Saturday, November 29, 2008
What Motivates Violence Against the US?
Bob Dutko and I discuss the reasons some violent Muslims attack the United States. Is it because they hate our prosperity, democracy, and religious freedom? That's what many people think. I don't. I debate the issue with Bob here.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Christian Coalition for Gamblers
An interesting description of how lobbying works in America. Why would Ralph Reed work on behalf of the gambling industry? Why would Corning Inc., normally a Republican friendly company, suddenly shift and support Hillary Clinton? Find out.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
What Are We Missing in the Outtakes
I finally got a chance to watch the movie Expelled. Much has been written about it, but I wanted to say something about the treatment of Dawkins.
It is clear that the creators wanted to make Dawkins look like a foolish villian. Their efforts were so obvious though that in the end for me it had the opposite effect.
For instance, in one brief clip Dawkins is shown taking a seat with an interviewer and he turns away looking behind himself just as the interviewer extends his hand for a handshake. It was a very brief clip and you wonder if the clip had been extended we would see Dawkins recognize that the hand was being offered finally and then go ahead and shake hands. Are the editors of Expelled really stooping to this level to make Dawkins appear rude? Maybe he really did afterwards refuse to shake the interviewers hand. I don't know. But the brief clip really communicated to me that the editors of Expelled wanted to make it appear that Dawkins had refused to shake hands, and that reflected poorly on them, not on Dawkins in my view.
Towards the end of the movie Stein interviews Dawkins and you can imagine much is being left on the cutting room floor to make Dawkins appear stupid. But even then it doesn't really work. One exchange went like this:
Stein: Suppose you had to put a number on it. What are the chances that there is a God.
Dawkins: I would say perhaps a 99% chance that there is no God.
Stein (looking thoughtful): But how do you know that?
Dawkins: Of course I don't know. You asked me what I thought and I'm telling you.
This actually made it into the film as if Stein's response makes any sense. It would be like if he asked me "What do you think the odds are that the Lions will win this weekend?" "Oh, maybe 10%." "But how do you know?"
What is that supposed to mean? You asked me what I thought the odds were and I told you. In other words, if I were told I must bet that the Lions will win, if I were offered 9:1 odds I might take it. But if a $2 bet won me $8, then I wouldn't take it.
If somehow we could determine if God exists and you told Dawkins he'd need to take the side that there was a God, he'd need 99 to 1 odds. If you told him a $2 bet would win him $98 he'd decline. In his mind the chances that he's wrong are so high that it's not worth the possible high payoff. He's not saying he knows. He's saying he thinks it's extremely unlikely that there is a God. What kind of sense does it make to say "How do you know that those are the odds?" That's nonsensical. And this is the good stuff that made it into the film.
It is clear that the creators wanted to make Dawkins look like a foolish villian. Their efforts were so obvious though that in the end for me it had the opposite effect.
For instance, in one brief clip Dawkins is shown taking a seat with an interviewer and he turns away looking behind himself just as the interviewer extends his hand for a handshake. It was a very brief clip and you wonder if the clip had been extended we would see Dawkins recognize that the hand was being offered finally and then go ahead and shake hands. Are the editors of Expelled really stooping to this level to make Dawkins appear rude? Maybe he really did afterwards refuse to shake the interviewers hand. I don't know. But the brief clip really communicated to me that the editors of Expelled wanted to make it appear that Dawkins had refused to shake hands, and that reflected poorly on them, not on Dawkins in my view.
Towards the end of the movie Stein interviews Dawkins and you can imagine much is being left on the cutting room floor to make Dawkins appear stupid. But even then it doesn't really work. One exchange went like this:
Stein: Suppose you had to put a number on it. What are the chances that there is a God.
Dawkins: I would say perhaps a 99% chance that there is no God.
Stein (looking thoughtful): But how do you know that?
Dawkins: Of course I don't know. You asked me what I thought and I'm telling you.
This actually made it into the film as if Stein's response makes any sense. It would be like if he asked me "What do you think the odds are that the Lions will win this weekend?" "Oh, maybe 10%." "But how do you know?"
What is that supposed to mean? You asked me what I thought the odds were and I told you. In other words, if I were told I must bet that the Lions will win, if I were offered 9:1 odds I might take it. But if a $2 bet won me $8, then I wouldn't take it.
