Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| What happened to my dreams? |
| 07.31.04 (9:37 pm) [edit] |
| As you may have noticed, Lucid Dreams has been somewhat desolate as of late. I could give you some sorry excuses and apologize for not keeping you in fresh writings, but hey, it's my blog, what's it matter to you? Seriously though, I have no inspiration for new subjects these days and little interest in the same repetitive debates. However, I do encourage you to peruse the archives here and also bring up any matters you wish to discuss. I'm not going anywhere, but I am also not likely to post on a frequent basis. |
| 21 Comments |
| Reducto's ill-fated "logic" |
| 07.16.04 (8:38 pm) [edit] |
|
In regard to a statement made in a [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]post by reducto[/url], I made this comment (well, part of a comment): [i]Finally, I'm a little confused: [/i][quote from reducto’s post][i]"they are another religion, another belief system organized around a God bigger than themselves-- the self." So, the self is bigger than themselves?[/i] This elicited this lovely response from dear reducto: [i]I know you're confused, you're always confused. It's about time to admit you're just stupid. The "Self" is an idea bigger than a person. It is embraced by the ideology of Human Secularism. It places "MAN" above all else. It makes man a God. Since man is a God, there is no right and wrong, and moral equality emerges. Still confused? I'm not surprised.[/i] So, I am hereby admitting that I am, in fact, just stupid. Hey, reducto said it- it must be true. In my stupidity, I thought that the self would be equal to those he was referencing, atheists. Actually, reducto's brilliant statement was an implication that "Human Secularists" (I'm not quite sure what that is- I would simply assume he means Secular Humanists, but you know what happens when you assume things) make themselves their own God, meaning that somehow they are under the influence of something bigger than themselves. This influence, according to reducto, is the "Self." Now, here is where my stupidity manifests itself. I can't figure out how the "Self" is bigger than the person. My dictionary, though undoubtedly inaccurate in comparison to the definitions given by reducto, states the definition of self to be as follows: "1. The essential being of 1 person as distinct from any other. 2. A particular aspect of a person. 3. Personal welfare, interest, or advantage : selfishness." Okay, so the essential being of 1 person as distinct from any other is the supposed 'God' to atheists. And this idea somehow is twisted by us atheists (yes, all of us; and we are all Human Secularists, though I still am unsure of what that is) into meaning that man is above all else. This makes us view ourselves as our own God. So this must mean that atheism is actually a polytheistic religion with as many gods as there are atheists. But that's neither here nor there. Reducto's claim, then, is that atheism makes the self bigger than the individual, and into a God. My understanding of atheism has always been simply the belief that there is no God. And I'll admit that, yes, I am still confused, reducto. The reality, however, is that reducto is simply misguided. While the argument could be made by theists that even atheists must have some guiding force that is above them, nearly equivocal to a god, it is erroneous to assert that all atheists maintain the view that man is greater than all else. This all also depends on your definition of God. Most definitions of God include an omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient being who originated the universe, and a being with supernatural attributes that is worshipped by a group of people. The lesser definition of a god (lowercase) is "Someone or something considered to be extremely valuable or important." So, sure, a person could consider himself to be extremely valuable or important. In fact, I hope that most people do. This does not, however, mean that man is above all else. And it certainly does not follow that there is no right and wrong. Morality is determined by the individual, whether that individual bases their moral guidelines on religious dogma or personal views; morality is not exclusive to a belief in God. Basing morality on the doctrines of a church results in an often false view of what is right and wrong- the individual does not determine for himself what is truly moral. However, if you contemplate morality and decide on your own what is moral, you actually have reason to act accordingly, other than the reason of fear. Right and wrong does not dissipate when there is no God, it is simply up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong, to act responsibly, and to be held accountable for his actions. Maybe reducto is right and I am just stupid. Or maybe he just has no clue as to what he is talking about. |
| 23 Comments |
| A synopsis of the Electoral College and possible reforms |
| 07.14.04 (10:21 pm) [edit] |
|
By popular demand (or by the request of mblog), here are some excerpts from a term paper on the Electoral College. Because this paper was very low quality, lengthy, and not very entertaining, I will not post it in its entirety. I'm not that cruel. :wink: But here is the basic gist for those interested: [line] …One criticism of the Electoral College is that voters in rural states are over-represented. For example, in 1998, the seven least populous jurisdictions had 21 electoral votes. Florida, whose population was three times the combined population of the seven jurisdictions, also had 21 electoral votes. Another example of how the Electoral College misrepresents voters based on population is California. "California represents only 11% of the U.S. population, but its 54 Electoral College votes represent 20% of the needed 270 votes." (ww.reformitnow.com) The current system also causes voter apathy. In states where one political party is favored by a clear majority, voters who wish to vote for the candidate representing the minority party, in effect, waste their votes because the majority of the popular vote in the state will most likely go to the candidate of the majority party, and, as a result, the state's electoral votes will go to that candidate. Another criticism of the Electoral College is that under the Constitution, electors are allowed to use their discretion, meaning that an elector could conceivably cast his vote based not on the people's will, but on his own preference. However, electors usually pledge to support a party's candidate. and there are only about seven cases where an elector did not vote for the people's choice. (Sung) Also, though the electors do represent the people's will, they are not chosen by the people, they are