update april 5

moderationsmuse is an artist

http://moderationsmuse-about-art.blogspot.com/

As some Huffers know, I voted for Bush twice! But I post at Huff Po to demonstrate that the stereotypes "progressives" have about folks like me are false.
Moderationsmuse just finished reading Reagan's wonderful autobiography "An American Life" and recommends it to everyone. Whatever you thought about Reagan, you don't know who he was until you've read this book.
Meanwhile in this election time, I'm reading John McCain's "Worth Fighting For," Hillary Clinton's "Living History," and Barrack Obama's "Audacity of Hope."
What are you reading?
Recent comments by this user
The Embarrassment of Riches
Is it OKAY at Huff Po, to be rich? Isn't this really the question? (Arianna, pay attention.) Put me down as it is OKAY that some human beings are rich. I don't think it's "unfair." I don't lose a moment's sleep thinking that somewhere somebody is rich, while I am not.

But as a Reagan Republican, I would just point out that if too much of the rich person's money is taken from them (Reagan grew up poor, too, by the way) that the rich -- having ever so many more options -- are just as likely to take their nice money elsewhere. Getting them to reinvest it in the economy benefits everybody.

So, to a certain extent, one should encourage the rich to live it up -- though not to the extent that it damages their souls -- for they are human beings, and their lives matter, and life is short for rich and poor alike. posted 04/05/2008 at 16:04:32
Having the government take the excess money of wealthy people in the form of taxes and then "give" it to the citizens in the form of benefits strikes some people (who are obviously not rich themselves) as being more "fair." However, I would remind my dear fellow citizens that allowing the government to take these revenues pretty much guarantees that you'll have rather little influence over how it is spent -- whether it is spent wisely, or whether it is just frittered away, or used to finance a war! Whereas, in rather sharp contrast, if the wealthy person goes out and buys a big house and decorates the hell out of it, and you are in the home improvement business or the decor business (etc.) then you make some money from their extravagance.

But whether the much sought after money stays with its wealthy few or ends up in the US Treasury, in neither instance does it change the spiritual quality of your particular life.

You can attach your heart to things that have meaning -- you can do this any time you choose -- and no amount of money can purchase a finer sense of self -- and no depth of poverty can rob someone of human dignity.

