertion later they were wrong. Or the closest Bush can come to admitting being wrong and say the assertion was incorrect. There is a difference between knowingly lying and saying something that is wrong, but not knowing it is wrong. That is ignorance. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's worse to be a liar or to be ignorant, but it is blatantly obvious that Bush and his Administration were extremely ignorant in their findings leading up to the occupation of Iraq (war has yet to be declared). It is possible they lied in some things, or someone inside the White House lied to those that didn't know any better, and those folks in turn were ignorant in repeating these lies unknowing they were lies. That is laziness, but the Administration has often been intellectually lazy, that is not a point hard to argue.
9/11 was George Bush's fault: There is plenty of fault held by Bush and Clinton and all those leading up to 9/11. I don't know if there was a conspiracy (outside that of the 9/11 hijackers) and I suspect we won't know for sure until at least 50+ years have passed and when it's finally OK to come out of the closet we'll finally know the truth. It's sad but likely this is the case, as is with most things done in the name of national security. 'Nuff said.
Global warming consensus: In science there are little topics that are in consensus with all scientists 100%. In science there is allowed to be doubt. There is not a 100% consensus on global warming; no one said there was. There is a vast majority of scientists, particularly those that specialize in this area of expertise, and they believe it is a serious thing to be concerned about.
So, in conclusion, as a liberal (well, kinda), I've disagreed with these myths that you have brought about. All of them. I don't like going to extremes, and all the statements I've commented above are extremes. We do not live in a black and white world. It is very grey out there. That said, there are those in politics who like writing bumper sticker slogans and riling up their base. It's their job. The right does it. The left does it. Republicans. Democrats. All do it! It's how politics work. To call them myths is denying there are some issues with what has been brought up. But rather than simply discuss why they may have some validity and where they do not, the writer of this article has taken the exact opposite position of the myths he is denying. Both the myths and the exact opposite stance are incorrect.
And that folks, is having an intelligent discussion.
Any comments?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Focus on November
Now that Obama has won the Democratic nomination for President in the 2008 election cycle, let's focus on November.
Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee, no matter what happens now (barring the unthinkable). Her supporters (myself included) must follower her lead and get a Democrat elected to the White House, and ensure a Republican is not.
I don't care who is on the ticket as the vice president, whether it's Clinton (not so sure that will happen), or Edwards (highly likely) or someone else not yet overtly being discussed for the slot. The most important thing is to have a Democrat win. So we need to take all the new Democrats that registered to vote in our primary and keep them in the party until November 4; preferably until after then as well so we have a working majority in 2010 and 2012.
The primary season is over and Obama is our nominee. Now is not the time to talk of voting for McCain or threatening to stay home on Election Day. Hillary will not be running as an independent; she knows that would destroy any chance of a Democrat winning the White House. If that happened, she would be in 2008 what Ralph Nader was in 2000; a better example is Ross Perot in 1992. He stole votes from then-President Bush (Sr) and allowed Bill Clinton to win with a less-than-50% popular vote. She would do the same to Obama, and the votes would split between the two and McCain would win easily in the Electoral College.
I would say as well that if she were to run as independent, that 1. it would destroy her career as a politician and 2. I would not vote for her. If that were truly to happen (and it has a less than 0.01% chance of happening) then she would be seen as a very, very sore loser, as well as someone who merely wants power, over the good of her party and America. Many folks think that already, she would just be validating it for them.
Anyways, doesn't matter, not going to happen. We have a really, really good chance this year of undoing the last 7 years of damage by President Bush and the Republican-led Congress. Let's not screw it up.
Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee, no matter what happens now (barring the unthinkable). Her supporters (myself included) must follower her lead and get a Democrat elected to the White House, and ensure a Republican is not.
I don't care who is on the ticket as the vice president, whether it's Clinton (not so sure that will happen), or Edwards (highly likely) or someone else not yet overtly being discussed for the slot. The most important thing is to have a Democrat win. So we need to take all the new Democrats that registered to vote in our primary and keep them in the party until November 4; preferably until after then as well so we have a working majority in 2010 and 2012.
The primary season is over and Obama is our nominee. Now is not the time to talk of voting for McCain or threatening to stay home on Election Day. Hillary will not be running as an independent; she knows that would destroy any chance of a Democrat winning the White House. If that happened, she would be in 2008 what Ralph Nader was in 2000; a better example is Ross Perot in 1992. He stole votes from then-President Bush (Sr) and allowed Bill Clinton to win with a less-than-50% popular vote. She would do the same to Obama, and the votes would split between the two and McCain would win easily in the Electoral College.
I would say as well that if she were to run as independent, that 1. it would destroy her career as a politician and 2. I would not vote for her. If that were truly to happen (and it has a less than 0.01% chance of happening) then she would be seen as a very, very sore loser, as well as someone who merely wants power, over the good of her party and America. Many folks think that already, she would just be validating it for them.
Anyways, doesn't matter, not going to happen. We have a really, really good chance this year of undoing the last 7 years of damage by President Bush and the Republican-led Congress. Let's not screw it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
