Last night Kansas beat Memphis for the NCAA Division One basketball championship. In this game Memphis lead by 9 points, 60-51, with 2:12 left. Kansas was able to close this gap because Memphis couldn’t make foul shots down the stretch. Tying the game as time ran out Kansas was able to win in overtime.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters want us to believe they are Kansas. Yes they are behind. Yes time is running out. But they are still within striking distance of winning. Why should they not be given the chance to win? Unfortunately for them they Democratic Party primary process is not a college basketball game. They simply cannot stage a comeback. At least not at a price either they or the party should be willing to pay.
If they had hit their foul shots Memphis would have won the game. If they had been able to trade baskets with Kansas Memphis would have won the game. Unfortunately for Hillary “trading baskets” is about all she can hope for down the stretch in the primary campaign. The proportional delegate allocation rules adopted by all the state Democratic parties insure this. Hillary simply cannot win big enough in the remaining primaries to make significant delegate gains on Obama. The system is set up to prevent this.
There is no way Hillary can prevent this outcome without hurting her chances in the general election campaign. She cannot afford to alienate Obama’s supporters. But in order to win the remaining primaries by margins large enough to gain on Obama’s delegate lead she must do exactly that. Showing she would make a better candidate or president simply is not going to be enough. She has to show Obama is another McGovern or Mondale, a candidate who has no hope of winning anywhere. Hillary can win only by destroying Obama as a presidential candidate. But his supporters are not likely to forgive her for doing this. So in destroying Obama she is destroying herself.
And this is one difference between the Democratic primaries and a college basketball game. Kansas doesn’t have to worry about the support Memphis fans give its team later on. Hillary does have to worry about the support Obama’s supporters will give her later on. In the general election Hillary will need his support and theirs. Yet she cannot get to the general election unless she does things certain to alienate both him and them. A “catch 22” situation boding no good for the future of Hillary’s campaign.
Furthermore the party needs to get on with the general election campaign as soon as possible. This is another difference between the Democratic primaries and a college basketball game. Extending the game by fouling ones opponent may very will give the trailing basketball team victory. It obviously worked for Kansas. But the Democrats need this campaign to be over so their candidate presumptive, Barack Obama, can take on the Republican’s candidate presumptive, John McCain. The party cannot afford to have this campaign extended simply because Hillary hopes to stage a comeback. I realize quitters never win and winners never quit. In sports this works quite well. But the Democrats need Hillary to quit so the party can get on with its main task, defeating the Republicans lead by John McCain.
Political pundits like sports analogies. Seeing the Democratic primary contest as an athletic contest is satisfying to them. Unfortunately it is not. To see it so is misleading. In this case it misleads people into believing Hillary should be given a change to comeback and win. It is difficult to see how she can stage a comeback and damaging to the party for her to do so. This is why so many people are urging her to quit.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Why Roe vs Wade is Divisive
Yesterday we marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade, the case that made abortion legal. Advocates of women’s rights see this as the capstone of the movement for women’s liberation. Those who believe human life begins at the moment of conception see Roe vs Wade as permitting mass murder on a scale not seen since the Nazis. And the real problem is both sides are correct. Absolutely correct.
The idea human life begins at the moment of conception becomes easier to defend with every advance in genetic science. If we are going to define humanity by reference to the human genome it is obvious a human being comes into existence at the moment its genome comes into existence. That is the moment a sperm cell enters an egg cell to form a human zygote. So while genetic science can’t prove human life begins at the moment of conception it leads to the conclusion the most inclusive definition of humanness is one, which requires us to conclude human life does begin at the moment of conception.
From this point the argument for the criminalization of both abortion and contraception comes forth with the precision of a mathematical proof. Given the humanness of the zygote we must conclude the entire growth process from one celled organism to fully developed adult is that of a human with full rights including the right to life. Since this life has done nothing to warrant death we must conclude killing it is wrong. Indeed we must conclude killing it is an act of murder since murder is defined as the taking of human life without justification. Punishing murders is a moral duty of the government. If government is not going to punish murderers why have a government at all? Abortion kills the unborn since they can’t live outside their mother’s bodies. Contraception kills by permitting the union of sperm and egg but not permitting the resulting conceptus to implant itself in the mother’s uterus.
