The Hypatian Shore

If I had more time during the week I would be publishing more content daily.

Anyway, here's some odds-n-odds sitting on my back-burner.

Tell Obama No to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I like the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, however the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jr. as head of the EPA or anything science based would be a disaster on the grounds alone that he is an anti-vaccination crank and promulgator of pseudoscience. I can only hope that President Elect Obama has not yet properly vetted this man.

Also Kennedy Jr. would just be too polarizing on these issues. We need a science guy in the White House where science informs policy, not someone playing politics with science like the Bush White House. Kennedy Jr. as head of EPA would be a bad choice. Now Gore for the EPA I think would be great, but would probably be to political of a choice.

Read more about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Orac, over on Science Blogs.

If good, science-base policy is a concern of yours, please contact the transition team and respectfully inform them how you feel. Rejecting Kennedy over this appointment is beyond partisan politics.

My letter:

Dear President-elect Obama and team,

Robert F Kennedy Jr should not be the head of the EPA nor should he direct health policy of any kind.

President-elect Obama made the statement to Scientists and Engineers of America that he would restore "scientific integrity" to the White House and in policy.

Robert F Kennedy JR would be a step in the wrong direction for his anti-science, anti-vaccination views.

President-elect Obama, I voted for you because I believed you would follow through on that promise to the SEA.

Thank you for your time,

MC Pickard

As always, it is the job of the people to govern and be the watchdogs over politicians in a democracy.

Besides, I can not stand Kennedy's voice – however that man ever made it on radio is beyond me...

Vatican Defends Beautification of Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, otherwise known as Hitler's Pope, is on his way to becoming a saint.

If you can rub two brain cells together, you have to wonder why they would make this move to canonize the former Pope on incomplete evidence?

The Catholic Church, lead by Pope Benedict Ratzinger - a former Hitler Youth and protector of pedophiles, is making this move to protect the Catholic Church from future and past criticism of the church's complicity in the extermination of the Jews. I can hear it now...

"Look the man is Saint  for chrissakes, I don't know what your talkin' 'bout."

On the decision, Vatican's Number 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, stated that the selection is an internal affair and "a religious matter that requires respect."

Really, they are telling you to shut up.

Just because this is a religious matter, like religious beliefs, does not protect that belief or actions from criticism or ridicule.

By the way, the criticism is being lead by Jewish groups.

(Source)

Pope Meets With Muslim Scholars
In a move to patch religious division and establish understanding, the Pope met with twenty-nine religious scholars of each religion.

"We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all"

I know the discussion is between the two religions, but sorry, just because you believe that you can communicate to an invisible sky friend and wear funny robes to parade your ignorance and believe that a cracker can become Jesus' flesh after you utter magic words, or that images of Muhammad are sacrosanct, it does not mean that I have to show you respect. These are ridiculous beliefs which has caused unimaginable amounts of human misery through the centuries.

Again, ridiculous beliefs require only one answer, ridicule. Respect of your beliefs does not eclipse my freedom of thought, expression, and speech. You'll just have to live with it.

However, one thing that both Catholics and Muslims can largely agree on is that "justice for all"  does not apply to the gay and lesbian. For evidence, witness the inequality for homosexuals and women in respect to the Catholic Priesthood.

Hypocrites. Every damn one of them.

Incidentally, the Pope was correct two years ago denouncing Islam as irrational and inherently violent - but so is Christianity. I wonder why the Pope would leave that out?

(Source)

Introduction
Typically, in discussions of why should one whether or not believe in god, Pascals Wager is offered by the believer as a decisive reason against non-belief. Most of the time, your garden-variety believer is unaware that they are invoking Pascal's Wager when they do. Pascal's Wager does not prove the claim that god exists, rather it posits belief in god is of practical necessity – like the precaution of checking to see the if the road is clear before you cross.

Pascal's Wager has been formally discredited by more systematical approaches of philosophy, but nonetheless it doesn't prohibit the unscrupulous or unaware from using it. Ironically, the believer who is wiling to take the bet, places themselves in as equally as a perilous position – if not more so than the unconvinced unbeliever.

Of course, the following analysis is not meant to be complete.

Background
Pascal's Wager was coined after Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher of the Enlightenment. He contributed much to Western science, the philosophy of science, and the scientific method with innovations and discoveries in the natural sciences, mathematics, and the invention of projective geometry and probability theory.

It is from probability theory that Pascal's formulates his famous gambit in the Pensées.

"If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."

P1: If you believe in God when you die, you have everything to gain.

P2: If you do not believe in God when you die and you're wrong, you have everything to lose.

P3: If you believe in God and nothing happens when you die - no harm, no shame.

