Thursday, June 30, 2005

You Reap What You Sow

So the supreme court also decided on Monday that it's a good idea to spread eminent domain to the private sector. So now if a city thinks that a one private owner would make more money for the city than is currently being made by the current private owner of that land-- they can take away the land from the current owner and give it to the other private owner.

So a man named Logan Darrow Clements has proposed to the city of Weare, New Hampshire that he wants to build a hotel on the land that is now owned by Supreme Court Justice David Souter. He argues that he will certainly generate larger tax revenue than the current owner of the land. Oh, how awesome would that be if one of our Justices got personally screwed over by one of their own poor decisions?

You can read the article here: http://dsdsdemo2.ap.org/aponline/strange_stories/15_ds_826083.html

The Decalogue

On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the monument infront of the Texas Capital was constitutional because its context was secular and they ruled that the framed 10 commandments in a Kentucky courtroom were not constitutional because they promoted a religion.

Typical argument against the 10 commandments being on public property:

Having the 10 commandments on public property violates the "separation of church and state" and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Typical arguments for the 10 commandments being on public property:

(a) "Separation of church and state" isn't in our constitution.
(b) Our government was based around judeo-christian philosophy and, thus, the Ten Commandments are of historical relevance.

This is why I think the typical argument against having the 10 commandments on public property doesn't work:

I can't see how anyone can argue that having religious monuments on public property is unconstitutional. The words "separation of church and state" are not in our constitution and I don't think that having a religious monument on public property violates the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No law is being made... congress is not even involved... and this in no way prohibits the free exercise of religion.

This is why I think that the arguments for having the 10 commandments on public property don't work:

(a) People are correct when they say that "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution. However, I ask those people-- Do you think that our country would be better if church and state were not separated? I think we have seen enough historical evidence to show that the separation of church and state is, overall, benificial to society.

I think Sandra Day O'Conner said well it in her opinion on this case "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

(b) As for the historical relevance of the 10 commandments-- I have yet to see any evidence that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy... Yes, it was probably founded by Christian people who may have followed Judeo-Christian philosophy-- but I have not seen what effect that had on our government. Many people claim that the founding fathers were deists (I haven't seen any strong evidence to support this claim)-- however, it doesn't matter if they were Christians or Deists or Wiccan-- what we do know is that they specifically wrote into the constitution that they wanted free exercise of religion and that they didn't want to have a state religion. It seems to me that the personal religious beliefs of the founding fathers are of very little historical relevance.

Plus, only 3 of the 10 commandments relate to our government at all:
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
(VI. Thou shalt not kill.) -- relates only because we have laws against murder
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
(VIII. Thou shalt not steal.) -- relates only because we have laws against theft
(IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.) -- relates only because we have laws against perjury.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Just because we have laws saying we shouldn't murder, steal, or perjure-- and the bible also says not to do these things-- that doesn't automatically make the 10 commandments historically relevant to our government. We have to look at why we have those laws-- is it because the bible says we shouldn't do those things? or could it be that it is just common sense that these things should not be done because they are harmful to society?

My argument:

I don't think that the ten commandments have any place being on public property. This is why:

1. Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it should be done. It may be constitutional to put a monument with the tenants of national socialism on public property-- but I don't think it has any business being there.
2. I think separation of church and state is a good idea.
3. I don't think the 10 commandments are historically relevant enough to our government to be put on display.
4. I constantly have to look at or hear Christian messages from evangelists, T-shirts, bumper stickers, AIM profiles and presidential speeches-- and I don't want to have to look at them on public property.

Monday, June 27, 2005

The Beloved Bush

I was thinking-- and I really don't understand why conservatives love George W. Bush so much and I don't understand why they think he is doing such a wonderful job as president.

A great number of people who voted for George W. Bush did so because of his position on "moral issues". I think it is safe to say that the major moral issue that caused people to vote for GW is his views against abortion. So if conservatives are so happy with Bush** then wouldn't you expect that Bush would have done something about the issues that got him elected?

Bush is probably the most conservative, god-fearing, anti-abortion presidents we've had in modern day and conservatives have control of both the house and the senate-- yet abortion is still legal. In fact, I have heard no serious talks from him about criminalizing abortion (though he has spent a good deal of time trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage). If this die-hard christian and uber-conservative congress haven't even made a serious attempt at making abortion illegal... shouldn't people be mad that nothing has been done about the major reason they voted for him? But I see no anger-- most of the conservatives are just fine with the way he's doing his job.

For those of you who are morally against same-sex marriage and abortion-- I think you should ask yourself a serious question-- Which is a more important moral issue-- same-sex marriage or abortion? The president has spent a great deal more time trying to ban gay marriage than he has trying to ban abortion-- does this parallel your beliefs? I doubt it.

And honestly-- if you care so much about moral issues-- shouldn't you be upset that we were unjustified in going to war and that thousands of people have died because of the Bush administration's screwup? Or do your morals not stretch all the way across the ocean?