Set your sights higher, Huffers! posted 04/05/2008 at 16:03:56
Being an "activist" in college qualifies one to become president? And she "really" cares. John McCain spent 5 years in a prison camp, but Mrs. Clinton "really" cares. Interesting.
Each time the American economy "turns around" I think the business people, the manufacturers, the suppliers, the truck drivers, the stock clerks and their colleagues deserve a little bit of the credit. As to our getting out of Iraq, it would be an interesting change,to say the least, to have a president who actually wins a war, given that -- from time to time -- wars invariably end up getting fought. Certainly the Iraqis would be the most obviously immediate beneficiaries of our winning the war, though of course they cannot vote for our president. Alas, for them.
Just about the only thing you and I are likely to agree about is Mrs. Clinton's having "guts," as you put it. Her husband humiliated her before the entire nation, but she wants to be president SO BAD, that she is willing to put herself back onto his arm and be a good little wife in their much ballyhooed "political marriage."
You and I definitely have different ideas about the presidential qualifications. posted 04/05/2008 at 15:36:39
Bill Maher: The Biofuel Boom
"Global warming" is a political catch phrase. Climate change in contrast is a valid scientific question, note "question," one that can only be answered definitively with time. I disagree with Mr. Maher that further politicizing this topic will improve anything. Alternative energy sources will not be developed in response to political grandstanding. Indeed the political gesture provides little more than egotistical "feel good" moments for people who are otherwise doing nothing to solve the problem. Grandstanding also alienates half the electorate by turning environmentalist into a form of "hipness."
Clean air, clean water, sustainable agriculture, sustainable growth, reintroducing habits of thrift and land stewardship are bi-partisan issues that deserve to be treated as common concerns for everybody.
The pointless name calling papers over the many unintended consequences of extensive "progress" and should provide a cautionary tale for advocates of "change." About 30,000 deaths can be attributed yearly to automobile wrecks. How does that compare with casualties of war? Meanwhile, no matter what comes out of the exhaust pipe -- even if it be breatheable air! -- having highways everywhere means the destruction habitat. Does wildlife matter?
Will people wish to share land with wild animals ever again? Do we really want to have nature be a part of our lives? Not just something we drive hundreds of miles to see in a "wildlife preserve." Are we going to bring nature to our doorsteps again? Will we ever be a part of the natural order again? posted 04/04/2008 at 18:32:37
McCain Booed At Martin Luther King Speech: Watch The Video
Nunzia,
I'm against bombing Iran. I have friends there. As for you, do you favor Iran's development of nuclear weapons?
Decades of war in Iraq. I'm not aware of anyone who favors decades of war unless it is al Quida. Winning in Iraq is something that I favor. A long-term US presence in Iraq would be a direct consequence of that as it has been in Japon, Germany, Korea, Kuwait, etc. The US presence in those countries would appear to have assisted peace. (Germany and France have fought wars with each other since Neanderthal times.)
I am presently going into my meager retirement funds to pay for a large medical bill. But I'm not so certain that "universal health care" would solve my family's medical problems. Perhaps it might, perhaps not. I don't see that "elitism" even enters into it.
McCain and Obama have much in common, except age (obviously) and also they differ in several, fairly nuanced ways philosophically. But in many other respects they are quite similar -- just as most Democrats and Republicans are actually quite similar. The whole business of labeling people prevents many people from seeing myriad, rather obvious similarities.
I think the labeling serves its own purpose: it creates a fictional character that one is permitted to hate. Evidently, most people need somebody to hate. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:19:16
Why does respect for a man have to "end" anywhere? When will we begin dealing with people as human beings. Why can't one just "respect" other people. Period. Without caveats? I'm registered Republican and am undecided about the next election as regards Obama or McCain. I'm assuming that Clinton, for whom I have little fondness, will not be a factor. But even I, can "respect" Senator Clinton and acknowledge that she believes she is serving her country honorably.
I don't have to agree with her. I don't have to agree with Obama. I don't have to agree with McCain. It's possible to respect them all as hard-working proponents of various ideas.
It is possible for people to cooperate while believing different things, while holding different ideals. posted 04/04/2008 at 18:46:44
Hillary Clinton With Jay Leno On Tonight Show: Enters To "Rocky" Theme, Jokes About Sniper Fire
Do Clinton supporters think the joking is funny? If you are asking me personally, I don't know. I am not her supporter. Obviously her extraordinary claims of valor are not helping her. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:47:11
Then we can add me to this list. posted 04/04/2008 at 21:01:45
I've just glanced through a few comments, but almost all the hate positions are represented so far: those who, of course, hate Hillary, those who hate Obama, those who hate Bush, -- McCain haters must be in here too, haven't gotten that far yet. Great forum. So much kindness and empathy going on here.
Wow, is it any wonder there are wars? We all live in this one country where most people -- certainly all of us commenting here, have food, shelter, safety, opportunity, freedom -- all as testified by our mutual access to computers -- and yet see the venting of all this mean-spiritedness and we pretend to be friends of peace.
Yeah, Senator Clinton is lying. Okay. She evidently wants to be president real bad and thought she could fool the gullible people with the sniper claim. Who's that gullible? None of thissays anything very complimentary about her judgement.
So, don't vote for her (I'm won't) and otherwise, get over it. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:33:00
Want a Taste of the McCain Presidency? You've Already Had One
Not lifted a finger? Like being leaders of America's foreign policy doesn't benefit anyone? Was Rice's also becoming a classical pianist, along the way, too selfish for a black woman? Shame, yourself. Maybe the "poor," the "black" and the "under-privileged" (whatever that euphemism means -- how much "privilege" should one have?) -- as though these people are not able, not capable of living their own lives. The problem with Democrats is that they have so little confidence in African Americans and suppose that blacks must have everything done for them, since they are presumably incapable of doing anything for themselves.
Who "gave" Secretary Rice her education? Her intelligence, her drive? Or General Powell -- was he just a token? As though he didn't earn his military rank and work for everything he accomplished.
And Martin Luther King, who you aptly address as "Dr." King, how -- tell me -- did he come by a doctorate degree? Did someone give it to him because he was poor, and black and underpriviledged?
While we're at it, what about Jim Gates, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Ronald E. McNair, Mae Jamieson, Michael Anderson, and -- well, I'm not going to list famous African Americans all day long -- but tell me if THEIR accomplishments matter? Or do we credit them only if they're registered Democrats? posted 04/05/2008 at 16:37:10
Silksnspark
Here, here!
Would that both Obama and McCain each do their utmost to demonstrate why they should be president. I'd love to see a race in which they each try to out do each other in generosity, decency, idealism, inspirational example, intelligence and common sense, hard work and optimism. A grand ambition, one that lifts people up.
What would it be like to have an election in which voters are torn between two fine candidates, either of which would make one proud? posted 04/05/2008 at 14:56:11
If your party "needs" something to use against its opponent, what does that say about your own candidate? Why not persuade why people should vote "for" rather than against? Why not seek candidates that people will want to vote for? The chief criticism of Obama will be his inexperience, which is not a damning criticism is it? It merely implies that the man needs to spend more time in government before trying the presidency. A lot of people who are not Democrats (like me) find things to admire about Obama. Whereas if you find nothing to admire about McCain, I'd judge that you don't know much about him.
Trying to figure out why McCain is high in the polls, because he believes if we fight a war we should win it. If we are not going to win, we shouldn't fight in the first place. He believes in private industry and individual initiative. He believes in the right of the unborn to live. He believes that immigrants come to the US in search of a better life and that we should acknowledge our country's need for the work that immigrants do. He believes in bi-partisanship (something that has cost him within his own party). I'm reading his book "Worth Fighting For," now -- where he narrates his "beliefs" and how he came by them. I'll be reading Obama's Audacity of Hope," and Clinton's "Living History" as well. posted 04/04/2008 at 20:55:24
So's your car. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:02:53
So your ten year old has learned this prejudice already? Being a Republican is the new black. I wonder what Dr. King would say in this era of present and former Secretaries of State who are African-American. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:00:12
Jon Stewart Mocks Media Shock: Obama "Bowling For Votes!"
This is real bi-partisanship. Jon Stewart has something to teach everybody. Laugh. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:08:09
Obama: I'd Hire Gore
It's not spin. Somethings are not spin. That's what you learn when you are not looking at everything through the lens of politics, when instead you are looking at people, ordinary, everyday people. posted 04/03/2008 at 18:23:36
I've been keeping an open mind about Obama, but his claim that he'd put Gore in a central position regarding global warming is not good news. McCain is also concerned about Global Warming, but I'm pretty sure he won't be adding Gore to his cabinet. He won't be adding Madonna and Sting to the cabinet either. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:28:02
Your cheap shot is very revealing. You aren't so interested in protecting nature as you are in making baseless attacks. Nature conservation is the prime consensus issue -- or would be -- or used to be before the "Left" decided (with the acquiescence of a servile media) to co-op it as their wedge issue. In other words they would just shove 50% of the electorate off the stage.
The climate of the earth is a topic for scientific study and as such scientific theory and data will change as scientific methods become more accurate. In contrast, "global warming" is a pseudo-scientific front for income redistribution and feel-good grand standing. Gore's answer to environmental dangers was to organize a rock concert.
Serious people of both parties want to and historically have long attempted to find ways to protect wilderness places while balancing for economic growth. Non-serious people like yourself, in contrast, indulge in pointless and sanctimonious rants.
We agree, however, upon one point: Gore is YOUR kind of guy. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:26:35
Sometimes Honor Is Wrong -- The Problem With John McCain
I was addressing someone who thought soldiers could opt out of wars they do not approve, which is entirely different and decidedly not legal.
So it's apples and oranges. posted 04/05/2008 at 16:09:48
Al Quida's interest in fighting the US predates the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and began with the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Well, ideologically, it goes back much farther still with Arab distain for American mores.

Sharia law, however, is becoming increasingly a source of tension in Europe where there are much larger Arab populations. Especially in the Netherlands and Britian. posted 04/04/2008 at 21:10:08
I grant that we are not at that place where McCain had said a security presence could begin. We have not won yet.
If we are going to stay there, we should "win." And if we are not going to win, we should leave. I suppose the McCain candidacy is really about that question: do we win or not.
Secondly, acknowledge that Iraq is not simply a civil war brewing, though argueably that aspect is nascent. Iraq has outside Islamic forces that wish to prevent its becoming a nation. And those forces do not want to let the US government fix the electricity and water problems.

