Why I'm Starting to HATE the Republicans!

Even though I am (tentatively) a registered member of the GOP, I'm really starting to hate Republicans!  Why?  Because they're a bunch of pansies - that's why!! 

Think about it... when the Democrats were in power, they rammed through health care, they rammed through stimulus, they stuck to their ideology in spite of public opinion, in spite of the ramifications (which were all too real.)   Many of them lost their jobs over it, but they felt that this was the opportune time and they weren't going to miss it.  And now, for better or worse, they may not have their jobs but they have a legacy.  Health care is law!  Stimulus is spent!  When the liberals had a chance to advance liberalism in government - they took it!  In short, the Democrats had the balls to put ideology before re-election.

Now take the Republicans...  Voted into office vowing to stop debt, reduce spending and shrink the size of government, and---with the debt limit hit---given the perfect opportunity to do just that, what do they do?  They immediately start to cave!!  They're knocking each other over trying to come up with new ways to compromise with the Democrats!  They're offering plan after plan that all end up raising the debt ceiling when they have, in their hot little hands, the silver bullet to kill the government debt beast!!  All they have to do is nothing.  All it would take to stop debt, reduce spending and shrink the size of government is for the Republican controlled House to stick to their guns and refuse to raise the debt ceiling no matter what.  If they were true conservatives, they'd ignore the "impending doom" stories of government default and bad credit ratings, ignore the opinion polls, ignore everything that contradicts their conservative ideals and just take a principled stand for cryin' out loud!

If the Republicans in the House stand their ground, the government would not default, nor would it shut down, it would (get this) be forced to prioritize spending to exist on the $200+ billion that comes in every month.  The debt would (by law) be paid first - so there's no danger of default.  Social Security, the troops' salaries and Medicare could be paid next - so that part of the scare tactics melts away also.  And then---with what's left over---the rest of the government gets paid for on an "essential services only" basis.  Budgets would have to be slashed.  Agencies would be discontinued.  Government would shrink down to a manageable size that makes sense.  Isn't that what conservatives want?  Why then the rush to throw away the advantage and just give up?

Come on Republicans - get some balls!!

J.Lo Hints at Divorce... Stock Market Reacts!

Why do news organizations constantly report some random news story then follow it by saying "the stock market reacted to the news in such and such a way" - as if the two events are connected?  Who decides what news causes the stock market to react?  If the Obama administration decides to have a press conference on debt, does that cause a bunch of random traders to go "I need to buy some Dell stock"?  How can anyone say the entire market reacted to some news story?  Who decides such things?  How do they know it's not something as random as J.Lo hinting at divorce?  I mean really.

Is it Time for a Libertarian President?

I think so.  Yes.  The Republicans had their shot with the middle-of-the-road, compassionate conservative, George W. Bush and the debt rose and government got bigger.  Then the Democrats gave us their messiah, the Marxist/Leninist, throw-money-at-everything, government-is-the-solution, Barack H. Obama and the debt rises and the government gets bigger.

Now, even the Republicans are waving the white flag when it comes to the debt ceiling saying things like "we have to raise it" - as if it was a moral imperative to saddle our grandchildren with more debt just to keep their careers afloat.

Meanwhile, Libertarian candidates for President (on the Republican side) Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only ones saying "NO!" to more debt. 

We've tried the "radical middle" Republican way, we've tried the "radical left" Democrat way, why not give the "radical right" a shot?

A Fool's Philosophy

So, I'm having this ongoing conversation with "Thought Provoker" in my Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas thread and I'm trying to explain to him how you must counter philosophical arguments by disputing the premises or by showing that the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises.  Now Thought Provoker (like most atheists) doesn't have much use for philosophy, so he brings up the following "philosophical" argument and then challenges me to "try to prove my premise is false or that my conclusion doesn't follow the premise".  So here goes...

Premise - I think, therefore I am.

The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality.

Conclusion - whatever I conclude is correct.

So let's examine this one statement at a time:

"Premise - I think, therefore I am."  First off, this isn't a premise, it's a conclusion based on a condition - one frought with unintended implications.  "I think, therefore I am" implies that thought is necessary for existence, and that "whatever doesn't think, doesn't exist".  Perhaps he didn't mean it that way though.  Perhaps our friend Thought Provoker just meant that thinking is evidence of existence?  So, when he says "I (Thought Provoker) think, therefore I (Thought Provoker) am" he's essentially just saying "I (Thought Provoker) exist".  Well, since I know he exists, I'll grant his first premise:  "Thought Provoker exists".

