Saturday, May 31, 2008
French Open Watch
The French Open is under way, and Roger Federer is trying to complete the career grand slam--winning all 4 majors, something that has only been done by 5 men. He has come close the last 3 years, losing to Rafael Nadal in the Semi's, Finals, and Finals, and most likely will play him in the Finals this year if Fed makes it that far. Fed has been mortal this year, already losing as more than in the previous 3 years and the season is only about half way over, but he is still a freak. He made the Australian Open Final even though he had mono; I've had mono, and that is just crazy. I could barely walk up the stairs when I had mono, I missed 4 weeks of school, and I lost about 30 pounds, so Fed still winning tennis matches boggles the mind. Hopefully Nadal gets injured so Fed has a chance, so if anyone in France happens to read this, throw something at Nadal (only injure him bad enough for him to miss the rest of the French Open).
Friday, May 30, 2008
McClellan drops the Hammer
I am going to read the new book about the Bush adminstration by Scott McClellan, Bush's former Press Secretary. Whether one believes McClellan is telling the truth or not, it certainly raises questions about our government. Whether or not McClellan exaggerates at all shouldn't really matter, because he is exposing the corrupt culture in Washington. Anyone that is willing to take the blinders off will realize quickly that the government runs its own show, doing what it wants to regardless of how the public feels, and doing whatever is best for the elite and powerful. It didn't take this book to reveal that truth, but the fact that McClellan and Bush have been close for so long makes this book more interesting, and it also gives the book lots of publicity--it creates lots of discussion about Bush's dishonesty and about Washington's dishonesty. I place blame on the media and Congress as well because they didn't raise enough of ruckus before we went to war and if they had, we might not have invaded Iraq. Bush--and every other modern President--relies on the media to sell his agenda, so if the media had done its job before the war, not after, it would have been extremely difficult to convince the public that Iraq should be invaded. I believe that McClellans book is probably pretty accurate and that it serves as another--of many--indictment of Bush's horrible presidency.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Polygamy Debate
This was posted on a blog by Martha Nussbaum, a professor at the University of Chicago.
Debating Polygamy
What is wrong with polygamy?
Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.
But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.
Mormon polygamy of the 19th century was not child abuse. Adult women married by consent, and typically lived in separate dwellings, each visited by the husband in turn. In addition to their theological rationale, Mormons defended the practice with social arguments - in particular that polygamous men would abandon wives or visit prostitutes less frequently. Instead of answering these arguments, however, Americans hastened to vilify Mormon society, publishing semi-pornographic novels that depicted polygamy as a hotbed of incest and child abuse.
Self-righteous Americans hastened to stigmatize Mormon marriage as "patriarchal," while participating contentedly and uncritically in an institution (monogamy) so patriarchal that, for many years, women lost all property rights upon marriage and could not even get a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In one respect, Mormon women were miles ahead of their sisters living in monogamy: They got the vote in the territory of Utah in 1871, 49 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave the vote to women all over the nation.
The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him."
Yet in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an anti-polygamy statute with these words, extraordinary from justices who were supposedly Bible readers: "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." (The Jews were in fact an Asiatic people, but mainstream Christians usually forgot that, thinking of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed child. So the justices did not see themselves as repudiating their biblical heritage, although this is precisely what they were doing.)
All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians.
But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?
First, as traditionally practiced, polygamy is one-sided. Men have rights that women do not. Sex equality could, then, give the state a strong interest in disallowing religious claims to practice polygamy, as long as the one-sidedness is maintained.
What about, though, a practice of plural contractual marriages, by mutual consent, among adult, informed parties, all of whom have equal legal rights to contract such plural marriages? What interest might the state have that would justify refusing recognition of such marriages?
Well, children would have to be protected, so the law would have to make sure that issues such as maternity/paternity and child support were well articulated. Beyond this, a regime of polygamous unions would, no doubt, be difficult to administer - but not impossible, with good will and effort. It is already difficult to deal with sequential marriages and the responsibilities they entail.
The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement. If polygamy turns out to be a bad idea, it won't survive the test of free choice over time.
(This post also appears in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, and the issues raised are discussed further in chapter 5 of my new book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality.)
Posted by Martha Nussbaum at 11:48 AM in Nussbaum, Martha Permalink
Debating Polygamy
What is wrong with polygamy?
Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.
But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.
Mormon polygamy of the 19th century was not child abuse. Adult women married by consent, and typically lived in separate dwellings, each visited by the husband in turn. In addition to their theological rationale, Mormons defended the practice with social arguments - in particular that polygamous men would abandon wives or visit prostitutes less frequently. Instead of answering these arguments, however, Americans hastened to vilify Mormon society, publishing semi-pornographic novels that depicted polygamy as a hotbed of incest and child abuse.
Self-righteous Americans hastened to stigmatize Mormon marriage as "patriarchal," while participating contentedly and uncritically in an institution (monogamy) so patriarchal that, for many years, women lost all property rights upon marriage and could not even get a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In one respect, Mormon women were miles ahead of their sisters living in monogamy: They got the vote in the territory of Utah in 1871, 49 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave the vote to women all over the nation.
The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him."
Yet in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an anti-polygamy statute with these words, extraordinary from justices who were supposedly Bible readers: "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." (The Jews were in fact an Asiatic people, but mainstream Christians usually forgot that, thinking of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed child. So the justices did not see themselves as repudiating their biblical heritage, although this is precisely what they were doing.)
All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians.
But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?
First, as traditionally practiced, polygamy is one-sided. Men have rights that women do not. Sex equality could, then, give the state a strong interest in disallowing religious claims to practice polygamy, as long as the one-sidedness is maintained.
What about, though, a practice of plural contractual marriages, by mutual consent, among adult, informed parties, all of whom have equal legal rights to contract such plural marriages? What interest might the state have that would justify refusing recognition of such marriages?
Well, children would have to be protected, so the law would have to make sure that issues such as maternity/paternity and child support were well articulated. Beyond this, a regime of polygamous unions would, no doubt, be difficult to administer - but not impossible, with good will and effort. It is already difficult to deal with sequential marriages and the responsibilities they entail.
The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement. If polygamy turns out to be a bad idea, it won't survive the test of free choice over time.
(This post also appears in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, and the issues raised are discussed further in chapter 5 of my new book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality.)
Posted by Martha Nussbaum at 11:48 AM in Nussbaum, Martha Permalink
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Bush can ride down an oil-slide to Hell
President Bush has "successfully" negotiated an increase in oil production from the Saudi's. Wow, as if the amount of available oil actually had anything to do with the prices right now. If we removed all forms of investment from the oil industry, and left the supply and demand to actual oil consumption, prices wouldn't be nearly as high, nor would they fluctuate as often. Since the start of the Iraq War in 2003, the cost of oil has risen from around $20 a barrel to near $130. Has the demand and use of oil risen by more than 6 times in the last 5 years? Not even close. But because investors control the prices through financial markets, they can use any event they want to justify price changes, making money out of thin air for themselves, while most people get screwed at the pump. To top it off, many of the American companies that benefit most from the price increases are closely connected to the Bush administration, and will be more than willing to provide huge stock option plans when Bush and Cheney "kindly" offer their advice as directors. Gee, it sure is a shame that those stocks will be worth so much because of foreign policy conduct over the last 8 years that has given the market an excuse to manipulate prices. I can see Bush and Cheney donating all of the profit from their stocks to enviromental projects, or using their wealth to open up non-profit health care clinics in inner-city ghetto's where health conditions can resemble the third world. Next time there is an incident of violence somewhere in the world, look for the Wall Street Journal to report that scared investors have changed their trading strategies with crude oil, leading to another price increase. Did a bomb that killed 20 people in a market actually do anything to affect oil production or use? No, and the fact that violent chaotic things happen everyday in oil producing nations has always been, and always will be the case. Hopefully our next President can be more concerned about bettering our country and the world, as less concerned with satisfying investors.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Specter's an Idiot
Arlen Specter, a long time Senator from Pennsylvania, wants a special investigation into the Patriots taping scandal. The NFL has viewed all of the tapes related to the scandal, they took away a first-round draft pick from the Patriots, they fined the team and the coach, and they are now moving forward. Specter is making a mockery of his government position, wasting time and tax payer money for attention. With all of the problems and needs our country has, why should the government waste any time and money on a very minor problem that the NFL has already taken care of? Specter is noted for being a die-hard Pittsburgh Steelers fan, making this somewhat personal, but more than that, he is just grand-standing and looking for attention. Whether it is Congressional investigations of steroids in baseball, or taping signals in football, the Senate has no business involving itself.
