Denying clear science in the face of overwhelming evidence, while embracing a creator that he “knows”, should be grounds for immediate ineligibility for the White House. It’s that simple.

Dr. Paul is brilliant in many ways. I thoroughly commend both his passion and his integrity, and I think his comments on the flaws of the U.S. financial system are spot on. But he is so completely illogical in a number of areas of abortion, evolution, etc. (for religious reasons, mind you) that despite his areas of brilliance I couldn’t possibly support him for any position with wide-ranging powers. ::

If he still hasn’t come through on his major promises after his first two years, or given solid explanations of why he’s changed position, then we can call foul and level charges of hypocrisy. I’ll be right there with you.

But until then let’s be realistic about how much radical change a single person can impose in a few short months–especially during a financial crisis and while running two wars. ::

• Divorce
• Teen Births
• Porn Use

…are Republican (red) states.

I think the center column is particularly telling; the almost solid block of red at the top is a clear indication that “abstinence” and “sex is dirty” is a bad way to raise sexually responsible children.

Image from The New York Times

This is pretty convincing evidence that the conservative doctrine of repressing natural human desires is counter-productive to producing positive outcomes. ::

For a couple of weeks now I’ve had a strong suspicion that the narrative we’ve been sold in the west, i.e. the election was stolen from the left-leaning masses, is faulty.

Keep in mind–I want that to be true, so we can fight “the good fight”, turn our Twitter avatars green, and feel good about the situation. But a logical, unemotional analysis of the facts yields a completely different, and simpler, explanation:

Ahmadinejad won because he was vastly more popular–just not with the type of people we want to identify with in the West.

There is much evidence of this, actually. A Washington Post national opinion poll taken just three weeks before the election show Ahmadinejad winning by over 2 to 1.

Read that again. 2 to 1. Less than a month before the election.

So here’s what I think happened: the the supporters of Mousavi are predominantly upper-middle class. They are the most liberal and the most forward thinking. The young also favor him overwhelmingly. And guess what goes with liberal and forward-thinking youth?

1. Technology
2. Social Media
3. Blogging

i.e…vocal opposition.

In other words, the majority of the country is still old-school conservative. They are the Bush/McCain supporters of our country in 2004/2008. So while the world was watching, and hearing the digital voice of the Mousavi/Obama camp (because they’re the ones tweeting and posting blogs), it was the silent, conservative masses that swayed the election.

The subsequent cry of fraud is little more than redirected anger at the fact that their country is still too backward to embrace change. It’s like the frustration of the Kerry supporter who campaigned for him for eight months and gets asked in a Canadian bar after Bush won the second time, “Any country would elect Bush is a bunch of morons.” It’s a bad feeling, and that’s what we’re seeing from a disappointingly small subset of Iranians.

In short, I refuse to believe the progressives in Iran had the election stolen just because it feels better to believe that. True progress can only be made when we embrace the truth–no matter how uncomfortable it may be. And that truth is that there are still many, many Bush/Ahmadinejad supporters in the world. ::

[ 2009-06-28 : A number of people have pointed out that the polling data revealed roughly 50% undecided, and 14% refused to answer. This removes much of the force of the "2-to-1" findings. I remain persuaded by an Occam's razor analysis, however, i.e. it makes more sense to me that many more people were conservative then they let on vs. an 11 million vote fraud. Still, I could be wrong. ]

Here’s an interesting, alternate explanation of what’s currently taking place in Iran. Sadly I think my knowledge of Iran is too shallow, and perhaps the country is too opaque, for me to be able to either fully endorse or discredit this narrative.

A key point that I did know, that most don’t, is that Iran had a real democracy back in the 50’s, and it is widely known that the United States over-through it. We removed their democratically elected representative and installed a dictator who killed many and stifled free thought and expression–all in the name of U.S. interests. So there’s some history here with the U.S. telling the Iranians how to run their government and treat its people.

Then you have some pretty startling evidence (which needs to be vetted, of course) in the form of poll data taken before the election. According to this article, Ahmadinejad was way ahead in a legitimate poll in the weeks leading up to the election.

This would go well with a horrible feeling I’ve had since the election, which is that Ahmadinejad could have actually won because the country turned out to be a lot more conservative (and backward) than they realized. And much of the resulting anger from the young progressives was at that more than the legitimacy of the results. It’s a disturbing possibility.

