(sometimes not so) Infinite Wisdom

McCain Concedes

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:27:00 +0000

I'm currently watching McCain's concession speech. I still have the up most respect for him. He continues to show his willingness to reach out and try and unify. Now if only those supporters booing sections of it would come around. I hope Obama offers him a cabinet position, seriously. It would do wonders to heal the divide.

Progress

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:01:00 +0000

Obama is at 297 projected (polling just closed on the west coast), and Florida among others haven't been counted yet. I don't think we'll reach the filibuster proof 60 in the Senate, but now have plenty of wiggle room.

GW: This is what a "mandate" looks like. I do hope Obama sticks to what drew me to him, and reaches across the isle for many things. I really have no reason to think he won't. I really can't express how optimistic I am of the coming years.

Landslide

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:38:00 +0000

Ohio has just been projected to go to Obama, and that pretty much clinches it. There are several other big states such as Florida that are close, but many of those are leaning Obama. It doesn't really matter at this point, the rest are just gravy. Now I'm just watching the house and senate races. Sorry to say, I can't see Rice winning the OK senate race. Oklahoma has a long way to go...

Easy

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:14:00 +0000

The wait wasn't too bad, only 40 minutes until I walked out the door. No glitches besides being asked to take off my Obama pin. Maybe a post in here regarding that, who knows.

The Wait Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:53:00 +0000

Here's the line at 2:38 at my polling place. Not too bad, but more than i've ever seen here before.

Reverse Psychology Response

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:28:00 +0000

A friend and colleague of mine, who I respect and have a great deal in common with (just not political views), posted an entry regarding the upcoming elections and his thoughts on Obama. Normally I try to stay away from responses, but this one was irresistible. Sorry Steve. ;) His post can be found here.
I have the unenviable task at work to control the filters for incoming and outgoing email (I don't set the policies, just enforce 'em). A couple months ago, we set in place a policy to block the political spam / chain letters, and from time to time, I have to go through email to see if it's legit business or not and see much of the crap that gets caught. I've seen crap on both sides; how Obama is Muslim or the Antichrist, or McCain is racist, etc, etc. When I get the chance, I try to correct the errors when they are put forth, so here it goes...
The bullets:

If you have no aspirations to ever be anything more than what you are right now, vote for Obama.
- Personal opinion, I'm sure many conservatives feel this way. I happen to think that the policies set forth by Obama, like those of President Clinton will lead to a more prosperous country, therefore a more prosperous population with more aspirations.
If you think slow-ass government should be in charge of keeping you healthy, vote Obama
- Obama isn't for socialized medicine, just for providing insurance for those that can't afford it. How would my insurance be affected? It wouldn't, other than my employer may pay less for premiums (and so would I possibly). If I do expand my small business and make it full time, my premiums would be less, and my business would get a tax credit for providing insurance. Independent fact checkers (example) show generally that while both sides exaggerate, Obama's plan would cover more people for less or similar costs, especially in the long run.
If you don't think you will ever own a small business and like being the "worker bee", vote Obama
- Not sure how eliminating the capital gains tax for small businesses and start-ups hurts those who want to start a small business, both sides have many incentives for small business.
If you have gone to school for years and years to be where you are today and don't mind that extra $7500 (if you make 250K+) being taken out of your check and redistributed to those who refuse to work for their living, vote Obama
- Kind of odd since McCain just said this: "At a campaign speech Friday, October 24, in Denver, Colorado, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama for how his policies would impact the jobless. "Just yesterday, we received news that jobless claims increased by 15,000," McCain said. "Yet, just this week, Senator Obama announced that his plan would have a work requirement, meaning that those unemployed receive no help under the Obama plan …"
While not totally true (Obama does provide plans to increase jobs and help those who are jobless to find them), you see my point. Yes, if you make more than $250k, you taxes will stay the same or go up (depending on how much more than $250k you make), but those cuts don't go to those sitting on their asses.
Want your Social Security tax increased or extended? Vote Obama
- Not a bad thing in my opinion; I'm not for privatizing Social Security. Had it been privatized, there would have been a hell of a lot of seniors in serious trouble right now. Due to their stupid investing mistakes? Sure, some, but that's exactly what Social Security was designed to prevent. Every senior can at least meet living standards. If you want more, invest to your heart's content (I know I do)!
If you want to leave Iraq high and dry after rocking their world as they knew it, vote Obama (think New Orleans, post Katrina - Gov't assistance will just up and leave)
- I don't think anyone is going to get left high and dry, however I do think that Iraq's government will have its feet held to the fire to get their own security forces in order. How can we deal with our own financial woes when we're pumping $10 billion per month into operations there. For comparison, 2 months would pay for Obama's education plan.
Someone breaks into your home and threatens your family and you shoot them - you go to jail under Obama's plan. There is no self defense allowed, vote Obama
- This is just plain false. Factcheck.org states the following:
"NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense"
False: Obama is proposing no such ban."
To read more on the details of the origin of this statement, go to this link at factcheck.org
Last: Do you really think someone who has never authored a Bill in Senate qualifies to be the leader of the free world?
- Again a false statement. The origin of this is a Palin convention speech where she stated "But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
Several bills he has authored:
"Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction." - Signed into law
"Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law." - Signed into law
These are just some I picked out of the blue (easiest to find), notice they are all bi-partisan. There are more, some not signed into law, not to mention the many, many more he has sponsored.