C: Whether or not God exists, belief in God is practical.

Examples
1) If you will believe that Bush and Osama bin Laden are making apple pie together in the White House, I will give you a briefcase full of money, or I will pull this trigger and blow your head off.

The following example lifted directly from the blogs at lcl.

2) "And If I'm wrong, so what. But what if we Christians are right? Sucks to be you. Especially when you die. Take heed my brother."


Problems, Objections, Perils –  A Theological Arms Race
Positive, theistic arguments come in two different orders.

First order arguments are axiomatically epistemological and usually consist of an ontological argument, like design, cosmological, or personal revelation. Quite often, first order arguments make appeals to materialism as reason for belief in non-materialistic supernaturalism.

Second order arguments either posit god axiomatically, or ignore the question altogether. Rather, they turn to belief as a matter of practical necessity. Pascal's Wager is a second order argument.

First and second order arguments are mutually exclusive. 

Example 1 takes the carrot and stick approach to belief. Given the circumstances I propose, could you convince yourself, that Bush and Osama are actually making this All American confection together? I know I couldn't. I don't think you could either. (Although, I am quite sure there are those on the far left that probably do.  :D )

It still remains to be discerned why neurologically people believe what and why they believe. One thing is certain, beliefs are not entirely subject to will alone. In other words, you can not just "will" yourself to believe.

Despite the science, shouldn't I just have the belief (even if I could will it) regardless out of self preservation?

Moralists and philosophers have long debated over the ethics of a system of rewards and punishments as a way to teach virtue. Do we want people to donate to charity because a law requires them to?  While that may be great for society, it says nothing about the inner nature of people doing good by their own volition.

Ideally, it is better for society to have people voluntary act for the betterment of that society, or for themselves.

Example 2 is stated by a Christian with obvious theological underpinnings. You'll notice that example 2 uses the same carrot and stick approach as example 1. Since example 1 is an analogy of example 2, the same criticisms apply. Aditional criticism are relevant because example 2 assumes theism. More assumptions = equal more criticisms = equals greater chance of being wrong.

It goes without saying that the Christian thinks Heaven is the reward, and Hell is the punishment. I doubt that bad breath, hours of Barney the dinosaur, and hangnails is the implication being made.

It's getting late in the day, so I'll offer up only two objections at this time. You can read more here, here, and here. 

A) The Theological Arms Race:  All I have do is imagine a god, imagine a punishment or reward, and assert that such a belief is in your best interest. Christians and Muslims remain unconvinced of each others rewards and punishment over the divinity of Jesus. If I recall correctly, Mormonism gives you a planet for your afterlife in which you become a God to lord over, or whatever.

The point is, reward or punishment fails to convince each other of the necessity to believe in each others religion. True, they believe in god (Yahweh) but the idiosyncrasies in dogmas are highlighted by lavish punishments or rewards remain unconvincing to each other. Muslims will spend eternity in a Christian lake of fire, and vice-a-versa.

Also, it should be noted that the theological arms race only pushes theism into the abyss of agnosticism. It makes all kinds of belief in all kinds of gods a practical necessity from the dead gods of pagan antiquity, to " new" gods that are "hidden" as science strips the places where god hides today.

B) The Atheist's Wager. What if atheists go to heaven? A quick syllogism: P1: God created non-belief. P2: God rewards non-belief, punishes all theistic belief. P3: Atheists go to heaven, theists go to hell C: It is more practical not to believe in god.

Recall, since Pascal's Wager does not argue for the existence of god and does not try prove that such an entity exists, the atheist if free to ignore the question of gods existence. (He would anyway, the burden of proof is on the believer.) Pascal's Wager is a second order argument that is mutually exclusive to first order arguments.

Look at this way. If god doesn't exist, the atheist will have saved 10% of his income and had many more Sunday's to sleep in. The Christian, loses all of that. Muslim societies so much more. In fact, the atheist according to Pascal's Wager has much more to gain. Once your dead, your dead. No going back and recovering all that money and time spent in church.

Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that the theist is in even greater jeopardy than the atheist.

Incidentally, let me express a little rancor of at example 2. Perhaps due to my many, many, years of religious education, how dare you threaten me in such a sneering way? It's really petty that instead of attempting to give me your best first order argument, you go ahead and extort my non-existent afterlife.

In Conclusion
Pascal's Wager falls under the weight of it's logical incoherence. Not only is it impossible for one to just will themselves into belief, nor does a system of rewards and punishment make the wager ethical, it also requires the believer to hold belief in countless numbers of god despite religions mutual exclusivity, or to reject belief all together.