Anyway, I would love to hear from anyone who does have some additional knowledge or insight on the matter. This event will no doubt be discussed and written about for decades to come, as a pivotal part of U.S.-Iranian relations. ::

(thanks to an anonymous reader for the link)

[ Before anyone comments, I want to mention that I'm aware of the fact that this website sometimes has some pretty questionable stuff on it, but I like entertaining all theories from all sources if the argument and evidence seems compelling enough. ]

Links

[ Are You Ready for War With a Demonized Iran? | vdare.com ]

I post this for one reason–to show how real this revolution in Iran is. Millions of people are saying they’re willing to die for a more free government, and too many of us in this country are going about our lives as if it were not even happening.

Watch. See. Feel.

As I’ve tweeted about a couple of times, I’ve put up a tor server to hopefully help those in Iran get news out. It’s very little, but it’s something. ::

But I give Christopher Hitchens more credit. The way he did it was with all the trappings of an interrogation. He was strapped down. He was blindfolded. It was scary before it even started.

Mancow was able to control everything, including where the towel was placed over his face. Still, he did it and I give him props for that. But Hitchens has my utmost respect.

Here’s Hitchens doing the same thing:

All I want for Christmas is Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney on that demonstration table. ::

1. There is no supernatural origin of free will.
2. All human action is the product of the interaction of a finite number of variables.
3. These variables are determined by combining genetic potential (nature) with the environment that interacts with that potential (nurture).
4. Humans do not control their own genetics.
5. Humans do not control their environment.¹

So, if a criminal stands before you with poor intelligence and a poor upbringing (limited educational opportunities, negative role models, etc.) which one of these variables is his fault?

Neither.

And if neither of those variables are under his control, and no supernatural interference is present to provide free will, then how can anyone possibly be held responsible for their actions–good or bad?

The answer is that they cannot. In truth, neither heroes or villains deserve credit for their actions. It is a deterministic² combination of variables that creates the world we live in, and the mature thing to do as a society is to realize this and take action accordingly.

What action you ask? Intelligently, and humanely, control the variables.

A Possible Implementation Model

Given this information and a society advanced enough to embrace it and act upon it, I believe a separation of missions is necessary within the effort. First off, I don’t expect anything this advanced in approach to exist for many decades and/or centuries, and at that point I hope government will be a lose collection of individuals that is organized in such a way that they have little to no incentive to be selfish in any way. Kind of like weekly overseers elected by the masses who have nothing in mind but altruism.

Yes, it’s fantasy, but bear with me; I don’t want to get caught up debate over government corruption.

1. The first arm of government would be dedicated to enhancing the quality of humanity. This would include the elimination of disease, the promotion of peace and prosperity, the improvement of education programs, and possibly the engineering of our genetics to eliminate negatives and/or accentuate positives ³.

2. The second arm of government would be in charge of keeping negative, violent, and dangerous elements of humanity out of the general society. So murderers and rapists and other criminals would be isolated and kept from impacting society further.
   
   This will be controversial, as it may include strategies such as forced environment change (not necessarily prison, however) and even extreme measures such as sterilization to prevent the propagation of uncontrollable causes of negativity.

The key is that these two arms of government would supplement each other. The first group would operate as if humans were completely benign and in need of help, and the second group would operate as if the main society was to be protected from unfortunate genetic or environmental variables. And the first’s mission would be to rescue those being isolated by the second.

Finally, there would be a third, overseer group, made up of the noblest and smartest among the society, that oversees both arms. This would keep the first group from getting too powerful and prohibiting the second group from doing what’s best for the whole. And it would prevent the second group from getting too powerful and going on some sort of “genetic purity” bend that tries to take us to a Brave New World, or worse.

The most important thing in all of this is that both efforts are required to maintain a healthy society, and that it’s difficult to find people who understand and accept the need for both. Most people are on one side or the other and see the other side as either weak or evil.

Again, the three pieces:

1. Accept that physics ultimately guides our lives.
2. Take steps to keep negative elements out of society.
3. Simultaneously work to elevate those we are isolating.

Thoughts?

Notes

¹ One does have the appearance of free will all throughout life, and hence appears to have control over their environment as well. But the ability to change anything in one’s life depends on the current variables present in the brain at any given decision point, and these are still bound by genetics + environment up to that point in time. Thus, all decisions are still deterministic. The ability to change one’s environment is an illusion.

² I use deterministic in the weak form here, as I am not addressing the realm of randomness at the quantum level. In other words, the outcome might not be knowable, even with all the variables, due to randomness, but since no part of the decision is actually coming from the human separate from the combination of variables within them, the outcome is deterministic relative to the human actor.

³ No, not like Brave New World–more like we are trying to do now. Isolating and eliminating genetic defects that cause disease and such. The moral discussion that surrounds both elimination of flaws and enhancement is extensive, but suffice it to say that it should be handled very carefully, with a supreme respect for the dangers that can come from going too far.

