On the First Presidential Debate:

"In tonight's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor. 

But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan -- awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on.

I've been worried about Obama's poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high -- he's known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he's not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.

Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks tonight you'll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story. 

The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our President must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates -- and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor."  - From Robert Reich's Facebook page

I have very similar feelings Mr. Reich.  We can't just assume that the American people will know the same 'facts' that we seem to think we have on our 'side'.  In my opinion, Romney did not win on style either....style requires class.  They only class that man has is the privileged class.  Anyone else catch his solution for middle class families who need insurance?  50,000 (was the smaller of the two numbers he threw out) dollar deductibles.  He talked about the Obamacare 'death panel', when he damn well knows that it is a fabrication, and failed to mention that that is EXACTLY what private insurance companies used to do: have a panel that decides who gets what treatment and for how long.  He says that private insurance companies can do the job more efficiently and provide a better product; or, at the very least, should be allowed to compete.  Well Romney, they CAN compete and they HAVE failed to do the public any good.  That is in the law though.  They are involved in the competition.  We just have new ground rules designed to PROTECT the consumer from predatory capitalism.  Private insurance companies make their profit by picking and choosing who they will cover.  Not everyone has the luxury of 'shopping around' for that very rare private insurance company that is both affordable and willing to cover someone with a serious illness or preexisting condition.

I think my favorite part of the evening, and by favorite I mean the part that made me the most angry, was when Obama allowed fuck-nut to quote (and mischaracterize, by the way) the constitution at him.  Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.  He knows what is in the fine print Romney AND he understands how that 'living document' has changed over the course of our nation's history.  The problem is that Obama seems to suck at debates.  He fails to latch on to the weaknesses in his opponents words and pummel him/her with them.  How he can continue to operate this way after having spent the last four years getting an education in the school of International hard-knocks is beyond me.  That pompous windbag (Romney) exposed himself as a liar and a moron last night and Obama failed to capitalize again and again.  When someone as insidiously detached as Romney tells you that "you don't understand what you are talking about" then you MUST crush him.  If you allow that to linger then idiot talking-heads, like Tom Brokaw, will come on and announce that Romney won the debate.  It takes a special kind of mental midget to watch that debate and come away thinking: "hmmmm.  I think Romney won that one."  Infuriating.  

If Romney wants to talk about State sovereignty then Obama needs to set him straight.  The Federal government has been making up for State budget shortfalls for years and years.  Of COURSE the Federal government attaches 'provisos' to the money they send to the States.  States have shown over and over that they are incapable of adapting efficiently and effectively to the changing needs of their populations.  States are no more able to deal with the vast spectrum of issues facing them, in a way that is equitable and representative of their population, than a private insurance company is capable of, on its own and guided by the 'Market', doing the RIGHT THING by their customers.  If Romney wants to blame Obama for the lack of progress in Washington, and more specifically, for the fact that Republicans have steadfastly refused to participate as adults in our national debate, then Obama needs to inform Romney that he clearly has no fucking clue how our Government is structured and who performs what role.  Obama has bent over backwards, and alienated the far left of our party in so doing, to work with those clowns.  What good did it do?  The Republicans made their top political priority, and I quote:  "making sure that Obama is a one-term president."  If you still think a Republican president who is as slimy and stupid as Romney is a good idea then I am not going to try to convince you otherwise.  You are operating in a realm well beyond my capacity to comprehend (because it doesn't make sense).  Good god and good grief.

BB

 

Conservatives: In a Nutshell

I have often suggested that conservatives are either: mean, selfish, or ignorant (or some combination therein). Some of my friends insist that I include 'religious' in this list. But i argue that 'religious' was already addressed with the 'selfish and ignorant' categories. Monotheism is not good at sharing (opinions on right/wrong, cosmological outlook, etc.) and it truly requires an act of enormous will to continue to claim that there is something watching us (Ignorance). Now, I am not claiming that all religious people are ignorant and/or selfish. I have met plenty of non-denominational folks that are very willing to admit that they are not 100% certain that their particular brand of belief system is the ONLY way to go. I also don't wish to simply supplant religious cosmology with the scientific method. I will say, however, that I prefer inquisitive minds to closed minds.

Christopher Hitchens - God is not Great

Given Mr. Hitchens' recent death and my overwhelming sympathy for those that would stand in the face of religious zealots and ideologues, I have decided to read one of his more recent works. I am going to respond to his writing as I go through it. I think it is a novel way to 'take notes' on this book (and author) in a format that will allow for discussion (at least I will participate in the discussion...).