The safest bet, according to Pascal's Wager, is to reject theism and embrace atheism. 

Flashback

Flashback to 2004, after the defeat of Senator John Kerry by the incumbent George Bush, I can still recall being lectured by Sean Hannity on television, in condescending tones explaining why the Democrats lost. Hannity repeatably pointed to the post-electoral map of the United States, convincingly engulfed in a sea of red, telling us to " look at it Democrats."

Why did the Democratic Party lose so? Hannity stated that the Democrats lost because the United States is a "center right" nation and implied that the liberal values of the Democratic party were now out of step with mainstream America and the map showed that liberalism had been irrecoverably invalidated in the US of A.

Yep, as far back as 2004 the myth of the "center right" had begun.

Hannity, look at the map.

I'm not here to rub in the Democratic victory because I remember how I felt in 2004, however if we are to apply Hannity's argument, Republicans – you are out of step with mainstream America.

But you see, I'm not a blockhead like Hannity. I don't believe that for a second that republicanism is dead. 

I Wish I Knew How to Quit You

Republicans, as you begin rebuild your party after all the finger pointing has finished...please, do not  talk, walk, marry, or dress like a liberal.

I, we, America, needs you the way you are. In fact, if going more to the right, more conservative, thinks that helps you as some pundits suggests, by all means, go further to the right.

You are the opposition after all, sometimes vile and sometimes grudgingly correct, but opposition nonetheless. I love you just the way you are – in all your regressive splendor – especially on social issues.  

Stay the course. Don't become liberals. 

Liberals, please do not become conservatives under the false perception that you must to do so to maintain your majorities. 

Myths Exposed

There is no center and there is no moderate - there is no monolithic mainstream when matter of social priority involved. Because a majority of people agree on an issue, it does not make the belief correct.

If you believe that gays can marry or have civil unions - then you are on the left. If you believe that gays can not and approve of legal bans against it, you are on the right. There is no middle ground. There is no center. There are no moderates where these issues are concerned.

Yet, that does not stop politicians and pundits from making this un-nuanced, broad appeal to popularity.

In Conclusion

Democrats and liberals did not win largely on social policies and values as the ballot initiatives in various states illustrate, but on more pressing concerns of the economy, domestic policy, and foreign policy.

It is those issues which the nation has shifted left. Went blue. Shifted liberal.

Civil rights for gays and homosexuals, abortion rights, sits firmly in the clutches of the right. Shifted toward the social conservatives. Went red.

And the "center" - be damned.

While a liberal may have won the presidency – take comfort social conservatives, discrimination is alive and well.

The more I reflect on that every single gay marriage ban passed – especially California's Proposition 8, the election of Barack Obama has somewhat tarnished for me.

Frankly, this morning, I am quite disappointed and angry.

Quite angry.

Undeniably, social conservatism is grounded in Christianity, with the Holy Bible, the most strident in its laws proclaiming death sentences for homosexuality. The Bible is the unquestionable authority for the bigot, the social conservative, to wrap himself up in tribal laws of bronze-age people disguised today as the love of Jesus.

Ironically, exit polls in California demonstrate that it was African-Americans who voted in higher numbers to ban gay marriage. African-Americans are proportionally self-identified higher as Christian than other racial groups, with maybe the exception of Hispanics. How quickly are the lessons of Loving vs Virgina have been forgotten?

I thought we lived in a secular society? I guess not.

Proposition 8 was mainly bankrolled by the Mormon Church and other right wing religious groups.

The wall between church and state continues to crumble, taking democracy, liberty and equality for its citizens with it.

That's what these gay marriage bans betray.

So good job. You have successfully enacted laws – state constitutional amendments no less, to remove a citizen's rights.

And you have established right-wing Christianity, over other forms of Christianity who embrace homosexuality.

So congratulations social conservatives and its enablers - you're bringing us closer and closer to theocracy.

Regardless, who you voted for in this election, if you voted to discriminate against gays and lesbians, you are a bigot.

A shameful, fearful, bigot.

One of the first things I learned about politics, sitting in Mr Rupnow's current events class during my sophomore year of high school at Kettle Moraine, is that America historically elects only w.a.s.p's for president.

We just elected the first African-American President of the United States of America, I said, as I held my wife's hand watching Senator Obama's acceptance speech.

Amazing!

Yet, during the night as I watched the returns, I held my breath until enough states went blue and Obama could take a commanding electoral lead. I could not forget the Kerry defeat of 2004. For the first 90 minutes, McCain lead with one southern state after another capitulating red, beginning with Kentucky. Electorally, that was no problem if Obama could eat into some of the states which have voted republican in the past, like Ohio and Florida - which he did seemingly without effort.

