First, let me say that Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan isn't a perfect book and most of the information is now common knowledge at least to those interested in food policy (though I think it was somewhat groundbreaking at the time it was written - or at the very least reached a new audience). We know that corn is subsidized and driving an unhealthy system where food is heavily processed an animals are treated poorly.
Even if you know most of this information though, this book is still one of the best books on the subject. It is well-organized, well-written, and thorough. And unless you are an expert, there are things you will learn. I thought I had a good general idea of our food system from reading articles (some by Pollan himself) and talking to friends. But there was enough new information it the book to keep me interested.
There were two parts of the book though that were new to me and were worth reading. First, his description of Polyface Farms was great. To see how an ultra sustainable farm can work is amazing. Each part of the farm supports the other parts. And what was truly great was that this type of farm requires a lot of thought and energy. It seems that the industrialization and mechanization of our farms has created a job that is less mentally stimulating than it used to be - not that smart people don't do it, but that so much is uniform and planned. A farm like this could in theory keep smart people from leaving the farm to more exciting jobs. It also shows how smart nature is and how easily things can work if you let nature do what it wants to do.
The second part that was really good and worth reading was Pollan's good discussion of utilitarian animal rights. As I have thought more about animal rights, I haven't always known what I meant or what I wanted. I know animals are not humans. They do not and should not have the same rights and get the same treatment. But I do not think therefore that animals have no rights and are entitled to no consideration about there well-being.
Pollan's description of Peter Singer's philosophy really hit home with me. While I knew animals shouldn't suffer unnecessary pain, I didn't know anything beyond that. Basically, Peter Singer believes that animals and humans should have equal consideration of their interests. Humans interests are different from a chickens interests, but both should be considered. Humans want shelter, health, freedom, and a good job. Chickens want to roost, nest, and have space to move around. Therefore we seek not only to see that chickens do not suffer, but that they are able to do the things a chicken wants to do.
Free range chickens - actual free range, not the definition created by the agribusinesses - seek to give this to chickens. And the same goes for grass-fed beef. Cows want to eat grass - that is what ruminants do. If we care about animal rights, we should let them do this.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
I Don't Eat Meat... or Fish
I wrote a post last year about how I had drastically cut back on my meat consumption. Maybe it doesn't surprise anyone, but I have now entirely cut meat and fish out of my diet. Before I go into my reasons, I want to be clear that I write this post to explain my choice but not to proselytize. I don't think everyone can or should be vegetarian. But based on what I know, I have decided that I have to.
When I last wrote about this, I had said that I have cut back on my meat consumption because the way we consume meat in this country in unsustainable; there is intense pollution, significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, and animal suffering due to our current meat consumption practices. I still feel that cutting back on meat and purchasing from sustainable businesses is a great way to deal with these problems.
To be honest, I ended up becoming effectively vegetarian before I had decided that it was a moral necessity for me. The only place that I was eating meat at the time closed for about six months (fire), and during that time I ate no meat. So I realized I could and therefore should stop eating meat altogether.
But it was during that time and since that I realized I had to continue to avoid eating meat. And the main reason was that if I cared about animal rights, I couldn't feel good about the fact that the animals I was eating lead such short lives - even if they were good lives. For example, pigs raised for meat live 8 months, beef cattle 15-20 months, and chickens two months. I don't feel happy eating a chicken that only lived for such a short time.
Now, I recognize there is a problem with my logic. These animals are entirely domestic. Without our food system, they would not likely live at all. I don't have much of a response to this except that maybe in an even more perfect world we wouldn't eat any animal until 5 years. But then again, I don't know what this might do to the quality of the meat. The bottom line though is that I don't feel good about it.
All of this doesn't address why I don't eat fish. For that, I blame scuba diving. I love diving, I love the colors, the beauty and the peace. It is such an amazing way to see nature. And so I can't abide to eat fish when they are caught in a way that destroys these ecosystems. The deteriorating conditions of our seas are well documented and gaining more widespread recognition. Until there is an international solution to the overfishing, I will not contribute to a practice that destroys one of our most valuable and beautiful resources.
