Maybe Nader is good after all
Recently the Pentagon issued a report on the future of climate change. Controlling climate change has been a big part of environmentalist's agendas, including Ralph Nader's. The report predicts that unless the world cooperates to do something about it, drastic climate changes will result in more famine and war in the world, to the extent of being catastrophic. This report comes from the President's own Department of Defense. DOD has a lot of supporters among Republicans and conservatives, and so a report from the Pentagon would carry some weight among these. If Nader hammers on this platform that something needs to be done about climate change, many of these Republicans and conservatives might vote for Nader rather than Bush. Nader would then take votes away from Bush; if that happens, Key 4 (third party) would topple. That could put the President only one key from defeat, and evidence of a sagging economy could be the thing that does the President in. So maybe Nader is what we need after all. He is the only third party of any note running. I hope he devotes his efforts, then, to winning over conservatives and Republicans concerned about global warming.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2004/02/25
How traditional religious beliefs can be destructive.
Lately I have been thinking aboiut religious beliefs and how they are a personal matter and that these beliefs are essentially positive. But then I realized that some religious beliefs can be downright dangerous. Here are some examples from Christianity and Islam:
Christian belief: The world was created by God only 10,000 years ago or so.
The danger: Failure to realize the magnitude of the running out of oil problem; it takes millions of years to create oil.
Christian belief: Jesus Christ is God.
The danger: Demeaning everyone else. We are all born equal. We are all God or none of us are.
Christian belief: Jesus will save you from your sins.
The danger: Encourages crime, as if Jesus saves you it won't matter in the long run.
Christian belief: The Bible is truth; it is literal truth.
The danger: One can then believe in anything, as since the Bible contains contradictions, one can use it to prove anything. Hence this belief promotes charlatanism and extremist groups.
Christian belief: Jesus was crucified because he ran afoul of Jewish laws and customs.
The danger: Anti-Semitism, and we have had many examples of that in history.
Christian belief: Creation, not evolution.
The danger: Failure to realize the dangers of evolution in our society today; for example, of antibiotic-resistant microbes.
Islamic belief: The laws of a country must be Islamic.
The danger: Persecution of religious minorities. Barbaric punishments.
Christian and Islamic belief: There is evil.
The danger: Believing that the other guys are the ones that are evil.
Catholic belief: Birth control methods are not to be used.
The danger: Catastrophic population explosion.
Lately I have been thinking aboiut religious beliefs and how they are a personal matter and that these beliefs are essentially positive. But then I realized that some religious beliefs can be downright dangerous. Here are some examples from Christianity and Islam:
Christian belief: The world was created by God only 10,000 years ago or so.
The danger: Failure to realize the magnitude of the running out of oil problem; it takes millions of years to create oil.
Christian belief: Jesus Christ is God.
The danger: Demeaning everyone else. We are all born equal. We are all God or none of us are.
Christian belief: Jesus will save you from your sins.
The danger: Encourages crime, as if Jesus saves you it won't matter in the long run.
Christian belief: The Bible is truth; it is literal truth.
The danger: One can then believe in anything, as since the Bible contains contradictions, one can use it to prove anything. Hence this belief promotes charlatanism and extremist groups.
Christian belief: Jesus was crucified because he ran afoul of Jewish laws and customs.
The danger: Anti-Semitism, and we have had many examples of that in history.
Christian belief: Creation, not evolution.
The danger: Failure to realize the dangers of evolution in our society today; for example, of antibiotic-resistant microbes.
Islamic belief: The laws of a country must be Islamic.
The danger: Persecution of religious minorities. Barbaric punishments.
Christian and Islamic belief: There is evil.
The danger: Believing that the other guys are the ones that are evil.
Catholic belief: Birth control methods are not to be used.
The danger: Catastrophic population explosion.
2004/02/24
The Bomb of Bombs
I heard that the movie "The Passion of the Christ" opened today, as though we had enough films on the crucifixion of Jesus. I have read and heard reviews of it and found out what's in it. After hearing about all this, I have come to the conclusion that this may be the worst movie ever written. There are several points on which to base this. It is one of the most violent movies ever written, showing explicit poundings of big nails into Jesus' hands and blood all over the place. It seems to make a presupposition that the viewer is Christian; indeed that Christianity is the only way to go. It takes literally from the Bible even though historians doubt the authenticity of much of the Bible; people don't listen to the historians because they insist that everything in the Bible is true, despite the numerous contradictions in it. But the worst part is that it may start a wave of anti-Semitism. The movie makes Pontius Pilate into a heroic image, even though the evidence was that he was ruthless at times. It makes the Jewish community into a heathen tribe that was responsible solely for the death of Jesus. I read one reviewer who thought that Jews would regard the movie as offensive. We need a new wave of anti-Semitism like we need a hole in the head, yet this movie may gross (there are two meanings to that word!) the largest amount of any movie on record. It says something about where we are headed. Please, media, take the attention off this movie. We don't need throngs of people eager to see what I regard as the Bomb of Bombs (and I mean Bomb in the American sense; that is, a failure).