So we have concluded the following: the pre-born are human, the pre-born are innocent. Abortion and contraception both kill the unborn. One of government’s primary moral duties is the punishment of those who kill other human beings. Therefore we must conclude one of the moral duties of those who hold authority over the government is to enact and enforce laws making both abortion and contraception illegal. QED.
In the above argument the only thing missing is he abode of all these pre-born human beings. They all live in the bodies of adult human females. So what happens of one of these women doesn’t want to remain pregnant? What happens if for some reason it is bad for a woman’s health for her to remain pregnant? We can’t simply transport the unwanted pre-born out of her body and into a willing one. That happens only on Star Trek. In the real world a pregnancy can end in only one of two ways. A woman either carries her pregnancy to birth or she has an abortion. If abortion is illegal then a woman is legally required to carry her pregnancy to term.
The dilemma of abortion is a law that protects the right to life of the pre-born and a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will is exactly the same law. You simply can’t pass a law which protects the right to life of the pre-born without passing a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will. Can’t be done. The two laws are identical in effect. Removing the pre-born from their mother’s bodies kills them Therefore in order to protect their lives we must prevent that removal. But this is the same as using the government to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Sometimes this is the same as compelling a woman to remain pregnant even when it not healthy for her to do so. This is one reason why people of good will oppose laws against abortion.
Postmodern societies are feminist societies. Feminism requires legalized abortion. More to the point laws against abortion, especially laws against both abortion and contraception are laws that establish patriarchy as the preferred form of social organization. To force women to remain pregnant against their will is to restrict their role in society. Clearly society is giving men authority over women when says a woman’s ability to bear young is so important she can’t be allowed to terminate her own pregnancy. To say moral law requires this is just to make moral law itself patriarchal in character. The patriarchal leanings of all arguments against a woman’s right to abortion and contraception are the primary reason those who defend a woman’s right to choose claim their opponents advocate patriarchy.
Abortion is the most divisive of issues because we are dealing with two of a modern society’s most important needs and these needs are in direct and inescapable conflict. All societies must be based on commonly accepted moral principles. Natural Law is the best source of such moral principles. Natural Law labels both abortion and contraception evils of such magnitude as to compel government to outlaw them. But modern societies must be pro-feminist societies. They just can’t survive any other way. Feminists must have legalized abortion and contraception. There is just no way around it. But giving feminists what they need defies the laws of nature and nature’s God. There is just no getting around that either.
The idea human life begins at the moment of conception becomes easier to defend with every advance in genetic science. If we are going to define humanity by reference to the human genome it is obvious a human being comes into existence at the moment its genome comes into existence. That is the moment a sperm cell enters an egg cell to form a human zygote. So while genetic science can’t prove human life begins at the moment of conception it leads to the conclusion the most inclusive definition of humanness is one, which requires us to conclude human life does begin at the moment of conception.
From this point the argument for the criminalization of both abortion and contraception comes forth with the precision of a mathematical proof. Given the humanness of the zygote we must conclude the entire growth process from one celled organism to fully developed adult is that of a human with full rights including the right to life. Since this life has done nothing to warrant death we must conclude killing it is wrong. Indeed we must conclude killing it is an act of murder since murder is defined as the taking of human life without justification. Punishing murders is a moral duty of the government. If government is not going to punish murderers why have a government at all? Abortion kills the unborn since they can’t live outside their mother’s bodies. Contraception kills by permitting the union of sperm and egg but not permitting the resulting conceptus to implant itself in the mother’s uterus.
So we have concluded the following: the pre-born are human, the pre-born are innocent. Abortion and contraception both kill the unborn. One of government’s primary moral duties is the punishment of those who kill other human beings. Therefore we must conclude one of the moral duties of those who hold authority over the government is to enact and enforce laws making both abortion and contraception illegal. QED.
