This Dance Is Not Over

Barack Obama cannot win this fight. Let's recap what's happened so far: First, the videos of Rev. Wright surface, causing nearly everyone, regardless of their politics, to ask what Obama has to say on the subject. Then we hear everyone speak their piece, argue for awhile, and do it all over again.

Then the speech. Sen. Obama gives a speech on race in America, a speech that either heightened suspicion, or made people remember why they like Barack Obama in the first place. The enemies claimed political posturing, bad comparisons, and dodging the bullet. The friends claimed it was a great American speech, and would go down in history. What we know for sure is that it did not fix the problem.

After that, there were debates, press conferences, blogs, editorials, and columns. And when you pare it down, nothing new was said. But then Rev. Wright comes back, after accepting his highly questionable retirement package, and saves (bad word choice?) us from the monotony. And yesterday, Obama gave what I'm guessing was supposed to be the nail-in-the-coffin speech.

That brings us up to date, but nothing has been fixed. I'm not sure what Sen. Obama can do to get rid of this, but I know the only satisfactory solution would have been avoiding that church altogether, and spending the last 20 years somewhere else. No matter what he chose today, though, his judgment looks very sketchy.

Of course everyone realizes that ignoring this and pushing ahead wasn't an option. When most of the country takes a day or a week to denounce Mr. Wright, it's hard to accept a candidate who puts apparently blind faith into him. Obama tried to convince America that Mr. Wright wasn't that guy, that the whole picture wasn't available, that he didn't preach hate and division, and so on. But the Reverend just couldn't let that happen.

The dumb, hateful remarks just kept coming, and finally Obama said enough. I foolishly thought at first that people would be satisfied seeing Sen. Obama finally agree with them and end this relationship. But I was wrong. There still remains a 20-year friendship that hasn't been explained, and let's face it: nothing Barack Obama can ever say or do will make the criticism go away, short of going back in time and fixing this before it started.

And in addition to that, we have a new negative spin: Sen. Obama's remarks disowning Wright were "political posturing." Six weeks ago he defended and still cared for Wright, now he suddenly doesn't. It obviously couldn't have had anything to do with Wright acting a fool lately. But you see where this is headed. The complaining won't stop because nothing is going to fix this, and every response is wrong.

Personally, this whole thing never really bothered me, for a few reasons. (1) I don't expect my president to be perfect, or to have kept his bid for office in mind since he was ten years old. (2) I don't subscribe to the idiotic belief that everyone you know must agree with civil Christian values, and that if you do, you're obviously unfit to lead others. In fact, to survive in Washington, isn't it good to have experience dealing with zealous fools who can't think rationally? And (3) even if this can be called bad judgment, I'd say Obama's got an impressive record. He has a relationship with Rev. Wright, and loose ties to William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan. This is absolutely unremarkable compared to the Clinton legacy of overt lies and and their record of doing anything at all at the expense of others simply to save face.

Hillary Clinton actually used her shameless history as a badge of honor in the Pennsylvania debates. She admitted she had a lot of baggage, and claimed she's better off for it, since it's all out in the open. That we know about it is true enough, but that doesn't excuse anything, least of all her most recent fabrication about her Bosnia trip. Never mind that her wealth of foreign policy experience consists of flying around on taxpayer money to have grip-and-grins with foreign dignitaries.

Realizing my very biased position, I offer this take: Obama's mistake was the same as the other two candidates: spending the last 20 years in any church at all. You're not going to tell me Billy Graham is any better than Wright. Or that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't prey and profit on racism. Obama's handful of mistakes tell me that he's human. I give him credit for doing so well. Hell, he deserves a medal, if we're to accept the idea that this guy has no experience whatsoever. He's done far better than Hilary Clinton in every measurable way, and with far less shame.

There are no words..

I just read another story about the worst parents in the country (see previous post) - They apparently still believe, according to police, that she could be resurrected. These people really should be in a padded room. Yes, according to them, the two people in history: Jesus Christ and the little girl from Wausau who was tragically killed by her parents asinine excuse for a religion.

More lives fall to religion, more Americans fall to idiocy.

First of all, let me just say that I can't believe that I'm writing about this. It seemed from the get-go like a simple matter of complete lack of common sense. A couple of parents who should've been stripped of their right to bear children. But in what I can only describe as a real asshole move, the country just can't seem to tip back from the point of insanity we're dangerously close to reaching.