On a final note, regarding the subject, reverse psychology, and the aftereffects of the election... I seriously doubt that those who have been sooo energized for the Obama campaign all this time would peter out the last day, election day. I know I won't, and my vote is pretty much useless in Oklahoma. As far as rioting, looting, the end of US civilization? No more than any other presidential election. The only ramification I fear, and most people democrat or republican I've spoken to agree; one or more assassination attempts. It's only a mild fear for me, however, seeing the issues with race, some wackos' view of him being Muslim, the Antichrist, etc; there is a definite possibility of an attempt. THEN I can see rioting, mayhem, etc coming to be.

But again, I emphasize my rosy outlook for the coming 8 years. :)

The Pendulum Has Swung

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:28:00 +0000

A few years back I wrote about the political pendulum and how it was, at the time, on the right side of the political spectrum. For reference: link. I didn't really expect it to swing so quickly back the other direction. I did expect a democratic president to be elected this year, but I didn't quite expect the congress to swing this far yet. There is a small possibility the dems could have a filibuster proof majority (not likely, but hey...). You read that right, I said did, as in I fully expect Obama to be elected tomorrow, not a hard one to predict. Here it is, now we have to prove ourselves. I truly believe that in the next 8 years, most everything will improve; the economy, the standard of living, the world's view of the US, and many other issues we face today. There will be bumps, but I have a rosy picture of what is to come. Happy voting!

Respect

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:47:00 +0000

I was preparing a post on politics, including the tone McCain's campaign has taken recently. I had lost any respect I had for the campaign, especially Palin, for the low ball tactics they have employed during the last few weeks...
I just saw a story on CNN about McCain's reaction to some of his supporters during a town hall meeting today.
It has renewed my respect for the man; not his campaign, but McCain himself. I saw the side of him I haven't seen since he entered the presidential race. Here are a few of the exchanges I saw:

McCain: "And we wanna fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments; I will respect him. And I want..."
crowd: (boooooooo)
McCain: "No. No. I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are, because that's the way politics should be conducted in America. So let's make sure..."
some in crowd: (cheers)

man: "We're, we're scared. Um. We're scared of an Obama presidency..."
(camera cut)
McCain: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."
woman in crowd: "WHAT???"
crowd: (booooooooooo)(jeering)
McCain: "Now I just... I just... Now I just... Now, now look I, I, if I didn't think I wouldn't be one heck of a lot better president I wouldn't be running, OK. And that's the point. That's, that's the point."
crowd: (cheering)

woman: "I can't trust Obama."
McCain: (nodding) "I got ya"
woman: "I, I have read about him, and he's not, he's not, he's uh, um... He's an arab.... He's not..." (she literally looses the thought)
McCain: "No ma'am, no, ma'am" (Shaking his head)
woman: "No?"
McCain: (taking microphone) "No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a, he's a, he's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on, on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about. He's not; thank you."
a few in the crowd: (clapping)

