Republican Debate-Live

I’ve picked it up about 30 minutes into it.

Brownback and Huckabee are downright scary; total idiots. They are playing the old “just do it, the hell with what the Constitution says”. They are going on and on about Iran being a threat to us.

Giuliani is, of course, bringing up 9-11. Again. What a shock. He does make some good points about energy policy (exploring nuclear power).

Ron Paul: right about Iraq, but he has zero chance. Of those who have a chance, Giuliani sounds like your basic war mongering neo-con.

Mitt Romney: less scary than Brownback and Huckabee, but that’s about it.

Who is winning? I’d say that Fred Thompson and John McCain are having a good afternoon; they seem to be in control.

Brownback is making some good points about U. S. cars: why can’t we have hybrid cars being made by us?

McCain is saying that he would let the states themselves decide if they want to drill for oil off of their coasts. He seems to be in favor of nuclear power.

Huckabee is going on about “them wanting to kill us”; that is a common scene. Fear, Fear, Fear; that is what they offer. True, he is pushing to look for alternative energy.

Thompson is trying to make a joke; it kind of flopped. He did tie stability in the Middle East to oil prices and how upspikes in oil prices precede economic downturns.

Romney is point out that we have a good opportunity right now, but is saying that “the free market” must determine the course.

McCain is talking about the loss of trust and how the government has failed us recently. Guess who was in office?

Romney: “Mr. Sunshine”. He is going after Hillary Clinton. Fred Thompson: ends rather lamely. Giuliani: goes after Hillary Clinton. Hey, at least he hasn’t broken out his cell phone. Tancredo: says that Republicans need to quit pandering. I agree: wingnuts should openly act like wingnuts.

Gads, these guys are awful.

Back again: Thompson is back to offering more of the same. Cut taxes, make people responsible, and then all will be well.

Tancredo is going on and on about immigration. OMG, our national sovereignty is at stake.

Romney is going after Hillary Clinton again, this time of health insurance (oh no, no government insurance). Yes, the MARKET will save us all. Never mind that a business’s goal is to deliver as little as possible for the highest price possible.

Huckabee: at least he is taking on the growing CEO-worker salary gap. He says that unions will grow in prominence. Romney says there are good unions (e. g. carpenter’s union).

Most of the other candidates spoke that unions are mostly good ones; Giuliani praised the latest UAW deal. Tancredo went after civil service unions. Oh yes, he brought up illegal immigration, again.

McCain: talked about health care costs and how it affects the profitability of the auto industry, though he says that they are responsible to make more relevant cars.

Giuliani talks about policing the internet, but says it shouldn’t be taxed.

SCHIP: Huckabee says that Bush was ok to veto it, but won’t come out and say it. Waffler.

Romney: how do you change discrimination against Arab Americans. Dodged the question.

Thompson Dangers of a weak dollar: hurts us internationally, even if it helps our exports.

Giulani Asked to comment on Clinton’s assertion that too much of our debt is held overseas; calls her a pessimist and says we need to focus on the solution.

Brownback Uses Phil Gramn as an example of a good economist.

McCain Admitted that he didn’t know the answer to an economic question.

Ron Paul Won’t pledge to support the Republican nominee, unless they pledge to end the war.

Tancredo Won’t pledge to support the nominee either.

Brownback Is confident that the nominee will be pro growth and pro life, and will support the nominee.

Hunter Who cares what he says?

Giuliani Says that London won’t replace New York as the financial capital of the world.

Romney Agrees with Giuliani, and agrees to support the nominee. Takes a big swipe at Fred Thompson. Thompson answers back well.

Thompson At least he knows who the Canadian Prime Minister (Harper) is. Says that we get along well with Canada, even if we disagree. He mentions how much oil that they have.

Huckabee Talks about airlines; says “Jetson’s ” technology in the cockpit, “Flinstones” in the cabins. Mentions the passenger abuse of hold them “hostage” on the airplanes for hours and hours.

McCain Asked how he would catch Bin Laden; mentions forming an office of special service, and says that he would “support himself”.