My question to you would be: what responsibility does the US owe to the Iraqi people to restore order in the wake of our invasion there? What happens to them, the Iraqis -- particularly those who want freedom and democracy -- those who have risked their lives for democracy and self-government? posted 04/04/2008 at 21:07:33
McCain spoke out strongly against torture -- recently since the water-boarding issue came up. Where do you get the opposite impression? He's firmly against it, and said so very plainly and quite publically. I'd like to see a quote supporting your opposite assertion. posted 04/03/2008 at 20:10:40
In fairness to McCain you should quote him as well. Don't you think? And not in a forced way, but using those remarks of his that most nearly address these same ideas.
I dont think McCain would argue with what Washington says, by the way. Do you?
Anyway, how wonderful that you provide these quotes! posted 04/03/2008 at 20:08:31
Do I take it that you do not count Washington among the good ones? I would find that astonishing. Without Washington's good conduct of the presidency there might easier have not been any further presidents.

Bush's comment that he will listen to ground commanders is meant to reassure his critics that he leaves military tactics and strategy to those with military expertise. Hence we are to conclude that the president is setting a policy that he leaves to others to implement. That in itself does not remove accountability.
Actually there is no question that Bush is accountable. And if the Democrats win in 08 it will appear in large part as a mandate against the Iraq war.
In my defense, against your question am I a fool, I would agree with Bush that history will ultimately vindicate or condemn his decision. If Iraq becomes eventually a democracy, Bush will have been visionary. If Iraq sinks back into the mire of Islamic and Middle Eastern ethnic conflict then Bush will be deemed a foolish adventurer.
I'm not ready to make predictions which way it will go, not having a crystal ball or any other means, either logical, historical, or psychological upon which to venture even a serious guess. I do hope for the Iraqis that they turn toward self-determination, but wishes are just wishes, though sometimes they are also prayers..
I still persist in thinking, back to my original point, that Washington was a great president. A truly great president. posted 04/03/2008 at 20:03:30
In his memoir McCain said that he began studying the history of the Vietnam war after his return to the US precisely because he felt he had to understand why he had been sent to fight and whether or not the decision to go to war in Vietnam had been wise. It's historical perspective was very important to him. So, perhaps you should read his account and find out what conclusions he drew. I'm not being coy, by the way. I'm currently reading his book and am only partly through it: "Worth Fighting For." I decided to read books by the three current candidates because I want to judge each of them by their own words rather than by what is said about them by others. posted 04/03/2008 at 19:47:24
I want to say how interesting I find your questions. I wish that more people writing here at Huff Po addressed the issues in the way that you're doing. You ask what "honor" is -- and ask in a genuine and thoughtful way, not attempting to impose a pat moral upon your readers.
Actually McCain addresses the "narcissism" thing very directly in his book "Worth Fighting For," a memoir that takes its title from his assertions that a certain kind of military zeal arises, as you say, from narcissism. And he goes on to say that he had to find, in his own life, something greater than himself to which he could focus his strong desire to succeed, to rescue his ambition from ego.
Indirectly, I think McCain makes the point that while we find such egotism distasteful, yet it's linked to a necessary energy or drive. Without this "egotism" many great leaders would never have appeared -- that "greatness" is not an abstract ideal but is rather a complicated, individual aspect of human nature. Excessive ego occurs, however, when ambition is fastened onto an unworthy goal -- or when the individual acts solely and exclusively from personal ambition. McCain is self-critical enough to win a reader's respect, I think, in his introspection.
Which group had honor? I'm not sure it's an either/or question. How we answer, though, perhaps leads us into a more realistic understanding of our own motives. posted 04/03/2008 at 19:40:31
Americans have a soft life now. It's a sad reflection of our success at democracy and "the pursuit of happiness" in particular that many Americans are unwilling to make a sacrifice for their country. Of course, perhaps Iraq is not something Americans feel they should be fighting for. But contrast the "anti-war" sentiment here with al Quida's recruiting. Al quida doesn't seem to have any difficulty finding soldiers willing -- more than that -- eager to fight they're very unjust war, one that targets civilians equally with soldiers, Muslims equally with "infidels." Certainly they are not fighting for self-rule or anything like that. Al Quida is fighting to put a theocracy into power, one that would impose its interpretation of Islamic law upon others, distinctly from the top down.
One has to wonder what it demonstrates about the differences between two cultures. Democracy is something we want to keep safe over here. And others can kind of fend for themselves. posted 04/03/2008 at 19:03:34
I'm wondering what you mean by saying Nixon "opened the door to communist China." And from this assertion you derive a straight line to McCain's support for the Iraq war. And somehow the Chinese repression of the Tibetans is thus directly laid at McCain's doorstep.
You need to revisit your logic.
Meanwhile if you should ever be interested in reading a first person account of life under communist rule in China, I highly recommend Nien Cheng's "Life and Death in Shanghai." As a somewhat indirect result of Nixon's diplomacy with the Chinese communist government, Nien Cheng was eventually given her freedom and later emmigrated to the US. She was not so critical of Nixon as you appear to be.
Meanwhile, if you are genuinely interested in learning about McCain's thoughts on Vietnam, it strikes me as obvious that you should consult some of his own writing on the topic.
As to McCain's comment about a 100 years, he was referring to a security presence such as we still maintain in Germany, Japon, Kuwait, and other places. We are not, of course, at war in any of those places as presumably you know. posted 04/03/2008 at 18:54:33
If you want soldiers to be able to pick and choose the wars they will fight then you are wishing that the decision to go to war will reside with them and not with the elected, civilian leadership of the country. In effect, you put the military in charge of foreign policy. That's the junta style government.
You would in your fairy tale view, put the whole direction of the nation in the hands of "youth who are easily propagandized."
Do your own statements show you anything about why we have a comander in chief who answers to an elected Congress? posted 04/03/2008 at 18:39:53
I would just remind the writer that our elections of military leaders as presidents began with the first one. Remember George Washington, anybody? posted 04/02/2008 at 18:47:52
Little Girl From Bosnia Scandal Shocked, "Surprised" By Clinton's Lie
These ARE the issues. Dems have whittled it down to two candidates: one who is a former first lady, a carpetbagging senator, who lies about her credentials (obviously) and , the other, a very charming, but thoroughly inexperienced young senator from Illinois.
You had other choices. There are actually Democrats that Republicans and independents would vote for. Did you know that?
You get the candidate you deserve. And meanwhile I'm thinking more and more that this country needs another Republican president. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:38:53
Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan
Well, at least you guys shelved the butterfly ballot.
You did, shelf it, right?
Somebody check. (Just in case.)