Considering that Congress has an approval rating of around 20%, and considering the plethora of problems they have failed to solve, it is mind boggling that any of Specter's colleagues would support his ridiculous treasure hunt. The country is facing a recession, the mortgage crisis is nowhere near being resolved, the war in Iraq still has no end in sight, health care is becoming more expensive and less accessible every day, America's image abroad is at an all-time low, questions about torture and the behavior exhibited at Guantanamo--these are issues Congress should investigate and attempt to fix. Worrying about the NFL and the taping of defensive hand signals? Are you kidding me!? Specter is ridiculous, and his behavior is more worthy of impeachment than anything President Clinton did. The citizens of Pennsylvania should elect a replacement and put serious pressure on Specter to stop wasting their money, and if they continue to support him, it is an indictment of them and our political system that places an enormous advantage in the hands of incumbents. The media should help as well by ignoring Specter; give him no publicity, don't publish anything he says, don't have him as a guest on any news network, just completely black ball him. Specter gets my vote as the dumbest politician in Washington.
Considering that Congress has an approval rating of around 20%, and considering the plethora of problems they have failed to solve, it is mind boggling that any of Specter's colleagues would support his ridiculous treasure hunt. The country is facing a recession, the mortgage crisis is nowhere near being resolved, the war in Iraq still has no end in sight, health care is becoming more expensive and less accessible every day, America's image abroad is at an all-time low, questions about torture and the behavior exhibited at Guantanamo--these are issues Congress should investigate and attempt to fix. Worrying about the NFL and the taping of defensive hand signals? Are you kidding me!? Specter is ridiculous, and his behavior is more worthy of impeachment than anything President Clinton did. The citizens of Pennsylvania should elect a replacement and put serious pressure on Specter to stop wasting their money, and if they continue to support him, it is an indictment of them and our political system that places an enormous advantage in the hands of incumbents. The media should help as well by ignoring Specter; give him no publicity, don't publish anything he says, don't have him as a guest on any news network, just completely black ball him. Specter gets my vote as the dumbest politician in Washington.
NBA Playoff update
Last night the Jazz lost to the Lakers, giving the Lakers a 3-2 lead in the series. The Jazz actually played quite well, they just couldn't make the big plays down the stretch, most notably giving up and offensive rebound in the final minute that gave the Lakers a 5 point lead. Losing on the road to the Lakers isn't so bad, but considering Kobe was hampered by a bad back, and considering that if a game 7 is played, it will be in L.A. with a healthier Kobe, this loss really hurts. The Jazz had a tie game with a few minutes to go, and not closing it out will ultimately cost them the series and end their season. They made the Western Conference Finals last year--with a much easier path--so this season will all the more disappointing, regressing from a year ago even though they are a better team this year. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Lakers win game 6 in Utah--Kobe has a killer instinct like Jordan did--and if they do lose, I don't see them losing game 7 at home unless Kobe can't even suit up for the game.
Turning to the Celtics/Cavs series, Boston continued to play chameleon, winning at home to take a 3-2 series lead and improve to 7-0 at home this postseason. With game 6 in Cleveland, the Celtics need to turn their 0-5 road record into a 1-5 record, not because they wouldn't win a game 7 at home, but because they can't go into a series against the Pistons without a road playoff win. With the biggest turnaround in one season in NBA history, the Celtics aren't looking for moral victories like just making the Eastern Conference Finals, they are looking to win the Championship. Prior to the playoffs, I thought they would win it all, or worst case scenario, make the Finals and lose to the West--now, I don't see them beating the Pistons even if they finish off Cleveland on the road. Boston's deficiencies have shown up in the playoffs--a lack of athleticism, and little depth. With three superstars, it is surprising that they can't score at will, but none of the big 3 is overly athletic--Garnett is in a big man sense--making it imperative that they shoot well from the field, something that is hard to do with the intensified postseason defense they face.