If you haven't heard of the story by now, here it is: In Wausau, Wisconsin, an 11-year-old girl had diabetes, and it killed her. A similar thing recently happened in Oregon, this time it was pneumonia. The reason this is such an outrage is because no one realized she had it. For "religious reasons," her parents had not given her any medical attention since she was 3 years old, deciding instead that a divine course of action would be more suitable: praying.

At this point, I thought that everyone would have the tiny bit of intelligence it would take to realize that her parents are horrible human beings, and that the tragedy here was that some illness had not claimed them before this happened. They are, after all, the ones who made this choice, paying for it in other lives, not their own.

I was wrong, however, and I heard on a conservative christian radio show the host casually brush this off, proclaiming that "of course the parents shouldn't be charged" with anything. He then went on to try to find a way to show that the police should not have intervened in a religious compound in Texas, where a 16-year-old girl was allegedly sexually abused and impregnated by a man more than 3 times her age.

To illustrate what the reaction has been from the moron point of view, here are some comments I have heard or read:

from an anonymous dope,
"In this context and based on the parents beliefs, neglect could only be attributed IF the parents were NOT praying for their child. Under their expression of faith they were perfectly caring and supportive of their child's health. YOU don't have the right to call them neglectful. I think it is wrong what they did and that this is a tragedy, but I am not about to assume that what they have been through was easy. Imagine their pain and sense of loss, imagine how their faith is being tried right now. Imagine how they must feel isolated and persecuted in their own country?"


from a reverend,
"it's easy to judge a family for doing this or not doing that, but the bottom line is, they did what's best in their heart, and the result turned out to be bad."

from the POLICE who investigated this!
"There is no reason to remove [the other children]. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

It seems to me that DEATH is abuse enough to make an effort to protect the older children. There's no reason why the parents would single this girl out to fend for herself, is there?

Anyway, a forum where this was posted at www.indymoms.com (make your judgments before proceeding), left me flabbergasted. Many of the responses said that although personally, the reader was appalled at what happened and thought the parents were stupid, we should not charge them, and we should respect their beliefs. I don't care if God lived down the block from me, when you're beliefs start killing people, fuck respect.

And to top off the night, getting back to the radio show I was angry at, a caller (who I will define as a practicing atheist) said, "You know, uh, I'm not a practicing christian or anything, but uh, that thing about praying to make people better... you know, there might be something to that."

I trust that you'll be able to generate your own outrage based on those half-wits' comments, and move on. Keep in mind that two of these have recently made national headlines. I'm sure many more go on unreported. Then we had the sexual abuse in Texas, which was handled properly by police, thankfully. No charges have been filed in this Wisconsin case, but I sure hope they are soon. If you know of a murder, but don't try to stop it or inform police, you're an accessory. If you find out even after it's done, and don't inform police, you're an accessory. But there's a chance that it's possible to stop every force that could save your daughter's life, and instead watch her wither away in your own home without telling anyone, and be completely innocent? I don't think so.

I wonder what people would say if I took a relative off life support without telling anyone, and prayed for them to survive anyway? There is discussion of what kinds of constitutional issues are involved, but I don't think it's that complicated. I had this crazy idea in my head that I had rights, and I was the only one who could wave them. What was that one right? The inalienable one? Oh yeah: LIFE. If we've decided as a country that our rights can be taken away by other people who aren't punished for it - people who are forgiven purely because they're ignorant rubes without the slightest capability for logical thinking left in their bodies, then I swear...

I'm going to go live with the socialist, Godless, Euro-weasels.

I'll plagiarize now a Christopher Hitchens line, that he used when speaking about the late buffoon Jerry Falwell: "I'm sorry there's no hell for her parents to go to."

A Friendly Reminder From The Chicago Tribune...

Factor military duty into criticism

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades.

Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him.

We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons.

Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country.

How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.

While words do count, so do actions.

Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.

Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss are, respectively, Navy and Marine Corps veterans. They work at The Center For American Progress. Korb served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration.

(And a note from me: I was reminded by someone recently that Dr. Martin Luther King, for all the praise we give him today, also had a lot to say criticizing America towards the end of his life, and those comments got him dis-invited to the White House, and possibly contributed to his murder. You'd think we'd have grown up.)

The Failing of Christopher Hitchens

In a past radio interview of Christopher Hitchens conducted on Dennis Prueger's radio show, a question came up which I feel that Hitchens did not answer to his full ability. Throughout the show, Prueger used a series of theoretical questions imposed on Hitchens designed to force him into admitting a preference toward the religious. They were heavily tilted questions like, "If you were in an unfamiliar American city, lost, late at night, and ten men were approaching you, would you be comforted by the knowledge that they had just come from a bible class?" Also, "If you could either rid the world of religion, or of evil secular dictatorships, which would you choose?" Notice the choice is always between a wide-spanning influence on the world and a distinctly negative one.