Meanwhile, if you NEED help from the Republican party to fix your delegate problem -- sorry, we're kind of busy -- got to get our candidate out to connect with the voters.
See, we've already picked our candidate. (While you guys were busy fighting among yourselves.) Maybe you haven't had time to notice.

Anyway, keeping working on your problem. You'll fix it, I'm sure. Just remember the election's in November. (Mark your calendars.) posted 04/02/2008 at 19:18:35
President Bush Booed At Baseball Game
It was a baseball game. posted 04/04/2008 at 17:50:55
Glancing through a few of the comments tells one that some of Bush's opposition is juvenile, either in fact or in attitude.
When I read the headline, I thought it was unfortunate that the president was booed. It's just a baseball game and presumably there ought to be some events in life where politics can be put aside. But watching the video, it's obvious that as many people were applauding and cheering.
All that aside, President Bush certainly threw the ball with much grace under pressure. He wasn't letting the booing affect his pitch at all. I'm kind of surprised they didn't sign him to the team right there.
If we have an Obama administration, I guess at least we won't have to listen to booing at baseball games. Perhaps chants of "O-ba-ma" -- though one hopes not -- but certainly no booing.
It's the "left" wingers that like to protest things. Conservatives count among the traditional values they hold dear that of being polite in social settings. So they won't boo no matter whether they like or dislike an Obama presidency.
Bush has a mixed report card among those who voted for him (like me). But I'll give him credit for not letting public opinion affect his decision making -- or his baseball pitch. posted 04/02/2008 at 17:44:14
Carville, Coulter and the Others
Why be so reactionary. Coulter is an intelligent woman, and many of her serious ideas are compelling ones. If you're secure in your views, you ought to be able to accept that. The problem, as Mr. Franken has noted, is the sensationism that Coulter and others indulge. So, shame on her (as well as her counter parts on the other side). But when you get behind the ideas, past the lights and sirens, she says some interesting things. Maybe you should read some of it before you judge. Even in regard to her heavy partisanship, it's still revealing to discover why people believe the things they do. Whether "inflammatory, callous" or not, she is still a human being.
And yours (and others') over-reactions is revealing also. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:37:04
I'm not very familiar with Coulter the tv person. In print, she comes across as sarcastic but very intelligent -- enough so that her views deserve more serious attention. Notably, however, she is not a part of anyone's campaign. What she says, whether wise or unwise, she says on her own behalf. However Carville is a member of Hillary's team as he was in her husband's campaign and that says something very revealing and very unpleasant about the Clintons. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:24:41
Different Strokes
Your comments were so cute. A bit paranoid, but cute. What's my point? It's that, since we all agree that science is fascinating, why don't we talk about SCIENCE? If Mr. Horton has written anything about science, I missed it. He is obsessed with the fact that people like me believe in God.
Get over it.
In contrast "Avraham Trahtman, a Russian mathematician, solved the "Road Coloring Problem." The conjecture assumed it"s possible to create a "universal map" that can direct people to arrive at a certain destination, at the same time, regardless of starting point. Experts say the proposition could have real-life applications in mapping and computer science." [Ref:
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/russian-jew-solves-math-problem-that-makes-foolproof-global-tracking-possible/]
This, dear, is science. Why doesn't Horton talk about stuff like this? Don't know about you guys, but I'd love to learn more about this.
Astrophysicists are also finding new planets nearly daily and the means by which they discover them is as fascinating and clever as the discoveries are wonderful.
Do you suppose you folks could ever get off your anti-religion ranting long enough to notice?
Science is fascinating, whereas these diatribes are boring. That, friend, was my point. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:23:50
Why is it that the Huff Po "scientists" never write about science? You have made your point -- rather ad nauseum. You might even find yourself more persuasive in "defense" of science if you could occasionally bring yourself to talk about it. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:10:51
The Fear Factor
HeadScratcher, You're vision's a little blurry today. Actually I'm a Reagan Republican. Absolutely no way, I'd ever vote for Hillary not during Hell's biggest deep freeze. Loathed the husband and don't like the wife any better.
All I was saying was: make specific criticisms not the vague amorphous ones. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:19:01
Now you're talking. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:09:02
Lisakaz,

If you're reading, I address your remarks way at the back last page of the comments. Yes, okay. The delegates wished to remain anonymous. But what were the vague "threats" that they felt the Clintons were empowered to impose? Let's assume it was something more substantial than being removed from their Christmas card list.

Various Clinton donors threatened to withdrawl their financial support from unnamed House Dems seeking reelection if Pelosi didn't cease her suggestions that Hilliary step aside. That kind of "threat" is at least specific.

It's this nebulous, eerie "what-will-they-do?" with background music that I think is a bit over the top.

LIke I said, I'm not a fan. I just make the comment. Meanwhile, answering ron071 as to why I could vote (agast!) vote Bush twice? Easy. The reasons are Gore and Kerry.

