Coming Home

The DOD recently decided to continue not awarding the Purple Heart to solders with post traumatic stress disorder. The blogosphere has been set aflame with the debate over the issue with one side arguing that this would make a substantial step toward acknowledgment, reducing stigma, and treatment of the disease within the military, and the other side trying hard to find new ways to say that PTSD doesn't exist while not overtly saying that.

This was followed the next day with the revelation that military suicides have reached a new record and have surpassed the rate of suicide in the general population. The close timing gave me pause to think about the significance of the two stories in relation to each other. I am not saying that awarding a medal for having PTSD would reduce suicide among military veterans. I just think that there needs to be a better way of serving those who have done their service to protect us. Having veterans among my family, friends, and co-workers, I have found that many of the combat vets are too proud too seek help even when they need it. You would think that psychologists could find a way to communicate directly with a soldier's experience and explain that getting treatment doesn't detract from their valor or self reliance. But I am not a soldier and I don't have any answers. I just don't like the toll that the psychological wounds of war are taking.

Evamaloutions

I think the real issue is not clearly explained in debates over creationism. In discussion over changes to curriculum it becomes apparent that what is being debated is the position of science in our society and the deference due to science in examination of nature. I don't think that the scriptural interpretive preference of an obnoxiously vocal minority should have any bearing on how we regard the statements of experts on matters of fact. The point is not that fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack our culture through the indoctrinating power of the already failing public school system, but that they intentionally avoid narrowing the issue or focusing on details because this is a discussion they loose as soon as rationality prevails.

In case you were wondering this post was not provoked by anything in particular but is tangentially related to the posts this week regarding stumbling upon websites anthropomorphizing of animals and showing that the efforts by religious fanatics to destroy science is not restricted to right wing Christian maniacs.

Posted from a Palm Treo mobile device.

Life Lessons and Vice Presidential Candidates

As a child, I learned two lessons about the adult world almost as soon as I was able to tell right from wrong. That the authority granted to adults and supposed authority figures most often is not granted because they are moral or even responsible people and is usually a coincidence arising from their career, rather than given to them through any legitimate means. Second, I learned that most people are not deserving of respect (beyond that due every human) until they prove otherwise. Since I learned those lessons at Catholic school, it took me a while to separate my problem with authority from my perception of all Christians as hypocrites. If you have read some of my other posts on this blog you will notice that I still have that perception of Christians.

Christian hypocrisy is a good transition into discussing the issues surrounding the pregnancy of Sarah Palins unwed teenage daughter. Anti-abortion types will see this as not being hypocritical since Bristol, Palins daughter, will be keeping the child. This is itself a red herring and the hypocrisy I wish to discuss because it ignores the anti-contraception and anti-sexed positions that are associated with an anti-abortion and which Gov. Palin has herself expressed. A friend of mine observed today that you can't treat teen sex like the Easter bunny and decide not to believe in it because it does happen and has profound consequences. Many of those consequences will not be felt by Bristol and her child(eren) because of the financial status of her family. Sadly this is not the case for most unwed teenage mothers. Teen pregnancy is almost a guarantee that the mother and new child will live out their lives in poverty according to the CDC. It is easy to be anti-abortion when you have a safety net. Yet the Bush administration, right wing Christians, and other people with nothing personally at stake continue to push for abstinance only sex education, which has been shown to do nothing to reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy. At the same time, Jamie Lynn Spears is on a publicity romp, glorifying teen pregnancy. To get back to the accusations of hypocrisy, Sarah Palin has advocated abstinence only sex ed while claiming to be anti-abortion, which is consistent until you notice her unwed teenage daughters pregnancy and have to question Palins parenting.

So while she is telling the rest of the nations women what is right for them she is either not practicing what she preaches or she is ironically suffering the consequences of the polices she supports, but not really suffering from them the same way every one else will. At the same time the Republicans are decrying all the public attention this is getting because its prying into a personal family matter and shouldn't be public, which is hypocritical because of the way in which the very same Republicans dug into the personal sexual lives of the Clintons during the Monica Lewinski scandal.

I applaud Sarah Palin for supporting her daughters choice to become pregnant and to keep her child. (Remember there is always adoption.) I just hope it can be a learning experience for her about the failings of abstinence only sex education even though it will not open her eyes to the deep personal consequences it has for far too many American girls and the resulting social costs to U.S. taxpayers.

