Newsweek is on the forefront of such wusses and has released a web article entitled “Even Reagan wasn’t a Reagan Republican.” The point, of course, is to show that the previous republican presidents just wouldn’t cut it in today’s conservative Republican party.

I find it hilarious that Newsweek is trying to reprimand Republicans for not being like Nixon. I mean, why would I want to disagree with the guy who said that “we were all Keynesians now?” </sarcasm> Or how about Ford? I think we can all say he was an idiot when appointing Stevens to the court.

And then we come to Reagan (and Bush). Looks like they’re stretching a few points here to make it fit with their story. For instance, could it be that deficit spending was caused by fighting a war? No mention of it. And look at his domestic policies – wilderness protection, nominating O’Connor, etc.

First, all of these are easy to cherrypick. After 2 terms of Reagan’s presidency, you would think that Newsweek wouldn’t have to use any of his actions as governor of CA. After all, if he’s really not that conservative, there should be oodles of anti-conservative stuff.

Secondly, how does Newsweek know that wilderness protection or whatever is frowned upon by Republicans? I would agree with several of the things mentioned, or would at least like to see debate on the issue.

Thirdly, a lot of these things are things that conservatives disliked even then, and given the consequences of those actions (like having O’Connor, Souter, Stevens, etc on the court) Republicans should learn from their mistakes.

All in all, I think it’s quite good that we don’t choose to follow in lock-step with everything that has been done in the past. You keep the good decisions, throw out the bad ones. And all of our presidents, democrats and republicans, have made bad decisions. Republicans just make fewer.

The catalyst for this comment is an unreleased episode of Family Guy, in which abortion is the target for the show’s infamously edgy and irreverent jokes.  Seltzer identifies the lack of abortion jokes as “a damning silence” and quotes another blogger who calls it “a textbook example of how systemic sexism works.”

For all her concern about sexism, Seltzer shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards women who have had abortions and a failure to recognize that abortion is simply not funny for the majority of Americans.  (Ironically, when a pro-lifer tries to show a medically accurate and scientific depiction of what occurs during abortion, they’re soundly condemned by self-appointed spokespeople for women for their insensitivity.)

Seltzer continues by complaining of otherwise “edgy, sexually hip shows” that take “the typical TV copout route of a miscarriage or a pregnancy carried to term.”

“TV has created this bizarro world,” she says, “where a choice that most American women would consider strongly after an unintended pregnancy is all but erased.”

Seltzer is right when she points out that abortions occur all too often. After all, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, at current rates more than one-third of women (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.

But why is abortion rarely portrayed on television?  Judging by the content of current TV shows, it’s hardly because of puritan censorship. Instead, most people realize that abortion is not just a medical procedure. It’s the taking of a human life, and that is what makes it off the table for discussion.

But let’s have an open conversation on abortion – not filled with jokes and flippant remarks, as Sarah Seltzer advocates, but a nation-wide discussion of the brutal procedure itself and the pain that it leaves behind. Otherwise, we are indeed contributing to “a damning silence.”

Lowey began by praising Sanger for “her commitment to improving the health and lives of women” and stated that she was “proud to recognize Margaret Sanger for her tireless efforts on behalf of women and for fighting for those unable to fight for themselves.”

The article, entitled “Margaret Sanger – Setting the Record Straight” is by Dr. Ellen Chesler, a lecturer at Hunter College of the City University of New York. Chesler argues that Sanger’s reputation has been “savaged by opponents who deliberately misrepresent the history of birth control and circulate scurrilous, false accusations about her on the Internet.” Chesler excuses Sanger’s most vile comments as being “lifted out of context and tragically misquoted.”

Unfortunately for Dr. Chesler, this negative view of Sanger is rooted not in the Internet but in Sanger’s own books and actions. Sanger was an outspoken Social Darwinist who condemned charity because it supported a certain population that she termed “human waste.” In her 1922 book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger devoted a full chapter to this viewpoint called “The Cruelty of Charity.” “Organized charity itself,” she wrote, “is a symptom of a malignant social disease… the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

Sanger’s solution to her perceived problem? Mass coercive sterilization and segregation. She stated, “…we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”* By supporting coercive sterilization, Sanger can hardly be called a liberator who wished for women to have “the ability to plan their pregnancies, and ultimately control their own destiny,” as Rep. Lowey asserts.