I heard that the movie "The Passion of the Christ" opened today, as though we had enough films on the crucifixion of Jesus. I have read and heard reviews of it and found out what's in it. After hearing about all this, I have come to the conclusion that this may be the worst movie ever written. There are several points on which to base this. It is one of the most violent movies ever written, showing explicit poundings of big nails into Jesus' hands and blood all over the place. It seems to make a presupposition that the viewer is Christian; indeed that Christianity is the only way to go. It takes literally from the Bible even though historians doubt the authenticity of much of the Bible; people don't listen to the historians because they insist that everything in the Bible is true, despite the numerous contradictions in it. But the worst part is that it may start a wave of anti-Semitism. The movie makes Pontius Pilate into a heroic image, even though the evidence was that he was ruthless at times. It makes the Jewish community into a heathen tribe that was responsible solely for the death of Jesus. I read one reviewer who thought that Jews would regard the movie as offensive. We need a new wave of anti-Semitism like we need a hole in the head, yet this movie may gross (there are two meanings to that word!) the largest amount of any movie on record. It says something about where we are headed. Please, media, take the attention off this movie. We don't need throngs of people eager to see what I regard as the Bomb of Bombs (and I mean Bomb in the American sense; that is, a failure).
2004/02/23
Capture Osama Now
I heard in an article by Ahmad Bouzid that Osama is cornered in Afghanistan and that US and British troops are awaiting for the order to come in for the capture; not the kill, but the capture. I don't know if this is the case, but if it is, Bush needs to capture Osama bin Laden now!
But I don't think that Bush is planning that. In fact, I will predict a date on which Osama bin Laden will be captured: 2004 October 15, or somewhere around then. The elections are the reason why I believe this. If this actually happened, Bush would get such a boost to his campaign that he would win in a landslide. Waiting until October 15 to get votes to me is unacceptable. If Osama is indeed responsible for the terrorist attacks on African embassies in 1998, for the attack in Bali, and especially for Planeattack on 2001 September 11, then he needs to be captured now before he has any chance of planning any more terrorist attacks. I agree with Chuck, a replier to Bouzid's article. Kerry and Edwards need to call for the capture of Osama now! If instead, he is captured on October 15, then the Democrat will just go back to the original call and call Bush down on his choosing the date for the capture. But the Democrats need to call for Osama's capture as soon as possible, if indeed he is within the US's and Britain's grasp.
I heard in an article by Ahmad Bouzid that Osama is cornered in Afghanistan and that US and British troops are awaiting for the order to come in for the capture; not the kill, but the capture. I don't know if this is the case, but if it is, Bush needs to capture Osama bin Laden now!
But I don't think that Bush is planning that. In fact, I will predict a date on which Osama bin Laden will be captured: 2004 October 15, or somewhere around then. The elections are the reason why I believe this. If this actually happened, Bush would get such a boost to his campaign that he would win in a landslide. Waiting until October 15 to get votes to me is unacceptable. If Osama is indeed responsible for the terrorist attacks on African embassies in 1998, for the attack in Bali, and especially for Planeattack on 2001 September 11, then he needs to be captured now before he has any chance of planning any more terrorist attacks. I agree with Chuck, a replier to Bouzid's article. Kerry and Edwards need to call for the capture of Osama now! If instead, he is captured on October 15, then the Democrat will just go back to the original call and call Bush down on his choosing the date for the capture. But the Democrats need to call for Osama's capture as soon as possible, if indeed he is within the US's and Britain's grasp.
Run, Arnie
Yesterday I called upon Ralph Nader not to run because he would take votes away from the Democrat and help Bush get re-elect- no, excuse me, I mean elected. Today I found about someone else who would like to run for President: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California. He talked about it in a news program a day or so ago. An amendment would have to be passed for him to be President; maybe one that says that a foreign-born citizen with 20 or more years in the USA could become President. He also says he is not interested in it right now. That of course means he is interested.