As for the Hornets/Spurs series, I still don't see the Spurs losing the series. They have won 4 championships in the last 9 years, they are the defending champs, and they seem to catch the breaks and make the plays when they absolutely have to. I would love to see the Hornets win because I hate the Spurs--the ideal match up would be the Jazz vs. the Hornets, with Paul going against Williams, and New Orleans new team facing its old team--but I don't see that match up happening. Even if the Hornets knock off the Spurs, I don't see the Lakers losing, but a Hornets/Lakers match up would be pretty cool, with the MVP, Kobe, going against the runner up, Chris Paul.
Turning to the Celtics/Cavs series, Boston continued to play chameleon, winning at home to take a 3-2 series lead and improve to 7-0 at home this postseason. With game 6 in Cleveland, the Celtics need to turn their 0-5 road record into a 1-5 record, not because they wouldn't win a game 7 at home, but because they can't go into a series against the Pistons without a road playoff win. With the biggest turnaround in one season in NBA history, the Celtics aren't looking for moral victories like just making the Eastern Conference Finals, they are looking to win the Championship. Prior to the playoffs, I thought they would win it all, or worst case scenario, make the Finals and lose to the West--now, I don't see them beating the Pistons even if they finish off Cleveland on the road. Boston's deficiencies have shown up in the playoffs--a lack of athleticism, and little depth. With three superstars, it is surprising that they can't score at will, but none of the big 3 is overly athletic--Garnett is in a big man sense--making it imperative that they shoot well from the field, something that is hard to do with the intensified postseason defense they face.
As for the Hornets/Spurs series, I still don't see the Spurs losing the series. They have won 4 championships in the last 9 years, they are the defending champs, and they seem to catch the breaks and make the plays when they absolutely have to. I would love to see the Hornets win because I hate the Spurs--the ideal match up would be the Jazz vs. the Hornets, with Paul going against Williams, and New Orleans new team facing its old team--but I don't see that match up happening. Even if the Hornets knock off the Spurs, I don't see the Lakers losing, but a Hornets/Lakers match up would be pretty cool, with the MVP, Kobe, going against the runner up, Chris Paul.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Liberty of Conscience
I'm think I might be in the blogging "zone". This will be my second post in the last 24 hours, a feat that deserves special recognition. I am currently reading a book titled Liberty of Conscience, by Martha Nussbaum. It is a book about America's religious tradition and the need to protect that tradition. I haven't finished the book yet so I may add or edit this blog as I move through the book, but her basic argument is that those who are overly hostile to religion and those that are over zealous about religion are hurting America and its tradition of religious equality. Issues of State and Church are part of our daily news, and they are hotly debated by those on differing sides of the issue. Should prayer be allowed in school? Should the ten commandments be allowed to display in public buildings like a court house? Should we have In God We Trust on our coins and One Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Obviously, any answer to these questions is subjective in nature--even though I think my opinion on the matter is correct--but in spite of said subjectivity, we need clearly defined objectives for any rule or law around such questions.
Nussbaum--who happens to be very religious--argues that any form of religion, from symbols to statements, should not be part of the public sphere. She says that when the ten commandments are posted in a courthouse, it is an unspoken statement of support for Christianity, creating an in-group and an out-group, alienating non-Christians. When the government added the words one nation under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's, it was move directed at amplifying the differences between Christian America and the Atheist Soviet Union. Many mistakenly believe that those words have been part of the Pledge from the very beginning, but they were added for political reasons, not religious ones. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator anywhere, and this is for a reason. The creators of the Constitution had come from Europe, where State support of religion had led to corruption and oppression, something our nations founders felt necessary to avoid. Philosophers like Locke, Kant, John Rawls, and Nussbaum make compelling arguments for a complete WALL between State and religion.
Nussbaum frequently cites the example of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He was a very religious person, but he believed every single human being deserves the liberty of conscience--that is, the sacred right of trying to find the meaning of this life. He happened to be far ahead of his time, as he accepted all kinds of people in Rhode Island, even making laws that prohibited the acquisition of Indian land. Williams became a good friend to the the Indians of Rhode Island, treating them as equals, even though he considered their beliefs to be erroneous, he respect their liberty of conscience. Nussbaum argues that we need to regain the respect for this liberty of conscience, avoiding a silent caste system created by religion. As more and more people migrate to the United States from Asian countries--where many religions aren't monotheistic--even the mention of the protection of a single God can be alienating. Atheists are viewed in a more negative light than any other group of Americans--which is baffling, considering many atheists are extremely active in the promotion of human rights and equality for all--but due to the fact that their liberty of conscience has led them to believe differently, they are viewed in a very negative way.