I'm not sure that's what the whole campaign is all about, as the campaign continues to use Palin and ads to tear down Obama's character, even today, but I have to give McCain credit for starting to control the outbursts and comments by some of his supporters that feed that image. Maybe he's starting to realize what kind of message these tactics have started (more on this later) to send to the moderates he needs sooo badly to win, or he is showing his genuine character that I used to see, but whatever the reason, I applaud his statements.
I realize this is somewhat out of the blue, as I haven't posted my thoughts on anything political lately, but I felt this deserved to be mentioned. It most certainly doesn't change my vote, but I do again respect McCain as a man. Senator McCain, thank you for restoring my belief that we will be better off, no matter who wins this election.

No posts so far in an election year???

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:21:00 +0000

It's hard to believe this is the first post of the election year, just barely more than a month before election day. Between being busy, re-organizing, and just plain being tired, I haven't posted. Actually that's not entirely true, as I have posted some political stuff on my other blog:
Here - Towards the end some stuff about the primaries.
And here - After I had chosen to definitely go with Obama, funny, never would have seen Palin coming.
Now here we are in the middle of a financial crisis, weeks away from electing a new president (sigh of relief either way), and my theological views have changed a bit (no drastic changes, so don't worry ;).
Over the next several days, I'll write posts to cover each of these topics. I'm also debating starting a new weekly post regarding theology / philosophy.
I also hope to get my family / personal and chasing sites revamped in the near future and clean up any bad links in those and my blogs.

Time once again

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:00:00 +0000

I've settled into my new job (it's been almost a year), and feel comfortable enough again to let my thoughts fly. For nearly a year, this blog has been invisible. I've had to think through the ramifications of keeping it up. It could come back to haunt me later, but the original reasons I started it still hold, and I still believe honesty and truth trump all other motivations. Nice to see the political pendulum is still in full swing. :)

Wow.

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:30:00 +0000

I'm not sure even I really expected the Dems to take the Senate too. The House I was sure of, but the Senate? The pendulum's momentum was greater than I expected, or most anyone else for that matter. How well we do in 2008 will depend heavily on how well the party stays focused on the issues and away from bashing and countering the Republicans. One result of such a big swing is that it made many Republicans realize they have lost focus, or focused on the wrong things. Rumsfeld was the first casualty of that realization (yeah, yeah, I've heard that it was in the works before the elections, but I can say without a doubt that if the elections had gone differently, he would still be Sec Def; and if Bush had done it beforehand, they probably would have). They will probably, at least for the time being, be willing to work in a bi-partisan manner.

Stirring the pot

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:18:00 +0000

Well, it looks like I'm finally getting around to writing a blog entry on one reason why I'm an agnostic. Warning: long blog entry. :) Quite a few friends / acquaintances have recently probed me on the question, and have all started with the same reason for believing (I think it's the most common way Christians approach agnostics in discussion, at least here in the Bible belt). So I've had to explain my position and opinion on that reason several times. What better way to deal with several queries than to write a blog entry!

The proposed reason for believing: Pascal's Wager (though most don't know the formal name). Pascal's Wager basically says that one should believe in God (in his arguement, the Christian God) because the end result of believing is always better than the end result of not believing. Basically there are four outcomes:

One believes and there is a God - heaven
One believes and there is no God - nothing
One doesn't believe and there is a God - hell
One doesn't believe and there is no God - nothing

Since the worst outcome from believing is nothing, and the worst outcome from not believing is hell, one should believe based on the possible outcomes.

Here are a couple of my issues with this reasoning:

1. It assumes, if there is a God and heaven, the only rewards and/or punishments are dictated by strict Christian theology. What if the following were true:

It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven--unless god
wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy. - Richard Carrier [ref]

That's just one of many, many conceived possibilities of how God could truly decide. It's entirely possible that God punishes blind or false faith.

