Just a Thought

I would like to be one of the first to endorse a proposition for the November 2009 ballot which would reduce the age for marriage without parental consent to 14.  As someone who has worked with high school students for 20 years, I have found them all to be bright, articulate, stable, and extremely mature people who can handle almost any situation.  If we are truly going to call ourselves a nation that supports the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens, we must take action now.

It appears Californians have spoken for a third time to preserve the rights of 14 year-old girls to have abortions.  Without this protection, children may run away from home, leave the state, or commit suicide because they are afraid of their parents’ reaction to their pregnancy.  The same is true with the love between a 14 year-old and his or her partner.  Children have left home and committed suicide over the inability to be with the one they hold so dear to their hearts.  Remember Romeo and Juliet?  Never mind that a 14 year-old cannot get her ears pierced, go on a field trip, or go to a tanning salon without parental consent, we need to protect the rights of these children to have surgery or commit in matrimony without fear of their parents.  Both matrimony and abortion are life-changing choices, yet obviously young teenagers have the ability to make these difficult decisions in a responsible manner.  Without the ability to be married without parental consent, who knows the lengths these extremely bright and mature children may leap to in pursuit of marrying the person they love.

My fellow Californians, this is the time to act.  This is the time to protect rights.  This is the time for change.  Support the rights of life and liberty for children.  Support the youth of America and their choices.  Support teenage marriages.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

As a fiscal conservative, and a believer in the power of a free market economy, I do not appreciate utilizing tax payers’ money to purchase and bail out companies.  Seizing an 80% share in AIG is a move in the wrong direction.  It is illogical to force me to pay for numerous mistakes made by AIG and other insurance mortgage brokers or to raise the dept to pay the mortgage of irresponsible homeowners (who knowing the risks involved, still signed mortgage agreements).

The founding fathers did demand that a constitutional government would, “protect the general welfare,” but we have gone way past this in the last eight years.  This latest step towards government ownership (pseudo-socialism) is disturbing and frustrating.  AIG spends $100 million dollars to sponsor Manchester United during a four year period, and now taxpayers come to their rescue?  I do not think the Fathers had this in mind.  At least we should demand the Manchester United sponsorship be changed from AIG to USA.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts, sports by strider
1 Comment »

Barack Obama said, “whether it’s Freddie Mac or some of the investment banks, at some level what you had is a situation in which investors and management at these firms were taking extraordinary risks with enormous upside when the market was good, but you can’t have a situation where you expect the taxpayers to foot the bill when times are bad.”  However, he also supports the bailout of people who speculated and bought homes with variable intrest rates.  The were investing in their homes hwoever, not in the market.  These home owners speculated just as much as investors in the market did, so why should the taxpayers bailout one group and not the other?

Tags: Politics by strider
No Comments »

Political “expert” Matt Damon has said, “I think there’s a really good chance Sarah Palin could be president, and I think that’s a really scary thing, because I don’t know anything about her, and I don’t think in eight weeks I am going to know anything about her.”

He is afraid because he does not know her.  Does he know Joe Biden?  I know Obama has not authored a major piece of legislation, is going to raise my taxes, and called a man who attacks people based on their race his, ’spiritual mentor.’  Now “that’s a really scary thing.”

He does make a bit of a valuable the point when he says he is not sure Palin can stand up to Putin, but the EXACT same thing is true of the whole Democratic ticket.  Obama is going to say niet to Putin after telling Gergia to show restraint when invaded?  Biden is going to have the political savvy to outmanuever Medvedev (who is the President of Russia, not Putin)?

The only dog in the fight who I know can push Putin and Medvedev is McCain.  Why is Damon not wondering about them?  Oh, that’s right, ‘community organizers’ deal with tough former KGB agents every day.

Tags: Politics by strider
No Comments »

Langston Hughes wrote the poem (and I memorized it in 10th grade):

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

In the best speech I have ever heard, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

As Barack Obama is hailed be the media as the first black presidential candidate from a major party, notice that Dr. King’s dream is still unrealized.  Why?  Because he is not being hailed solely for his policies, he candidacy is also being extolled for the color of his skin.  He himself never references his nomination in conjunction with his color as a reasons to celebrate, but many others at the convention and on TV did.  The Dream will not be realized until people simply say that Obama is their man because he will punish the rich by taxing them, because he told Georgia to show restraint when Russia invaded them (what would he have told Poland in 1939?), or because Obama will try to make sure government is involved in almost every facet of our lives.  Until then, and for as long as people reference his nomination as a black citizen running for president, the dream is still deferred.