Thought Provoker's second premise then is: "The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality".  Well, not in a rational universe it isn't.  In a rational universe, truth is demonstrable.  If someone gets drunk and sees pink elephants in the room, the rest of us can be sure that he is delusional.  That's because, in a rational universe, just because he sees pink elephants it doesn't mean those elephants are actually there.  We can see that there are no pink elephants in the room and we know from biology that pink elephants don't exist (unless painted that way).  However, in an irrational universe, truth is not demonstrable.  We can't know, in an irrational universe, whether there really are pink elephants or not.  That's because, in an irrational universe, everything can be true and nothing can be true (remember it's irrational!)  So Thought Provoker's second premise is only true in an irrational universe.

So what of his conclusion: "whatever I conclude is correct"?  Well let's restate his argument and see if the conclusion logically follows:

"I (Thought Provoker) exist in an irrational universe, therefore whatever I conclude is correct."

Wow!  What do you know?  His conclusion does follow from his premises!

Why I'm for the Legalization of Marijuana (maybe)

I've heard lots of arguments pro and con today on the bill introduced in Congress by Barney Frank and Ron Paul to allow the states to legalize marijuana without federal interference, so I thought I'd throw my two cents out there.

I think the best argument for the legalization of marijuana is not the civil liberties one, nor is it the "it's only fair" argument.  To me, the best argument is that it takes money out of the hands of the drug cartels and puts it into American coffers.

In the 1920's America experimented with prohibition - the illegalization of alcohol - and all it did was make gangsters richer and make average citizens criminals.  It's the same today with marijuana.  Back then, once the country wised up and re-legalized alcohol, the gangsters got out of the liquor business and had to find another source of revenue (for most it was drugs.)  So (the argument goes) let's legalize marijuana and give today's gangsters one less source of revenue.

It's a powerful argument - one that almost has me convinced!

 

Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas, (arguably Christianity's foremost intellect since the apostle Paul), famously submitted five proofs of Gods existence.  (See Article 3. "Whether God exists?" here)  Of the "Five Ways", my favorite - and the one most relevant to ID - is the Fifth Way.

In Aquinas' own words:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

What Aquinas is saying here, put simply, is that:

A) We observe in nature, things with no mind or intelligence, acting as if they have intention, purpose or goals.

B) It is a truth that only a being with a mind can truly have intentions.

C) Therefore, an intelligent being must be responsible for the intentionality we observe in nature.

There, in just a few sentences, Aquinas submits a rational proof that all of nature is intelligently designed!  There is no need to argue, as most ID proponents do, that it is complexity and sophistication in nature that requires design.  No, to Aquinas; even the rocks cry out "Design"!  And this is true of nature everywhere we look!  Everything we see, everything made of matter, has bits and particles within it whose job seems to be simply to maintain and sustain that very thing that they are a part of.  There is absolutely no materialist explanation for this.

It's a beautiful thing.  What's more, if one understands the full implications of Aquinas' simple proof, the designer must itself be outside nature.  You can't cite nature to explain all of nature - so the explanation must be something separate from nature.  Hmm... an intelligent being outside nature... I wonder who that could be?

Which leads me to the other attractive aspect of Aquinas Fifth Way: the fact that it points explicitly to God - not some other being who "may or may not be" God (as ID theory is so fond of saying.) 

It's refreshing to be able to unequivocally say that all of nature (not just the complex stuff) is designed and that this designer must be God.

The further implications of this is that it reduces questions of evolution and abiogenesis strictly to scientific inquiry.  Whether or not nature can produce a lifeform from non-living material has no implications philosophically or theologically.  Either way, God was behind it.  The same goes for the evolution of new biological types.  It's all design, all the way down.

More on the Debt Ceiling

Ever notice how nobody tells us what would really happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling?

We hear constantly how the US is going to "default on its obligations", but no one explains how not raising the debt ceiling means automatic default.  I have to believe that the US government can continue to pay the interest on its debt (yes, that's all we're obligated to pay - if you can believe it!) out of the measly $250 billion we take in in tax revenue per month.

What's more, if we are constitutionally prohibited from borrowing any more money, we will be forced to get our financial house in order.  Our government would have a mandate to live within its means (well, its means plus $14.3 trillion of debt) and would have to make tough decisions about which programs are essential and which are not.  It would seem that any small government conservative politician would recognize this and steadfastly refuse to vote to raise the debt ceiling - no matter how deep the spending cuts proposed!  It seems, however, that---while any small government conservative knows this---the "small government conservative" politicians are having trouble with the concept.

We really need to watch this debate in the upcoming months and voice our opinions to our elected representatives about the foolishness---the fiscal suicide---of taking on any more debt as a nation.