Romney Says lack of optimism is our greatest economic threat. He says that we’ll see how great everything is if our leaders tells us that it is great.

Brownback says breakdown of family values is our biggest economic threat.

Giuliani Says that the two party system has served us well; he was asked about 3′rd party candidates. He mentions reforming education via private vouchers, takes another swipe at Clinton and healthcare.

Thompson Says that he didn’t wait too long to get in. Says it (the debates) was (were) boring without him.

Overall: hey, they are Republicans.

Who won? I’d say in order:

Thompson: didn’t drool on himself, knew who the Canadian PM was, seemed to think on his feet well.
McCain: looked presidential, had some historical knowledge, explained his positions well.
Giuliani: Spent too much time attacking Hillary Clinton.
Romney: too slick, too conniving; came across as some sort of an insurance salesman.

On his own: Paul.

But mostly: if you want more of Bush, vote for one of these guys.

Giuliani: takes another swipe at Clinton and McGovern, never mind he voted for McGovern!!!

Religion: a path to knowledge?

Workout Notes Yoga, then 5 miles outside at a deliberate pace.

Religion There is some interesting stuff at the Sam Harris blog. One is an article written by a Jesuit priest named James Martin:

An increasingly common argument against religion is to point out how irrational it is. Authors like Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion”), Sam Harris (“The End of Faith”) and Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great”) all make the point that the essential irrationality of religion leads people to do stupid, dangerous, and even violent things.

Let’s admit it: They’re at least partially correct. Many ostensibly religious people have done appalling things in the name of religion and, more importantly, because of their religious beliefs. In that long list of abuses you could include the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the bombing of abortion clinics.

Yep, I agree with that. But you know what is coming next: the old argument of symmetry, no matter whether it is truly there or not:

To listen to these critics of religion, however, you would think that this is all that religion does, and that believing in God necessarily means being stupid, ignorant and narrow-minded. But ignoring the simple fact that religion is one of the foundations of modern learning is itself, well, stupid, ignorant and narrow-minded.

For one thing, saying that being religious means being stupid ignores some pretty obviously smart people, who were also believers. [...]

Uh, sometimes smart people believe stupid things. One top topologists believes that someone named Joseph Smith decoded gold tablets in the mid 1800’s. One Nobel Prize winner was a believing racist. Another top mathematician was a true believer in Nazism.

I am NOT saying that religious belief is comparable with racist beliefs; but rather “so and so is smart and believes in X” does not mean that believing in X is rational.

For another thing, the Christian church is largely responsible for much of the tradition of scholarship in the Western world. As most high school students know, one of the few bright spots in the so-called “Dark Ages” were Europe’s thriving monasteries, where dedicated monks kept the Greek and Roman tradition of scholarship alive, and without which the Renaissance would have never been born. The church is also responsible for many of the Europe’s oldest and most distinguished universities.

This is a rather disingenuous argument. These monasteries served to keep anything resembling knowledge out of the hands of the unwashed; remember that these were the days in which even the Bible was listed on the Index of Forbidden Books. Seeking knowledge in unapproved ways was a rather dangerous thing in those days; the life spans of those who opposed church doctrines was rather short!

Just think of how fast knowledge would have advanced had the church not been standing on the throats of the scholars!

The heart of the atheist argument over the irrationality of religion is that it is foolish to believe in something that cannot be proven. The syllogism goes something like this: Anything that cannot be proven rationally does not exist. God cannot be proven rationally. Therefore, God does not exist. (For the record, this believer took a course in logic during his philosophy studies.)

Of course there has never been any satisfactory rational “proof” for the existence of God. St. Thomas Aquinas gave the world five different ones, but since there are still lots of atheists, they obviously haven’t worked.

But the problem with the atheist’s argument is its premise. Why should we believe that anything our reason cannot grasp does not exist?

Ok, why do you assume that Thor doesn’t exist? Baal? Krishna? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Many of us demand evidence.

Why is this better? Look at the track record. The rational scientific method has given us real stuff. Life expectancy is up, child mortality is down, diseases which used to kill millions just 50-100 years ago have been stopped. Yes, some inventions (atomic weapons, napalm) are downright evil, but they are at least evidence that science works.

