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.

Still alive.

I thought I'd put up a little post to let everyone know I'm still alive. Looks like things haven't changed much since my last post, other than it appears right on track. Not sure if the Dems will take back both the House and Senate, but a big swing is already gaining momentum. I may write something in the near future about the Geneva Convention issues and detainees.

Topping the hill

It seems that the right has pushed hard enough to upset the balance people like to maintain. I consider myself a fairly moderate liberal. A majority of the people in this nation consider themselves moderate. The scales have been pushed farther to the right most are comfortable with, and it very well could show up as soon as the elections for 2006.
Tying into the last post, SD's governor actually did sign that bill into law, and it will take effect this summer. Of course there are going to be challenges to it in court, and we all know it will end up being heard before the Supreme Court. I honestly think that the high court will strike it down, and keep with the previous ruling in Roe V. Wade. A considerable majority of the population is in the middle of the debate, neither believing that abortion should be unrestricted, nor believing it should be banned. This law goes to one extreme of the debate, and I don't know one person I've talked to since this law came up that agrees with it (most people get hung up on no exceptions for rape or incest). I myself am not on the extreme of the liberal end. I think partial birth abortions should be banned, with an exception for the life and health (dire health) of the mother. The backlash if this law were upheld would be considerable, pushing the country farther to the left (I think abortion ban laws would be repealed in some of the states that are considering them, as more moderate representatives would be elected).
Back to the more general balance of the scales. Bush is done for. He is finally starting to pay the price for his bad judgment in going to war in Iraq. Face it, if you convince the nation and the world you are going to war for a set of reasons, and those reasons you are pushing are questionable and even false, then you're going to pay for it later. Hmm, let's review the reasons stated previous to going to war (making the case). 1. WMDs; acquiring and stockpiling WMDs since the first world war. 2. Acquiring material for nuclear weapons; aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium, and uranium from Nigeria. 3. A direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. All three assertions have been proven false, and now he is dealing with that fallout with very low public support numbers.
It is getting so bad that even his own party is distancing itself from him. This means that the rest of his second term will pretty much be useless as he will have trouble passing anything through Congress. I could go on and on about other issues, wiretapping, etc, but my point is made, so we'll leave that to another day.