Reverse Psychology Response

A friend and colleague of mine, who I respect and have a great deal in common with (just not political views), posted an entry regarding the upcoming elections and his thoughts on Obama. Normally I try to stay away from responses, but this one was irresistible. Sorry Steve. ;) His post can be found here.
I have the unenviable task at work to control the filters for incoming and outgoing email (I don't set the policies, just enforce 'em). A couple months ago, we set in place a policy to block the political spam / chain letters, and from time to time, I have to go through email to see if it's legit business or not and see much of the crap that gets caught. I've seen crap on both sides; how Obama is Muslim or the Antichrist, or McCain is racist, etc, etc. When I get the chance, I try to correct the errors when they are put forth, so here it goes...
The bullets:

• If you have no aspirations to ever be anything more than what you are right now, vote for Obama.
  - Personal opinion, I'm sure many conservatives feel this way. I happen to think that the policies set forth by Obama, like those of President Clinton will lead to a more prosperous country, therefore a more prosperous population with more aspirations.
• If you think slow-ass government should be in charge of keeping you healthy, vote Obama
  - Obama isn't for socialized medicine, just for providing insurance for those that can't afford it. How would my insurance be affected? It wouldn't, other than my employer may pay less for premiums (and so would I possibly). If I do expand my small business and make it full time, my premiums would be less, and my business would get a tax credit for providing insurance. Independent fact checkers (example) show generally that while both sides exaggerate, Obama's plan would cover more people for less or similar costs, especially in the long run.
• If you don't think you will ever own a small business and like being the "worker bee", vote Obama
  - Not sure how eliminating the capital gains tax for small businesses and start-ups hurts those who want to start a small business, both sides have many incentives for small business.
• If you have gone to school for years and years to be where you are today and don't mind that extra $7500 (if you make 250K+) being taken out of your check and redistributed to those who refuse to work for their living, vote Obama
  - Kind of odd since McCain just said this: "At a campaign speech Friday, October 24, in Denver, Colorado, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama for how his policies would impact the jobless. "Just yesterday, we received news that jobless claims increased by 15,000," McCain said. "Yet, just this week, Senator Obama announced that his plan would have a work requirement, meaning that those unemployed receive no help under the Obama plan …"
  While not totally true (Obama does provide plans to increase jobs and help those who are jobless to find them), you see my point. Yes, if you make more than $250k, you taxes will stay the same or go up (depending on how much more than $250k you make), but those cuts don't go to those sitting on their asses.
• Want your Social Security tax increased or extended? Vote Obama
  - Not a bad thing in my opinion; I'm not for privatizing Social Security. Had it been privatized, there would have been a hell of a lot of seniors in serious trouble right now. Due to their stupid investing mistakes? Sure, some, but that's exactly what Social Security was designed to prevent. Every senior can at least meet living standards. If you want more, invest to your heart's content (I know I do)!
• If you want to leave Iraq high and dry after rocking their world as they knew it, vote Obama (think New Orleans, post Katrina - Gov't assistance will just up and leave)
  - I don't think anyone is going to get left high and dry, however I do think that Iraq's government will have its feet held to the fire to get their own security forces in order. How can we deal with our own financial woes when we're pumping $10 billion per month into operations there. For comparison, 2 months would pay for Obama's education plan.
• Someone breaks into your home and threatens your family and you shoot them - you go to jail under Obama's plan. There is no self defense allowed, vote Obama
  - This is just plain false. Factcheck.org states the following:
  "NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense"
  False: Obama is proposing no such ban."
  To read more on the details of the origin of this statement, go to this link at factcheck.org
• Last: Do you really think someone who has never authored a Bill in Senate qualifies to be the leader of the free world?
  - Again a false statement. The origin of this is a Palin convention speech where she stated "But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
  Several bills he has authored:
  "Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction." - Signed into law
  "Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law." - Signed into law
  These are just some I picked out of the blue (easiest to find), notice they are all bi-partisan. There are more, some not signed into law, not to mention the many, many more he has sponsored.

On a final note, regarding the subject, reverse psychology, and the aftereffects of the election... I seriously doubt that those who have been sooo energized for the Obama campaign all this time would peter out the last day, election day. I know I won't, and my vote is pretty much useless in Oklahoma. As far as rioting, looting, the end of US civilization? No more than any other presidential election. The only ramification I fear, and most people democrat or republican I've spoken to agree; one or more assassination attempts. It's only a mild fear for me, however, seeing the issues with race, some wackos' view of him being Muslim, the Antichrist, etc; there is a definite possibility of an attempt. THEN I can see rioting, mayhem, etc coming to be.

But again, I emphasize my rosy outlook for the coming 8 years. :)

The Pendulum Has Swung

A few years back I wrote about the political pendulum and how it was, at the time, on the right side of the political spectrum. For reference: link. I didn't really expect it to swing so quickly back the other direction. I did expect a democratic president to be elected this year, but I didn't quite expect the congress to swing this far yet. There is a small possibility the dems could have a filibuster proof majority (not likely, but hey...). You read that right, I said did, as in I fully expect Obama to be elected tomorrow, not a hard one to predict. Here it is, now we have to prove ourselves. I truly believe that in the next 8 years, most everything will improve; the economy, the standard of living, the world's view of the US, and many other issues we face today. There will be bumps, but I have a rosy picture of what is to come. Happy voting!