In the above argument the only thing missing is he abode of all these pre-born human beings. They all live in the bodies of adult human females. So what happens of one of these women doesn’t want to remain pregnant? What happens if for some reason it is bad for a woman’s health for her to remain pregnant? We can’t simply transport the unwanted pre-born out of her body and into a willing one. That happens only on Star Trek. In the real world a pregnancy can end in only one of two ways. A woman either carries her pregnancy to birth or she has an abortion. If abortion is illegal then a woman is legally required to carry her pregnancy to term.
The dilemma of abortion is a law that protects the right to life of the pre-born and a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will is exactly the same law. You simply can’t pass a law which protects the right to life of the pre-born without passing a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will. Can’t be done. The two laws are identical in effect. Removing the pre-born from their mother’s bodies kills them Therefore in order to protect their lives we must prevent that removal. But this is the same as using the government to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Sometimes this is the same as compelling a woman to remain pregnant even when it not healthy for her to do so. This is one reason why people of good will oppose laws against abortion.
Postmodern societies are feminist societies. Feminism requires legalized abortion. More to the point laws against abortion, especially laws against both abortion and contraception are laws that establish patriarchy as the preferred form of social organization. To force women to remain pregnant against their will is to restrict their role in society. Clearly society is giving men authority over women when says a woman’s ability to bear young is so important she can’t be allowed to terminate her own pregnancy. To say moral law requires this is just to make moral law itself patriarchal in character. The patriarchal leanings of all arguments against a woman’s right to abortion and contraception are the primary reason those who defend a woman’s right to choose claim their opponents advocate patriarchy.
Abortion is the most divisive of issues because we are dealing with two of a modern society’s most important needs and these needs are in direct and inescapable conflict. All societies must be based on commonly accepted moral principles. Natural Law is the best source of such moral principles. Natural Law labels both abortion and contraception evils of such magnitude as to compel government to outlaw them. But modern societies must be pro-feminist societies. They just can’t survive any other way. Feminists must have legalized abortion and contraception. There is just no way around it. But giving feminists what they need defies the laws of nature and nature’s God. There is just no getting around that either.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I Want You to Vote I Just Don’t Want You to Vote for My Opponent
Nevada is holding caucuses to choose delegates to the Democratic national convention this Saturday. Interest is high so the party wants everyone who wants to participate in these caucuses to be able to do so. Since hotel and casino workers may not be able to get time of to go to their regular caucus site the party has created nine at--large caucus sites inside casinos. Everyone was comfortable with this until the culinary workers union, which represents the workers in these casinos, backed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then the fecal matter hit the quickly revolving object.
A teacher’s union supporting Hillary Clinton, along with six Democrats, sued to stop the al-large caucuses. They claim the at-large caucuses allocate too many state convention delegates to one group. Now these people do have a point. They might well convince a judge to see things there way. But it is interesting they did not see the importance of this point until after the culinary worker’s union endorsed Obama. That makes it seem as if there real objection is not to the delegates themselves but to the person those delegates will be supporting.
It’s not as if this Nevada teachers union is the only group playing this game. Republicans play this game against Democrats also. Republicans insist photo voter id should be the only voter id acceptable in order to vote. Now this has the effect of disenfranchising poor and minority voters. These persons find obtaining photo id more difficult than do more affluent persons. Republicans, of course, claim the photo id is necessary in order to cut down on vote fraud. But research into vote fraud has found few instances of actual vote fraud. So one can conclude the purpose of laws requiring photo id is not to cut down on vote fraud. The real purpose of these laws is to cut down on the number of votes Democratic candidates receive.
One presumes the Nevada teachers union will support Democratic candidates in the general election. One presumes they will oppose any voter photo id law on the grounds that it disenfranchises the poor and minorities. But why should their opponents believe them. Aren’t they trying to do the same by objecting to the al-large caucuses in casinos? And doing so for the same reason Republicans insist on photo voter id; the fact the voters in question are likely to vote for a candidate they don’t support.
Politics: a game with one goal and no rules. And then we wonder why some people conclude democracy is not the best form of government.