What has irrationality and religious thought brought us? It has been around for thousands of years, and has brought us absolutely NOTHING. Not one cure, not one invention, not one bit of progress. In fact, it has stood in the way of progress. It has been on the wrong side of science every single time.

Dismissing the irrationality of religion isn’t arrogant. It is a reasonable response. Religion simply has not been a valid path to knowledge.

I’ll conclude this topic with a post from Recursivity:

I’ve always been impressed with my colleague David Seljak’s honesty and forthrightness. He’s a professor at St. Jerome’s University, a Catholic “church college” affiliated with the University of Waterloo. He sent me the following comments by e-mail and graciously allowed me to post them here:

“Christians ought to remember that normal, thinking people do not automatically see the sense in their claims. Indeed believers ought to be a minority. Even Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians. “but we preach Christ crucified: …foolishness to Gentiles”. This stuff is supposed to sound crazy to you guys. After all, we Catholics believe that if we eat the flesh and blood of a Jewish zombie who died 2000 years ago, our invisible friend in the sky will save us from death. Faith does not come “naturally”; that is why we call it a “gift”. We should hardly be surprised when a number of people say, “no thank you, that sounds ridiculous.” It seems to me that Christians should be a lot more humble about our truth claims and a whole heckuva lot more charitable to people who don’t take them up.”

I daresay that if all Christians were this honest and humble, the conflict between theists and atheists would dry up.

That being said, I can say that I see value in religion on a personal level rather than as some source of knowledge. Here is what I mean: many people use their “faith” as a way of getting by day to day; that is as a way to:

• Feel more at ease with what they can’t control
• Be less selfish and more giving to others
• Dealing with a harmful addiction (e. g., overeating, alcohol)
• Helping themselves reach their own potential

I am not sure as to why this works but it appears to work for some. Note: I am talking about any sort of “faith/religion” system, be in Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Neo-pagan, whatever. Perhaps some sort of guiding myth/paradigm affects one on a deeper level than cold blooded knowledge can (think: poetry vs. prose, with religion being like poetry, and knowledge (rational) being prose).

Buffalo-Dallas. Best game. Ever.

I am watching Monday Night football; I had intended to just watch the score and go to bed.

Currently it is 24-22 Bills, but the Cowboys are going for 2 to tie the game with 20 seconds to go.

This has been a bizarre game. No: the two pointer is no good; T. O. had it but the Bill defensive back stripped it away as T. O. came down in the end zone.

What is bizarre: The Bills scored on two interception returns and on one kickoff return. Romo has thrown 5 interceptions and has lost a fumble.

Yet Dallas has recovered the onside kick and there is still 20 seconds left.

Photos from the Yahoo NFL gallery.

Oh my goodness, Dalls completed a long pass and spiked the ball with one second left; review will tell whether this was a good catch or not. Evidently not, or did they? The Cowboys say that they got the next play off prior to the review.

No catch, but 13 seconds are left. 7 seconds left, at the 43. 60 yard attempt, or one more play? Down to the 35, 2 seconds left, 52 yard field goal attempt. The kick is good, but the Bills got a time out prior to the play.

We will try this again. It is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cowboys win on the last play of the game, despite making 6 turn-overs.

I’ve never seen such a game.

I picked it up at half time with the Bills winning 17-10 thanks to two interception returns for touchdowns. The Cowboys drove it for a field goal to cut it to 17-13 at the middle of the third quarter. But then the Bills run the kickoff back to make is 24-13; I start thinking of bed.

The Cowboys drive again and have to settle for a field goal to cut it to 24-16. I keep watching.

But then the Bills offense wakes up and drives it; with about 6 minutes to go or so, they are in the red zone, seemingly ready to make it a two score game.

But wait, the Cowboys intercept (their first take-away) and run it back deep! Now the Cowboys have it in the red zone and are getting back into it.

But the Bills intercept again (the Cowboys 6′th turn over) and it seems to be over. But the Cowboys get the ball back (via a punt) and start their last drive, which cut it to 24-22 with about 30 seconds to go. That is where I picked up this post.