I am only 40 pages in to this book but I already have questions that I would have liked to ask. First, Mr. Hitchens spends a good bit of time outlining why he distrusts organized religions; particularly monotheistic religions. One of his many gripes about monotheism is its insistence on being "the only true form of worship" and/or "right." Given that there are three primary 'western' monotheistic religions it would seem that this assertion, in and of itself, should be viewed as illogical. First, no one has any way of knowing for sure (false pretense). Second, that statement is decidedly of the 'poisoning the well' variety. Third, if one group is legitimately correct, then the others are incorrect. Given that we have already stated that the premise of the argument can not be valid we can assume that the argument and/or conclusion is also invalid.

It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument.

(Information found at: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)

Why it doesn't strike 'true believers' as odd that so many others can disagree with their assertions is beyond me. Obviously they just assume that the 'other' is either misled, crazy, or stupid. Maybe they just aren't used to thinking.... Anyhow, I got off my main issue. What I have to say to Mr. Hitchens, or rather, what I would like to have asked, is this: If you get all worked up about these believers claiming to 'know' that there is a god, then why do you oppose this view with an equally unverifiable position (i.e. "There is no god,"). Claiming to be an atheist means that you have determined for yourself, and to your own intellectual satisfaction, that there is NO god. How can you do that without falling prey to the very same logical fallacies that so hinder the 'true believers' argument? I too am an atheist, but I would like to couch my atheism as an uncertain and fluid stance. Not that I fear the consequences if it turns out that I am wrong, because I don't. But because I can not possibly offer any persuasive argument that would justify categorically denying that there is not and/or can not be a god. I simply do not know. Therefore I will not make any bold universal claims to anyone other than myself (and my close friends). Some would say: "Well that makes you agnostic." I would disagree. I do not sit on the fence on this one. I have made up my own mind. Here is the thing: I am willing to apply the scientific method to my thought process and belief system (such as it is). I will continue to assert that I do not believe there is a god because if I did not then I would be intellectually dishonest. However, I will also be open to the possibility (an infinite possibility, given that knowledge seems to be infinite) that I can be wrong. I have been wrong in the past and I will be wrong again in the future. To that end I guess one could safely say that I am a critical atheist.

My second question would be why Mr. Hitchens, and so many other intellectuals, despise multiculturalism so vehemently. To be fair to Hitchens he did preface his statement by referring to 'empty-headed' multiculturalism. If he is limiting his beef with multiculturalism to those that pursue it in a hollow-headed and uncritical manner then I agree with the statement that follows. If he is simply saying that ALL multi-culturalists are empty-headed then I would have to ask him some pointed questions. For example: If you genuinely reject multiculturalism then what concept of collaboration/co-habitation would you advocate? One can not change the fact that the world is filled with multiple cultures that have their own distinct way of looking at the world without genocide (or allowing a HUGE amount of time for cultural evolution to occur, thus ultimately producing one shared Earth culture). So why argue against a school of thought that advocates the "live and let live" approach? I understand that being so dedicated to the ideals of multiculturalism that you commit cultural suicide (i.e. allowing one culture to destroy another simply because that is their cultural prerogative) is absurd. I would never take my views on mutual existence so far that I would allow my own culture to be eradicated. That would go against human nature (survival instinct). I will, however, continue to argue that we must be able to adjust to our differences in a way that allows for the existence of DIFFERENCES!!! Again, I would not stand idly by while one culture (or race, or ethnic group, or whatever) wipes another culture off the face of the earth. But I will continue to believe that we have a moral obligation, given the 'globalized' nature of our current era, to allow for cultural divergence.

Uncertainty can create paralysis when it is allowed to run rampant. I do not suffer from this affliction. I have my certainty, but I am also willing to entertain the notion that I could be wrong. If you want to simplify this and label it just a fancy version of uncertainty, then that is fine. I genuinely believe that it is a fairly reasonable position to take, given that I don't genuinely have any answers.

Hayduke Lives On!!!

"The eco-warrior does not fight people, he fights an institution, the planetary Empire of Growth and Greed. He fights not human beings but a monstrous megamachine never seen since the days of the Late Jurassic and the carnivorous dinosaur. He does not fight humans, he fights a runaway technology, an all-devouring entity that feeds on humans, on all animals, on all living things, and even finally on minerals , metals, rock, soil, on the earth itself, on the bedrock basis of universal being!"

Rule 1: Nobody gets hurt. Nobody. Not even yourself

Rule 2: Don't get caught

Rule 3: If you do get caught you're on your own. Nobody goes your bail. Nobody hires a lawyer. Nobody pays your fines.

Rule 4: The eco-warrior forms no network, creates no club or party or organization of any kind. He relies on himself (or sometimes herself) and on his/her little cell of two or three, never more.

Objective: "The point of his/her work is to increase their costs, nudge them toward net loss, bankruptcy, forcing them to withdraw and retreat from their invasion of our public lands, our wilderness, our native and primordial home."

- Edward Abbey, Hayduke Lives!