When Charlie Gibson called the election quietly and almost non-nonchalantly for Obama, there was a moment of silence until my wife and I realized what he just said.

My wife and I promptly celebrated with a $4.99 bottle of champagne.

While its fantastic that Obama did indeed win – by an electoral landslide no less, and McCain conceded as honorably as he did, there is still much work that liberals need to do in raising social consciousness of how we should regulate social policy administrated by our government..

On that note, one the most evocative moments last night was watching the interview with Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner at the Ryan campaign – who was re-elected over the less crazier choice of Constitution Party candidate... what's his name... Raymond? To the interviewer, Sensenbrenner stated something to the effect, that in order for Republicans to once again lead, they had to return to a party of low taxes and fiscal responsibly, good governance, and true social conservative values.

I wonder what Sensensbrenner meant by "true social conservative values." If "true social conservative values" is legislating policy predicated upon a religious worldview - then I'm afraid I won't be voting Republican anytime soon.

Presently, the Republican party is largely a party of social conservatives. The culture wars that social conservatives purposely engage in, like the banning of gay marriage or civil unions, creationism versus evolution, threatening a woman's health where abortion is concerned, religion over science, drug policy, are really just a whole host of quasi-religious or outright religious principles.

Republicans actively crusade for these principles at the behest of churches or religious right advocacy groups – forever negating the concept of small government by legislating these religious values and imposing them onto our collective freedom of conscious.

I do agree with the opinions of other pundits who state that this country is center-right, if not in economics and regulation, at least in the sphere of the social values I listed above. The banning of gay marriage in Arizona, Florida, and at time of writing this as returns trend, California – illustrates that liberals have much work to do in achieving equality for a class of citizens and restraining government off our bodies and in the choices that we make in our relationships, and the beliefs we wish to, or not, ascribe to.

This is why I admired McCain when he stridently stood up to the religious right, a key base of the GOP as the "agents of intolerance." If our democracy is to survive, it must not function as camouflage for one religion over another - even if that religion is one idiosyncratic variety of a larger whole.

That is why liberals, in this regard, are functionally libertarians – that is, more like true social conservatives then social conservatives are. Liberals are more prone to maintain and fight for the boundaries between religion and secularity.

Personally, my libertarianism expresses my social liberalism which in turn is informed by Humanism and the secular nature of our Constitution. Science, for me, illuminates reality, where religion only substitutes superstition and unfounded and untestable notions on reality.

Where will the Republican party go after this? Where will the Democratic party go after this?

I do not know, but I do have hope.

But it is clear to me, that both parties have a long way to go on these social issues.

Democrats are closer, while Republicans are far from it.

John McCain

:D

The narrative being pushed by McCain and his supporters is there is an overwhelming conspiracy of voter fraud being perpetuated by ACORN and liberals in this election.

The evidence?

Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee states:

“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said.

Furthermore:

Michaelson could not cite a single real example of how registration fraud has led to voting fraud.  

< snip > 

Republican elected officials and lawyers for state Republican parties have made similar claims in court and in statements to the press. So far, however, they have failed to provide significant supporting evidence.

A review of prosecutors’ statements and documents filed by Republicans in the most serious new cases alleging voter fraud shows that none offer an example in which a fraudulently registered person managed to cast a valid vote. While several cases argue that such frauds are possible, none sketched a scenario for how massive numbers of people could fake registrations and then vote.

Michaelson explained why the mere perception of widespread fraud can do public harm: “When reports are circulating in the media that this one group has turned in 5,000 applications and 2,000 of them are invalid, for the minimally informed voter, they say, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s happening to our process? Our process is lacking integrity.’ It just plants seeds of doubt in the minds of people who don’t understand the process very well.

“That’s just not a very healthy atmosphere,” he said.

While John McCain and Sarah Palin and Republican members of the blogs at Lake Country Living continue to allege fraud by liberals no less, they are doing so without solid, factual evidence which is proportionate to the immensity that such a conspiracy would require.

In fact, if this election does turn-out to be close (I think it will be), they've only undermined John McCain, and not Barack Obama.

Meaning, they are only hurting McCain's credibility – not Obama's.

So you can rightly ignore their accusations and that these McCain supporters are, at best, "minimally informed."

I'll leave you to determine what "at worse" they are. 

(Source)
 

I've discussed within this blog before just what are my three main priorities in this election. The Iraq War, terrorism, and the Supreme Court. It is because of these priorities, I have already voted absentee for Senator Barack Obama three weeks ago.

I do have other concerns of course, but they either take a lower position within my hierarchy of concerns, or in the case of Church and State Separation and civil rights, are combined as an element with the Supreme Court.