If somehow we could determine if God exists and you told Dawkins he'd need to take the side that there was a God, he'd need 99 to 1 odds. If you told him a $2 bet would win him $98 he'd decline. In his mind the chances that he's wrong are so high that it's not worth the possible high payoff. He's not saying he knows. He's saying he thinks it's extremely unlikely that there is a God. What kind of sense does it make to say "How do you know that those are the odds?" That's nonsensical. And this is the good stuff that made it into the film.
Monday, November 3, 2008
An Interview with Fred Phelp's Son Nate
Nate Phelps did not embrace his father's hate mongering, fear filled version of Christianity, but tried for a time to raise his family in a more moderate way. But he realized that in the end it's tough to really do Christianity without the fear. Money quote:
The turning point was one Christmas, when Nate decided to teach his children about God. In the end, his son Tyler began crying in the backseat of the car, saying that he didn’t want to go to hell.
“He wanted to believe because he didn’t want to go to hell,” Nate said. “I was just stunned because I didn’t know what I had said or how I had left him with that fear. I thought I was doing a good job of presenting it without the fear.
“Thinking about it after the fact, I realized you can’t do that. With a young mind it doesn’t matter. You can try as much as you want to talk about how good God is, but the bottom line is there’s this intolerably frightening punishment if you don’t accept it. And how does a young mind deal with that?”
Of course, if Christians are right, then maybe we ought to be afraid.
The turning point was one Christmas, when Nate decided to teach his children about God. In the end, his son Tyler began crying in the backseat of the car, saying that he didn’t want to go to hell.
“He wanted to believe because he didn’t want to go to hell,” Nate said. “I was just stunned because I didn’t know what I had said or how I had left him with that fear. I thought I was doing a good job of presenting it without the fear.
“Thinking about it after the fact, I realized you can’t do that. With a young mind it doesn’t matter. You can try as much as you want to talk about how good God is, but the bottom line is there’s this intolerably frightening punishment if you don’t accept it. And how does a young mind deal with that?”
Of course, if Christians are right, then maybe we ought to be afraid.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama's Pro-Choice Extremism
HispanicPundit points to an article here detailing Obama's stance on abortion. So extreme it would probably take Hillary Clinton back. Disappointing.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sarah Palin: The Hannah Montana of American Politics
I got nothing against Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, The Backstreet Boys, or 98 degrees. They are perhaps half way talented people that are rich and famous. Good for them. But there's something about the way they rise that is a little irritating.
Some singers and bands become rich and famous because they are just extremely talented. Say what you will about Michael Jackson, but the guy can sing, dance, and write music. He's good. And he rose to fame and fortune because of that. Elvis earned his stardom. He wrote great music and performed it incredibly.
These manufactured bands don't really earn their fame based on their talent. Their fame is created in a board room, where Disney executives simply choose a talented person and create huge marketing on their behalf. They pay writers to write their music. They teach them to dance. They perform as directed, and become stars. Miley Cyrus can sing better than your average girl, but her fame is not so much based on her talent as it is on the decision of certain executives to make her a star. You would suspect that there are people much more talented that simply aren't known because they were not fortunate enough to be chosen by the executives. Hundreds of girls could have been just as successful as Miley Cyrus if they had been given the chance, because her success was not about her talent and smarts. It was about the marketing and song writing of people in the background. Not so with Michael Jackson, Elvis, and the Beatles. Their success had more to do with their talent, and this is why they deserve more respect.
Leaving aside the positions on the issues for a moment, consider a politician like Ronald Reagan and why he was considered presidential material. Here is a guy that looked at the issues of his day and actually pondered them. He began to form a certain philosophy about the issues. He then toured the country speaking to all the groups of people who would listen about why he held the beliefs he held. He interacted with these people in order to refine his own philosophy and come to his final conclusions. Finally, after spending years forming a philosophy and forming conclusions, he ran for president in 1976 and again in 1980 when he won. This is the type of person you are looking for. A person that has thought about the issues and come to conclusions based upon rational deliberation.
Compare this with Sarah Palin. Her interviews suggest that she really hasn't pondered many of the issues of the day. Don't worry, say her supporters. She'll be ready by inauguration day.