Sometimes one votes against as much as for. I could argue that ron071 is "brave" to admit that Mr. Save the Planet was ever a viable candidate. What would his response to Iraq have been? Perhaps a rock concert.... posted 03/29/2008 at 17:05:28
What's wrong with McCain? posted 03/29/2008 at 16:17:00
Mr. Lux,
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who dislikes Hilliary Clinton more than I. (I voted for Bush, by the way. Twice.)
But even her love-to-hate-her fans like me believe that the kind of commentary you make deserves at least a shred of evidence. Got a "shred"? Could you be a little more specific? Either you should provide that evidence or confine your comments to matters about which you have evidence.
Support Obama all day long. But certainly you can do so by admiring him rather than making claims about his opponent that you are too coy to detail. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:38:57
Peggy Noonan: At This Point You Either Understand The Problem With Hillary Or You Don't
Reagan served in the Army Air Force during WWII making training films for pilots. Part of his mission involved classified material such as simulations of planned bombing runs. In his capacity of providing this training he also had access to classified material about the enemy and became aware, earlier than most Americans, of the full horrors of the Nazi concentration camps. His wartime experiences are recounted in his memoir "An American Life."
As to why he served states-side, Pres. Reagan was profoundly near-sighted. He was already an Army Reserve Officer when WWII began having enlisted in 1937. At that time he was a cavalry officer. Reagan gave as his reason for enlisting his desire to learn riding. He had a lifetime love of horses. At the time, he was still in Hollywood. After the US entered the war, he like many other Hollywood actors, was called into active duty.
I don't know what Noonan's purported outrage consisted of, but Reagan served the military admirably during WWII and finished the war at the rank of Captain. posted 03/29/2008 at 17:21:43
Right wing nut. How broad-minded of you. Yours is the new racism. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:29:58
Add to your list, that Huff Po found it convenient to post her comments here when it served their purpose. That said, they finally post some tasteful and truthful remarks. Take a listen to what Hilliary's fellow Dems say about here at Huff. Noonan is being civil. That's more than you can say for the Dems. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:28:54
I have been reading Reagan's autobiography, "An American Life." I'll bet you haven't read it. I'm willing to bet your "Ronald Reagan" is the cliche that was fed to willing believers by the media during the 80s and since.
But read the man's own words, and then make up your mind. You might be surprised. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:26:31
Dear Hadda
(Can I call you that?) She has always made sense. You are just now "getting it." posted 03/28/2008 at 20:24:30
Emily,
It was the Clintons who obsessed over the polls. And the Republicans have already played their "race" card: it was Colin Powell and Condi Rice. When the GOP plays a race card, it means that the best person for the job is an African American.
My only regret is that Colin Powell couldn't have been president.
Sign me -- Voted for Bush posted 03/28/2008 at 20:23:34
University Of Chicago: Obama Was A Professor
Lemeritus,
Somebody says you're quoting Bugs Bunny! That's very bi-partisan, I'd say!
Muse posted 03/29/2008 at 17:38:14
Dodging. Sorry. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:44:17
This is SHOCKING! How does Obama get away with this? Law professor? RIght. How disingenuous.
One more reason to vote for Hilliary! She's got 35 years of experience! (Or was it 15? I remember it was alot.) And she's got 15 minutes of fame dogging bullets in Bosnia, too. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:43:49
Rice: Race Still Issue Because Of U.S. "Birth Defect"
I'm disappointed transendentilist. This isn't the high road. Condi was not whining, she was -- how do Dems put it? -- "speaking truth to power."
There's a lot of Up South in the Democratic Party. posted 03/29/2008 at 18:14:48
What a crock. You should have ended your comment with she "is so smart." She is smart enough to make her own brilliant choices. She doesn't have to fit her life to your narrow idea of a black person. Meanwhile, W didn't offer her "immense power." President Bush evidently admired her rather stunning resume. She was Provost at Stanford, you know. And a Soviet expert. And a classical pianist. posted 03/29/2008 at 18:09:55
I love it when people say stuff like this.... Let me make a suggestion. Try thinking this through a little more.
Humans are natives of "this planet." And they migrate around a lot. So, the "Indians were here first" stuff is kind of nonsensical -- however politically correct it might currently be.
We have Canadian geese flying around our apartment building, but we're not trying to shoo they away! I think human beings have a few more rights than birds.
When the Europeans first reached this hemisphere, there was plenty of land for both the colonists and the Indians to share. The problem of the advent of the Colonies was not a scarcity of land, it was (as we like to say nowadays) a "clash of cultures." One culture was semi-nomadic and the other was political (i.e. a polity, a creator of cities). The Colonists "owned" land and had a system of jurisdictions while the Indians lived more fluidly.
So, Stuttle, your Columbus Day just got more nuanced. The Indian culture ultimately lost in this confluence, but it's really hard to argue that the United States was somehow a bad idea. The original visitors were migrants. First various prehistoric peoples and later "modern" peoples of Europe. But both came here from elsewhere. And people still come here. People still migrate, period. Ask, say, the French who are not dealing so well with their Arab migrants.
One planet. Seen that way, there's NO migration. Is there? posted 03/29/2008 at 18:01:38
How patronizing and sanctimonious. I voted Republican. I am white and have lived in a predominantly black neighborhood for 20 years. Where do you live?
It was a famous Democrat who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
He wouldn't recognize his own party today, the party of whining victimhood. Meanwhile, you seem not to have noticed that the African American whose comments provoked this conversation is the Secretary of State and she is the second African American chosen to hold that high office. And she wasn't nominated by Democrats.
Maybe that distinction was a little to obvious to notice. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:24:37
Stop-Loss: This Generation's Deer Hunter
I don't agree. "Witch hunt" is a loaded term, isn't it? Sounds like something someone says whose mind is already made up. Read Reagan's "An American Life," (which I've been recommending all over Huff). It's a wonderful book. Might surprise you. It isn't the last word, certainly. But it offers an alternative perspective to the one you've adopted.
Deer Hunter, as I said already, has huge problems associated with it that have nothing to do with pro- or anti- war film-making. Read the history on it. It's toxic. Lots of people have committed suicide after having viewed it. There's no excuse for making such a movie.
I'm an old school liberal. I believe in freedom, especially in the freedom of ideas. And I voted for Bush. But don't know who will get my vote this time. Being a liberal, I'm keeping an open mind!
Best wishes and nice debating you. posted 03/29/2008 at 18:46:50
Hallucinocynic
I will try you because amid all this nonsense you wrote a very eloquent post. They should have let you write the blog and Trey could have been on the comment side.
Movies, I suppose, are sometimes amazing. I'm more of a book reader, but even I can think of a few. But the movie scripts cannot take the place of facts, research, thought, debate, soul-searching and choices made by the electorate. Sometimes "propaganda" acts for the good rallying people toward a wise goal. Sometimes even war movies do that. Certainly once we decide to go to war, we should go to war. One could argue that if Western nations had presented a united opposition to Saddam in the lead-in to war, it might even have been averted. France and Germany were trying to ease sanctions against Saddam. What if they had taken the high road and thrown their support to the US and had staunchly demanded that Saddam come clean?
The real issues leading into war were complex and dangerous no matter what road we had chosen.
I just get tired of the grand standing on the part of the "peace" advocates.
So, I "tried you."
Best wishes,
Muse posted 03/29/2008 at 18:39:52
Roost. Oops. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:08:08
Trey,
When you have got something substantive to say, I might even read the blog. (Well, I didn't spend a lot of time with the comments either.)
Try a little less Hollywood, a little more history. A little less fantasy, a little more reality.
Cioa. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:06:38
Oh, I get it. (I still haven't read the blog.) But glancing at the comments, this is the "anti-war" section. (Against movies that "glorify" war.)
Nobody has to worry about the US being militaristic. First off, half the electorate voted for Gore/Kerry. They're all about "speaking truth to power." The Dems are not interested in fighting for anything. As Rev. Wright said, "9/11 was chickens coming home to roast."
But on the plus side, we'll never have to worry about a leftist "coup" either. The Dems are the gun control crowd! Gore might have wanted to rally his side and take the White House, but -- oops!