2. How does one know that the Christian God is the one true God? If one does choose to believe in God based on Pascal's Wager, then they are rejecting other theologies that have similar outcomes for ones soul. So if one does choose the Christian God, and God turns out to be the Islamic God, they get punished anyway.

Basically what I'm getting at is that the four options presented in the wager are not the only four options, many others exist. With no proof or knowledge of what is actually true, there is no one religion (or non-religion, which is why I'm agnostic) that I can commit myself to.

Still alive.

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:27:00 +0000

I thought I'd put up a little post to let everyone know I'm still alive. Looks like things haven't changed much since my last post, other than it appears right on track. Not sure if the Dems will take back both the House and Senate, but a big swing is already gaining momentum. I may write something in the near future about the Geneva Convention issues and detainees.

Topping the hill

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:46:00 +0000

It seems that the right has pushed hard enough to upset the balance people like to maintain. I consider myself a fairly moderate liberal. A majority of the people in this nation consider themselves moderate. The scales have been pushed farther to the right most are comfortable with, and it very well could show up as soon as the elections for 2006.
Tying into the last post, SD's governor actually did sign that bill into law, and it will take effect this summer. Of course there are going to be challenges to it in court, and we all know it will end up being heard before the Supreme Court. I honestly think that the high court will strike it down, and keep with the previous ruling in Roe V. Wade. A considerable majority of the population is in the middle of the debate, neither believing that abortion should be unrestricted, nor believing it should be banned. This law goes to one extreme of the debate, and I don't know one person I've talked to since this law came up that agrees with it (most people get hung up on no exceptions for rape or incest). I myself am not on the extreme of the liberal end. I think partial birth abortions should be banned, with an exception for the life and health (dire health) of the mother. The backlash if this law were upheld would be considerable, pushing the country farther to the left (I think abortion ban laws would be repealed in some of the states that are considering them, as more moderate representatives would be elected).
Back to the more general balance of the scales. Bush is done for. He is finally starting to pay the price for his bad judgment in going to war in Iraq. Face it, if you convince the nation and the world you are going to war for a set of reasons, and those reasons you are pushing are questionable and even false, then you're going to pay for it later. Hmm, let's review the reasons stated previous to going to war (making the case). 1. WMDs; acquiring and stockpiling WMDs since the first world war. 2. Acquiring material for nuclear weapons; aluminum tubes used for enriching uranium, and uranium from Nigeria. 3. A direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. All three assertions have been proven false, and now he is dealing with that fallout with very low public support numbers.
It is getting so bad that even his own party is distancing itself from him. This means that the rest of his second term will pretty much be useless as he will have trouble passing anything through Congress. I could go on and on about other issues, wiretapping, etc, but my point is made, so we'll leave that to another day.

You knew it was coming...

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:14:00 +0000

A law testing the new Supreme Court on upholding Roe v. Wade. Both houses of the South Dakota legislature have passed a bill that outlaws all abortions except those that save the life of the mother. A major point in this bill is that life begins at conception. There are no exceptions for the mothers health, rape, or incest.
I think you can all guess where I fall on this one. I'll post some more tomorrow on my reasonings.
Here's a shortcut to the bill.

The big 3-0

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:42:00 +0000

Happy birthday to me,
happy birthday to me,
blah, blah, blah.