Really? How do you know she'll hold to the right opinions? I normally expect presidential candidates to think about things and draw conclusions based upon rational deliberation. If that is how she will do it, then how do you know she'll come to the correct conclusions? Maybe she'll conclude that talks with Iran make sense even without preconditions. Maybe she'll conclude that $800 billion in bailout money to banks that made poor decisions really isn't helpful. If she hasn't thought about the issues, then how do you know what conclusions she'll come to when she does think about the issues?
On the other hand, if she's an empty vessel that really isn't going to spend time rationally deliberating, but will simply parrot the correct lines, then in that case I suppose you can confidently claim that she'll be ready by inauguration day. But is that what we want in a vice-president?
The picture that emerges is that Palin was simply picked in a board room. Maybe Rove and Bill Kristol were present. They said "Here's a talented girl. She's pretty. She's got a great family and a great story. I bet we can market her. I bet we can write the proper lines, and when she says them the crowds will eat it up. It worked for Hannah Montana. It'll work for Sarah Palin."
I got nothing against her. She's moderately talented. But I want a candidate that has earned their status. I want a person that has already thought about things and knows why they think what they think. I don't listen to Hannah Montana. I prefer the Beatles.
Some singers and bands become rich and famous because they are just extremely talented. Say what you will about Michael Jackson, but the guy can sing, dance, and write music. He's good. And he rose to fame and fortune because of that. Elvis earned his stardom. He wrote great music and performed it incredibly.
These manufactured bands don't really earn their fame based on their talent. Their fame is created in a board room, where Disney executives simply choose a talented person and create huge marketing on their behalf. They pay writers to write their music. They teach them to dance. They perform as directed, and become stars. Miley Cyrus can sing better than your average girl, but her fame is not so much based on her talent as it is on the decision of certain executives to make her a star. You would suspect that there are people much more talented that simply aren't known because they were not fortunate enough to be chosen by the executives. Hundreds of girls could have been just as successful as Miley Cyrus if they had been given the chance, because her success was not about her talent and smarts. It was about the marketing and song writing of people in the background. Not so with Michael Jackson, Elvis, and the Beatles. Their success had more to do with their talent, and this is why they deserve more respect.
Leaving aside the positions on the issues for a moment, consider a politician like Ronald Reagan and why he was considered presidential material. Here is a guy that looked at the issues of his day and actually pondered them. He began to form a certain philosophy about the issues. He then toured the country speaking to all the groups of people who would listen about why he held the beliefs he held. He interacted with these people in order to refine his own philosophy and come to his final conclusions. Finally, after spending years forming a philosophy and forming conclusions, he ran for president in 1976 and again in 1980 when he won. This is the type of person you are looking for. A person that has thought about the issues and come to conclusions based upon rational deliberation.
Compare this with Sarah Palin. Her interviews suggest that she really hasn't pondered many of the issues of the day. Don't worry, say her supporters. She'll be ready by inauguration day.
Really? How do you know she'll hold to the right opinions? I normally expect presidential candidates to think about things and draw conclusions based upon rational deliberation. If that is how she will do it, then how do you know she'll come to the correct conclusions? Maybe she'll conclude that talks with Iran make sense even without preconditions. Maybe she'll conclude that $800 billion in bailout money to banks that made poor decisions really isn't helpful. If she hasn't thought about the issues, then how do you know what conclusions she'll come to when she does think about the issues?
On the other hand, if she's an empty vessel that really isn't going to spend time rationally deliberating, but will simply parrot the correct lines, then in that case I suppose you can confidently claim that she'll be ready by inauguration day. But is that what we want in a vice-president?
The picture that emerges is that Palin was simply picked in a board room. Maybe Rove and Bill Kristol were present. They said "Here's a talented girl. She's pretty. She's got a great family and a great story. I bet we can market her. I bet we can write the proper lines, and when she says them the crowds will eat it up. It worked for Hannah Montana. It'll work for Sarah Palin."
I got nothing against her. She's moderately talented. But I want a candidate that has earned their status. I want a person that has already thought about things and knows why they think what they think. I don't listen to Hannah Montana. I prefer the Beatles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)