"The Language of God" by Francis Collins
This was an extremely interesting book. The author was instrumental in the Human Genome Project and recently announced (co-authored a paper) breakthroughs in the genetic causes of diabetes. The book presents an very interesting case for both belief in God and for belief in science, specifically evolutionary science. The author's narrative was informative and easy to read, even for a non-scientist, and as a moderate Christian with conservative leanings, I found it compelling. I'd have to say I agreed with him a lot (but not entirely) and would offer much of his argument to people wanting a consensus between faith and science. For those who find such consensus unnecessary or incomprehensible, I say, read this book. If you still feel the same, then I'd say good for you. God doesn't want us to live in a vacuum and this book provides an excellent resource for using reason, logic and faith to address the issue. He often quotes Saint Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Einstein and others in his search for consensus and surprisingly made an elegant argument which can only spur discussion. I have to admit that I learned more about DNA in the reading of this book than I had ever learned in a single science class in high school or college. He presents a compelling case with clarity and with concern for the beliefs of others, whether they be atheistic scientists or creationist believers. A book well worth reading.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Seriously!
OK, so we have a Congress who seems to think that attaching a minimum wage increase to the Iraq funding plan is a good idea. What!? That just shows a Congress who isn't thinking seriously about the people in this country since they knew ahead of time the President has said he will veto it. Do they think that by putting a measure on the bill that everyone is for is going to change his veto? Seriously, Congress needs to stop playing politics with Americans future and start putting bills on the floor and sending them to the President as individual bills. Pork barrell projects, appending bills completely unrelated to the primary legislation and the like seems like a complete waste of time and money and here's another good example of wasted time. If Congress is serious about this minimum wage increase, send the bill to the President for his signature without attaching it to something else, especially something they have foreknowledge will be vetoed.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Domestic issues of the Democrats
Last night was the first debate of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls of this awfully drawn out campaign season. Since the Republicans only worry about three questions in campaigns (Do I like him, Does he care about my issue, and Is he strong) and don't generally address issues directly, they, as usual, haven't said much of anything. However, the Democrats have always worked under the premise that people actually care about the intricacies of political issues (not my experience) and therefore, we are having a Democratic primary debate 19 months before the Presidential election. So, ignoring the Iraq war for a moment, on which I generally agree with most democrats (that we need to go ahead and start leaving), I didn't see much in these candidates issues that will excite Americans to vote for them. Therefore, I think they need to watch out and hope that Bush continues to fight the Iraq war poorly, otherwise, if they don't have Iraq as an issue come November 2008, they may be in danger of losing, again. So... what are the prime issues for Democrats as portrayed recently (not just in last night's debates). It seems to me they are focusing primarily on 5 things. 1. Universal health care, 2. Rolling back or eliminating the "Bush" tax cuts, 3. A deal for illegal immigrants (whether they call it Amnesty or not), 4. Strengthening labor unions, and 5. Eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, which is being called an energy policy. I'll address each point:
1. There are millions of Americans who tragically can't afford health care. Also, there are some serious issues with the health care industry in this country that need to be addressed. Is throwing government money at the problem by creating a nationalized health care system the answer? I don't know. I tend to err on the side of trying EVERYTHING else before we start throwing government money at a problem, so I would tend to say that we haven't done that yet and therefore, the discussing of nationalized health care is premature.
2. I can certainly see the point of allowing some tax cuts expire, especially ones that helped ONLY the rich, like the elimination of the "death tax". Most Americans would never be affected by this tax because most of us wouldn't have millions of dollars in property and wealth to pass on to anyone. However, as a middle class American, I have received nice benefits from the elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax and from the increase in the child tax credits. Some of the candidates have publicly stated that they want to do away with ALL of the Bush tax cuts. This would essentially mean raising taxes on middle class Americans and even on poor Americans with children. That's certainly not an issue they can win on because nobody likes to have their taxes raised.