Nussbaum holds positions in the University of Chicago's Law School, Divinity School, and Philosophy department, with Masters and Doctoral degrees from Harvard. It is refreshing to see a brilliant, religious person argue for the equal treatment of those with different beliefs. I completely agree with her argument that allowing the liberty of conscience in individuals is necessary, and prohibiting any form of State sponsorship is imperative for liberty of conscience to be truly protected. The role of government is to protect our basic rights, not to institute moral laws and not to subtly establish religious preference. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy and I believe that anyone--from the most hard-core Mormon to the most hard-core atheist--would find this book convincing.
Nussbaum--who happens to be very religious--argues that any form of religion, from symbols to statements, should not be part of the public sphere. She says that when the ten commandments are posted in a courthouse, it is an unspoken statement of support for Christianity, creating an in-group and an out-group, alienating non-Christians. When the government added the words one nation under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's, it was move directed at amplifying the differences between Christian America and the Atheist Soviet Union. Many mistakenly believe that those words have been part of the Pledge from the very beginning, but they were added for political reasons, not religious ones. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator anywhere, and this is for a reason. The creators of the Constitution had come from Europe, where State support of religion had led to corruption and oppression, something our nations founders felt necessary to avoid. Philosophers like Locke, Kant, John Rawls, and Nussbaum make compelling arguments for a complete WALL between State and religion.
Nussbaum frequently cites the example of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He was a very religious person, but he believed every single human being deserves the liberty of conscience--that is, the sacred right of trying to find the meaning of this life. He happened to be far ahead of his time, as he accepted all kinds of people in Rhode Island, even making laws that prohibited the acquisition of Indian land. Williams became a good friend to the the Indians of Rhode Island, treating them as equals, even though he considered their beliefs to be erroneous, he respect their liberty of conscience. Nussbaum argues that we need to regain the respect for this liberty of conscience, avoiding a silent caste system created by religion. As more and more people migrate to the United States from Asian countries--where many religions aren't monotheistic--even the mention of the protection of a single God can be alienating. Atheists are viewed in a more negative light than any other group of Americans--which is baffling, considering many atheists are extremely active in the promotion of human rights and equality for all--but due to the fact that their liberty of conscience has led them to believe differently, they are viewed in a very negative way.
Nussbaum holds positions in the University of Chicago's Law School, Divinity School, and Philosophy department, with Masters and Doctoral degrees from Harvard. It is refreshing to see a brilliant, religious person argue for the equal treatment of those with different beliefs. I completely agree with her argument that allowing the liberty of conscience in individuals is necessary, and prohibiting any form of State sponsorship is imperative for liberty of conscience to be truly protected. The role of government is to protect our basic rights, not to institute moral laws and not to subtly establish religious preference. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy and I believe that anyone--from the most hard-core Mormon to the most hard-core atheist--would find this book convincing.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Finally, and hopefully not too late
It appears like Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President. After the longest primary campaign in the history of presidential politics, the selection of our next President isn't that far off. The Democrats began this campaign with a tremendous advantage due to Bush's enormous blunders over the last 8 years, but as their campaign has become more and more vitriolic, their advantage has begun to dwindle. McCain has had it relatively easy the last few months, comfortably ripping both candidates, while the Democrats rip each other instead of responding to McCain.
In spite of McCain's comfortable last few months, most national polls still give Obama a small advantage in the general election, but the enormous discontent with the Republicans has waned somewhat, making this general election more unpredictable. McCain has been able to flip-flop on all sorts of issues the last few months, and hopefully with some attention, those changes of heart will be called what they are--political pandering, not sincere changes that are better for the country. Ultimately, I see Obama beating McCain and becoming our next President--something that will be great for our country and it will put a leader in office who has the intelligence and the people skills to help repair our damaged relations with the rest of the world.
Obama may lack years of experience in Washington like McCain, but his intelligence and wisdom will play a greater role in how he governs than any amount of experience could. As we have seen so clearly from President Bush, choosing the right people to help run an administration is the most important thing a President can do. If Bush had chosen to rely on Colin Powell instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld, he may be viewed as a great President instead of a pathetic one. Obama may be trendy, and he may be garnering votes because of the emotion he inspires in people, but he has shown good judgement throughout he short political career. The fact that he picked the right people to help him run a campaign that was good enough to defeat the Clinton machine shows high levels of wisdom in choosing good people to work with.