chosen by the political parties in each state (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska). The political parties each select a slate of electors (a group of delegates equal in number to the number of electoral votes allotted to the state) and, on the day of the general election, the voters indirectly select the slate of electors. The slate of electors for the political party whose candidate is given the majority of the popular vote in the state determines the slate of electors that are then selected as members of the Electoral College. This is not entirely representative of the people's will. The main complaint against the Electoral College is that in every state (except for Maine and Nebraska, which use a different system for nominating electors), the electoral votes are awarded on a "winner-take-all" basis. The candidate who wins a majority of the popular votes in the state wins all of the state's electoral votes. This is the reason that it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but not win the Presidency. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the people that can be blamed on the current setup of the Electoral College. ... The current system also makes it impossible for a third party candidate to get elected. The political parties generally select the members of the Electoral College, and there are no third party Electoral College delegates. Since the electors generally pledge to vote according to one of the major parties, third party candidates rarely receive any of the Electoral College votes. ... Under this system, this will always occur; no third party candidate can win the Presidency. It is mainly in this respect that the Electoral College is viewed as an archaic system. When the founding fathers implemented the Electoral College, there was no anticipation fo the profound influence of political parties and the rise of the two-party system we have today. The knowledge that third party candidates are incapable of winning the Presidency also causes voters to feel as though their votes do not matter, and if they vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with the two major candidates, they are throwing their vote away. Voter apathy is a symptom that the system is not working and undermines the democratic foundations of our country. ... The best possible solution to the faults found with the Electoral College system would be a simple reform to eliminate the "winner-take-all" outcome in each state. This has already been done in Maine and Nebraska under the Mundt-Cordier Plan. Using this plan, the statewide election result decides two of the electoral votes (the two generally allotted to the senators) and the rest of the electoral votes are determined by the result in each congressional district. Also, with the Mundt-Cordier Plan, it would be possible to reform the Electoral College without having to amend the Constitution. "A reform based on the Mundt-Cordier Plan would enhance the benefits of the Electoral College." (Ross) As long as gerrymandering laws were stricter, the Mundt-Cordier Plan, in conjunction with the Electoral College system already established, would allow for the further equalization of voter strength and also limit disputes in elections. ... Another possible option of Electoral College reform and the option that is most often discussed when dealing with the issue of Electoral College reform is pure popular vote. The main drawback to this is that it does nothing to eliminate the problems associated with the two-party system. Yet another possibility would be to allot a certain number of bonus points to the winner of the popular vote in addition to the current system. Depending on the designated number to be given, this could be a good solution, or it could be just like a direct popular election. The proposed number of bonus points was 102 (two votes for each state and two for Washington D.C.), which would more than likely seal the Presidency for the popular vote winner, unless there were extremely bizarre circumstances surrounding the election, which is highly unlikely. However, if the number of bonus votes is less than 102, it might be an advantageous addendum to the preexisting Electoral College in that it would provide for a more exact representation of the people's will by awarding points based on the popular vote. One solution to the problems involving the Electoral College could potentially have a very favorable outcome. This system would use a preferential voting method, where the voter ranks the candidates. If the candidate a voter ranks the highest is not in the majority, the voter's second choice gets their vote. The ballot would, however be very complicated and the counting process much more tedious. It would require implementing new voting machines, which would be very costly. Also, it would take away the population weight, meaning the smaller states would not want to pass it. A similar proposition would give votes on a point system based on the rankings received. For instance, if there are seven candidates, the candidate ranked number one by the voter would receive seven points and the candidate ranked last would receive only one point. The disadvantage of this would be that it would cause voters to rank not according to issue, but according to threat. A voter might rank one candidate number one based on his issues, but rank his opponent that supports the same issues very lowly in the hopes that their candidate would win. If enough of the voters did this, it would cause those candidates in the middle to receive higher ranks than they otherwise would and possibly win without a true mandate. A system of simply voting "yes" for as many candidates as you can tolerate and voting "no" for those you cannot tolerate is yet another option. This is similar to the preferential voting system, but not quite as complicated. The main drawback of this situation would be that there would be no differentiation between the candidates that are actually favored and those who are merely tolerable. But, it would allow for the voters to voice their opinion on which candidates they like without having to deal with primaries. [line]And another argument against the Electoral College lost in the middle: ...even if a candidate wins the popular vote by a narrow margin in large states, it compensates for losing the small states by a great majority. For example, if a candidate wins California's 54 electoral votes by only one popular vote, it accounts for losing by tens of thousands in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. As a result of this, the "...arithmetic of the electoral college has focused presidential elections on a small number of populous states." (Goldstein 59) |
| 6 Comments |
| Problems with Bush and his administration |
