I think I could vote for Dr. Paul

If you haven't watched the You Tube/CNN debates, you've missed out. Unlike most debates, the questions come from folks like me and you. No softballs, no audience plants. In fact, the last question asked was to Rudy Giuliani about how, as a Yankees fan, he could root for the Red Sox in the Series. (His answer satisfied me - he rooted for the American League, as I did, after the Yankees were disqualified) While we're on that topic, let me get this out of my system: The curse is over and so is my empathy for Red Sox fans. The Red Sox now occupy the bottom spot on my list, forcing the Yankees up one notch.

But on to more pressing issues. Tonight's debate cleared some things up for me. Namely, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate the Republicans could field that I'd even think about voting for. They won't field him, and, so, I won't vote Republican. Glad that's cleared up. I didn't know much about Romney or Hunter and I was curious to learn about them. I did. They're dead to me now.

Giuliani was on my list until tonight. And to his credit, he stayed there for most of the night, until he answered two questions. One was about why blacks and latinos don't vote for Republicans. Giuliani's answer indicated that they should because of what Republicans want to do with education in America. I always knew there was something I didn't like about this guy, and his answer clarified it for me. I agreed with his stance on most issues up to that point. I like reasonable gun laws. I like the fact that he doesn't really see abortion as a presidential issue, but still feels there are circumstances under which it should be legal. I like his focus on the issues at hand - crime when he was mayor, long term investments in infrastructure, and getting things done. I like a lot of things about POLITICAL (not religious) conservativism. He's a pretty good guy among his group.

But when he forced the issue of school vouchers and the non-existent alternatives to public education for the vast majority of Americans, thus pulling even more money out of an already bankrupt public education system, he lost me. This is one issue that not only affects the daily lives of many innocent Americans, but also dramatically affects our future. Public education is the best thing there is for 5-18 year olds in this country. In spite of the whining we hear from Republican candidates about how businesses have had to do more with less and therefore, government should too, both big business and government have gotten richer and richer while public schools, and the Americans who have depended on them have gotten poorer and poorer. Not only have schools still managed to gather intelligent, dedicated, creative and caring professionals at embarrassing wages to teach our kids, there is still simply no better alternative out there. Charter schools routinely close after a few years either because of corruption or because they simply can't provide the services that public schools provide for the money. Private schools exist in such small numbers that they're not even a consideration for even 10% of today's students. Even the handful of minorly successful charter ventures out there exist only for specific audiences by offering one-size-fits-all programs for narrowly targeted groups. There's just nothing better out there for the masses than public schools. And that's not because it's impossible to do, it's because public schools, by and large, are that good. No one can do what public schools do for the money. Teachers already work for embarrassing wages with embarrassing support and the Republican answer is to pull another $5000 per student OUT of that system for vouchers?! To subsidize religious schools or charter programs that haven't kept up?! It's simply not the answer. If, for one minute, America considered putting their money where their mouth is on education in this country, we'd realize that government really is good at some things. Public schools are a good example of that in education just as the Veterans Health Administration is a good example of that in health care. (In spite of CNN's week long attack on VA, it remains the best plan in America... for the record, it was even better before Bush repealed Clinton's Veteran's Healthcare Reform Act forcing VA to bring back the old WWII priority system for who received care - but that's another post) Ask Harvard... ask the NIH... nobody beats VHA health care. When we put some faith, some community involvement, and some money back into public education, no one will beat them. Few do now. Public schools are the living breathing example of doing more with less and all they have to show for it is more and more of the blame when every bit of accountability from parenting to counseling to babysitting is pushed onto them and more and more money is taken away. Never mind the fact that kids with special needs are simply not profitable to teach and so would become impossible to find a place for in the "open education market." Never mind the fact that while most of a student's money is pulled out of public education via vouchers, the public school district where that student resides is still strapped with providing that kid's transportation, books, and any costs arising from those special needs mentioned above. I'll end with some more public scrutiny on education, but let's move on.

The other nail in Giuliani's coffin was the great opportunity he had when a YouTuber asked all the candidates if they believed every word of the bible he held up in his video clip. Giuliani skirted the issue, as did Romney and Hunter (no one else answered) by saying he felt there was a lot allegory and metaphor in the book. He also added that the book contained a lot of wisdom that got him through 9/11 - a point on which I won't disagree, but that brings me to what I feel is the biggest non-issue in any election, except maybe for Pope, and that's religion.

There's simply no place for it, and thus no place for religious-based views on abortion or any other religious (non-presidential) issues in a presidential campaign. Period.

We're electing a man (or maybe a woman) to execute laws made by men, on behalf of a citizenry of men, alive on this earth. That man (or woman) has to sell himself (or herself) on the merits of qualifications for that job, not for his thoughts on the afterlife. In fact, I'm starting to be convinced that a belief in an afterlife should disqualify anyone from being a leader anywhere but in a church. And moderate religious beliefs like Giuliani's are the worst kind.

Yep. That's what I said. Let it sink in for a minute. Go ahead and go back to some old posts where I referred to God... call up the seeming contradiction... It's not seeming, it's a contradiction, although I will hedge a little here and claim that even that God I referred to in previous posts probably wasn't the one you think it is, but that's not the point here.