This kind of stuff is so self-serving, you know. Like the rest of us are "pro-war." No, we just think that some things are worth fighting for. Is Iraq one of them? I'm not sure. But you're a day late and a dollar short for the debate. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:04:24
Mr. Ellis,
Well, fortunately you survived. (I didn't actually read your blog beyond its title, but the fact that you wrote it suggests as much.)
I wouldn't go around recommending the "Deer Hunter." First off, it's a disgustingly maudlin movie. It's most jarring and disgusting component is also completely fictitious.
Secondly, it has set off waves of suicides every time it's been promoted. (Ref: "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini. http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert-Cialdini/dp/0688128165)

Granted Goethe's "Sorrows of Young Werther" had much the same effect, but at least Werther has the "merit"(?) of being literary. (Though I'm taking that on faith, haven't read it.)

I understand that Merle Streep is coming out with a new movie that should finish off those who managed to survive Deer Hunter.

Naturally, Hollywood is a Democrat's town these days! (Not so many happy musicals anymore.) posted 03/28/2008 at 19:53:50
John McCain, Iraq, and the Eyewitness Fallacy
Well, I see little point in acting as though Reagan and Bush are clones. Otherwise, I would agree that Reagan ignored AIDS. He is similarly silent on the topic in his memoir, though the memoir is wonderfully revealing about his philosophy and how it shaped topics such as nuclear disarmament, the economy and including even Iran/Contra.

He was uncannily correct in his assessment of radical Islam, as we are discovering today. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:53:33
They're limiting space again. And I goofed. The beginning of my answer, I accidently posted above after Amerigus, and begins with the caveat, "I don't know if you'll understand what I'm saying." So now it's all out of order, but the gist is still there.
I'm perhaps unlikely to persuade you, but there's no harm in learning more about him. Reagan wrote tons. You can judge the man by his own words.
If you wish to. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:42:53
I don't know if you'll understand what I'm going to say, but here goes anyway. I've been reading "An American Life," which is an amazing and stunning and humane book. You really have no idea who President Reagan was. I admired him after I began really listening to what he said (as opposed to what the media said he said). That was "typical" of Reagan to go over the media's heads and appeal to citizens in his speeches and radio addresses. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:40:15
Anyway, as an admirer, I was prepared to "like" his book -- which I've only now read, eighteen years after its publication. But even still, aspects of it really stun me. Iran-Contra is too complex to address, but reading everything I did, nothing prepared me for this comment from Reagan on p. 541 (540 pages into the book!): "I received a lot of pressure from my supporters, starting from the first days after the Iran-Contra story ... and continuing to my last week in the White House, to grant clemency to Oliver North and John Poindexter. I never gave it serious consideration: I felt that if I pardoned them before a trial, there would be a shadow of guilt over them for the rest of their lives ...." He said the legal process had to take its course. How many Huff readers remember, "innocent until proven guilty"? Reagan, ever the humane man, thought about these men as individuals whose dignity mattered.
It's just one instance. But you really know nothing about him. He was a great, good man and a president who will be remembered a very long time. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:39:59
"Reaganomics" may not be the same thing as the economic policy that Reagan championed. You've asked for my defense. Reagan saw more of the other side than evidently you are aware. He lived through the Great Depression in comparison to which our economic troubles are trivial. It was really global poverty. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:28:21
Reagan's real "vision" was that ordinary people really matter. He took democracy seriously. He believed that the answers would come from the "private sector" because that's where freedom was most unfettered in society. He was well aware that it came with risks.
I'll quote him: "The explorers of the modern era ... are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. ... one of the largest personal computer firms ... was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home." (The audience for these comments were Soviet students in May of 88.) The source is "An American Life," Reagan's autobiography published in 1990. It's an amazing read. Particularly now. The quote appears on pages 713-14.
In that speech he went on to say: "Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put on this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer ...."
Yes, I call that visionary. We need this vision again -- of the power of individuals to shape the thing we call history. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:28:05
Some leaders, they are really quite few in number, "see" a vision that comes from their own ideals and then they help bring to life.
Ronald Reagan was that kind of visionary. (It's called being "visionary," Arianna.)
Most your readers don't know a darned thing about Reagan. But he was perhaps the most visionary president of modern times.
Now would be a good time to learn what he was like. We need his vision. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:35:34
Daily Show's Stewart 'Quietly Visiting' Ailing Iraq Soldiers
God bless Jon Stewart. posted 03/27/2008 at 18:30:07
Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
I'll say "bravo" when you see through the "legacy" of her husband as well. THIS is part of Bill's vaunted "legacy." posted 03/30/2008 at 19:43:45
It would seem to me that Hillary's motives for lying about her experiences are obvious: she has a very unsatisfactory resume for the nomination she's seeking. Obama has of course a thin resume himself, though at least he really campaigned for the Senate seat he won and did so as a resident of Illinois.
But don't the Dems have no one but themselves to blame? You had several candidates with full resumes, Biden, Dodd, Richardon -- none of whom made it beyond the single digits.
Truly you get the nominee you deserve. That said, I personally hope it's Obama (I'm a Republican).
Hillary has experience. That much I'll grant her and your book, Mr. Bernstein, has partly persuaded me of that fact. Unfortunately, her experience is BAD experience. And hence, I would gladly see the Dems pass on her.
Obama is honest, I think. He has no experience. Face it, he doesn't. But at least he's honest.
On the odd chance that the Dem candidate might win, let's hope that it will be someone who at least has the merit of honesty. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:39:55
The Tide Is Turning
No it's not. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:11:52
The Real Divide We Should Be Focused On...
Our support for Isreal serves our interests -- in terms of shared culture, in regard to Isreal's being a democracy, in terms of the debt owed to Jews on the part of the West after the Holocaust.
Oil is what the Middle East has to sell. It has caused enormous income disparities in the Middle East because of THEIR system.
Third, which you have not mentioned, but which deeply offends the Arab world is the role of women in Western society. Why this should have become so threatening to them now arises from the exportation of Western culture around the world: our movies, television, the internet in their faces. It is not accidental that women are covered up in Arab society and that they have no political rights. The two things are parts of the same larger religio-political system.
We cannot turn our backs on Isreal, our important American ally. We cannot just stop using oil (certainly not in the short term). And we are not going to stop being a pluralistic and democratic society. We have free speech, rule under law, the ideal of individual rights and liberties. And thus Western women don't wear scarves and have the right to vote (or to run for the highest leadership offices themselves) and cartoonists can portray the unfortunate Islamic prophet.
That Muslims are not likely to give up these differences is precisely what makes the "winning of hearts and minds" an almost impossible task. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:23:40
"Obama's Test" or Ours?
Yes, we are Americans first. We need to be Americans, first. Bravo. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:58:21
I have an open mind about Obama. That said, Obama has no experience. And the White House is not an entry level job.
I've begun reading Sen. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and parts of it are very appealing like the man himself. However, he deals in generalities and unlike you I do not find Obama's analysis of contemporary American life very forward looking. I see lots of cliches as he tries to fashion his picture of what America is like. In huge contrast to Reagan, Obama himself depicts this -- as though it were a college essay exam. Reagan's ideas were shaped FOR him by a long tenure of listening to people. Reagan was the true "grass roots" guy, getting his talking points from real citizens whose views he respected and didn't patronize (big difference from today).
I have been reading Reagan's "An American Life" lately. Reagan is the most "forward" looking president we've had. I have been astonished reading this book, now eighteen years after its publication. The emerging threat of Islamic terrorism is something Reagan predicted with stunning clarity.
Your current progressives are old school Do Gooders. They focus on "solving" the problems of ordinary Americans -- so sure that ordinary Americans are incapable of solving their problems themselves. "Nanny government" is not just a Republican jeer.
Otherwise, though, I agree with you that most Americans are neither "right" nor "left" and the biggest error the two political parties make is supposing it to be otherwise. posted 03/30/2008 at 18:48:50
Clinton Camp: Hillary Misspoke About Her Role In Bosnia
What is Senator Clinton likely to mis-speak about next week? Has she decided yet? posted 03/24/2008 at 19:37:57
Should the Huffington Post Have a Science Section? Vote Here!
Censorship posing as science. What ever happened to argument? posted 03/26/2008 at 19:03:08
And here's my comment -- the art version -- with pictures.
Beat that atheists.
http://moderationmusesaboutscience.blogspot.com/ posted 03/25/2008 at 19:27:38
PS. I can barely add and subtract, but doesn't Trakhtman's solution have cosmological implications? I mean if the universe is finite?