Dr. Chesler states that Sanger’s language had “no intended racial, ethnic or class content.” However, according to New York Times journalist Edwin Black, Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists, including Lothrop Stoddard and Leon Whitney. Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy was invited to join the board of directors of Sanger’s American Birth Control League, a position he retained for years.

Margaret Sanger herself wished for the League and other organizations such the Eugenics Research Association and American Eugenics Society to unite, seeing that the groups had much in common. Leon Whitney, the executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, reported to colleagues that Sanger “felt very strongly about eugenics and seemed to see the whole problem of birth control as a eugenical problem… Mrs. Sanger took very kindly to the idea [of the merger] and seemed to be as enthusiastic about it was I was.”*

This is the same Leon Whitney who commented on the Nazi gassing of 50,000 to 100,000 of those who were deemed unfit by saying, “While we were pussy-footing around … the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”

Dr. Chesler calls Sanger “actually an unusually advanced thinker on race for her day” and cites examples in which Margaret Sanger opened birth control clinics for rural black women in the south. Dr. Chesler seems to naively attribute these actions to a concern for blacks rather than a desire to control the black population, despite the evidence that Sanger’s views leaned toward the latter. In a letter to Clarence Gamble dated 1939, Sanger said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Even after her organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood, Sanger still pushed a eugenics agenda. In fact, in reviewing the goals of International Planned Parenthood, Sanger replied to a colleague, “I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion as what a Planned Parenthood Federation should want or aim to do, but I do not see how we could leave out in its aims some of the eugenic principles that are basically sound in constructing a decent civilization.”*

Thanks to the efforts of those such as Margaret Sanger, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized and thousands were barred from marriage or forcibly segregated into “colonies.”

This is the woman whose name appears on the award recently given to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is the woman that Representative Lowey praises and recognizes “for her tireless efforts.”

Let Representative Lowey know the truth about Margaret Sanger by contacting her office at 202-225-6506.

*Quotations from War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black

Someone please answer this, since it appears to me that without God, human life is greatly devalued. Consider the following:

• If life happened with no purpose in mind, humans are intrinsically no more important than other animals.
• We may value an organism based on how much it can accomplish, which is dependent on how intelligent it is.
• This is the only basis for valuing a human life over the life of another species- the human’s higher intelligence.
• However, how do we value those humans who do not have the same level of intelligence? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, is there any reason to suggest that they are of equal value?
• Furthermore, what of those people with genetic diseases? According to the evolutionary viewpoint, are they preventing humanity from reaching its potential?
• From a purely naturalistic standpoint, what’s to stop someone from being as cruel as nature herself? Why does the survival of the fittest not apply to humans?

As you can see, a purely evolutionary viewpoint devoid of God leads straight into eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion. That is not to say that atheists cannot be good people, but it is to say that their goodness does not come from their atheism – it has some other origin. My guess would be Christian tradition.

People say that the Golden Rule is universal and not Christian in origin. But they miss the point- Christians were the first to have reason to define “your neighbor” to mean everyone, especially those you hate.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

Yes, the global elites hate Bush. But Nordlinger points out that our relations are generally in the same shape, if not better. In the article, Jay Nordlinger includes what I think to be an incredibly strong response from Bush:

“I’d rather be respected than liked… You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them… Popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation — but principles are enduring.”

I couldn’t help but think of how similar it was to a candidate for student body president handing out candy to potential voters, so I asked Torres in the Q&A session if he didn’t think there were more important criteria to base one’s presidential choice on than who will give you the most stuff. He seemed taken aback, but quickly recovered and began to say that Obama would be better on the War, and so forth. However, why wasn’t this the first thing he told us? Because he assumed that Berkeley students are primarily concerned with themselves and their finances. And he is for the most part, right.