However, before I launch into a discussion of how these three main priorities weighed in my decision to vote for Obama, I want to take a moment and explain what is not a priority for me in this election.

It is my hope that if you one of the 14% who do not yet know to vote for but intend to vote tomorrow, that this analysis of what lead me to vote for Obama will help you.

I apologize for the length of this article - you can skip to the end for the endorsement, or digest it into smaller parts if you need to.
__________________________

The Non-Priorities
This list is not meant to be complete, nor is it meant to be objective - although I tried to be. These are largely my opinions on these issues and from what I know.

Taxes. For liberals and a great majority of Americans, taxes do not represent a burden. We realize that the monies collected by our government largely goes for services that are essential to a civil, fair society. We just ask that you tax us fairly, and spend wisely for programs and infrastructure that have real demonstrable benefit. Just make sure to cover our collective expenses and do not burden generations to come.

But let's get real. If either McCain and Obama would be committing political suicide if either of their tax plans damaged the middle class. The debate that remains is just the haggling over how much should the most richest of us should pay – corporations included. That is social policy, not socialism.

The fear mongering over taxes by the republicans has simply failed to convince me to move this issue into one of my priorities.

Economy, Markets, and Regulation. In relation to a strong economy we need the proper amount of regulation for the circumstances we temporaneously find ourselves in. At times we need less regulation and at times we need more. (Like the tax rate.) Before Reagan, the richest were taxed too much and the economy slowed because of it. Reagan was wise in adjusting the tax rate and for deregulation Ma Bell – airlines, however, has not been as successful. Clinton further tweaked the Regan and Bush's legacy which lead to more economic goodness. Bush went totally off the rails and McCain would continue along that course.

Obama would return to Clinton's tweaks and this will in return keep investment at home and start to cover some of the enormous national debt under Bush's mismanagement and tax cuts that McCain would recklessly continue unabated.

There are smart liberal and conservative economists who continue to be benefited by a government which allows for a wide range of experimentation. I think this is a good thing which will lead to the best and most effective set of principles and methodology to guide our economy over time.

Universal Health Care. While I think it's a fantastic idea that should be implemented at least cover to children until the age 18, I am not necessarily hung up over UHC at this time.

McCain and Obama agree on the necessity of UHC, just their implementation differs. Both Obama and McCain offer a hybrid approach between government and business, but by different means.

Frankly, I don't think either candidate will deliver UHC – although, I think Obama is more inclined because of the interests he represents.

Character. At first, I did not care that Obama is quick-tempered and was promiscuous in college, bombed innocent civilians, endorsed by a Minister who blamed the holocaust on the Jews, and was decidedly un-Christian for the divorce of his first wife to marry another.

Oh wait, that's John McCain.

McCain has largely run his campaign on Obama's character as a merit for his leadership over Obama. This approach and the quality and the kind of attacks by McCain leads me to question the quality and direction of McCain's leadership, not whether or not that McCain can lead.

Experience. The argument by McCain that he should be elected because he is more experienced simply fails to impress me. A man 30 years older than McCain would have more experience than him. Experience means nothing, unless you let that experience guide your decisions in the future. Obama is indeed amenable and able to revise and change course when things are not working as facts and situations dictate. McCain holds on to those past judgments as absolute truths in respect to the Iraq War, regulation of the economy, and terrorism.

Immigration. I do think we need to tweak our immigration system and provide a better path to citizenship for many people who indeed want to become Americans. For the most part, I really like most features of the guest worker policy proposed by President Bush, but disliked the harsh criminalization of illegal immigrants by our very own Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner.

MILFS. I might be in the minority, but damn - I think Cindy McCain is quite the cougar. Meow!

Second Amendment. We have an unequivocal right to bear arms. This June, in a 5 - 4 ruling by the Supreme Court, overturned the handgun ban in DC. I think they ruled correctly.

The Constitution does not enumerate what kind of arms we can or can not own, therefore regulation of those arms is necessary. Honestly, would you be comfortable if your neighbor was building pipe bombs for self-protection, or owned an RPG? Since the Constitution is so vague, conflicts over the 2nd Amendment are inevitable.

There is much demonization of the left by the right over this issue. No, liberals are not coming for your guns - you got that? You do have the right to protect yourself in your home and businesses. I unequivocally support the right to bear arms like many liberals I know do.

However, if you think that your hand gun or shot gun is really going to protect you from the government if it should turn against you – as some arguments insist, you live in an entirely different world than many of us do.
__________________________

On the Candidates
I know in my lifetime, I will never see the election of President who will repeal these awful drug laws, get government out of the choices that I or a woman make over the sovereignty our bodies, and stop playing up their piety to God and legislating laws based upon that Biblical worldview.