Georgia and the Ten Commandments

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:20:00 +0000

A lawmaker in Georgia, Tommy Benton, is trying to get posters of the ten commandments displayed in all county and municipal courthouses. Lawmakers in the Georgia House of Representatives have approved a bill (see http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb941.htm), which main purpose is "to recognize the religious heritage of America". It specifically mentions the display of 3 documents: the Mayflower Compact, the Ten Commandments, and the Declaration of Independence. In the words of the bill these three documents are "Public displays which acknowledge religious heritage".
The bill mainly does three things:
1. Directs the Secretary of State to prepare and distribute these displays to all counties and municipalities, at the Georgia taxpayer expense.
2. Authorizes these county and municipal governments to display them.
3. Directs the Attorney General to defend and bear costs of defending such actions.
Normally I wouldn't worry too much about this, but with the new U.S. Supreme Court makeup, it very well could get upheld. Talk about a waste of millions of dollars that could go to MUCH more useful purposes.
Here's why I don't think that the Ten Commandments offer any legitimate constitutional or legal historical context: Only 4 of the 10 commandments are law. Murder, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness are all illegal, although adultery is not enforced, and bearing false witness is only illegal in court while under oath (arguably sometimes while under investigation). Those things also happen to be illegal in many other countries whose history have nothing to do with the ten commandments. These offenses are morally wrong whether any religion says so or not. In fact, doing some of the actions the commandments tell you not to do are actions that are protected by the Constitution! So the ten commandments are definitely no basis for the Constitution.
Do the commandments have historical significance in our society? Yes, definitely. But so does the bible, god, religion, and many other countless items. That doesn't mean any of them should be displayed in governmental institutions. This bill is just another way for over-zealous christians to impose their religion on others. We're back on a downhill slide here. Time will tell what direction this takes.

Let the games begin, again...

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:08:00 +0000

Ok, so I think I've made a decision about blogging. I can't research the hell out of every subject I post on. I have quite a few drafts of blogs I started, but never finished due to lack of time to research. So I think from now on, I'll just post my opinion, and maybe from time to time, do a detailed blog. This should allow me to post much more often, if I can just post my opinion, maybe why I have it, and move on. So let the posting resume.

Sooo much to discuss

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:31:00 +0000

First, the new nominee for the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. You can probably guess where my view of this is going. Now I'm not going to prejudge him, or say that the Senate democrats should filibuster, but many of the past rulings I've read concern me. Again, we'll see where this takes us, I'm sure I'll have much more commentary on it.
This leads us into the next subject: the far right pushing out Meirs' nomination. This gets me a little heated. I hadn't even made up my mind about her yet, and certainly we hadn't found out enough about her yet, to make any decisions. But the ultra conservative / Christian right thought she was too much of a gamble and put the pressure on. Whether she withdrew her nomination or was asked to withdraw it is pretty much irrelevant, in that it was the end result of that pressure (I guess it matters a little as to whether it was Bush that caved or her, but not really to the current subject). It just irks me that ...

I wish I had time to go into futher depth... I am seriously concerned about the direction the Supreme Court is headed.

Slackin

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:46:00 +0000

I know, I know, I've been slackin. It's not that I didn't have the desire to post, trust me, it's a liberal's hay day in the news right now, it's just a time issue. I will try and catch up today and this weekend, so the wisdom will be flowing. :P

For a little humor that made my Friday, look at Steve's latest post (Oct 20th)

To be or not to be: that is the question.

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:14:00 +0000

Today's topic for post; state assisted suicide. Flowing from the previous topics, the Supreme Court is now considering this question. I have soooo much to say about this subject, as it touches on so many issues.
First off, let me say that I am undecided on the issue itself. Whether one should take their own life under the circumstances provided for by the Oregon law permitting it, I'm not sure. I know if I were in those circumstances, I would not, as I would fight for my life 'till my dying breath. However, if someone is of sound mind and does not want to suffer the last few months of their life, I do believe that is THEIR choice.
I find it hilarious that conservatives support smaller government until it comes to forcing their beliefs on others (there are exceptions, a few out there do support all forms of smaller government, but not the current administration). Basically what I think this boils down to is the Christian ideology the current administration is trying to force on us all. They believe that suicide, in any form, is wrong, and, according to most Christian denominations (among other religions), those who commit suicide will go to some form of hell. I can think of several situations where I might commit suicide, and it be the morally right thing to do (involving sacrifice for family, etc). So under my belief, not all suicide is wrong. That's my belief, and I'm not going to impose it on you. I may discuss it, debate it, or what have you, but no one, including myself, is morally right in imposing it. That is a decision anyone in their right mind (not depressed, insane, etc) has the right to make for themselves.
Now John Ashcroft says he is pursuing this, not for moral reasons, but for legal reasons having to do with the Controlled Substances Act. That's a big load of crap. If you read the CSA itself, here, or for a legal summary of it in the most recent court ruling on it, here, you will see that the CSA does not provide legal grounds for his actions. In fact, the only way it could (his legal argument) is if you took one part of the act, by itself, that says medical prescriptions must serve a legitimate medical purpose, and took that to mean that prescriptions for assisted suicide don't meet that criteria. That is a personal moral judgment cloaked in legal reasoning. Not to mention that other portions of the act specifically outline that it can't supersede any state determinations for legitimate medical purposes (thus that legal argument fails anyway). If inclined, you can read the court ruling for more details on that. I am sure that since the Supreme Court will be ruling on the legal standing of the case, not assisted suicide itself, they will come to a similar ruling as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
There are many more points I could make on this, but as this blog gets longer, and my day shorter, they'll have to wait until later.
I welcome comments and views on this, as I love hearing points of view, especially those that manage to change mine.
For more information on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, go here.
Bumper sticker of the day: The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