[ 2009-05-21 : Edited my language on government to avoid major tangents seen in the comments ]

But there are a few issues that I flatly dislike Obama’s stance on:

1. The Drug War: His flippant dismissal of an honest question about legalization of cannabis was more than disappointing–it was insulting. His choice is the Bush method, evidently: throw more guns at it.
2. Fines for File Sharing: He sided with the RIAA on this one–$150K per song, I understand.
3. Where’s the transparency into bills he promised?
4. Since when is 35-50K troops a pull-out? [Iraq]
5. Nearly every expert agrees that Afghanistan is an impossible task. Why continue on that path?

Doing so looks to people like me like you’re selling out. Don’t do that. Don’t sell out. ::

Perhaps the reason the rich backed Obama is because enough of them finally realized that the progression of the whole is essential for their progression. In other words, helping others is not just charity, it’s also self-defense.

Self-isolation isn’t an option for the rich and educated–at least in the long-term. It’ll only lead to further divides and then their position of power being removed by force.

If you want to see where the real power is, look to who who’s multiplying the most. Unless the ruling class has the power to commit genocide or use tactics that divert attention completely away from the wealth gap, the time the rich have to live on top is limited.

The ONLY real solution is to elevate the masses to a level of education, intelligence, and comfort that will prevent them from hating those who have what they don’t. Anything else is a temporary buffer solution prior to revolution. ::

So it appears that Rush Limbaugh has stepped up and, by default, become the new spokesperson for the Republican party. When those who dislike Rush first hear this, they tend to cringe. But for those who oppose the neocon agenda, this is quite good news.

Why?

Because when Rush is on stage, speaking for the Republican party and fully intoxicated with self-love–he’s going to slip up and act like himself. And that’s what we want.

The only thing that can possibly hurt the neocons more than Rush Limbaugh with a microphone is Rush Limbaugh with a TV camera. If he’s seen to represent the Republicans in any way he’ll turn so many moderates against the GOP that all they’ll have left is a small subset of angry white males over 45.

So, yeah, the new strategy should be to put the camera on Rush, tell him he’s important, and just let him talk. ::

So, regarding support for Obama (and his plan):

• If they support him and he succeeds, they fail.
• If they oppose him and he succeeds, they fail.
• If they support him and he fails, they fail.
• But if they oppose him and he fails, they succeed.

We welcome this economic stimulus package. I think it’s terrific and will help us,” the California governor said. “We were happy even though there’s…people complaining. It’s not what they envisioned, but what is? The people will give you 1,000 different answers.

“It was Obama that got elected. He put the package together, so let’s support it,” he also said.

People keep talking about economic recovery, and it’s time to pause and reconsider. The way people are framing success is to recapture our previous activity as an ideal. This is insanity, as this is the exact behavior that caused the problem in the first place.

Our problem isn’t that we’ve fallen from a good place and that we need to get back; the problem is that we’ve been telling ourselves that a bad place was a good one.

If you’re 19 years old with a rich family and unlimited credit cards, and you run around collecting debt, failing to save, and generally living way above your means–there will come a time when reality will stop you. Your parents will cut off your credit and people will start calling for what you owe them.

America is that kid.

So, once you’ve wrecked your car, and are sitting in the hospital with a pile of bills, the answer is precisely not to figure out how to get our credit line back, or how to get re-invited to those crazy parties. No, the answer is to grow up and find another way to entertain ourselves. Stop using credit. Start a savings account. Read a book. Talk to a friend.

What America needs isn’t a stimulus package to get us back to how we were; what we need is an intervention.

Listen, buddy…you can’t live like this anymore. You’re not 17. You can’t spend money you don’t have, live like a fool, and act like there are no consequences. Grow up.

Any “stimulus plan” that doesn’t involve America learning this lesson is guaranteed to fail. A return to illusion-based prosperity will only extend our misery and make any true recovery later on (if it ever happens) that much more painful. ::

[ Scary Picture | gawker.com ]

The argument is that one should never have an abortion, even if the odds of the child having a successful life are extremely low. Why? Because one of those babies might occasionally beat the odds and become President!

Awesome argument. Unfortunately, what follows is that as a man you should never masturbate because one of the sperm you kill could have become the next Einstein. Sure, it’s true, unwanted and uncared-for children sometimes grow up and beat the odds. So what? Lots of kids who grow up being sexually molested go on to become architects; that doesn’t make it a good idea.