Way back last year – prior to this year's primaries, my buddy and I were discussing the possible candidates leading up to his election. I described to him what I liked about both possible Republican and Democratic candidates.

Senator Ron Paul. I agreed with him on Iraq and liked his iconoclasm, but found his views toward markets and church and state too extreme for my taste.

One note: I really hate using the word extreme to describe a person. While I don't agree with a majority of Paul's views as I find his libertarianism to right leaning, I don't think he is someone you should fear - like "extreme liberal" that right-wingers will generally use as a derogation to scare voters.

Senator John McCain. I do respect him for his work on finance reform with Senator Russ Feingold and his years of public service from the Navy to the Senate. I thought he was direct and honest. Loved it when confronted the religious right as agents of intolerance, however he lost that credibility when he appeared at Farwell's Liberty University during the primary season and pandered his way as their candidate. Because of that pandering, I am wary of who he will appoint to the Supreme Court.

His elevation of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his vice president, who is decidedly unqualified to hold office much less lecture on the Supreme Court, only confirms McCain's desire to appeal to the religious right of this country and a real lack of quality decision making. Added to that, his views on how he would lead us out of Iraq, disqualified him eternally in my mind.

Senator Chuck Hagel. While he's as every bit a social conservative like John McCain, the retiring Senator from Nebraska said a lot of really smart things about Iraq and the need to withdraw and the necessity of resolving the conflict to bring our troops back home.

If the Democrats did not offer up as strong candidate as Senator Obama and it was Hagel as nominee instead of McCain, there would have been a strong possibility I would be voting Hagel for president. And if Biden was his vice president as the idea was floated around, we would have had a very strong, qualified ticket to resolve the crisis in Iraq and get back to defeating a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

And while Chuck is very wrong on stem cell research, the criminalization of abortion, he is correct that we must move forward on Iraq and draw down.

Yes, I am very nearly a single issue voter in this election.

Senator Joe Biden. I gave serious thought for voting for Biden in the primaries for the reasons I addressed with Senator Hagel above. He dropped out though and I voted for Barack over Clinton because of the consistency of Obama's views and policy over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically, in my support of Biden his views and legislation on drug policy I disagree with. The no-default rule entirely avoids Constitutional protections on property, liberty, and due process. However, it's standing law now and it needs to be repealed post-haste.

Senator Hilary Clinton. While I thought Bill Clinton was an above average president, I was never sold on Hilary. Her vote to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq is still too much of a political liability for Democrats. We saw this dynamic play out with John Kerry in 2004.

It should be noted, that Chuck Hagel also voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq. For the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War this is still a political liability, however for Republicans who change their position about Iraq it is not. Incoherent and as unfortunately that this is –  this is still the political reality of the United States today.

Senator Russ Feingold. I wish he would have run. He was correct about Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the Patriot Act. Feingold has shown balanced and reasoned judgment through his years in the Senate. And he's also correct - it's about time for a cheesehead president!

Senator Barack Obama. Before the primaries I really didn't know much about the new Senator from Illinois, other than the great speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention, his relative youth, and that he was a guest lecturer on the Supreme Court at the University of Illinois for about a decade. Of course, during the primary process I learned much more about him as he had momentum decidedly in his favor over Clinton.

Honestly, I underestimated Obama's electability as I didn't think America was ready for an African-American president and only thought that a woman could be elected office of president if she came from the right wing of American politics.

Obama defeated Clinton in the primaries which is no small undertaking.
_________________________

On the Priorities
These are my main 3 main reasons why Obama should be president and why McCain should be returned to the Senate.

In my opinion, these reasons illustrate definitive demarcations between each candidate.

The Iraq War. I've disagreed with this war all along. Attacking Iraq for the lies we were sold, confirmed by the absence of WMD's, and the continued moving of the goal posts as reasons to continue to occupy this country, I simply find unconscionable.

Initially, Barack Obama supported a 16-month exit, but has moved more to the center with a 16-month reduction in forces. Unlike McCain, who in May said that timetables would be catastrophic, even if Iraq wants it. Obama's views have changed to meet the facts on the ground. Iraq wants us out, and is already negotiating with us to withdraw by 2011.

McCain never convinced me he knew what to do with Iraq. Victory, he said, would determine when we pulled out Iraq, and that victory would assure victory in Iraq and would determine victory over Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This position by McCain is incoherent and circular. Timetables keep stakeholders responsible and cognizant of the urgencies involved. McCain seemingly does not want to hold Iraq responsible for its own security and self-determination. Obama will.

