I found this parody video from the Onion to be a bit too close to the mark…

The truth is, I suppose, that the “real” issues are too hard to judge for most people. And answers to questions like “where do you stand on public health care” or “what is your position on America’s war in Iraq” don’t translate into nice, short soundbites.

But whether a politician wears a hard hat or jeans… now that’s bullshit the average voter can understand

I don’t know much about the U.S. elections. I’ve sort of been absorbing the democratic nominations… I think I would be more or less happy with either Hillary or Barack becoming President. The republicans? Hmmm: the only ones I’ve heard about seem to be Right wing evangelist fruitcakes who think the earth was formed in 7,000 years and that homosexuals will damn all of us to hell.

In any case, it isn’t often that I see something relating to a political process that makes me feel good. This video made me feel good- it is based on a speech given by Barack Obama that was turned into a video by a number of musicians. I like the message- enough with the policies of fear and hatred, lets start thinking in terms of hope and what we *can* do, not what we can’t.

Yes, I realize it is all just words, and politicians are masters of the Big Lie. But hope is something sorely lacking in American politics, and seeing a politician talking about hope is inspiring.

Intelligent design is a theory of faith. Evolution is a theory of science.

Science is based on something called scientific method. A scientific theory requires something (or more realistically, several things) that can be proven or shown to be false. A scientific theory is never absolute “fact”: it is always subject to discovery of further data that could prove or disprove certain aspects of its truth. Science is strictly about the “how”, “what”, “where”, and “when”. Science demands perpetual intelligent inquiry, the continuous challenging of the status quo. Science does not guide a person’s moral choices, it does not make someone a kinder, better person. It does, however, require a certain amount of intelligence.

Faith is belief. It requires an act of will, and it abhors fact. Identifying contradictory information is anathema to faith. If something contradicts the matter of faith, it can be conveniently dismissed as heretic, or a lie. Faith can save a life or a soul, can guide one’s life decisions and moral choices. Fundamentally, faith is all about answering the “why” question. But Faith isn’t much good when trying to build a bridge or attempting to safely launch a man into space.

One does not “Believe” in science- science simply is. Faith is not challenged by science, unless one’s faith is doggedly attempting to explain natural occurrences. An intelligent religion could embrace science without giving up their fundamental belief: the “why” part of life.

Intelligent design can be taught in a church. It does not belong in a school, unless it is a school of religion. If someone choses to set aside facts and reason for a life dedicated to faith, they can educate themselves in whatever misinformation they choose: but public schools should stick to facts, not faith. Unless, apparently, you live in Texas, where a science curriculum director was suspended (and felt compelled to resign) recently for expressing the opinion that Intelligent Design is not a science.

I feel nothing but sorrow (and a bit of anger) that the U.S. has sunk to such a low state. Not only do 40% of Americans still believe that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq (about the same percentage that believe in Angels, I believe…), but apparently a nearly equal number have no clue regarding the difference between faith and science.

And if you are reading this and muttering “heretic!” and “blasphemer!” under your breath, there is another faith-based “theory” you should check out: the theory of intelligent falling.

I realize that the American legislative and judicial system is flawed. Money drives both systems: lobbyist groups can “encourage” legislators to re-write laws to suit them, and wealthy individuals or companies can sue the innocent and wronged into oblivion before their case is even heard in a court.

But this is just too much. Basically, what the new legislation would do is shut off funding to colleges and universities that didn’t implement draconian rules and controls to prevent file sharing/file piracy. These rules would threaten up to $100 billion a year in educational funding.

The RIAA and MPAA, organizations that claim to be defending the “rights” of copyright holders, make outrageous claims regarding the cost of piracy…numbers on the order of $5 or $8 billion a year. Everyone with more than half a wit knows that these numbers are downright fundamentally wrong, inflated beyond all reasonable margins. But let’s say they are right: somehow, legislators have been “convinced” that this $5 billion dollar a year loss in sales of music by such luminaries as Brittany Spears and movies like “Snakes on a Plane” are worth shutting down $100 billion a year in funding for schools and students.

To quote the incredibly irritating slogan of mouth-breathing evangelists everywhere…”THINK OF THE CHILDREN!”

I read an article today regarding how a Blackwater sniper in Iraq apparently killed three Iraq government security guards.

Blackwater Worldwide is a private security firm- the new term for “mercenary army”- engaged by the U.S. Government to provide security for U.S. interests in Iraq. This includes guarding American diplomats. The incident in question involved a group of Blackwater guards protecting such a diplomat. One of the guards, a trained sniper, positioned himself in a secure and commanding position on the roof of the Iraqi Justice Ministry where the diplomat was in a meeting. Across the road was the compound of the Government-controlled Iraqi television network. The Blackwater sniper felt compelled at some point to shoot three guards who had been situated on a balcony of the television network building throughout the diplomat’s visit.

Friendly fire deaths are not an uncommon occurrence. But what disturbs me about this situation is two-fold. First, the American investigation into the incident sounds like a total farce. The only people interviewed were the Blackwater employees and a couple of American military personnel. None of the Iraqi security guards were interviewed. No onsite forensic investigation was performed. The conclusion was (unsurprisingly) that the Blackwater security guards responded accordingly to a perceived threat.

The second thing that disturbs me is that the Americans have had the Iraqi government create a law placing all U.S. government funded private security firms above all Iraqi law. This means that neither Blackwater nor the U.S. Government can be charged, not even in a civil suit for wrongful death. Blackwater, which is being paid about a billion dollars a year for security services, hasn’t even paid a small gratuity to the families of the men who were killed. They claim they have no obligation to do so.

I find this entire incident, at least as reported by the Washington Post, disgusting in the extreme. The killed Iraqi guards were employees of the Iraqi government operating in performance of their duties. They were not firing upon the Americans. But accidents happen: a gunshot or something like a gunshot might have been heard. A case of mistaken identity, and innocents get killed. But the Americans and Blackwater leave the impression that the Iraqi guards were at fault, damn evil foreigners that they are. A little kindness to the families of the Iraqi guards could go a long way towards making the Americans look less like despicable.