At any rate, during a brief touch on the subject of evolution, Prueger posed the question to Hitchens, "If you had a choice, would you rather be created by an intelligent designer, or a process of random mutations that were then selected for survival?"

Hitchens gave a long answer, not directly addressing the question, and though what he said had merit, it was not a satisfactory answer one way or another. He discussed the tendency toward wish-thinking that is, as he called it, "a mammalian failing." I will go on record here and say that of course, given the choice, I would choose a designer, as I suppose would any intelligent person, whether you've studied evolution or not. There's no reason not to choose certainty in this case.

And this is what I wish Hitch (if I may impose the informal appellation) had addressed. Though most anyone would wish for such a thing, that is not our failing. The failing of the human species is the ability to be completely and utterly swayed by emotion. Dennis Prueger's emotions have convinced him that if we are uncertain about the answer to a question, the wisest choice is the one you would hope for. Emotion can manipulate us to throw away any semblance of logic we may have had. It can change our vote, change our philosophy, change our tolerance, and change our morality. And it can be used most efficiently for creating irrational evil in people. That's arguably the most effective way to reduce a decent person to an immoral machine.

The other point of contention that is often missed, and conceded by the secularist without even knowing it in many cases, is that no amount of Utopian dreams or theoretical preferences makes anything a fact. The obvious fact, that many people want, or hope, that their religion is true does not convey any credibility to the belief. I wish that I could produce money by means of mental concentration, and of course no one would think that's possible even if the whole world wished it so. But more absurd than that would be for me to base my life, morals, and philosophy on that wish. And when my point is taken to this level, so rarely done by non-believers in arguments or debate, it shows an inherent weakness in the case of the pious.

There may very well be better arguments out there for belief, or hypothetical proof that such beliefs are true, but if the person being challenged doesn't know them, they should seriously doubt their own convictions. Hope or trust, or some variation on those feelings is not a reliable or useful center of life and world view. As Dawkins said, to presume God because you think it to be the best possible answer, "is to presume the truth of every conclusion we seek to prove."

Press 2008: Running For Offices of Nobility, Democracy, Concern

Well, with no primary coverage to instill the urge in voters to violently abuse their tv screens, the press has decided on their own campaign message: fairness. They have flooded their papers and websites with stories and editorials championing the right of Hillary Clinton to stay in this race, for the benefit of the people. They're compassionate. They believe voters need this to continue so we can be more informed, know the issues at stake a little more in depth. But oddly enough, this seems to be little more than a symbolic gesture.

A quick scan of the New York Times and the Washington Post political pages hardly shows a well balanced array of stories about health care, the economy, what candidates think of real political issues. Why was it that the controversy over the democrat health care plans wasn't resolved by the papers? Why did people instead have to sit through endless campaign ads that quoted big-name opinions on who left behind the most people? A health care plan seems to me to be one that is designed with numbers, prices, tax brackets, and policy. Shouldn't these things easily fall under the purview of fact, not opinion?

One should keep in mind during this crusade to get back to issues, the high strata of integrity that is Michael Kinsley of the Washington Post decided to give us hard-hitting campaign coverage of why Hillary deserves credit for her make-up routine. So glad to know he did his duty and kept us up to date. It's this duality of the press that needs to be resolved. The New York Times stated that although they endorsed John McCain to be president, they felt that publishing that premature and under-researched article spreading 8-year-old rumors about his personal life was okay, because the editorial staff doesn't communicate with other departments. A real tight ship. I'll concede, whether it was premeditated or not, it was to their advantage, giving them something to fill some more columns with and certainly selling a lot more papers.

When we are faced with candidates calling in favors, making promises that are either empty or not possible to achieve, we need the press to report on issues, to call candidates on flawed plans, and to make sure the voters aren't fooled. We can't have them making empty promises and calls to action as well. If a paper or a network wants us to be informed, start informing, rather than criticize Obama supporters who think it's time to gear up behind him and fight John McCain. Why hasn't a news source tried to explain what it's going to be like transitioning to a new health care system, if a democrat succeeds? Why hasn't anyone stated that even if we elect an award-winning economist to the oval office, or cut taxes until the government's the size of a mom and pop store, there will still be poor people. And there will still be well-off people who live extravagantly and have little or no self-control who will say they're poor.