Well, don't let the foreignbornness hold you back, Mr. Schwarzenegger. I want you to run for President. I feel that Arnold would have better stands on the issues than most Republicans would have, although he goofed up with gay marriages recently. But the main reason is that he would take votes away from Bush. Furthermore, unlike Nader, if he runs for President and gets 5% or more, he would topple Key 4, the third-party Lichtman key, because he would hurt Bush. Further, he is likely to get that 5% if he runs. He has charisma in abundance. If he ran, he would siphon off many votes from Bush, maybe so many that not only would he topple Key 4 bigspace, he might even take some states, such as Alaska, Maine, and perhaps his home state of California. If this happened, he would take away so many Bush votes that a 45% Kerry or Edwards showing would be a massive electoral landslide. The only hitch among voters would be, what if he gets elected and can't serve because of his being foreign-born? Maybe Congress and the state legislatures would hurry up and ratify an amendment, or maybe the VP could serve while this was being processed. But I don't think it will go that far as to actually elect Schwarzenegger. I do think that he would get enough to knock down Key 4 and make it easier for Bush to be defeated.
For that reason, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a candidate that I would like to see run. If I had been in California last year and Arnold was native-born, I would have voted for him because of this possibility of running for President. So Run, Arnie, Run! Give Bush a run for his money.
Yesterday I called upon Ralph Nader not to run because he would take votes away from the Democrat and help Bush get re-elect- no, excuse me, I mean elected. Today I found about someone else who would like to run for President: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California. He talked about it in a news program a day or so ago. An amendment would have to be passed for him to be President; maybe one that says that a foreign-born citizen with 20 or more years in the USA could become President. He also says he is not interested in it right now. That of course means he is interested.
Well, don't let the foreignbornness hold you back, Mr. Schwarzenegger. I want you to run for President. I feel that Arnold would have better stands on the issues than most Republicans would have, although he goofed up with gay marriages recently. But the main reason is that he would take votes away from Bush. Furthermore, unlike Nader, if he runs for President and gets 5% or more, he would topple Key 4, the third-party Lichtman key, because he would hurt Bush. Further, he is likely to get that 5% if he runs. He has charisma in abundance. If he ran, he would siphon off many votes from Bush, maybe so many that not only would he topple Key 4 bigspace, he might even take some states, such as Alaska, Maine, and perhaps his home state of California. If this happened, he would take away so many Bush votes that a 45% Kerry or Edwards showing would be a massive electoral landslide. The only hitch among voters would be, what if he gets elected and can't serve because of his being foreign-born? Maybe Congress and the state legislatures would hurry up and ratify an amendment, or maybe the VP could serve while this was being processed. But I don't think it will go that far as to actually elect Schwarzenegger. I do think that he would get enough to knock down Key 4 and make it easier for Bush to be defeated.
For that reason, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a candidate that I would like to see run. If I had been in California last year and Arnold was native-born, I would have voted for him because of this possibility of running for President. So Run, Arnie, Run! Give Bush a run for his money.
2004/02/22
Nader, please don't run
I heard this morning that Nader is running for President. Nader, please don't run. The Election of 2000 was so close that x in the sentence, "If x had happened, then Gore would have won the election." could be anyone of a number of things; for example, "If he had won his home state", "If the ballot in Palm Beach County had not been misdesigned", "If he had won New Hampshire.", and so forth. But one thing that could certainly be substituted for x is "If Nader hadn't run". For if a mere smidgen of votes for Nader had gone for Gore instead in Florida, Gore would have taken Florida, pregnant chads or no, and if the polls were correct that Nader voters would gone 2/3 for Gore if Nader had not run, then Gore would have taken New Hampshire as well. Nader's running in 2004 raises this specter again.
Now the Lichtman keys theory has a key for independent candidates, namely Key 4, which says "There is no major third party challenge." The criteria for this is 5%. But maybe a Nader candidacy would not count since he would hurt the Democrat. Or one could argue reduction ad absurdum that if Nader gets more than 5%, the Bush is helped, since he would take votes away from the Democrat, and Bush would be hurt since that would cause Key 4 to fall. This contradiction would then show that Nader will not get 5% this fall. I think he will not even get 1%. Too many people know what happened in 2000 and they will not let it happen again.
But still his presence threatens the Democratic candidate and hence the very ideas that Nader is espousing. No, Nader. You don't defeat Bush by running. You defeat him by helping the best chance there is of defeating him: Kerry or Edwards, or whoever the nominee is. Please don't run. Quit now. I'll put it to a song, song to the words of Hit the Road, Jack:
Please don't run, Ralph,
Please don't run and run and your case push,
Pleases don't run, Ralph,
And throw the election to Bush…
(Nader: What you'd say??)