A teacher’s union supporting Hillary Clinton, along with six Democrats, sued to stop the al-large caucuses. They claim the at-large caucuses allocate too many state convention delegates to one group. Now these people do have a point. They might well convince a judge to see things there way. But it is interesting they did not see the importance of this point until after the culinary worker’s union endorsed Obama. That makes it seem as if there real objection is not to the delegates themselves but to the person those delegates will be supporting.
It’s not as if this Nevada teachers union is the only group playing this game. Republicans play this game against Democrats also. Republicans insist photo voter id should be the only voter id acceptable in order to vote. Now this has the effect of disenfranchising poor and minority voters. These persons find obtaining photo id more difficult than do more affluent persons. Republicans, of course, claim the photo id is necessary in order to cut down on vote fraud. But research into vote fraud has found few instances of actual vote fraud. So one can conclude the purpose of laws requiring photo id is not to cut down on vote fraud. The real purpose of these laws is to cut down on the number of votes Democratic candidates receive.
One presumes the Nevada teachers union will support Democratic candidates in the general election. One presumes they will oppose any voter photo id law on the grounds that it disenfranchises the poor and minorities. But why should their opponents believe them. Aren’t they trying to do the same by objecting to the al-large caucuses in casinos? And doing so for the same reason Republicans insist on photo voter id; the fact the voters in question are likely to vote for a candidate they don’t support.
Politics: a game with one goal and no rules. And then we wonder why some people conclude democracy is not the best form of government.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What Part of the Concept of Peak Oil Does Bush Have Trouble With?
President Bush in Saudi Arabia today called on OPEC to increase production before the world economy goes into recession. Of course this assumes OPEC and the Saudis have the ability to increase production. But if the idea oil production has reached its peak is true then OPEC and the Saudis do not have this ability.
The idea of oil production reaching a peak and then declining has been around in circles frequented by petroleum geologists for over thirty years. A petroleum geologist named M. King Hubbert correctly predicted oil production in the United States would peak around nineteen seventy. By the time I was in graduate school petroleum geologists were speculating on when world oil production would peak. Most experts in the field believe world oil production has either already peaked or is about to peak. If so then there is very little OPEC can do to increase oil production.
The time to begin thinking about the change to alternative fuels was thirty years ago. Unfortunately we turned our fate over to a devotee of austerity and when austerity became unpopular we turned to market idolatry. But markets simply do not reward really long term planning. Profit maximization requires concentrating on the short term. So we continued to remain dependent on oil because oil was cheap and plentiful. And now that oil is neither cheap nor plentiful we are in big trouble. And the lesson we can learn from this is simple: sometimes government is the solution rather than the problem.
In answer to the title question Bush has problems with the entire concept of peak oil. That is obvious.
The idea of oil production reaching a peak and then declining has been around in circles frequented by petroleum geologists for over thirty years. A petroleum geologist named M. King Hubbert correctly predicted oil production in the United States would peak around nineteen seventy. By the time I was in graduate school petroleum geologists were speculating on when world oil production would peak. Most experts in the field believe world oil production has either already peaked or is about to peak. If so then there is very little OPEC can do to increase oil production.
The time to begin thinking about the change to alternative fuels was thirty years ago. Unfortunately we turned our fate over to a devotee of austerity and when austerity became unpopular we turned to market idolatry. But markets simply do not reward really long term planning. Profit maximization requires concentrating on the short term. So we continued to remain dependent on oil because oil was cheap and plentiful. And now that oil is neither cheap nor plentiful we are in big trouble. And the lesson we can learn from this is simple: sometimes government is the solution rather than the problem.
In answer to the title question Bush has problems with the entire concept of peak oil. That is obvious.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Secularism and Morality
As we saw several days ago secularists find truth by finding and studying facts. For secularists truth is a description of what nature does. Truth is the correspondence between our conception of things and things as the really are. We study facts in order to refine our conception of reality. In this way our conception of reality is closer to reality as it truly exists. We simplify this concept by saying truth requires proof and proof requires fact.