Muse posted 03/25/2008 at 18:27:45
I posted a comment on this yesterday, but it failed to appear. I voted "yes" to science, too, but reading through some of the comments today (didn't have time to browse them yesterday), I say "good luck."

A couple problems: first of all your readership isn't really interested in science despite their professions to the contrary. "Science" at this forum equals politics (like everything else). Therefore it must be "global warming." "Global warming" is not a scientific concept, it's a political idea - i.e., that humans are causing the climat to change and threatening life on the planet. Should climate change turn out to have natural causes, would any of your Huff readers be interested in knowing? People who write sentences like the one I just wrote are called "deniers." Doesn't that sound a little like Galileo's plight? Only now the roles are reversed.
I mention climate change because it's the most visible of various political issues that parades as science in contemporary life. The very fact that global warming is to be "accepted" without asking questions demonstrates to what extent it has ceased being science -- which is all about questions. And when Madonna is trotted out to help the cause -- Madonna, that very distinquished scientist who helps Gore. Well, whatever. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:16:17
Also I notice that several of your commenters have given notice that "intelligent design" or anything that smacks of "religion" must be ruled out -- but aren't you one of the ones who keeps harping on religion? I have yet to see YOUR blog really deal with SCIENCE. I happen to be a Christian, as some here are aware. I happen also to have a keen layperson's interest in science. A year ago I had a chance to hear Jim Gates give a public talk on Superstring theory, which was my first introduction to this fascinating topic. And I've been reading various books about it since -- the most approachable of which was "Our Cosmic Habitat" by Martin J. Rees.
Cosmic theories in particular almost require a certain religio-philosophical input if only because they bang into various inconsistencies not compatible with scientific method -- as for instance the notion of a "multi-verse," something that is intrisically un-verifiable. Stephen Hawking has some interesting comments to make on this problem at the conclusion of "A Brief History of Time." posted 03/25/2008 at 18:15:55
Darwinian evolution is another hot button that is supposed to be untouchable by the science as advocacy crowd. Consequently the ways that Darwin's "big picture" has failed (so far) to find confirmation in physical data is also taboo. And this in itself would be a marvellous subject for science writing -- the lacunae of "Darwinian" theory to date and what all this means. Whether Darwin is ultimately demonstrated to be "right" or "wrong" obscures the extent to which Darwin was doing a kind of biological inquiry that is no longer commonplace today: i.e., he was looking at the big picture, trying to find a grand "unifying" theory of the development of life. Even the whole matter of defining what "life" is -- is a rich and problematic area to cover in a public discourse.
But are your readers interested? Not Huff readers generally, but YOUR readers in particular who, if you've taken the trouble to notice, are really obsessed with religion. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:14:43
I am a Christian, but one of my chief criticisms of the Huff Po Atheists is "ils ne parlent que du bon Dieu." God is the ONLY thing they seem to want to talk about!
Well, recently Israeli Avraham Trakhtman, a Russian Jewish immigrant solved the Road Coloring problem. The problem posits that given a finite number of roads, one should be able to draw a map, coded in various colors, that leads to a certain destination regardless of the point of origin. Trakhtman's solution took 8 pages to write. Trakhtman is 63.
This is science news. It appeared in lots of media outlets. If it appeared at Huff, I didn't notice. Do you think Huff readers are interested?
Is there a political angle? Or is there some way you can use this to bash the religious? Or Republicans? Because those are the things that Huff readers care about. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:09:31
How Will Hillary's Bosnia "Whopper" Play in the Media?
cfibasis

But why are others who were also present describing the events differently? Okay, you want to defend your gal, but doesn't it seem a bit cynical of Sen. Clinton to believe that she could -- let's just say -- "generously embellish" the events and that others wouldn't notice?
If it happened as you say, why wouldn't she just tell the truth? It would have been laudable, after all, to go there even without non-existent sniper fire.
She's trying to seem commander-in-chiefish. And it's not working. Mrs. Thatcher, a genuine leader, did not have to wear a helmut to make her point, did she?
posted 03/22/2008 at 15:39:11
floydSmoot

I wouldn't be so sure of that, though I agree that Hilliary believes the "downscale" voter is an easy mark. The "blue-collar" high school-ed crowd is not such a gullible group and the been-to-college folks seem to think.

