[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 09-26 23:18, Brian Gibson wrote:
> Vigilance is good.  Living by fear is not.  
> 
> You know.  All this hatred has a simple fix.  Leave
> them alone.  Oh wait, I forgot.  Der's oil in dem der
> hills.   

This sounds like what I've heard Chomsky say when asked how to end
terrorism. The answer was to stop participating in it. That won't compute
for people who think America can do no wrong and has done no wrong.


Kevin - 

As for literalist interpretation of religious texts, "the Bible" in
particular...I've read/heard too much Biblical scholars like The Bible Geek
(Robert M. Price - http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ - even the
fervently irreligious/religious I think would find him fascinating in his
depth of knowledge of all things Bible. Trust me. Don't let the book titles
frighten you off. You can find mp3 material for free if you search for Bible
Geek and mp3 in which the Infidel Guy talks to him - some of those are 2
hours long. It's fascinating stuff.) to believe that any particular version
of the texts would be a reliable start - too many
additions/deletions/editing/deliberate misinterpretations to start with, and
nothing to corroborate any of the stories outside the context of the Bible,
either. 

It may work for some folks in their personal lives (apparently for you), and
that's great if you think it makes your life better, but I think it's a
terrible idea to use it as a literal guide for American leadership, either
foreign policy or domestic. In the past, we've had people not plant crops
because they thought the Bible said the end times were coming - I don't want
the modern equivalent in foreign or domestic policy to happen. 



And speaking of the End Times (tm):

That's been predicted numerous times in the past, and those dates have
already rolled by, so I think I'll disregard future claims, too:

http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

I think there is also a book dealing with this, but can't remember the
title. 

I find it amusing there are areligious/New Age parallels to this end of the
world stuff in the 2012 and/or Singularity discussions swirling around out
there.  I haven't read Kurzweil's book yet, but I have to admit I'm
skeptical going in that an AI will "wake up" in a few decades. 








And as for Pascal's Wager---

I no longer consider myself an atheist these
days, but that argument always made me chuckle. It falls down for two good
reasons:

1. Which theist sect do you pick? Assuming for the sake of argument that
Christianity is the "right" one, that narrows it down - a little bit. I
can't find a cite right now, but there are 20K-30K sects of it, IIRC. If
true, then, at best, your chances are 1 in 20,000.

2. If God knows your thoughts, he would know what a cynical choice that was,
just to save your rear end. Was it a genuine choice, or just fear of
punishment? I think an omniscient God would know, and wouldn't let you into
Heaven. 








As for Iran, 

I read this article earlier yesterday, and then was catching up
on older WSJs while at my step-son's basketball practice. One of the older
WSJ had a review neo-con Ledeen's book, which the article mentions. Is he
really accusing himself of treason? I was chuckling when reading WSJ's
review of the book. They did say even he warns against all the saber
rattling - I'd almost like to pick up the book to see how he couches that,
being a neo-con and all - even though it doesn't appear he signed or
contributed to the PNAC stuff. 

Again, all this sounding of the alarms over Iran sounds all too familiar and
all too contrived. The fact that Fox and even CNN act as if he's the leader
of Iran concerns me. What's striking is that Iran was our ally right after
9/11, too. But, if someone thinks going to Iraq was legit and that it's
going swimmingly except that the "liberal media" isn't reporting the good
things (like rebuilding schools we leveled), none of this will matter.
Anyway, from the article, here:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=13872

"There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in
the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for
outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns
for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like
Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of
Iran.s rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American
and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that
the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against
Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.

The neoconservatives are even claiming that the United States has been at
war with Iran since 1979. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this assertion is
absurd. In the .80s, the Reagan administration sold substantial numbers of
arms to Iran. Some of those beating the war drums most loudly now, like
think-tank rat Michael Ledeen, were middlemen in the Reagan administration.s
unconstitutional weapons sales to Tehran. The sales would have been a form
of treason if in fact the United States had been at war with Iran at that
time, so Ledeen is apparently accusing himself of treason."
 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve 
people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. 
-Norm Crosby