** People were happy enough with Bush to vote him the 6th greatest American in history on TLC's "Greatest American"-- this show was hilarious... it may be one of America's "Worst Shows" ever-- Who do you think should be the greatest American? George Washington? Martin Luther King Jr.? Abraham Lincoln?-- Who actually won? Ronald Reagan...... how awful is that?
Other ridiculous people in the top 20: Bill Clinton #7, Oprah #9, Billy Graham #11 and Bill Gates #18--- These people are clearly greater Americans than Rosa Parks...?

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Flag Burning

The house just passed a bill that would criminalize flag burning and it is now going to the Senate. This bill is just proof that our politicians do jack shit. Our politicians are more worried about combustible symbols and sexy dancing cheerleaders than real issues.

If you think that a ban on flag burning is a good idea-- this is why you are wrong:

(1) The main argument I hear is from people that say "People went to war and died defending that flag-- it is disrespectful to burn it and it should be illegal." The people who have fought and died for our freedom have done so to give us freedoms just like burning our flag. To make it illegal is to criminalize dissent.
Just because it makes you mad doesn't mean it should be illegal.
(2) Whether or not you think burning a flag is "right", it is a form of free speech-- and should be allowed.
(3) What constitutes a flag? Would it be legal to burn a shirt with a flag on it? A napkin with a flag design on it? Some cloth that resembles the US flag? Or would it only be illegal to burn official US flags?

If it passes I am going to be the first person to burn a flag afterwards... The ACLU would represent me-- I could be on Hannity and Colmes-- I could write a book-- and, plus, there is no way that this bill would ever hold up if it went to the Supreme Court.

People just need to stop trying criminalize everything that pisses them off. Here's an idea-- try dealing with your anger in a way that doesn't screw with my freedom.

Monday, June 20, 2005

A Way Too In-depth Look at a Famous Quotation:

I read this quote in two different places today:

"I believe in God like I believe in the sunrise. Not because I can see it, but because I can see all that it touches." -C.S. Lewis

The funny thing about this quote is that it can be understood to mean two things-- and both of them are equally absurd:
{SS= He Can See a Sunrise}
{BS= Belief that there is a Sunrise}
{ST= Seeing what the Sunrise Touches}

I'm pretty sure that he's saying this:
(1) ~SS ; BS→ST
He can't see sunrises (~SS)-- and in order for him to believe in a sunrise he must see what the sunrise is touching (BS→ST).

However, it is also possible to understand the quote to mean this:
(2) SS; BS→ST
He can see sunrises (SS) [but that is not the reason he believes in them]; He believes in sunrises because he can see all that the sunrise touches (BS→ST).

Number 1 = dumb because you can see sunrises.
Number 2 doesn't work because it means that he chooses to believe in sunrises because of what they touch when he could have chosen to believe in sunrises because he can actually see them-- this comes across numerous problems; the first being that the only way you could say that a sunrise "touches" anything is to say that the light waves coming from it are what touch things-- and this creates a horrible analogy because there isn't any solid evidence that God touches things in a way similar to the way that light waves touch things. Not to mention that I can't see God like I can see sunrises.

The reason that I believe in sunrises is because I know the definition of a sunrise and I see (if i'm awake) the characteristics that compose sunrises every morning...and I certainly do not see the characteristics that compose God at 6am (or thereabouts) every morning.

--My statements about how I made C.S. Lewis my bitch have been removed because people are overly sensitive about replacing "Christ" with "Crap"... I challenge you to make fun of the title "Mere Christianity" without sounding disrespectful--

Yes this is a ridiculous overanalysis.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Iraq War

How can you justify the US going to war in Iraq?

One argument that I hear again and again is this:
"There isn't a country called 'Al Qaedia'"... as if to say that we went to war in Iraq because of Al Qaeda.

The Bush administration tried so desperately to make it seem like there was a strong link between Al Qaeda and Saddam-- however this connection turned out to be, at best, very flimsy-- the connection that they found was that Al Zarqawi (a member of Al Qaeda) had been treated in an Iraqi hospital after he was wounded in Afghanistan-- which basically just goes to show that somebody in Al Qaeda had been to Iraq... which seems to me to be a much weaker link than the link between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda (considering 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia). Even the Bush administration has given up on touting this supposed connection.

So since there was no strong connection with Al Qaeda how is this war just?

The typical answer I hear is:
"A bad man is out of power and Iraqis are better off now than they were when Saddam was in power."

Here is a scenario to show why the above argument fails to justify the war:
Suppose we were told by our president that a fascist leader was slaughtering his own people and that we needed to go to war immediately to save their lives. So we give the president the power to go to war-- he immediately sends troops to that country to stop the killing. Our troops show up, we dismantle the goverment and then we realize we screwed up... there was actually no killing going on...