In any case, did she think that journalists were not going to check? Like a scoop is not a scoop anymore?

I don't know what her motivations are. Clearly she doesn't mind lying, but somehow she thinks she'll get away with it. I wonder why.

Muse posted 03/22/2008 at 15:31:39
Just went to the Post site to read their full story and found this interesting theory amid the comments, this by "texaslovesamerica," posted March 21 at 1:53:
"HRC's desperation looks more pathetic by the day. Her rage at Obama's taking "her place" as Democratic nominee in 2008 is palpable. I believe she's willingly doing everything possible to tear him down to mortally wound him and throw the election to McCain, so she can run again in 4 years (when she's 64) instead of 8 years (when she's 68). I have donated to her campaign in the past and regret it."

Interesting theory.

posted 03/22/2008 at 12:42:33
Poor Hilliary. She really wants to be president so bad. I hope her supporters are paying attention. This goes right up there with the "35 years experience" or the "15 years experience" (that both she and Laura Bush share), etc.
What does she think of the citizenry? Like we're not going to notice?
Queen Hilliary. posted 03/22/2008 at 12:23:17
The 100 Years War
One hundred posts ago I said: "You know perfectly well that McCain was not talking about combat, he was talking about occupation. Remember Germany? (We're still there.)
Now you wouldn't be saying these things on purpose to mislead people? Would you? Nah. Of course not."
I was mistaken. You can fool some of the people all of the time. I am finding some exceedingly gullible people here.
Why is that? What really lies behind gullibility? Believing what you WISH to be true, as opposed to what is true.
Hope these aren't Obama fans writing. Obama described McCain as a great American hero. And I agree with Obama. McCain is a great American hero.
And McCain never said the thing you're alleging that he said.
posted 03/21/2008 at 16:25:40
Wow, am I the first here? You know perfectly well that McCain was not talking about combat, he was talking about occupation. Remember Germany? (We're still there.)
Now you wouldn't be saying these things on purpose to mislead people? Would you? Nah. Of course not.
Find a real topic. And get back to us when you've got one. posted 03/21/2008 at 13:43:57
What Barack Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say
I'll talk to him.

HeevenSteven, Knock it off! (Have some more chocolate).

Thank goodness for the Easter Bunny.


posted 03/23/2008 at 19:58:27
Wondering
Friday, October 5, 2007
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html


GEEZE!! Am I the only one who can do SCIENCE research around here? Duh. And I'm the artist.

Best, Muse
posted 03/23/2008 at 19:54:53
And go easy on the chocolate or you'll bust a neuron. posted 03/23/2008 at 19:50:15
HeevenSteven, my favorite atheist, the one who studies and studies!
It would be better not to "get it." You're sure in a hurry for your answers! Sometimes the question is better than the answer. You asked me (somewhere around here) if I had any thoughts on the matter. I don't. I just paint pictures. Still, it's a GOOD question. And it still stands: why is the human mind structured to accept fictions, mythology, along with religious faith, etc. And the part about animal cognition, why are they not similarly wired? (Or are they?) And I wish somebody would go WAY BACK to the early part of these comments to read what I wrote to LeeFromVA.
Best, Muse
posted 03/23/2008 at 19:49:02
Seinfeld and Kramer studied that. Results were inconclusive. posted 03/23/2008 at 19:39:44
Mr. Harris,

Responding to Merin, I wrote: "You are saying overtly what someone above said without being aware: that the brain is "wired" for religion. Based upon this "wiring" you go on to suggest that religion is fiction. But why, pray tell, did Nature "wire" the brain in this way -- particularly in regard to your axiom that religion is fiction. What, in contrast, to this fiction IS real? Are subjective experiences real? Is consciousness real? Are abstractions real?

But this "wiring" thing is huge. How did this wiring come about? If through natural selection, why aren't the animals religious also? Or perhaps they are!"

I certainly hope you are paying atttention. I repost it here, because some things benefit by repetition. Since you've got all the answers on the why religion is so awful, kindly explain how Mother Nature got mixed up in the whole thing!

Moderationsmuse posted 03/22/2008 at 19:22:28
You are saying overtly what someone above said without being aware: that the brain is "wired" for religion. Based upon this "wiring" you go on to suggest that religion is fiction. But why, pray tell, did Nature "wire" the brain in this way -- particularly in regard to your axiom that religion is fiction. What, in contrast, to this fiction IS real? Are subjective experiences real? Is consciousness real? Are abstractions real?

But this "wiring" thing is huge. How did this wiring come about? If through natural selection, why aren't the animals religious also? Or perhaps they are! posted 03/22/2008 at 19:15:55
JMEB

You have said absolutely the most amazing thing and you seem not to realize. "The idea of a universe without purpose ..." etc. "The human brain is wired to perceive reality as it wants to perceive it...." My goodness gracious, Who wired it? Or put less theologically, how did it come to be so wired?

posted 03/22/2008 at 19:10:37
RButler,
After I wrote that, I wondered myself ... well, am I really saying we cannot comment on the world's religions? So, yes, I guess I have to back pedal. But I'll try to clarify by refining my point. When does the criticism start developing into bigotry? Really what harm does Christianity do to Mr. Harris's "rationalism." Perhaps my point needs to be "live and let live."
The latter is certainly practical. I really doubt we're going to stop believing in God because of what Harris says, and he might do well to acknowledge as much.
In a political realm what is the relevance? If Harris supports Obama, fine. He can do so more soberly by recognizing that he and Obama differ on the topic of God. Bravo to Mr. Harris if he can support Obama without having to agree with every item of the man's personal beliefs. Can he not look at a wider sphere of society than just his own narrow atheist beliefs? What about African-Americans, what about Hispanics, two groups with strong Christian identities? What about white Protestants and Catholics? What about Mormons and others, who while differing with Obama on the details, may well respect his belief in God. The Dems once advertised themselves as the "big tent" people. Well, for Mr. Harris and some others, evidently, the "tent" has gotten smaller.
I guess that should be my point and I thank you for the occasion to clarify it. But in one on one situations, our moms were still probably right that to criticize another's faith is still just plain rude.
Best, Muse posted 03/22/2008 at 15:02:33
elkabong

And yet these founders of the American system recognized churches as a part of the larger dynamic, realized that they played an essential role in human affaires, and hence they put into place a system of mutual tolerance. How about that. posted 03/22/2008 at 11:15:57