| 07.10.04 (8:16 pm) [edit] |
|
Perhaps I am exaggerating, but it seems as though there is a new issue that comes to light daily negatively portraying President Bush's Administration. Some may be fabricated, distorted, or entirely untrue, but given so many negatives, it is hard for even the top spinsters to turn it all into a positive. A few examples: * The Pentagon acknowledged today that some of President Bush's [url=http://www.columbiatribune.co...]Guard records were destroyed.[/url] This muddles the issue of whether Bush served during 1972-73, while he was concurrently working on a political campaign in Alabama. Now, the positive spin could be that just because the documents that would prove the issue were destroyed, it does not definitely show that he did not serve. Negative/reality: Bush's military record is doubtful. * [url=http://www.buzzflash.com/cont...]Ken Lay[/url]/Enron scandal: It is well known that former Enron CEO, Ken Lay, and President Bush had/have a close, personal relationship. Lay, a supporter/contributor ("During his political career, the president accepted more than $600,000 from Enron, its employees and their relatives."http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403912) to Bush, has been indicted on charges of fraud. The connection between the two Texans is at best symbolic of the influence of corporations in politics, and at worst, a firm indictment of the Bush Administration's lax policies against corporate fraud. Positive spin: Lay's indictment is proof of the Administration's intolerance of corporate abuses. Negative/reality: Bush has ties to big corporate donors, affecting political actions. * Halliburton and Dick Cheney: "While Vice President Cheney served as chairman and chief executive of Halliburton, the company acquired two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., which had signed contracts to sell oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program for more than $73 million. The military investigated Halliburton and found that it overcharged for gas it imported into Iraq from Kuwait by as much as $61 million. In March 2003, the Pentagon announced it would withhold nearly $300 million in payments to Halliburton due to the company's overcharging on food contracts. "Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company disagreed with the decision and hoped to persuade the Pentagon to drop its plans."' (taken from http://www.democrats.org/spec...) Positive spin: Cheney's involvement with Halliburton does not necessarily include any wrongdoings. Just because a person is associated with something, does not mean that they are entirely responsible for it. Negative/reality: Vice President Cheney is the former chairman and chief executive of a company responsible for wrongdoings. And, lastly in this [i][b]brief[/i][/b] list of Bush Administration controversies, the misled war in Iraq. This is obviouisly debatable, as it has been the topic of many many debates since its onset, but the war in Iraq was based on flawed intelligence, was unnecessary, and was a mistake. The first of those statements, that it was based on flawed intelligence, cannot reasonably be argued against, particularly with the recent [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...]report[/url] from the Senate Intelligence Committee stating precisely that. Prewar intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was the basis for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Had the intelligence been correct, the war still would have been unnecessary. Saddam did not pose an immediate threat and did not warrant an invasion. The war in Iraq was not urgent, and it was a mistake. Obviously, the removal of Saddam from power is a good thing, few would dispute that. However, the ramifications from leading America in the direction of an Imperialistic nation unconcerned with appealing to the conventions of world politics (ie, circumventing the UN) are damaging. The view of America as portrayed in the Middle East is increasingly negative. Though this has been the case for years, it is more so because of Iraq. Enough ramble, onto the analysis: Positive spin: Hussein, a brutal dictator, is now out of power and Iraq will be built into a democracy where freedom is valued. Negative/reality: Though the above is actually good, the ends do not justify the means. The war in Iraq was an unjustified war and, as such, should not be celebrated. |
| 11 Comments |
| Why you should vote for George W. Bush |
| 07.06.04 (10:04 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm serious. Okay, maybe not entirely. But, I do have at least one reason to consider voting for Bush, possibly two. The second possible reason being that John Kerry is a creep. But I'll get to that later. For now, I'd like to address the best reason I can think of to vote for George W. Bush. Consider this- in the upcoming election, you will undoubtedly be voting for the 'lesser of two evils' if you choose to vote for either Bush or Kerry, right? Some extremists of either party may ardently support the actual candidate, but for the most part, I think it would be fair to say that there is little true support for either candidate- rather, the support given is based on party allegiance or a need for change. If Kerry is elected President, there will be a greater likelihood that we will have to deal with unsavory choices for a longer time. If Kerry wins, he will be able to run for re-election in 2008, meaning we'd have one mediocre (at best) candidate for sure. There would only be the opportunity for a decent Republican candidate (and what are the chances of that happening? :wink:). However, if Bush wins re-election this year, there would be the potential for two decent candidates in 2008. So there you go, vote for Bush so we have a clean slate of politicians in 2008. As I said before, the other possible reason to consider voting for the incumbent would be that John Kerry is a creep. He really is. It is very difficult to discern in what ways he differs from Bush on the issues, actually. However, just because Kerry is not the most ideal alternative to Bush, that does not mean that you should vote for Bush. There are quite a few political parties not quite in the mainstream. Though this may mean that it is highly unlikely that these alternate candidates will win the presidency, the increasingly negative opinions of both the major parties imparts the need for new and different leadership. The only way for third parties to rise up to the level of contention is to demonstrate support and determination. This year, consider making a real difference and voting for someone other than Kerry or Bush. Vote for someone who truly represents your views. Vote for a third party, vote for change. |
| 26 Comments |