Tags: Politics by strider
1 Comment »

John McEnroe has oft times asked a tennis official a question and then yelled, “Answer The Question!”  Listening to a Barack Obama interview, I have almost an overwhelming feeling yell at him, “Answer the Question!”

When asked by Rick Warren, “at what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama first says the question is outside his pay scale (not a very confidence building claim for voters).  But then he never comes close to talking about the rights of babies.  He instead talks about the rights of women.  That’s nice, but, “Answer the Question!”  Transcript for the interview can be found here.

Pastor Warren’s next question was, “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?”  Guess what?  Obama talked about respecting views, people of faith, and reducing pregnancies, but he never answered the question.

When Stuart Scott asked him on a SportsCenter interview, whether or not, as President, he would have boycotted the opening ceremonies.  Surprise!  Obama says, Well, I said very early on, I don’t want the olympics to be overly politicized.  But when a host country is violating human rights, I think we ought to say sonething.  And it would have been an appropriate statement for the President to say, ‘I will not go to the openning games unless we see some progress on the issue of Tibet.’”  So would he have gone or not.  He thinks it would be apprpriate, but he does not tell us what HE would have done.  Here is the video.

Obviously Obama does answer some questions, but most of the time he spins around the question until you forget what it was.  Do you think this will work with Putin and Medvedev?  With Ahmadinejad?  With China?  It may work with the voters, but it won’t work on them.

Obama - Answer the Question!

Tags: Politics by strider
No Comments »

They are called, “The Redeem Team,” but there should be no reason redemption is necessary.  After the controversy of 1972 and the boycott of 1980, the USA first lost the gold medal with amateur players in 1988 (the amateurs lost by 6 to the Soviets in the semis).  This marked the end of the US fielding an amateur hoops squad for the Olympics, as in 1992, the US sent The Dream Team to Barcelona for a coronation as gold medal champions.  The US also lost the Gold Medal in 2004.  The last time they won the quadrennial World Championship in Basketball was in 1994 (a drought which includes the embarrassment of 2002 coming in 6th while hosting the tournament).

My question is this, “outside of selfishness, why should the US ever lose in men’s basketball?”  Every one of the players on the US team for the past 16 years is an all-star; in fact they are so good they did not even bring the Finals MVP Paul Pierce (of the Boston Celtics) to China for the Olympics.  This is not really different than teams in the past who have not won.

Yes a ton of credit goes to Coach K for building the team into a united unit, but why does it take him to bring them together?  Where is the pride of country for our NBA players to play for the USA and to play their best for the country that has made them unbelievably rich and famous?  We are seeing it now, to a certain extent, but can they get past their selfishness to continue to play to their potential in the future?

A “Redeem Team?”  I suppose this basketball team’s mission is to redeem the past teams of being remembered for their selfishness.  But can USA basketball keep from making redemption necessary in the future?

Tags: Politics by strider
No Comments »

In his article of May 27, A Matter of Law and Rights, Richard Larsen states, “the fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. It has never been and never will be an absolute.” Larsen’s problem is he makes moral judgments throughout his article. He attacks religious people and conservatives for being, “misguided,” “part of groupthink,” tyrannical, and extremely prejudiced. If there are no moral absolutes, then from what basis does Larsen make these claims? Why are they wrong while he is right? His diatribe simply equates to writing, “go Dodgers, boo Angels,” since he is making a moral statement and there are no moral absolutes.

Larsen proclaims slavery, suffrage, and interracial marriage are examples of change in American morality. This is odd, since if he simply touts change, then we could return to racism and bondage without being wrong because there are no moral absolutes. On the other hand, if he wants to cite these as examples of moral progress, it is equally strange. If there are no moral absolutes, there can be no evolution, there can only be change. In order for progress to be made, there must be a goal. Without moral virtues, there is no goal to attain to and there is only change, not progress. Larsen also writes, “if people cannot see errors in their thinking,” but if there is no absolute morality, then what counts for errors? In fact, what would Larsen say if the 13th Amendment (outlawing slavery) was repealed? He would be unable to say it was right or wrong to do so since there are no moral absolutes.

Lastly, Larsen claims, “the will of the people stops the moment it infringes on the rights of others.” This sounds very noble, but even he admits, “just as one man’s freedom of speech stops at the door of another.” What is he trying to point out? Each person has the rights as long as they stay out of other people’s business is great, but we arrest people for animal abuse even if it takes place in the privacy of their own home. The will of the people can raise my taxes and that not only kicks down my front door, but busts open my bank.