Respect

I was preparing a post on politics, including the tone McCain's campaign has taken recently. I had lost any respect I had for the campaign, especially Palin, for the low ball tactics they have employed during the last few weeks...
I just saw a story on CNN about McCain's reaction to some of his supporters during a town hall meeting today.
It has renewed my respect for the man; not his campaign, but McCain himself. I saw the side of him I haven't seen since he entered the presidential race. Here are a few of the exchanges I saw:

McCain: "And we wanna fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments; I will respect him. And I want..."
crowd: (boooooooo)
McCain: "No. No. I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are, because that's the way politics should be conducted in America. So let's make sure..."
some in crowd: (cheers)

man: "We're, we're scared. Um. We're scared of an Obama presidency..."
(camera cut)
McCain: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."
woman in crowd: "WHAT???"
crowd: (booooooooooo)(jeering)
McCain: "Now I just... I just... Now I just... Now, now look I, I, if I didn't think I wouldn't be one heck of a lot better president I wouldn't be running, OK. And that's the point. That's, that's the point."
crowd: (cheering)

woman: "I can't trust Obama."
McCain: (nodding) "I got ya"
woman: "I, I have read about him, and he's not, he's not, he's uh, um... He's an arab.... He's not..." (she literally looses the thought)
McCain: "No ma'am, no, ma'am" (Shaking his head)
woman: "No?"
McCain: (taking microphone) "No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a, he's a, he's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on, on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about. He's not; thank you."
a few in the crowd: (clapping)

I'm not sure that's what the whole campaign is all about, as the campaign continues to use Palin and ads to tear down Obama's character, even today, but I have to give McCain credit for starting to control the outbursts and comments by some of his supporters that feed that image. Maybe he's starting to realize what kind of message these tactics have started (more on this later) to send to the moderates he needs sooo badly to win, or he is showing his genuine character that I used to see, but whatever the reason, I applaud his statements.
I realize this is somewhat out of the blue, as I haven't posted my thoughts on anything political lately, but I felt this deserved to be mentioned. It most certainly doesn't change my vote, but I do again respect McCain as a man. Senator McCain, thank you for restoring my belief that we will be better off, no matter who wins this election.

No posts so far in an election year???

It's hard to believe this is the first post of the election year, just barely more than a month before election day. Between being busy, re-organizing, and just plain being tired, I haven't posted. Actually that's not entirely true, as I have posted some political stuff on my other blog:
Here - Towards the end some stuff about the primaries.
And here - After I had chosen to definitely go with Obama, funny, never would have seen Palin coming.
Now here we are in the middle of a financial crisis, weeks away from electing a new president (sigh of relief either way), and my theological views have changed a bit (no drastic changes, so don't worry ;).
Over the next several days, I'll write posts to cover each of these topics. I'm also debating starting a new weekly post regarding theology / philosophy.
I also hope to get my family / personal and chasing sites revamped in the near future and clean up any bad links in those and my blogs.

Time once again

I've settled into my new job (it's been almost a year), and feel comfortable enough again to let my thoughts fly. For nearly a year, this blog has been invisible. I've had to think through the ramifications of keeping it up. It could come back to haunt me later, but the original reasons I started it still hold, and I still believe honesty and truth trump all other motivations. Nice to see the political pendulum is still in full swing. :)

Wow.

I'm not sure even I really expected the Dems to take the Senate too. The House I was sure of, but the Senate? The pendulum's momentum was greater than I expected, or most anyone else for that matter. How well we do in 2008 will depend heavily on how well the party stays focused on the issues and away from bashing and countering the Republicans. One result of such a big swing is that it made many Republicans realize they have lost focus, or focused on the wrong things. Rumsfeld was the first casualty of that realization (yeah, yeah, I've heard that it was in the works before the elections, but I can say without a doubt that if the elections had gone differently, he would still be Sec Def; and if Bush had done it beforehand, they probably would have). They will probably, at least for the time being, be willing to work in a bi-partisan manner.

Stirring the pot

Well, it looks like I'm finally getting around to writing a blog entry on one reason why I'm an agnostic. Warning: long blog entry. :) Quite a few friends / acquaintances have recently probed me on the question, and have all started with the same reason for believing (I think it's the most common way Christians approach agnostics in discussion, at least here in the Bible belt). So I've had to explain my position and opinion on that reason several times. What better way to deal with several queries than to write a blog entry!

The proposed reason for believing: Pascal's Wager (though most don't know the formal name). Pascal's Wager basically says that one should believe in God (in his arguement, the Christian God) because the end result of believing is always better than the end result of not believing. Basically there are four outcomes:

• One believes and there is a God - heaven
• One believes and there is no God - nothing
• One doesn't believe and there is a God - hell
• One doesn't believe and there is no God - nothing

Since the worst outcome from believing is nothing, and the worst outcome from not believing is hell, one should believe based on the possible outcomes.

Here are a couple of my issues with this reasoning:

1. It assumes, if there is a God and heaven, the only rewards and/or punishments are dictated by strict Christian theology. What if the following were true:

It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven--unless god
wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy. - Richard Carrier [ref]

That's just one of many, many conceived possibilities of how God could truly decide. It's entirely possible that God punishes blind or false faith.

2. How does one know that the Christian God is the one true God? If one does choose to believe in God based on Pascal's Wager, then they are rejecting other theologies that have similar outcomes for ones soul. So if one does choose the Christian God, and God turns out to be the Islamic God, they get punished anyway.

Basically what I'm getting at is that the four options presented in the wager are not the only four options, many others exist. With no proof or knowledge of what is actually true, there is no one religion (or non-religion, which is why I'm agnostic) that I can commit myself to.