The concept is simple: don’t roll the dice when the odds are so far against a new life. Any pain caused to an aborted embryo is infinitesimal compared to the suffering of a child growing up feeling unloved and turning to a life of crime that hurts not only it but the society he lives in.

Clinging to that very small chance of success for such a child is a selfish act on the part of the abortion opposer, as the only thing they lose if the child becomes a criminal is a few dollars for prison costs. But for the child, and the people whose lives they hurt, the pain lasts a lifetime. ::

From the post:

The stereotype of the liberal atheist becomes untenable when it is conversely assumed that because there is a good chance atheists are leftists, there is similarly a good chance that liberals are atheists. In the US, theism continues to be the dominant position across the political spectrum. Fewer than 3% of those on the liberal side of the political spectrum describe themselves as atheists. Eight percent are agnostic, while an overwhelming 89% are theistic.

The short answer is yes–atheists tend to be a bit to the left, but most self-described liberals are still theists (because most people are theists). ::

So we’ve heard all the arguments about Republicans being strong on defense, and Democrats being weak in this area. This isn’t one of those arguments. It is true, however, that we will likely be attacked again, in the United States, as a result of Obama being President.

The reason for this is that terrorists don’t want a healer in power. Terrorists want to be hunted an oppressed; their ability to recruit and amass power feeds on feelings of unjust prosecution by the evil. So when Obama steps up and says, “It’s a new day; let’s talk.” he reduces the power of the terrorist leadership. He takes away, to a significant degree, the ability to claim that killing innocent people is the only option.

Terrorists loved Bush, and they wish McCain had won. Bush grew their ranks more than anyone before him. Sure, he did some damage to them as well, but they love to be injured by those their followers hate; it just makes them stronger.

In short, Obama’s openness and ability to reduce global hatred for the United States is a direct threat to the livelihood of terrorist leadership. As he begins making progress on his agenda there will be significantly less support for operations that harm the U.S., as we will once again be seen as a positive force rather than a negative one.

But there’s a solution for them–attack us again on our own soil. This will result in a very predictable series of events:

1. It will (falsely) vindicate Bush by showing that his actions were for a reason. In short, the sentiment will be, “Well, whatever Bush did…at least he kept us safe.”
2. This will lead to a forced, massively non-progressive swing by Obama. He’ll have no choice but to implement an approach very similar to Bush’s, which the world will hate and will lead to more power for the attackers.
3. But this won’t be enough. At the end of Obama’s term, he’ll be replaced by a “strong conservative” who can “keep us safe”. And we won’t be attacked again during his term because his backward policies (like Bush’s) will once again grow their power.

It’s simple. We’re about to be played. Terrorists need someone like Bush in charge of the United States in order to further their own goals, and attacking us during Obama’s administration is the best way to bring that about.

So keep your eyes open. Not for a potential terrorist attack (you have a better chance of dying from a lighting strike). No, keep your eyes open for the reaction to it, if it happens. Our ability, as a nation, to see through such a tactic will be absolutely crucial. ::

Many said during the elections that Obama got to where he is because he is black. They were right in one sense, but they confuse the issue.

Obama race helped him much earlier on than most people think. He was lucky to be picked from a crowd of thousands of lesser political figures who needed to be noteworthy or exceptional in some way. Obama was a black man with the same abilities as the others–so he stood out. So on that point those calling him lucky are correct.

What these people miss, however, is that Obama beat out the final candidates because he is a phenomenal candidate. He defeated them through rhetorical brilliance, a powerfully resonating message, and most of all an intelligent approachability that comes from a personality, not a race. Anyone with those tools has good chances to win.

In short, Obama’s race helped him get noticed early on, but his actually winning was a function of his intelligence and character, not his race. He needed something to get him through the initial vetting that doesn’t focus on deeper qualities, and that was, admittedly, his race. But once he was in public view his actual brilliance took him the rest of the way. ::

This is interesting stuff, and again, it syncs with my observations and expectations as well.

So, the data show us this, but data don’t say why. What is your explanation for why this is the case?

I’ve come to a simple conclusion regarding George W. Bush’s legacy. Here’s how it’ll happen:

1. Within a few years we will leave Iraq in the way that matters most, i.e. we will no longer have enough of a physical, visible presence to apply the counter-force to the country’s natural state of chaos.
2. The new Iraqi government will fragment and falter, leaving a vacuum.
3. Iraq will become a battleground for power, with various extremist groups and political figures vying for control. The entity that will end up on top is their very influential and powerful neighbor to the east.

George W. Bush will be remembered most for one thing–being the President who gave Iraq to Iran. ::