It is difficult to understand Mr. Larsen’s (lack of) logic. He claims some people are horrible, while claiming there are no moral absolutes. He desires morals to improve, but since there are no moral absolutes, they cannot. He wants the voters to stay out of each others’ homes, yet there are evils for which he would (I assume) demand people be arrested. I do not know if Mr. Larsen is right or wrong, but neither can he if there are no overarching morals.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

In his editorial, “Misreading U.S. society,” Richard Larsen himself misreads the Pope. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a Philosopher, and Larsen not only allows his presuppositions regarding religion to cloud his arguments, but also makes logical fallacies himself. I will only touch on a few due to space, I am leaving out at least two.

Pope Benedict XVI is quoted as blaming secularism as the cause of a, “growing separation of faith from life.” Larsen translates this to mean, “secular society must always take a back seat when a religion decides its moral and social beliefs must take precedence.” In a number of ways, Larsen simply misses the point. His ‘translation’ is a non sequitur. The Pope, from this and other comments he has made, means that people should live out their faith. In other words, if Americans believe something, they should act upon it. Why would he criticize that?

The Pope is later quoted as saying, “overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness,” is one of the goals of religious belief. Larsen criticizes this as being un-American. But is it? Everyone’s belief, in a god, in humanism, in atheism, or in themselves, should be consistent with their actions. No one has the right to unbridled freedom and happiness. Besides that, to trade in your beliefs for freedom or happiness is not at all honorable.

Larsen states, “[i]f people are making choices in life that a religion feels go against faith, the fault does not lie with secular society, but with that religion.” Here, both the Pope and Larsen are incorrect, but Larsen’s view creates a straw man while Pope Benedict’s does not. Secularism may indeed contribute to inconstant living, but it is certainly no the cause. The Pope seems to put too much blame on society and not enough, from what is quoted by Larsen, on the individual. However, if an individual is living an inconsistent life, it is also not a religion’s fault. For instance, if a man believes adultery is wrong, but goes out and commits it anyway, how is that the fault of religion? Christianity made me do it? Hinduism forced me to compromise? I cannot be the fault of religion. Either way, it is still the husband who has made the choice, not religion or secularism. And, if the husband commits adultery, we also assume he has rationalized his actions or changed his beliefs.

The largest mistake Larsen makes is justifying humanity’s propensity to believe one way and act another. It seems as though all of us should seek to grow in consistency between our beliefs and our actions. Most would call this integrity or character. If I believe in atheism, then I should act consistently as I follow the outspoken leaders of my ‘faith.’ If I believe, as atheism does, that this life is all there is, then should I not act in a manner that will bring me happiness? It would be inconsistent to do otherwise. So why does Larsen promote an incongruency between beliefs and actions? I assume the writing of his editorial is in line with his beliefs. If he believes the Pope is correct and writes the article, this would be odd. I can only suppose, from reading his piece, that Larsen truly believes the Pope is wrong. At least that is the way the editor is acting.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

In the Ventura County Star, an article appears today reporting on the California Lutheran University Gay-Straight Alliance. The reasons given by some of the students at Cal Lutheran include, “To me, this is about civil rights, and it’s about acceptance and it’s about human beings being able to connect however it works for them.” But what if having four wives “works best for them?” Should we as a society say this is wrong? There has been a fairly large uproar over a sect of Mormons who believe in polygamy and in marrying off girls under the age of 18. What if that “works for them?” A number of female teachers have been in the news because they were impregnated via a relationship with a male student. If this is about connection and working for individuals, then why are these relationships criticized?

Another student claims, “I’m just really supporting people’s choices on being able to marry whoever they want.” However, in most states you may not marry your first cousin. Is that fair? What about a brother or a sister? What about your parents? If the goal is to marry whomever you want, then should they not also support these marriages as well? To push the point further, what if I would like to marry a dog? If this is how I best connect and I want to marry a dog, why should society stand in the way?

A third student claims, “If you want to call it a domestic partnership, then call it a domestic partnership for everyone, but if you want to call it marriage, then it has to be marriage for everyone.” This statement makes an equivocation error. The student believes marrying someone of the same gender is the same as marrying someone of the opposite gender. Clearly they are different activities since the genders are different. Is marrying a human the same as marrying a dog? If one holds they are not the same, then marrying someone of a different gender is not the same as well (unless discrimination based on species is justified). It is the law of non-contradiction. Marriage to someone of the opposite gender cannot be the same as marriage to someone of the same gender.

There are a number of philosophical reasons (not given here) why marriage between humans of the same gender should not be allowed, however, in this article, no good reasons are given to allow homosexual marriages.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
1 Comment »