So there you have it. No meat. No fish. But I still eat eggs. Only free range and local, in case you were curious.
When I last wrote about this, I had said that I have cut back on my meat consumption because the way we consume meat in this country in unsustainable; there is intense pollution, significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, and animal suffering due to our current meat consumption practices. I still feel that cutting back on meat and purchasing from sustainable businesses is a great way to deal with these problems.
To be honest, I ended up becoming effectively vegetarian before I had decided that it was a moral necessity for me. The only place that I was eating meat at the time closed for about six months (fire), and during that time I ate no meat. So I realized I could and therefore should stop eating meat altogether.
But it was during that time and since that I realized I had to continue to avoid eating meat. And the main reason was that if I cared about animal rights, I couldn't feel good about the fact that the animals I was eating lead such short lives - even if they were good lives. For example, pigs raised for meat live 8 months, beef cattle 15-20 months, and chickens two months. I don't feel happy eating a chicken that only lived for such a short time.
Now, I recognize there is a problem with my logic. These animals are entirely domestic. Without our food system, they would not likely live at all. I don't have much of a response to this except that maybe in an even more perfect world we wouldn't eat any animal until 5 years. But then again, I don't know what this might do to the quality of the meat. The bottom line though is that I don't feel good about it.
All of this doesn't address why I don't eat fish. For that, I blame scuba diving. I love diving, I love the colors, the beauty and the peace. It is such an amazing way to see nature. And so I can't abide to eat fish when they are caught in a way that destroys these ecosystems. The deteriorating conditions of our seas are well documented and gaining more widespread recognition. Until there is an international solution to the overfishing, I will not contribute to a practice that destroys one of our most valuable and beautiful resources.
So there you have it. No meat. No fish. But I still eat eggs. Only free range and local, in case you were curious.
Collision: A Review
Summary. I just watched Collision, the documentary about the debates on whether Christianity is good for the world between Hitchens and Wilson. In this post I will tell you where my beliefs are and what I thought about the two arguments. Get comfortable, this is going to be a long one.
I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.
First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.
While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.
But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.
I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.
One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.
As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.
Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.
I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.
Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.
Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?
Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.
The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.
Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.
One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.
So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.
Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.
I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.
First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.
While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.
But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.
I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.
One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.
As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.
Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.
I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.
Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.
Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?
Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.
The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.
Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.
One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.
So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.
Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.
Truman's Bomb
I have been watching the American Experience documentary on President Truman. So far I am half way through and just got to the end of World War II. Since I haven't read McCullough's Truman or any other biography, this is my first study of him. The one thing that sticks out of course is the decision to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima using the nuclear bomb.
Usually the decision to bomb Japan is contrasted to not using the bomb and invading mainland Japan. That option of course would have lead to many thousands more American deaths. However, that was not the only other option. Truman, as has been well established, could have used the bomb once in Japan where there were no people or at the very least on a military target to show the amazing power of the atomic bomb.
The question is why didn't he chose one of those other options. If I understand the documentary correctly, Truman delegated the decision about where to use the bomb to the military. Only after the extreme destruction of the two bombings did Truman take the power back from the military so that he alone would decide if there was another bombing and where it would be.
If this is true, I find it appalling and very scary. I can admit that I don't have the proper historical context - maybe presidents delegated chores like this frequently during this time. If so, Truman made a grave and stupid mistake not recognizing that his was a new weapon that demanded new protocol.
The nuclear bomb should have been used on military targets until it was clear Japan was not scared, and only then used on civilian populations. And that decision should have come from the President himself. I think we have learned our lesson. What I don't understand is why we (or McCullough) hold Truman in such high regard. Maybe the second half of the documentary will show me.
Usually the decision to bomb Japan is contrasted to not using the bomb and invading mainland Japan. That option of course would have lead to many thousands more American deaths. However, that was not the only other option. Truman, as has been well established, could have used the bomb once in Japan where there were no people or at the very least on a military target to show the amazing power of the atomic bomb.