The NRA and the upcoming election

The NRA recently sent out a political advertisement that purports to be a survey of members political attitudes regarding gun control issues among other things. They say that this will be used to dispel myths about gun owners and to prove that gun owners are a voting block that needs to be catered to by the political elite. They obviously don't respect the intelligence of their own members since gun owners attitudes regarding gun control are not going to vary significantly enough to require a survey by a lobbying entity that they are members of. What is really going on here is the NRA is sending out anti-Obama propaganda to its membership. I filled out the survey and sent it back with a letter that chastises the survey makers for undertaking such an Orwellian propaganda campaign against their own members, and for filling the "survey" with straw men and red herrings. This type of propaganda is more insidious in a private communication like a letter since there is noone there to point out to the reader what is being done.

I am no fan of Obama but the far right wing nature of the politics of the NRA disturbs me. To me, being pro-gun is about freedom verses fascism, not about left verses right. The fact that John Bolton is a prominent member of the NRA and was given a hero's welcome at the national convention would be enough to raise questions about the motives of the NRA but that fact that they gloss over John McCain's anti-gun votes in their American Rifleman interview where he receives the NRA's endorsement leads me to believe that the NRA is more about promoting a Barry Goldwater type of politics rather than looking out for the Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans.

We're gonna' shove our aid up your river delta!

I just read the most insane article regarding humanitarian aid I have ever seen. At first I thought that this must be from the Onion but it turns out this is not satire, this is from Time. Its from fucking Time! Christ on a fucking unicycle!



First paragraph; "How dare a foreign government exercise its sovereignty and refuse our great aid?"

Second paragraph; "If they won't accept our paltry hand-out we shall force it on them with violence!"




I sent them a little feedback. You have to believe me that I was trying my damndest not to sound like a crazy person but if you have read anything on this blog you already know how hard a time I have with that. Here is my editorial reply.





"The entire premise of this article seems like a thought that isn't even reasonable enough to rise to the surface of an intelligent person's mind. How did it become a Time article? The very idea that the U.S. should invade a country because they won't let us provide disaster relief to them is completely absurd. This is the kind of juvenile warmongering that one would expect from the far right of the blogosphere because it is too insane for Fox News. Just because a country is governed by evil men does not give us the right to violate their sovereignty."

Programmed Disenfranchisement

As much as John Edwards may complain about being pushed out of the media spotlight, we have to wonder how important the media spotlight is. For some reason, some time along the course of history, we in America have come to equate democracy with compromise. While compromise is good and can help get legislation moving, at other times, people are willing to compromise way too much, such as the 6% of Ron Paul supporters who changed their vote to fit their ideas about what other people thought. Human beings are social creatures, but this is clearly socialization taken to the point of serving to propagate gross logical fallacies. Whether it's an appeal to base emotions, such as "Double Gitmo" remarks, or your typical political ad hominem, such as referring to a candidate as a crazy relative, or or your commonplace straw man, such as mentioning the decade-old racist remarks in a newsletter written under Ron Paul's name while he was in private practice, yet not mention the fact that he has addressed those remarks in the same way for the past ten years. I only make such a fuss about each of these, because they serve to better illustrate, as we have done over the course of this election season, the narrow depth of coverage offered by most outlets of the mainstream media. To be fair, the news corporations are only trying to give people what they want to see, right? Probably not. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. I include "election" to serve as a kind of comparison between the two groups. It would appear that most of the candidates have something to be upset about, but Ron Paul supporters have the most to be upset about.

I have a bone to pick with them, though. If one looks at the graph, "Ron Paul" is more popular than all of them, even "election." I have a hard time believing that there is this berth of support for Ron Paul, though, as it certainly isn't reflected in the polls, which leads me to several possible conclusions. The most likely, is that Ron Paul supporters can't or won't vote for whatever reason, be it for felony charges or apathy. However, another is that more people did actually vote for Ron Paul at the several primaries that have been held so far and their votes were counted improperly, which also leads me to be angry at such voters, as they don't care enough about their vote to ensure that it's counted properly.

This is not a straw man

Why do we allow people that are clearly insane equeal time on the public stage? Why do we give any creedence to the things they say? They have taken advantage of the relativism in our society they decry so much. Its possibly part of some briliant plot to destroy tolerance by straining it to an insane limit. I present to you a clear example of Christian insanity.

http://www.cbn.com/SpiritualLife/Devotions/DAugostine_Halloween.aspx