3. It is clear that people just don't want to let illegal immigrants have a free ride. Some candidates clearly recognize this, but I think they underestimate how emotional this issue is. My wife is a legal immigrant to this country and does not believe that people who came here illegally should be given any kind of special treatment. Having been through the process of immigration, we should be making our immigration process more streamlined and more difficult, not easier, and certainly not by giving free rides to anyone, especially since they've already broken the law just in coming here. I live in south Florida, which is a majority latino population. Of the people that I work with and live with and talk to on a regular basis, I have yet to find a single person here who supports this idea. It is almost universal that if they came illegally, they should be sent back. I tend to defer to my wife, who is generally non political, on this issue since my ancestors immigrated here over 300 years ago. I'm not sure, therefore, that this is an issue the Democrats can win on since the people these concepts would help, assist, etc. are unable to vote.
4. In regards to labor unions, I'm sure this issue will shore up the Democratic base in regards to how the unions vote. They've tended to support the Democrats in recent years and I'm sure this issue will help them, but I must admit that I've never been part of a union, don't really understand the need for any more power or laws to support them and therefore can't really comment on this issue. My only question is, does the union vote constitute enough constituents to win them the election in the absence of Iraq as an issue and I'm just not sure they do. Like I said though, I don't really know.
5. This last issue is really a non-starter. Everybody wants to be independent from foreign oil. Even Republicans say that as loudly as they can. The fact is that this administration has failed to establish clear and concise goals in order to achieve that, but I don't think the Democrats can use it as an issue to win on, because EVERYONE is for it. Perhaps the environmental issue could be used, global warming and pollution and even gas mileage and emissions for vehicles as well as investment in renewable resources. But not oil independence. Still, a clear energy policy probably is not enough on it's own to win them the election.
Basically, I am not sure that the platform that seems to be developing for the Democrats consists of domestic issues that people care enough about and agree with them on enough to get them elected in the absence of Iraq as an issue. Therefore, Iraq will need to still be an issue come November 2008 and I so hope it isn't. Not because I want to see them lose, but because I want the troops to come home as much as everyone else does.
1. There are millions of Americans who tragically can't afford health care. Also, there are some serious issues with the health care industry in this country that need to be addressed. Is throwing government money at the problem by creating a nationalized health care system the answer? I don't know. I tend to err on the side of trying EVERYTHING else before we start throwing government money at a problem, so I would tend to say that we haven't done that yet and therefore, the discussing of nationalized health care is premature.
2. I can certainly see the point of allowing some tax cuts expire, especially ones that helped ONLY the rich, like the elimination of the "death tax". Most Americans would never be affected by this tax because most of us wouldn't have millions of dollars in property and wealth to pass on to anyone. However, as a middle class American, I have received nice benefits from the elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax and from the increase in the child tax credits. Some of the candidates have publicly stated that they want to do away with ALL of the Bush tax cuts. This would essentially mean raising taxes on middle class Americans and even on poor Americans with children. That's certainly not an issue they can win on because nobody likes to have their taxes raised.
3. It is clear that people just don't want to let illegal immigrants have a free ride. Some candidates clearly recognize this, but I think they underestimate how emotional this issue is. My wife is a legal immigrant to this country and does not believe that people who came here illegally should be given any kind of special treatment. Having been through the process of immigration, we should be making our immigration process more streamlined and more difficult, not easier, and certainly not by giving free rides to anyone, especially since they've already broken the law just in coming here. I live in south Florida, which is a majority latino population. Of the people that I work with and live with and talk to on a regular basis, I have yet to find a single person here who supports this idea. It is almost universal that if they came illegally, they should be sent back. I tend to defer to my wife, who is generally non political, on this issue since my ancestors immigrated here over 300 years ago. I'm not sure, therefore, that this is an issue the Democrats can win on since the people these concepts would help, assist, etc. are unable to vote.
4. In regards to labor unions, I'm sure this issue will shore up the Democratic base in regards to how the unions vote. They've tended to support the Democrats in recent years and I'm sure this issue will help them, but I must admit that I've never been part of a union, don't really understand the need for any more power or laws to support them and therefore can't really comment on this issue. My only question is, does the union vote constitute enough constituents to win them the election in the absence of Iraq as an issue and I'm just not sure they do. Like I said though, I don't really know.