I heard this morning that Nader is running for President. Nader, please don't run. The Election of 2000 was so close that x in the sentence, "If x had happened, then Gore would have won the election." could be anyone of a number of things; for example, "If he had won his home state", "If the ballot in Palm Beach County had not been misdesigned", "If he had won New Hampshire.", and so forth. But one thing that could certainly be substituted for x is "If Nader hadn't run". For if a mere smidgen of votes for Nader had gone for Gore instead in Florida, Gore would have taken Florida, pregnant chads or no, and if the polls were correct that Nader voters would gone 2/3 for Gore if Nader had not run, then Gore would have taken New Hampshire as well. Nader's running in 2004 raises this specter again.
Now the Lichtman keys theory has a key for independent candidates, namely Key 4, which says "There is no major third party challenge." The criteria for this is 5%. But maybe a Nader candidacy would not count since he would hurt the Democrat. Or one could argue reduction ad absurdum that if Nader gets more than 5%, the Bush is helped, since he would take votes away from the Democrat, and Bush would be hurt since that would cause Key 4 to fall. This contradiction would then show that Nader will not get 5% this fall. I think he will not even get 1%. Too many people know what happened in 2000 and they will not let it happen again.
But still his presence threatens the Democratic candidate and hence the very ideas that Nader is espousing. No, Nader. You don't defeat Bush by running. You defeat him by helping the best chance there is of defeating him: Kerry or Edwards, or whoever the nominee is. Please don't run. Quit now. I'll put it to a song, song to the words of Hit the Road, Jack:
Please don't run, Ralph,
Please don't run and run and your case push,
Pleases don't run, Ralph,
And throw the election to Bush…
(Nader: What you'd say??)
Schwarzenegger makes weird analogy
Recently I heard Schwarzenegger say that gay marriages need to be stopped in San Francisco. Something is happening here with these gay marriages. The very institution of marriage appears to be changing into something quite a bit different, causing us to ask what is a marriage for, anyway? But that is another story. What I am talking about is Schwarzenegger's weird analogy. He says if we allow gay marriages today, it will be assault weapons tomorrow and drugs after that.
Whaaa?? What does marriage and the bond of love do with something whose main purpose is to cause a large amount of violence? I heard it on TV from one of the cobrides who got married recently to her girlfriend. Marriage is a bond of love between two people, and represents attraction and a desire to have a family. What does that have to do with guns? She felt offended by the Terminator's remarks. I think Schwarzenegger has Terminator in his brain. In the movie, all someone has to do to maintain their point is pull out a gun. Schwarzenegger, this is reality. It is not a rootin', tootin' movie.
Now he would be more on the target instead of saying guns and drugs, he had said marriages of three or more people. I feel that is coming next. For if two people can come together to an agreement of support and love and to form a family, why not three or four or more? I think three or more person marriages may be the trend of the future, given a lot of aging baby boomers with little or no family to support them or give them comfort. It is my belief that such marriages work best with at least one man and at least one women, but when it comes I believe that we should legally honor three and four person marriages, even if all are of the same sex, just as we are now doing with two-person same-sex marriages. If Schwarzenegger had said this, he would have made sense. It's evident that he is still living in the movies.
Recently I heard Schwarzenegger say that gay marriages need to be stopped in San Francisco. Something is happening here with these gay marriages. The very institution of marriage appears to be changing into something quite a bit different, causing us to ask what is a marriage for, anyway? But that is another story. What I am talking about is Schwarzenegger's weird analogy. He says if we allow gay marriages today, it will be assault weapons tomorrow and drugs after that.
Whaaa?? What does marriage and the bond of love do with something whose main purpose is to cause a large amount of violence? I heard it on TV from one of the cobrides who got married recently to her girlfriend. Marriage is a bond of love between two people, and represents attraction and a desire to have a family. What does that have to do with guns? She felt offended by the Terminator's remarks. I think Schwarzenegger has Terminator in his brain. In the movie, all someone has to do to maintain their point is pull out a gun. Schwarzenegger, this is reality. It is not a rootin', tootin' movie.
Now he would be more on the target instead of saying guns and drugs, he had said marriages of three or more people. I feel that is coming next. For if two people can come together to an agreement of support and love and to form a family, why not three or four or more? I think three or more person marriages may be the trend of the future, given a lot of aging baby boomers with little or no family to support them or give them comfort. It is my belief that such marriages work best with at least one man and at least one women, but when it comes I believe that we should legally honor three and four person marriages, even if all are of the same sex, just as we are now doing with two-person same-sex marriages. If Schwarzenegger had said this, he would have made sense. It's evident that he is still living in the movies.