In this past election more than any other, we saw promises, not policy from our presidential candidates, especially Barrack Obama. Healthcare? Yep, you got it. Tax credits? No worries. People weren’t looking for what would benefit their country the most, but who would give the most to them, and the politicians know this. “Who cares if we go into greater debt as long as I get my money?” seemed to be the common theme, although even Obama admitted there was no viable way to fund all of his promises.

How do we compete with free handouts in a democracy? At some point, our country will have to realize we cannot provide everything or we will collapse. But if everyone is fighting for their share, how do convince people to cut back? The answer is visible expenditures. The money that goes out of paychecks every week without us hardly knowing should be more visible. Like the signs for public projects that state something like, “This park was paid for by measure Z”, we should state exactly what the opportunity cost was- what is it exactly that we are missing out on to pay for the park. For example, imagine if instead the park sign stated that a .5% property tax paid for the park, meaning that the average household paid n dollars. If the park or other public good is worth more to us than what we could have obtained had we kept the money, that public good was a wise expenditure. If not, it’s wasteful spending that should be cut out.

It would be nice if people were more unselfishly motivated, but realistically, there’s no way governmental policy can change that. What the government can change is the visibility of its spending and what people are missing out on by handing over their money.

Worse for Biden, though, was his declaration that

“…our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge — the surge principles used in Iraq will not — let me say this again now. Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. Not Joe Biden; our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops, we need government building, we need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.”

To which Palin responded:

“Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively that the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country — and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us, for one, and even the geographic differences are huge. But the counterinsurgency principles also could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn’t say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy, going into Afghanistan — clearing, holding, rebuilding the civil society and the infrastructure — can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this, have not said anything different but that.”

Admittedly, Palin mistakenly called him General McClellan rather than McKiernan. However, she was “darn right”. The facts show that General McKiernan supports the principles of the surge in Iraq, although he doesn’t wish to use the word ‘surge.’ The Global Edition of the New York Times didn’t shy from using the word in the title of their article about McKiernan- “U.S. general urges troop surge in Afghanistan.” Even NPR.org admits, “So while he doesn’t believe in using the word surge because it resonates of Iraq, he does believe in rushing more troops to Afghanistan — a surge by another name.”

Also interesting was the apparent agreement of Governor Palin and Senator Biden on their policies concerning gay marriage. Both Palin and Biden stated that while they would certainly support things such as hospital visitation rights and joint ownership of property for gay couples, they are against gay marriage. I was surprised to hear this. But then, again, I am accustomed to Berkeley. Perhaps Biden is trying to reach the rest of America? Who knows.

The real question to be pondered, however, is what DOES Biden do in Home Depot when he’s spending so much time there?

“The Government of Iraq crossed a new threshold of noncompliance… when it repeatedly blocked attempts by U.N. weapons inspectors to enter certain Iraqi government facilities. The investigators from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM)… believe Iraq may be hiding information on its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.”

This statement was not made by President Bush, but by President Clinton in a 1996 letter to Congress. This shows that Bush did not create Iraq as a threat. It has been one for some time. Furthermore, this quote negates the idea that further negotiations would have helped. People complain that we should have “given peace a chance” but peace was given a chance for 12 years. Since 1991, the UN had been making resolutions trying to force Saddam Hussein to destroy weapons of mass destruction. In July of 1991, UN weapons inspectors report that Iraq has concealed much of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs. In 1997, The UN disarmament commission concluded that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles. In 1998, Iraq suspended all cooperation with the UN inspectors and continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted. Iraq finally agreed to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors but by a month later in December of 1998, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise.

So as you can see, the negotiations were not exactly making much progress. Our choices were to continue with this useless rhetoric against Iraq, or actually do something about the regime. Personally, I would choose to do something about the danger of Saddam Hussein’s regime. That’s what the War in Iraq was supposed to do. I know you all are probably saying, “But there were no WMDs, Bush was lying!” However, a lie is a purposeful falsehood. If you are saying what you believe to be true, and it turns out to be wrong, that is not a lie. So at the very most, President Bush could be mistaken, but could not have been lying.