Only Obama recognizes the realities on the ground, while McCain lives in a world of his own spin hitching his wagon to Bush's policy of never-ending occupation of Iraq because he can not-qualify what "victory" means.

Despite Obama's fudging, the "surge" has worked well enough, even if not all benchmarks have been met. The Iraqis are standing up for themselves. Let's take what we can get. We must now seize this opportunity to re-align our forces.

Only Obama has taken the pragmatic approach with Iraq and shows the agility to adjust his views and his leadership which will bring our people home and redeploy our forces in the fight against Al Queda and the Taliban.

Meanwhile, McCain will endlessly spin on "victory"  because the word focus group's well.

Terrorism and Afghanistan. I agree with the necessity of invading Afghanistan and wiping out the Taliban, Al Queda, and killing that jackass, Osama bin Laden. This is why the war in Iraq has been a terrible waste of resources and lives in this regard, even though I am glad there is one less bad guy in the world.

Recently, commanders called for 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Our resources are stretched because of the continued occupation of Iraq.

Obama sees the need for redeployment of forces to concentrate on Afghanistan and the difficulties caused by throwing so much into Iraq. McCain, doesn't seem to get this functionally.

The Supreme Court. The court has simply moved to far to the right, with the recent appointments of Judges Roberts and Samuel Alito. McCain sold his political soul to the religious right and for this reason, gay rights, 1st Amendment rights of free speech and press will be in jeopardy if the court should migrate any further.

I am confident that even if Obama were to select even a conservative jurist to become a Supreme Court justice, that this justice will consider legal precedent, respect the purity of the state and the purity of religion. Regardless of political orientation, I think it is more likely that Obama will pick qualified candidates that are not selected off of Dobson's short list like McCain will, and as former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner stated - not rule on cases according to the court's present ideological make-up, but in light of the precedent established by previous Supreme Court rulings.

This is the kind of judicial temperament that Obama will bring to the court.

__________________________

Vote Obama
No candidate is perfect, of course. If we each lived on separate islands, we would all have the very simple task when it came to electing a leader.

Obviously, we don't.

Yet, we have this social contract with one another regulated by a government for and by the people. We must necessarily elect representatives for office in Washington and in our local communities, even though in many cases we hold our noses when we do.

Obama's message of hope and change is a great start, and when I begin to consider how each candidate would lead in respect to Iraq, terrorism, and the Supreme Court, Senator Obama is clearly the choice for me. As well as a number for a number of prominent conservatives, from Colin Powell, Christoper Buckley, Scott McClellan, Kevin Adelman, Francis Fukuyama who've endorsed the Senator from Illinois here and here.

McCain can not lead the economy, or any of the issues I discussed in a new, innovative ways. McCain knows this. This is why McCain must appropriate Senator Obama's language, but not the policies which will bring real meaningful change. The brand of "maverick" is unearned and as hollow as the word victory which McCain uses to discuss how he would resolve Iraq.

Perhaps, the most skeptical of Obama is a fairly conservative publication, The Economist. I think they make a great case for why you too should vote for Barack Obama:

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Clearly, these three reasons for the Obama presidency have become three reasons against a McCain presidency.

In government, the role of science holds an advisory position informing the President and as to how public policy should be directed.

During Bush's presidency, climate science and health science became politicized. Bush simply did not like the conclusions of these scientific investigations because of his prior political and religious commitments. There are well documented cases and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrating how science was bent or ignored and scientific integrity damaged.

With McCain we can rest assured that he will continue down the path that Bush has taken in regards to global climate change and health education, even though he would take – as Colin Powell describes a "maverick approach."

Barack Obama understands the importance of scientific integrity and the role of science in relation to good governance. Stating that he would "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees" in a questionairre to the SEA – Scientists and Engineers of America.

Ed Lazowska, chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair of Computer Science at the University of Washington, a member of the academy of engineering explains why he endorses Senator Barack Obama over John McCain.




_____

It's also an understatement to say just how important the internet is in for all our lives. Vint Cerf, a computer scientist, and the "person most often called 'the father of the Internet," who holds honorary degrees and awards from include the National Medal of Technology, the Turing Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, explains why net neutrality is import and why Obama receives his vote.



_____

Marty Chaife, this year's nobel prize winner (along with 60 others) in chemisty explains why he endorses Obama.

In order for the president to lead, he must make good decisions.

It's not a maverick we need at this time, but a president who is willing to listen and then wise enough to implement the advice he receives. McCain will only stay the course.