I'm still waiting to hear what any of the candidates have to say about agriculture subsidies, or college tuition, or school vouchers. Why was Mike Huckabee the only guy to go to for a great education plan? Seems ironic since in every other respect his campaign was about fighting a war and overturning Roe v. Wade.

Democracy will fail when the press loses it's freedom. Someone who works at a network should not be suspended for asking a question that Hillary Clinton doesn't like to hear. They should be fired if reported wrong information intentionally. But asking an honest question? And then when Hillary pretends that Chelsea is a defenseless child and must be protected from the public, even when she's campaigning in places her mother doesn't feel are important enough to visit herself, what do we get? We get David Schuster going on the air and making a pathetic half-hearted apology, and then trying to hang on to a job for asking a simple question, that still deserves an answer. The Clintons, or any other candidates, for that matter, should not control the press. NBC should offer to stop covering Hilary altogether, if she doesn't like them.

Forget the democrats, the national press needs to grow a pair first.

Christians - Stop Trying To Claim Deists As Your Allies.

It is time to end the excruciating process of continually debating whether founding fathers of America, or eminent scientists of old, or any other respectable figures give merit to the arguments for or against dogmatic belief in a monotheistic religion.

We must make a distinction, before proceeding, between world views based on theory and those based on practice in everyday life. The necessary state of being for the Christian religion, if it is to survive in some semblance of its present form, it that of a practical belief. By that I mean that your views about God, what his wishes and plans are, and what his history is, must play a central role in your choices. You must take your religion into account in some cases with respect to which clothes you wear, what food you eat, the people who you may associate with, socially acceptable hobbies or practices, and what habits you permit indulgence in.

But deism does not mean that one who claims it as characteristic of their views is sympathetic in any way to the monotheistic tradition, or that in the absence of any persuasive factors, a deist would default to favoring dogma over reason. Deism, by definition, means that in theory one may indulge in a hope or fantasy in which there was an ultimate creator being, or some larger force in this universe, but that such an entity would never, and has never played a role in pedestrian affairs on the level of humanity.

This is crucially important. In theory, that is all well and good, but it is not more significant than claiming that one believes in Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. None of those beliefs will sway your views of morality, of politics, or obscure reasoned debate. A deistic god is one which we will never know until after death. We cannot know its mind or its passions. We do not know its concerns or its love. It's comparable to the belief in extra-terrestrial life in that, in all but a few extreme cases, though it may be a notable conversation starter, such belief is never going to manifest itself in a deliberate changing of habits, lifestyle, or choices. I will even be so bold as to say that a dogmatic follower of religion is insulting to a deist, given the unabashed arrogance of a theist who claims to know the mind of god, and what's more, to be endowed with the responsibility of upholding such standards.

There is also pantheism, or the belief that the word "god" is merely a label for energy, or matter, or nature. Examples in this line of thinking may be the transcendentalists of the 19th century like Thoreau or Emerson, who held the position that the earth , or untamed wilderness, was divine. This also is a notable observation, but ignoring possible conservationist tendencies, this view once again holds no control over the mind's navigation.

Atheism is the most extreme view on the sliding scale, holding that no god or divine presence exists or ever did. And again, two atheistic scientists could argue until they're blue in the face over opposing theories of the origins of life or the universe, and no conclusion will instill the idea in anyone that, for example, one shouldn't eat pork.

The very fact that we have a term for non-belief in God is only a symptom of the times we live in, when such people are in a small minority. Atheism does not carry with it necessary adherence to any rules or traditions; it is simply a statement that one won't be beholden to religious coercion without sufficient evidence of benefit or necessity.

When one reads a history of the 19th century, particularly in America, an account is not found of racists, and non-racists. An account is nearly always concerning "people," and "abolitionists." Interesting that there was not a common label for those who had beliefs in inherent inequality, only one for those who realized such beliefs were absurd. In modern times, "people" now refers to the equivalent of abolitionists - those for equality - and "racist" is now the most common term to describe the norm of that time, or "people" of the 19th century.

The point, is that a label, though it may be accurate, maybe also be a symptom of the times, or it may be a symptom of other factors outside the realm of what a given label describes. To say that you believe in some sort of God doesn't make you for monotheism, or dogma, or against reason and action based solely on evidence.

What is important to note about beliefs is the effect they have on how you behave, and how you treat others. In this respect, atheists, deists, pantheists, and even the occasional monotheist agree that nothing we believe without evidence gives us the right to make moral judgments about actions that don't hurt or affect other people. Dogmatic believers are on their own in the fight to say that what benign activity someone does anywhere in the world, even someone you will never meet, is possibly personally insulting. You would be hard pressed to find a deist who supports that.