Looks like Bush is going to win
The media is already hyping up a close contest between Kerry and Bush. They are bringing forth memories of Election 2000. The polls are indicating a slight lead for Kerry. One thorn may be Nader's candidacy, which would cut into the Democratic party's nominee's vote total. But Nader or no, is this contest going to be close?
Maybe, but maybe not. In any case it is still looking like a Bush win. This is because Bush has still lost only four of the 13 Lichtman keys. He has lost number 7, the policy key (no good policies), number 10, foreign or military failure (Planeattack, aka "9/11"), number 12, incumbent charisma (he is not charismatic), and number 6, long-term economy (because of the dot-com bust). He has lost no others. He does have Key 1, mandate (because of the 2002 elections) and Key 3 incumbency (he's the President). I don't see him losing the other keys right now. There is still no Republican challenger (Key 2), and Ralph Nader (Key 4, third party) does not count, as he hurts Democrats, not Republicans. There is no social unrest (Key 8), incipient scandals are evaporating (Key 9), Saddam was captured (ensuring Key 11, foreign or military success), Kerry is not charismatic (Key 13), and the economy is improving, so he probably has Key 5.
It could be a close win. Incumbents have lost 9 keys and still lost by a whisker. It could be a landslide. Johnson won handily over Goldwater despite losing 3 keys. But the Lichtman Key system says right now, no matter how it comes, that Bush will win.
What would change the prospect of a Bush victory? First, the economy would have to sputter. Higher gasoline prices may do just that by election day. Then some real scandal would have to develop; it would have to lead to many convictions and jail terms (as with Teapot Dome or Watergate), or lead to an impeachment or virtually certain impeachment of the President (as with Nixon and Clinton). Or social unrest would have to develop; this would have to be on the scale of 1964-1968, with its race riots and massive antiwar demonstrations. Or the Democrats would have to nominate someone who is charismatic. They may do better with Edwards than Kerry; Edwards shows signs of possibly being charismatic. If for example, Edwards is nominated, turns out to be charismatic, and the economy takes a downturn, Bush will be defeated. However, right now, none of this is happening, so Bush will win the popular vote. That shows another avenue happening: a reverse 2000 wherein Kerry or Edwards gets the electoral vote and Bush the popular, maybe by the Democrat winning several big states by slim margins. But for Bush to be defeated, something has to happen, polls or no.
The media is already hyping up a close contest between Kerry and Bush. They are bringing forth memories of Election 2000. The polls are indicating a slight lead for Kerry. One thorn may be Nader's candidacy, which would cut into the Democratic party's nominee's vote total. But Nader or no, is this contest going to be close?
Maybe, but maybe not. In any case it is still looking like a Bush win. This is because Bush has still lost only four of the 13 Lichtman keys. He has lost number 7, the policy key (no good policies), number 10, foreign or military failure (Planeattack, aka "9/11"), number 12, incumbent charisma (he is not charismatic), and number 6, long-term economy (because of the dot-com bust). He has lost no others. He does have Key 1, mandate (because of the 2002 elections) and Key 3 incumbency (he's the President). I don't see him losing the other keys right now. There is still no Republican challenger (Key 2), and Ralph Nader (Key 4, third party) does not count, as he hurts Democrats, not Republicans. There is no social unrest (Key 8), incipient scandals are evaporating (Key 9), Saddam was captured (ensuring Key 11, foreign or military success), Kerry is not charismatic (Key 13), and the economy is improving, so he probably has Key 5.
It could be a close win. Incumbents have lost 9 keys and still lost by a whisker. It could be a landslide. Johnson won handily over Goldwater despite losing 3 keys. But the Lichtman Key system says right now, no matter how it comes, that Bush will win.
What would change the prospect of a Bush victory? First, the economy would have to sputter. Higher gasoline prices may do just that by election day. Then some real scandal would have to develop; it would have to lead to many convictions and jail terms (as with Teapot Dome or Watergate), or lead to an impeachment or virtually certain impeachment of the President (as with Nixon and Clinton). Or social unrest would have to develop; this would have to be on the scale of 1964-1968, with its race riots and massive antiwar demonstrations. Or the Democrats would have to nominate someone who is charismatic. They may do better with Edwards than Kerry; Edwards shows signs of possibly being charismatic. If for example, Edwards is nominated, turns out to be charismatic, and the economy takes a downturn, Bush will be defeated. However, right now, none of this is happening, so Bush will win the popular vote. That shows another avenue happening: a reverse 2000 wherein Kerry or Edwards gets the electoral vote and Bush the popular, maybe by the Democrat winning several big states by slim margins. But for Bush to be defeated, something has to happen, polls or no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)