Unfortunately we cannot base value on fact. We cannot say what nature ought to do merely by describing what nature does. Moral values describe what nature ought to do. Moral values are just that; values. Since we cannot base value on fact secularists have a big problem with moral truth. Since there are no moral facts there can be any moral truths.
Secularists are often accused of moral relativity. The accusation is correct. To the secularist there is fact-based truth and there is opinion. Since there can be no fact based moral truths all moral truths are nothing more than personal opinion. For them to be other than personal opinion there would have to be reference to facts that all persons could interpret in the same way. Since people who speak of moral law cannot show the truth of moral law by reference to moral fact secularists conclude there are no moral laws. In this way they defend the idea truth requires proof and proof requires fact.
Secularists adopt this position because it helps to prevent the excesses caused by using the ends to justify the means. Demanding factual proof is a way to avoid the need to settle disputes by the use of force. Given the destructive power of force in the twenty-first century one can see why its use should be avoided wherever possible. Unfortunately for secularists this also is a moral position. There are no facts to justify it.
Unfortunately we cannot base value on fact. We cannot say what nature ought to do merely by describing what nature does. Moral values describe what nature ought to do. Moral values are just that; values. Since we cannot base value on fact secularists have a big problem with moral truth. Since there are no moral facts there can be any moral truths.
Secularists are often accused of moral relativity. The accusation is correct. To the secularist there is fact-based truth and there is opinion. Since there can be no fact based moral truths all moral truths are nothing more than personal opinion. For them to be other than personal opinion there would have to be reference to facts that all persons could interpret in the same way. Since people who speak of moral law cannot show the truth of moral law by reference to moral fact secularists conclude there are no moral laws. In this way they defend the idea truth requires proof and proof requires fact.
Secularists adopt this position because it helps to prevent the excesses caused by using the ends to justify the means. Demanding factual proof is a way to avoid the need to settle disputes by the use of force. Given the destructive power of force in the twenty-first century one can see why its use should be avoided wherever possible. Unfortunately for secularists this also is a moral position. There are no facts to justify it.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Why Bipartisanship is Dead
Bipartisanship is in today. Much of the reason for Barack Obama’s rise is attributed to his willingness to work with those who disagree with him. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering a third party run for president based on the possibility both major party nominees will be too partisan. People wish for a return to the days of bipartisan solutions to problems instead of bipartisan gridlock. But you can’t always get what you wish for.
Bipartisanship worked because pragmatists dominated both major parties. While they may have had different conceptions of thought concerning the intellectualization of external reality these conceptions did not achieve the status of a theory of everything. They were therefore comfortable with the idea that what is true is what works. They were comfortable with Deng Xiaoping’s idea of a cat’s ability to catch mice being more important than the color of its fur. So despite their intellectual differences they could work together to solve problems.
Then along came the Reagan revolution. Over the succeeding years ideologues took over the Republican Party. An ideology is a theory of everything. Its truth is established by the faith its followers have in it. Since an ideology is a complete explanation of reality all solutions to all problems must conform to its understandings. To ideologists the color of the cat’s fur does matter. It matters because the color of the fur determines the cat’s ability to catch mice. This fact cannot be questioned. Faith in ideology proclaims its truth.
For ideologues compromise is impossible. What compromise can there be between truth and error. Since ideology gives truth all compromise is movement away from truth and towards error. Compromise is acceptable only if it forces those who reject the ideology in question to move closer to its position. So bipartisanship became a tool by which the country was moved in the direction favored by Conservative ideologues. Finally Republicans gained control of all three branches of government. At this point they were no longer interested in compromise because now they could impose their ideology by force. Because compromise had been used to shove the center to the right Left wing Democrats were no longer interested in bipartisanship either. They were tired of being used.
The lesson here is simple. You can have bipartisanship only if the leadership of both parties is dominated by pragmatists who are willing to see beyond the supposed truth of what they believe to be true. If one party’s leadership is composed of ideologues bipartisanship is impossible. Alas today electing a Democrat or independent who is willing to act in a bipartisan manner is the same as electing a Republican, and a conservative Republican at that. This will be the case so long as ideological conservatives dominate the Republican party. If this nation really wants change it is going to have to resign itself to electing a partisan Democrat. Sorry about that.