Electing a black man to be our President is an enormous event and one that would have seemed unimaginable 50 years ago, even 20, but it should provide a path for healing the racial tensions that are still very existant in this country. So hopefully, Obama's nomination by the Democrats isn't too late and he gets the chance to be our next President.
In spite of McCain's comfortable last few months, most national polls still give Obama a small advantage in the general election, but the enormous discontent with the Republicans has waned somewhat, making this general election more unpredictable. McCain has been able to flip-flop on all sorts of issues the last few months, and hopefully with some attention, those changes of heart will be called what they are--political pandering, not sincere changes that are better for the country. Ultimately, I see Obama beating McCain and becoming our next President--something that will be great for our country and it will put a leader in office who has the intelligence and the people skills to help repair our damaged relations with the rest of the world.
Obama may lack years of experience in Washington like McCain, but his intelligence and wisdom will play a greater role in how he governs than any amount of experience could. As we have seen so clearly from President Bush, choosing the right people to help run an administration is the most important thing a President can do. If Bush had chosen to rely on Colin Powell instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld, he may be viewed as a great President instead of a pathetic one. Obama may be trendy, and he may be garnering votes because of the emotion he inspires in people, but he has shown good judgement throughout he short political career. The fact that he picked the right people to help him run a campaign that was good enough to defeat the Clinton machine shows high levels of wisdom in choosing good people to work with.
Electing a black man to be our President is an enormous event and one that would have seemed unimaginable 50 years ago, even 20, but it should provide a path for healing the racial tensions that are still very existant in this country. So hopefully, Obama's nomination by the Democrats isn't too late and he gets the chance to be our next President.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Global Warming, angry sports God's, or...?
The Boston Celtics play the Atlanta Hawks in a game 7 today. This series was supposed to go 4 games, maybe 5 if Kevin Garnett died, but not 7 games. The game is in Boston, and Boston is 3-0 in game 7's vs. the Hawks, so I think the Celtics will win, but the fact that they could lose today and be eliminated in the first round by the Hawks is crazy. What if one of Boston's big 3 gets hurt? or what if the Hawks play their best game of the season? if either one of these scenarios happens, the Celtics will probably lose, and then they can have the joy of being on the wrong side of the biggest upset in NBA playoff history.
I know that global warming is supposed to change the weather in crazy ways, but it must effect sports as well. That seems to be the only explanation for the Celtics collapse, or maybe the Patriots cheating scandal angered the sports God's so much that all the New England teams will face a curse for years to come. The Pats blew the Super Bowl, Boston doesn't look good, and the Red Sox are doing okay but some of their big stars are under performing or seriously injured, meaning the run of dominance is over unless New Englanders can find a way to appease the angry sports God's. In spite of my general dislike for Boston sports teams, I find myself rooting for the Celtics because Danny Ainge is the architect of the team, and the resurrection of his reputation is gone if the the Celtics lose the series. He went from reviled to loved in one season after pulling off some huge trades that led the Celtics to the biggest single season turn around in NBA history, but that is all pointless if they don't make the NBA finals, or at least the Eastern Conference finals. Anyway, I'm out of theories, go Celtics, and I am out (think Jim Rome).
I know that global warming is supposed to change the weather in crazy ways, but it must effect sports as well. That seems to be the only explanation for the Celtics collapse, or maybe the Patriots cheating scandal angered the sports God's so much that all the New England teams will face a curse for years to come. The Pats blew the Super Bowl, Boston doesn't look good, and the Red Sox are doing okay but some of their big stars are under performing or seriously injured, meaning the run of dominance is over unless New Englanders can find a way to appease the angry sports God's. In spite of my general dislike for Boston sports teams, I find myself rooting for the Celtics because Danny Ainge is the architect of the team, and the resurrection of his reputation is gone if the the Celtics lose the series. He went from reviled to loved in one season after pulling off some huge trades that led the Celtics to the biggest single season turn around in NBA history, but that is all pointless if they don't make the NBA finals, or at least the Eastern Conference finals. Anyway, I'm out of theories, go Celtics, and I am out (think Jim Rome).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)