The question is why didn't he chose one of those other options. If I understand the documentary correctly, Truman delegated the decision about where to use the bomb to the military. Only after the extreme destruction of the two bombings did Truman take the power back from the military so that he alone would decide if there was another bombing and where it would be.
If this is true, I find it appalling and very scary. I can admit that I don't have the proper historical context - maybe presidents delegated chores like this frequently during this time. If so, Truman made a grave and stupid mistake not recognizing that his was a new weapon that demanded new protocol.
The nuclear bomb should have been used on military targets until it was clear Japan was not scared, and only then used on civilian populations. And that decision should have come from the President himself. I think we have learned our lesson. What I don't understand is why we (or McCullough) hold Truman in such high regard. Maybe the second half of the documentary will show me.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Things Change: 2010
Good Morning! So most of the election results are in, and I have to say I am not too upset by the results. The House went Republican by what will probably be 65ish votes. The Senate has stayed Democrat with as many as 53 seats for the Dems. And in NYS, all statewide seats went Democrat, but the state senate is still up in the air, with a 31-31 split a real possibility. Having to compromise might make the chamber more effective, but I doubt it.
The biggest reason I am relatively happy though is that it looks like the crazy and not-so-bright candidates mostly lost. Sharron Angle lost by 6 percent in Nevada (whereas polls had her in the lead), Joe Miller seems to have lost to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski (a more reasonable Republican), Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut, and of course Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware, as expected. All of those outcomes comfort me. I don't mind a Republican outcome as long as it is the relatively reasonable people that win and not the crazies.
What about Rand Paul you ask? I think he is on the fringe (and ignorant of macroeconomics), but he is smart and thoughtful, if lacking judgment.
The biggest reason I am relatively happy though is that it looks like the crazy and not-so-bright candidates mostly lost. Sharron Angle lost by 6 percent in Nevada (whereas polls had her in the lead), Joe Miller seems to have lost to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski (a more reasonable Republican), Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut, and of course Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware, as expected. All of those outcomes comfort me. I don't mind a Republican outcome as long as it is the relatively reasonable people that win and not the crazies.
What about Rand Paul you ask? I think he is on the fringe (and ignorant of macroeconomics), but he is smart and thoughtful, if lacking judgment.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Night 2010
This election is really firming my belief in the long run / big picture. Change does not happen overnight (except in rare situations). But it does happen slowly. And while people like Rand Paul win elections, their policies of very limited government have been rejected for well over 200 years now. As a country we have slowly increased the role of government to situations that are appropriate and necessary. The point of all this is to say that I have not lost faith; change will come, but slowly.
As for what we know right now: In the Senate, West Virginia (and as expected so have Connecticut and Delaware) has gone to the Democrats. This means the chances of Republicans taking the Senate are slim (2% according to 538). But I have turned off the TV because I can't bear to watch Republicans that know nothing about economics talk about belt tightening.
As for what we know right now: In the Senate, West Virginia (and as expected so have Connecticut and Delaware) has gone to the Democrats. This means the chances of Republicans taking the Senate are slim (2% according to 538). But I have turned off the TV because I can't bear to watch Republicans that know nothing about economics talk about belt tightening.
Lightning Rounds
I didn't realize it until I saw this post, but I hate lightning rounds at candidate debates. There are very few questions in politics that can be answered with either a yes or a no. Instead, this sort of thing fuels unfair negative attack adds by trapping politicians. And you'll see that most of the questions are not even relevant or meaningful.
I've selected the worst questions from the lightning round at the Gillibrand / DioGuardi debate.
- Has the Tea Party movement been good for America?
This is a really stupid question when only allowing a yes or no answer. A candidate should be able to say that almost any public movement addressing government is a good one. And a movement that acts as a counter to government expansion is a helpful check. The candidate should then be able to say that they disagree with most of the tea party stands for - that they are selfish and uncaring and we need energetic government to help those facing difficulties.
- Should Andrew Cuomo debate Carl Paladino one-on-one?
Why would / should either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have an opinion about that?