Religious moderation is what allows tolerance for other religions, which means those religions continue to fly under the radar of rational thought and discussion. Pick one. Let's use Islam for now. Moderate Christians who interpret their faith as tolerant of other faiths help perpetuate the divide between Christians and Muslims. There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which is 9/11... or that the bible allows very little tolerance of other faiths. Four of the ten commandments are about intolerance of other faiths... five if you count keeping the Sabbath holy (after all, it's a pretty specific Sabbath in mind there). Even the new testament calls for stoning heretics to death (and so you'll all have to line up at my door in order to follow Christian beliefs to the letter as a result of this post). Lucky for me, most Christians these days consider themselves moderate and will tolerate my opinions. Which is to say, most Christians are that only in name, not in practice. Those same people often claim that suicide bombers don't really represent the ideals of the faith they claim drove them to their acts. But it's precisely a belief in their faith that allows them to do what they do... because they believe in an afterlife at the expense of those in their current life. In other words, moderates aren't really religious; only fundamentalists are. Fundamentalists are pretty extreme and thus are seen by most moderate members of their own faith as irrational. I'm saying that moderates perpetuate that irrationality and what we need in the next elections is rationality. Back to the real point here, Giuliani, a seemingly rational guy for a Republican, had the chance to run away on this point, and he blew it. Nothing he mentioned until this question was asked had any connection whatsoever to any kind of faith, and yet, when faced with a question about it, rather than pointing out it had little to do with what any of them were talking about thus far tonight, he went with the status quo and lumped himself in with the rest of the candidates (except Paul) who said what they thought the conservative Christian right wanted to hear. Not because of any rational basis for it, unless you count belief rational, but because it polled well.

It's time to get over it. It's time we looked more at experience than religion in a candidate. The time to elect actors with minimal experience and all the right religious answers has come and gone. Sorry Senator Thompson.

Still don't buy my implication that religious faith requires irrational thought and requires the absence of rational discussion of more important actually relevant issues? Consider the British teacher in the Sudan who was arrested for allowing her students to name their class mascot, a teddy bear, Muhammad (peace be unto him)(I'm not making the same "mistakes" she did!)

As part of a lesson on animals, the class adopted the bear as a mascot. Students took turns taking the bear home overnight. They wrote a diary entry addressed to the bear by a name that they chose. Once all the diary entries were done, the teacher surveyed them and chose the most popular choice. The class named the bear and the teacher was arrested. Under the local law, she faces up to a year in prison and/or 40 lashes, from what I've read... FOR ALLOWING HER CLASS TO NAME A BEAR. That's what happens when religion influences the laws of men.

Apparently some parent complaints AFTER the naming of the bear brought attention to the crime. Where were those parents during the weeks of overnight diary entries? Why is it ok that that particular name is the most popular name for male babies in the world but not for a bear? Why was the teacher arrested?

Simple. Two reasons: 1) No rational discussion is permitted when faith enters the conversation. 2) Teachers, worldwide apparently, though I thought ours was alone in this, are at fault when anything goes wrong at any point in anyone's life.

Giuliani lost my support by perpetuating those two simple rules. Dr. Paul gained my support by effectively leaving them out of the conversation when his fellow candidates could not. I'm really starting to think I could vote for this guy... and that there's no way in hell I could vote for any of the other Republican candidates. Once again, none of my favorites will likely end up on a ballot.

I hope, for the sake of my grandchildren, there will one day be a presidential debate where these issues don't factor in. I'm reading a book about Da Vinci right now that puts human understanding into stark perspective. Poor old Leonardo was born at a time when it was believed that everything we ever needed to know had already been discovered. Five hundred years later a vast majority of Americans still operate under this belief. In spite of the gains we've made in physics, chemistry and biology, we remain frighteningly outdated in spiritual and emotional knowledge. Until we come up with a rational way to discuss these issues, we won't rationally discuss anything.

Instead, we'll tiptoe around for fear of offending anyone's religious ideas and we'll watch as religiously motivated violence continues now like it always has. 9-11, the Crusades, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan... on it goes until one of two solutions arise. 1) India-Pakistan (or any of the others) erupts into a nuclear apocalypse or 2) Rational discussion replaces the faith-based dance.

I'm pretty sure I'll love my grandchildren if or when I finally have a chance to meet them. I'm sorry for the world I fear we'll leave them. I'm glad I won't be here to see the end they'll inherit. I don't think I could face that.

In the meantime, my kids and I put up our holiday decorations tonight. That's right, we too will celebrate Sol Invictus on December 25! (By now everyone who admits evidence into the discussion knows that Jesus was born in the spring... or January, or November, right?)

At least we can all agree on Santa.

Luth,
Out.

How Much Is A Billion Dollars?

When referring to the idea that no one seems to care how much money is, in my humble opinion, being wasted in Iraq, I've alluded to the idea that few of us have a concept of what a billion dollars really is. I know I don't. I've only recently wrapped my brain about what a million dollars is, and that, largely because it ain't what it used to be. But I ran across this in the National Guard Enlisted Association newsletter in an article about the Congress's fight over the war spending supplement and thought it might be cool to pass along.

How Much Is A Billion Dollars?

---A billion hours ago, humans were making their first tools in the Stone Age.(of course, if you're a creationist, this one makes no sense)
---A billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D. and the Chinese first invented paper.
---A billion seconds ago, it was 1975 and the last American troops had pulled out of Vietnam.
---A billion dollars ago, it was only 3 HOURS and 32 MINUTES at the rate our government spends money.

On another note, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I have to go now. If my wife catches me 'blogging while we're supposed to be getting ready to head over the river and through the woods, I'm as cooked as that turkey soon will be.

Luth
Out