Bipartisanship worked because pragmatists dominated both major parties. While they may have had different conceptions of thought concerning the intellectualization of external reality these conceptions did not achieve the status of a theory of everything. They were therefore comfortable with the idea that what is true is what works. They were comfortable with Deng Xiaoping’s idea of a cat’s ability to catch mice being more important than the color of its fur. So despite their intellectual differences they could work together to solve problems.
Then along came the Reagan revolution. Over the succeeding years ideologues took over the Republican Party. An ideology is a theory of everything. Its truth is established by the faith its followers have in it. Since an ideology is a complete explanation of reality all solutions to all problems must conform to its understandings. To ideologists the color of the cat’s fur does matter. It matters because the color of the fur determines the cat’s ability to catch mice. This fact cannot be questioned. Faith in ideology proclaims its truth.
For ideologues compromise is impossible. What compromise can there be between truth and error. Since ideology gives truth all compromise is movement away from truth and towards error. Compromise is acceptable only if it forces those who reject the ideology in question to move closer to its position. So bipartisanship became a tool by which the country was moved in the direction favored by Conservative ideologues. Finally Republicans gained control of all three branches of government. At this point they were no longer interested in compromise because now they could impose their ideology by force. Because compromise had been used to shove the center to the right Left wing Democrats were no longer interested in bipartisanship either. They were tired of being used.
The lesson here is simple. You can have bipartisanship only if the leadership of both parties is dominated by pragmatists who are willing to see beyond the supposed truth of what they believe to be true. If one party’s leadership is composed of ideologues bipartisanship is impossible. Alas today electing a Democrat or independent who is willing to act in a bipartisan manner is the same as electing a Republican, and a conservative Republican at that. This will be the case so long as ideological conservatives dominate the Republican party. If this nation really wants change it is going to have to resign itself to electing a partisan Democrat. Sorry about that.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
The idea Barack Obama is a Muslim is floating around that portion of the blogosphere where the Islamophobes live. They do have evidence. He did live in Indonesia for four years. He did go to school there. It does seem that on the records he was listed as a Muslim as that was the religion of his stepfather. This however would be a bureaucratic thing and not mean he actually was a Muslim. Furthermore they claim he did go to services in a mosque from time to time. They then stretch this out to imply he was an “infrequently practicing Muslim.” (Perhaps he went to church from time to time. Would this make him an infrequently practicing Christian? Could he be both at the same time like the Episcopal Priest in Seattle?) But there is one thing missing in all this evidence. They do not have an eyewitness to his saying the following words, or variants thereof, in front of witnesses: “there is no god apart from God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”
This is how one actually becomes a Muslim. What it says on elementary school enrollment papers does not matter. Whether one went to a Mosque as a child does not matter. The only thing that matters is proclaiming in front of witnesses that one believes Allah alone is God and Muhammad is the final messenger of God. That and that alone makes a person a Muslim. Since Obama never proclaimed his belief in Allah and Allah’s final message as proclaimed by Muhammad we may assume he was never a Muslim.
Now the practitioners of hysteria through fear of Islam would have us believe Obama would be ineffective as president because many Muslims would perceive him as being an apostate Muslim because of the information on his past. His life might even be in danger. Personally I don’t think they are about his life or his effectiveness. They simply want to use Islam to defeat him. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth two anyone?
This is how one actually becomes a Muslim. What it says on elementary school enrollment papers does not matter. Whether one went to a Mosque as a child does not matter. The only thing that matters is proclaiming in front of witnesses that one believes Allah alone is God and Muhammad is the final messenger of God. That and that alone makes a person a Muslim. Since Obama never proclaimed his belief in Allah and Allah’s final message as proclaimed by Muhammad we may assume he was never a Muslim.
Now the practitioners of hysteria through fear of Islam would have us believe Obama would be ineffective as president because many Muslims would perceive him as being an apostate Muslim because of the information on his past. His life might even be in danger. Personally I don’t think they are about his life or his effectiveness. They simply want to use Islam to defeat him. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth two anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