- Should the Guantanamo prisoners be tried in military tribunals instead of US criminal court?
This is a question that could have a yes or no, but because it is a complicated issue, it deserves a much more nuanced answer.
- Should Alan Hevesi go to prison?
Again, why would either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have a position on this?
- Would David Paterson make a better US Senator than Governor?
This is the worst of the worst. Of course Paterson would be a better Senator - he has less responsibility. He was a good state senator. He hasn't been a good governor. Unfortunately, just acknowledging that, especially by Gillibrand, suggests maybe Paterson should have nominated himself. The real question is whether Paterson would have been a good Senator and why.
- Would you attend the groundbreaking for the Islamic cultural center and mosque near the WTC site?
Ugh. The ground braking is not happening anytime soon. This is such an absurd hypothetical question and so much can change between now and the actual groundbreaking - if it even happens. All this does is gives candidates the chance to get into trouble by saying something now and then circumstances changing.
- Would Hillary Clinton make a good VP candidate in 2012?
Again, poorly worded so much as to render it meaningless. The question should be whether Hillary should be the VP nominee. Lots of people might make good VP candidates, but the real question is who the candidate should be.
- Did Anita Hill tell the truth?
Give me a break. No one knows whether she told the truth. The best we can say is that she raised troubling allegations. Unfortunately, in our world questions like this break down by political affiliation, and that is actually the expectation. Gillibrand knew she had to say yes and DioGuardi had to say no. It is appalling that the questioner would put them on the spot like this and force them to take this position in a way that doesn't allow any nuance.
I've selected the worst questions from the lightning round at the Gillibrand / DioGuardi debate.
- Has the Tea Party movement been good for America?
This is a really stupid question when only allowing a yes or no answer. A candidate should be able to say that almost any public movement addressing government is a good one. And a movement that acts as a counter to government expansion is a helpful check. The candidate should then be able to say that they disagree with most of the tea party stands for - that they are selfish and uncaring and we need energetic government to help those facing difficulties.
- Should Andrew Cuomo debate Carl Paladino one-on-one?
Why would / should either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have an opinion about that?
- Should the Guantanamo prisoners be tried in military tribunals instead of US criminal court?
This is a question that could have a yes or no, but because it is a complicated issue, it deserves a much more nuanced answer.
- Should Alan Hevesi go to prison?
Again, why would either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have a position on this?
- Would David Paterson make a better US Senator than Governor?
This is the worst of the worst. Of course Paterson would be a better Senator - he has less responsibility. He was a good state senator. He hasn't been a good governor. Unfortunately, just acknowledging that, especially by Gillibrand, suggests maybe Paterson should have nominated himself. The real question is whether Paterson would have been a good Senator and why.
- Would you attend the groundbreaking for the Islamic cultural center and mosque near the WTC site?
Ugh. The ground braking is not happening anytime soon. This is such an absurd hypothetical question and so much can change between now and the actual groundbreaking - if it even happens. All this does is gives candidates the chance to get into trouble by saying something now and then circumstances changing.
- Would Hillary Clinton make a good VP candidate in 2012?
Again, poorly worded so much as to render it meaningless. The question should be whether Hillary should be the VP nominee. Lots of people might make good VP candidates, but the real question is who the candidate should be.
- Did Anita Hill tell the truth?
Give me a break. No one knows whether she told the truth. The best we can say is that she raised troubling allegations. Unfortunately, in our world questions like this break down by political affiliation, and that is actually the expectation. Gillibrand knew she had to say yes and DioGuardi had to say no. It is appalling that the questioner would put them on the spot like this and force them to take this position in a way that doesn't allow any nuance.
Tea Party is Bad for Business
I hadn’t thought about this, but yes, the Tea Party is bad for business. They want to abolish the Federal Reserve and strongly opposed TARP. They also oppose federal education funding, which would likely decrease education spending and achievement leading to a less skilled workforce. And they oppose the EPA, which maybe businesses agree with, although if I were a good business, I wouldn’t want to be businesses that pollute to be more competitive than me. Then again, maybe good businesses don’t exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)