Interesting reactions

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:54:00 +0000

I thought it would be interesting to point out the differences in reactions from two people on opposite ends of the spectrum.

"The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. ... When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials."
- Eugene Delgaudio, President of the Public Advocate, a conservative advocacy group

"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment."
- Ralph G. Neas, President of People for the American Way, a liberal public advocacy group

This tells me that for arguements point, she is at least some where in the middle. It also shows a key difference in how each side looks at things, which in my view, says a lot.

Intro and supreme court nominee

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:41:00 +0000

Get out while you still can. There's no turning back. Don't say I didn't warn you. ;)
Ok... I live in Edmond, OK, and work in Stillwater. Go Cowboys (far stretch this year). I have a wonderful wife, Becky, and 3 kids, 2 girls, 5&7, and a boy, 1. My life is mostly involved with computers and technology. I love to go stormchasing, play paintball, work on / fix things (mainly cars), and love science (mainly physics). I am a very analytic / logical person, but would consider myself a people person too. Now on to the stuff that is not so popular 'round here. I am a liberal, agnostic, debate loving, somewhat arrogant, philosophical person. Love me or hate me. On the political spectrum I am decently moderate, so you won't see me tying myself to any trees or anything, but I definitely think the war in Iraq is a BIG BIG mistake. I'll go into that later, heh.
Now for the news of the day. The new supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers. I actually think Bush has done a respectable job in choosing nominees, as I realize he can't pick candidates that are too moderate. I was fairly happy with John Roberts, time will tell, but I think he will be less conservative than Renquist. At this point not much is known about Harriet Miers. His pick could have been a lot worse, say a definite far right conservative. Being that she has been in Bush's camp a long time, I have to worry about her though. Bush knows her better than anyone else from a legal standpoint, and I question any unknown he would put up. Plus she's a lawyer from Texas, and woman's advocate or not, that's bad from a Roe v. Wade perspective. We'll see what the coming week brings.
A colleague at work made this comment: "She does look like a Pit Bull in size 6 shoes." heh.
Bumper sticker of the day: "A mind is like a parachute: it has to be open to work"

So it begins.

noreply@blogger.com (Hans) — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:58:00 +0000

Ok, I have learned my first lesson using this blogger. I just typed up a descent post for my first post, and proceeded to use the spellchecker. I had to allow pop-ups, etc, etc to get that to work, but when it finally finished that process, viola, my post was blank and not saved. Future reference, select all - copy, grrrrr.
Now on to my original post... I have wanted to have a place to put my thoughts for quite a while now, and have finally gotten around to doing it. I need some place to release some stress, and I think this could be therapeutic. For those who want to know what I really think, read on, but beware.
I will be writing my unedited thoughts here, so you could be offended, upset, or even enraged by what you read, especially if you know me. My posts will include my thoughts on religion, politics, fluff and the like, so your opinion of me could possibly change, not necessarily for the better. Many of my ideas are not mainstream, or popular, especially in the region in which I live. Most of my friends already know this stuff, so they need not worry, but family and acquaintances may find themselves saying "Oh..." as they read.
As I now need to leave, I will save my introduction for the next post.
Enjoy!