It’s certainly debatable whether there were WMD or not. Although we have not found viable WMD’s, we have found evidence that Iraq was not following disarmament policies. For instance, 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent were found in Iraq since 2003. So although these may not be completely effective, they prove that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he had destroyed all weapons. Moreover, it shows how easily the inspections could miss weapons, if they missed 500 of them. Remember, weapons of mass destruction don’t have to be of mass proportion and Iraq is about the size of California, so it is not difficult to hide weapons. Thus, to say that there are no WMD in Iraq at all is an incredible assumption.

Furthermore, even if it could be proven that there are no weapons of mass destruction at all in Iraq now, that does not prove they never existed. Iraq had a long time period to get rid of its weapon systems before the United States entered. In fact, one of Hussein’s former military leaders, General Georges Sada, states that he knows for sure that Hussein transferred his WMD to Syria. Furthermore, if Iraq never had WMD, then why did Saddam’s regime refuse to go along with the UN resolutions?

Another issue to be addressed is the connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations. People have greatly misinterpreted the fact that Hussein had no OFFICIAL ties with Al Qaeda to mean that he had no relations with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. However, this could not be more untrue. Saddam had supported terrorism to such an extent that he had terrorism training camps. The former regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion. Furthermore, there have been non-official relations between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana who sits on the Intelligence Committee, told the Weekly Standard, “the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide.”

Lastly, I’d like to talk about the situation in Iraq now. People have called Iraq a quagmire and some say that it will never improve. This is untrue. According to the report to Congress by General Petraeus, civilian deaths have also declined considerably, by over 45% Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December. In Baghdad, the decline was by 70%. The number of ethno-sectarian deaths has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, In Baghdad, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by some 80% since December.

Obviously, progress is being made. I find it ironic that the very people who can wait for 12 years for Iraq to submit to disarmament cannot wait 5 years to create a new government. If we pull out now, according to the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report, it would produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground; and a marked increase in violence.

This may seem to be true. After all, because humans are imperfect, they will sometimes be looking out for their self-interests instead of the interests of the ruler. Therefore, a good system (for the ruler) would make sure that the ruler and the constituents have common interests. Machiavelli understands this to mean that the ruler should threaten his subjects to make sure they have his interests in mind.

But what if Machiavelli is forgetting something? What would stop a constituent who obeys based on fear from changing his allegiance when a more frightening ruler appears?

However, a subject of the ruler would be reluctant to change his allegiance if it were based on love, because love is not transferred so easily. A person’s pride in their homeland and leader is more powerful than fear.

This is why a democracy works so well. Support for the government is not based on fear, but on love, especially since the government is made up of the constituents themselves. Thus, the citizens and “rulers” have common interests, without requiring fear.

Some people say that Jesus was only a teacher, nothing more. Yet, does this make logical sense? (For the purposes of this post, I will call it the “teacher assumption”.)

Let’s go through the scenario. Jesus’ death is estimated be around 26-37 AD. There were eyewitnesses that stated that they had seen Jesus after his death and alleged resurrection. Of course, eyewitnesses can either be mistaken, lying, or right.

Let’s say that the eyewitnesses were simply mistaken. This is very improbable, considering that hundreds of people saw Jesus, and he appeared many times. For example, in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he states, “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.” No mass collaboration or hallucination is possible, because people saw him in different locations at different times. Furthermore, when the accounts of these eyewitnesses were given, they were still alive, and able to contradict anything that was not the truth.

But let’s say that the eyewitnesses were lying. The main “eyewitnesses” were the apostles themselves. According to other historical documents of the time, most of the apostles were martyred. For example, Peter was crucified under Nero (AD 64). Now, these people claimed to have seen Christ with their very own eyes. And they died for it. Why would someone be willing to die for something they knew was a lie? They got nothing out of lying except pain.

A common reaction to this would be to say that people die for their beliefs all the time: those suicide bombers and such. However, these people today die for what they believe is true. In order for the teacher assumption to be correct, the apostles must have died for what they know was a lie, and gained nothing.

Logically, this assumption does not make any sense. Therefore, it is ironic that many people claim to be logical and rational, and yet, still reject Christianity. But when we do look at Jesus’ death and resurrection logically, we can see that if the eyewitnesses were not mistaken or lying, they must have been right.