5. This last issue is really a non-starter. Everybody wants to be independent from foreign oil. Even Republicans say that as loudly as they can. The fact is that this administration has failed to establish clear and concise goals in order to achieve that, but I don't think the Democrats can use it as an issue to win on, because EVERYONE is for it. Perhaps the environmental issue could be used, global warming and pollution and even gas mileage and emissions for vehicles as well as investment in renewable resources. But not oil independence. Still, a clear energy policy probably is not enough on it's own to win them the election.
Basically, I am not sure that the platform that seems to be developing for the Democrats consists of domestic issues that people care enough about and agree with them on enough to get them elected in the absence of Iraq as an issue. Therefore, Iraq will need to still be an issue come November 2008 and I so hope it isn't. Not because I want to see them lose, but because I want the troops to come home as much as everyone else does.
Presidential candidates?
Let's see now... we have 8 Democratic party candidates declared and capable of debating each other on the issues in April of 2007. The election is when? Oh right, not until November of 2008. What are they thinking?! Seriously, with each Presidential election cycle, the start date has been getting pushed back further and further. What's going on now doesn't make sense. NOBODY will remember what was said in last night's debate come election time. Even the media will have forgotten about it. Now, I'm not picking on the Democratic party. How many Republicans have declared their candidacies? Having any candidates before the summer, in my opinion, is too many candidates, so both parties are guilty of perpetuating a spending spree. Who pays for this anyway. Sure, they are repudiating public funds, but the money still comes from somewhere. Whether it's through private, business, lobbyist donations, or whoever donates, you and I are still paying for these campaigns, whether directly or indirectly. I am tired of how early all this is happening.
Now, one can argue that the extreme prematurity of this election cycle is due to the fact that there is no incumbent and due to the rampant Bush bashing that is occurring. Both of these could be contributing factors to it, but that still does not account for the every widening campaign season that has occurred with each successive Presidential campaign that I've witnessed. I just don't understand why anyone thinks this is a good thing. What I suspect will happen is that a large part of the electorate who actually try to keep up with the candidates and who actually vote will suffer from information overload by the time each party has chosen it's candidate and therefore will either not really care very much by the time it all comes to fruition, which can only hurt the candidates, the country and ourselves come election day, or they might just not vote at all, which would be even more tragic. A majority of Americans don't vote on a regular basis as it is and a prolonged and certainly dragged out campaign season certainly isn't going to change that, but it might very well have the effect of making even more people choose not to vote. I suggest we the people choose to let our legislators know that this is unacceptable and that the campaign season should be limited to a year, or perhaps 18 months, but certainly not as early as 2 years, which based on when some of these candidates announced their candidacy (December), it has become that long. At the point of last night's debate, we are still over 19 months from election day. By compressing the election cycle, you achieve two things. You SPEND LESS MONEY and you might actually keep people interested long enough to make it to election day.
Now, one can argue that the extreme prematurity of this election cycle is due to the fact that there is no incumbent and due to the rampant Bush bashing that is occurring. Both of these could be contributing factors to it, but that still does not account for the every widening campaign season that has occurred with each successive Presidential campaign that I've witnessed. I just don't understand why anyone thinks this is a good thing. What I suspect will happen is that a large part of the electorate who actually try to keep up with the candidates and who actually vote will suffer from information overload by the time each party has chosen it's candidate and therefore will either not really care very much by the time it all comes to fruition, which can only hurt the candidates, the country and ourselves come election day, or they might just not vote at all, which would be even more tragic. A majority of Americans don't vote on a regular basis as it is and a prolonged and certainly dragged out campaign season certainly isn't going to change that, but it might very well have the effect of making even more people choose not to vote. I suggest we the people choose to let our legislators know that this is unacceptable and that the campaign season should be limited to a year, or perhaps 18 months, but certainly not as early as 2 years, which based on when some of these candidates announced their candidacy (December), it has become that long. At the point of last night's debate, we are still over 19 months from election day. By compressing the election cycle, you achieve two things. You SPEND LESS MONEY and you might actually keep people interested long enough to make it to election day.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Why this blog?
I love to talk and I love to here other people's views, so I thought I could do both by having a blog. What will I talk about here? Pretty much anything I choose, but you can expect postings on history, politics, family, religion on a semi-regular basis. I am a father of 2, so you shouldn't expect daily posts but I am sure I will make the time to post relatively often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)