This is why that many prominent conservatives (here and here) judge Barack Obama as a man of good character and a man more qualified to direct policy and lead the United States over John McCain.

It is an understatement to say how important science is in our daily lives. Science is the best and only method of inquiry which we have to confront the challenges that we face and plan for the future.

Barack Obama gets it.

While McCain has been a solid, staunch conservative on social issues the sum of his political career, many conservatives like Colin Powell, Christoper Buckley, Scott McClellan, have now been joined other prominent conservatives who would prefer an Obama presidency over McCain. You can read a quick snapshot of their reasons here.

Joining the aforementioned, you'll note that McCain's pick of Sarah Palin weighs heavily in their decision to vote and endorse Obama.

Kevin Adelman. A "lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001."

Adelman endorses Obama because:

"Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."

I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

America has been living in a dream world for the past few years, losing its basic values of thrift and prudence and living far beyond its means, even as it has lectured the rest of the world to follow its model. At a time when the U.S. government has just nationalized a good part of the banking sector, we need to rethink a lot of the Reaganite verities of the past generation regarding taxes and regulation. Important as they were back in the 1980s and ’90s, they just won’t cut it for the period we are now entering. Obama is much better positioned to reinvent the American model and will certainly present a very different and more positive face of America to the rest of the world.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

...

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

...

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

"The Economist is well known for (and freely admits) its tendency to favor free market economics.  We’ll see if that stops some conservatives from employing their newfound favorite word — “socialist” — to refer to the 165 year old publication."

So if your one of those 14% of voters are still can't decide on who to elect, please consider what conservatives say about Obama. Their endorsements are significant because they refute the assertions by the McCain campaign that Obama is not ready for office.

You can almost hear it now.

It was the liberal media. The anti-Americans. The elites. The socialists. The communists. The pagans.

Undoubtedly, we will once again witness a frantic Pavlovian, finger-pointing response from the chorus of republican disapproval in the wake of a McCain loss – especially by our host of conservative bloggers at Lake Country Living.

No, instead of laying blame squarely on McCain, they will focus their indignation toward these tried-and-true scapegoats and bogeymen while effectively providing themselves an effective "out" from reality.

To that end, we can now add two more voices to this chorus and a new scapegoat as two top McCain advisers point to Sarah Palin and describe her as a "diva" and unable to take "no advice from anyone," to my favorite, "whack job." Palin is now the new, convenient target of republican scapegoating as favorable polling of Palin among independents and swing voters continues its long slide southward, dragging the McCain/Palin presidency with it.

Don't you understand? Dear God! Blame anyone and everything but McCain. Just you never mind the fact that it was John McCain who selected Palin as a running mate as a preview of his first presidential-like decision. I guess it must be those godless pagans at fault again.

And while your minding the never minds, forget that it was McCain who decided to smear Obama as a socialist, the Antichrist, terrorist, or anti-American that the media was all too happy to repeat. These attacks by the McCain campaign were quickly shunned by Americans, who are more interested in solutions than name calling. The only traction that these smears have any credibility are with stead-fast republican adherents. Now with only less than a week to go, McCain sensing the folly these attacks, has returned to less sensational attacks on Obama's character by focusing on the issues of experience, the economy, and foreign policy. This approach seems to work. McCain is now, once again, benefiting with a tightening in the polls.

But remember though if McCain should lose  – at all costs, McCain is not to be blamed.

Pathetic.

Predictably, republicans are following the same pattern they established before and during Bush's presidency such as blaming all of Bush's failures on Clinton. As if, Clinton was in office during 911. Please. Of course, Bush only receives credit if something good (or at least non-disastrous) breaks his way. Republicans would rather have us forget that an effective president makes good, sound decisions that succeed in spite of the decisions of past presidents as the "blame Clinton" red herring assuages.

It seems to me that republicans live in a paranoid, cloistered world confirmed by their delusions and the echo chamber which they shroud themselves in. Liberal bogeymen at every corner, under every bed and bathtub, and imaginary, impossible conspiracies all aligned against conservatives – one after another.

Perhaps, conservatives should wake up and retire these myths of theirs if they really want to lead in the future.

From my own experience in the wake of the 2004 election, this is no way to live. The fear and suspicion you stoke up will only burn you up. John Kerry lost because he was – after all, a pretty week candidate and a terrible communicator. Like McCain, he was unable to be a consistent "straight talker."  Kerry, as with McCain, never organized the campaign machine that Obama now possess along with Dean's 50 State Strategy. As Stephen Hess, fellow of the Brookings Institute, observes that the Obama campaign has the "best run presidential campaign of the modern era." If liberals and democrats would have remained fixated in the delusion that the media was set against them (o