At that very instant there is no possible way for the war to be just. It doesn't matter what good we end up doing for that country-- It doesn't matter what past acts that leader may have done-- the war cannot be justified. The justification for going to war was wrong AND you can't change your justification for doing something after you've already done it. However, our president has done just that-- instead of admitting he was wrong and instead of apologizing to the thousands of American and Iraqi families who have lost friends and family members he justifies this war by saying "We're bringing freedom to this country"and he continually holds that he did the "right" thing-- and the majority of Americans (as shown by our election) are perfectly fine with the decisions he made. However, I don't believe for a second that congress would have given the president the power to go to war if he had said "The main reason we need to go to war is because we need to bring democracy to Iraq"... it just doesn't contain any scare-tactics that this administration has found to work so very nicely (except on social security).

It is just so horrible that two of my buddies from high school are in Iraq now putting their lives in danger because the current administraion, at the very least, screwed up in going to war. War should have been the last option-- and it wasn't-- if it was, we would have waited until we knew for sure that our reason for going to war was sound.

The argument I often hear to that is:
"If we had waited then it could have been too late and we could have had another 9/11"

An analogy to show why that argument doesn't justify the war:
Suppose you were to hear that somebody that you hate (for justifiable reasons) might have a gun that they might give to somebody that might try to use that gun against you or your family... and in response to this you blow-up the house of the guy you hate.

If this war was a justifiable Self-Defense war (which it must be in order for it to be a just preemptive war) it should follow closely to what our country considers to be "Self Defense". And in the scenario I gave, our courts would never consider an act like that as a self-defense. The "If I had waited bad things could have happened" argument would be laughed out of court. That argument doesn't justify anything.

War should be the very last course of action... our soldiers trust our leaders to only put them in harms way when it is completely necessary. And it seemed to me that this war was definitely not the very last option for our President... and, actually, at times it seemed like it was right at the top of his "to do" list.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq we've lost 1714 american soldiers-- 47 have died this month. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths caused by military intervention is now up to, at the very least, 22,248 people. The number of WMD's found is now up to a staggering figure of 0.
I really wish we could justify this war.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Reuters Article:

"World military spending rose for a sixth year running in 2004, growing by 5 percent to $1.04 trillion on the back of 'massive' U.S. budgetary allocations for its war on terror, a leading research institute said on Tuesday. With expenditure of $455 billion, the United States accounted for almost half the global figure, more than the combined total of the 32 next most powerful nations."

Saturday, June 04, 2005

The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy

Today Donald Rumsfeld made a speech in Singapore where he bluntly criticized China for spending too much money on missiles and "up-to-date military technology". He said instead that money should be used to further China's political freedom and open markets.

Does that sound hypocritical to anyone else? Considering the US is spending 8 times as much money-- $350 billion more-- on our military than they are. Who are we to tell China how to spend their money? I wish China would turn back around and tell the US to quit paying favors to big businesses like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman who we gave the largest military contract in history --$250 billion-- to build 6000 new planes and cut down on our military's size. Which will never happen because of the corporate handjobs given to all of our politicians. That $250 billion contract is the perfect picture of how much big corporations run our government-- the guy who was put in charge of choosing who to give the contract to was Air Force Secretary James Roche-- who just so happened to be a top executive at Northrop Grumman for 17 years. This is made even more humorous because of what George W Bush's campaign advisor Richard Armitage said before the 2000 election:

"George Bush has said if he is fortunate enough to be elected president, he is going to look at our whole military situation, including the tactical air account. He's noted that the 3000 number [of planes] seems a bit much."

Apparently 9000 planes isn't a bit much. So why did Bush's mind change? 9/11? Maybe-- but it seems more likely to me that he showed up in Washington and realized that the people building those airplanes were giving a lot of money to him and to pretty much everyone with any pull in Washington. It's not surprising that Lockheed spent $2.7 million on soft money contributions (more than 2/3 of that money going to Republicans) in the 2004 election. Northrop Grumman split around $4 million between the two parties. James Ukropina, a director at Lockheed, made the maximum legal contribution of $1000 to almost every republican candidate running in California and to George W. Bush for president. If that's not legal bribery then it's at least good old fashioned conflict of interest.

It just erks me that Donald Rumsfeld can keep from cracking a smile when he's telling China that they should stop spending so much money on their defense. I guarantee that the Bush administration wouldn't be saying anything if China had asked Lockheed to build their planes (unless homosexuals would be flying them)-- and, hell, he wouldn't even care what China blew up with those planes as long as they payed Halliburton to rebuild it.

I'm so tired with the hypocrisy in our system. The US telling China to stop spending so much on their military is like Ken Lay telling Martha Stewart to use ethical business practices.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Defense Budget = Ridiculous

Why spend so much money on defense? Because we need the defense? Watch these videos and see how ridiculous the amount we spend on our military really is:

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/bensbbs

http://www.truemajority.org/oreo/