There seems to be a misconception when it comes to Gardasil, this “miracle drug” the Alligator has, regrettably, furthered in Thursday’s editorial. The vaccine does not protect against cervical cancer. It provides protection against four specific strains of the sexually transmitted disease human papillomavirus. Two of those strains account for 70 percent of HPV-related cervical cancer cases.

While I believe this is a tremendous step in the right direction for preventive medicine, I must disagree with statements made by Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the actions of the Florida Legislature. Requiring young women to receive the false hope of a “miracle drug” which protects them from cervical cancer may have a negative effect in the promotion of sex.

You can get lung cancer without smoking, and you can get hepatitis B without doing drugs. But you cannot get the strains of HPV that Gardasil protects against without having sex.

As Mr. Bove points out, if we get rid of this STI, it will mean there is one less potential punishment for engaging in sexual behavior. He points out that if we simply refrain from sex, then no one will have to worry about this disease. I, for one, support his opinion. All of these pretentious moral right-wingers should refrain from sex, eventually dying out. Then we can require the vaccine without opposition and actually get rid of the disease.

I shudder to think of the day when a cure or vaccine is discovered for HIV/AIDS. The moral right will decry that all of God’s punishment powers are being taken away by science.

1. How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

Natural laws can produce beautiful ordered universe, in the same way that an arbitrary mathematic equation can produce a beautiful fractal. Also, it’s important to realize that design and order are subjective terms. I don’t see evidence for design in the universe, and the total order or entropy of the universe is decreasing.

2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

I don’t refute the fact that parts of the Bible are backed up by archaeological documentation, as parts of it are in all likelihood, historically accurate. However, there are also large sections of the Bible that are not backed up by archeological data, such as the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the great flood and Noah’s ark, the resurrection of Jesus, and the Biblical account of creation.

3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?

It’s not true that Biblical prophecies have never failed. Ezekiel chapter 26 predicted that the city of Tyre would be destroyed during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. The prophesy predicted that the entire city would be left as bare rock and never be rebuilt. Instead the city was never completely destroyed, and is currently a metropolitan area of over 100,000 inhabitants.

Matt 12:40 predicts that the son of God will be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights, however all four gospels say that Jesus died Friday evening and rose Sunday at dawn, allowing him less than 36 hours to be in the belly of the earth.

In Matt 24:34, Jesus predicts that the end of the world and all the fantastic “signs” he describes will occur within the lifetimes of the “current generation” or those currently living at the time Jesus spoke those words. Clearly, this prophecy failed.

Isaiah 7:14 predicted that the messiah would be given the name “Immanuel” however, there is no reference to Jesus ever being called Immanuel.

It’s also important to note that many of the prophesies in the Bible are self-fufilling prophesies, lending no credence to the statement that the Bible is divinely inspired.

4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

Given the number of translations and copies made of the Bible over the generations, I find this to be an argument against the Bible. For example, the latin word for “virgin” also means “young girl”. Over a thousand years later, when the Bible was translated out of latin, how did they know that Mary was a virgin instead of just a young girl?

5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

Yes. I’m satisfied and fulfilled with my current world view as well.

6. Wouldn’t it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn’t?

Honestly, I think this is the one argument which is the most convincing, but that isn’t saying much. I would rather risk eternal torture than twiddle my thumbs waiting for the Christian’s eternal life, wasting my one chance at taking control of my own existence, and deluding myself of reality. So no, that doesn’t make better sense. This is essentially the same argument at Pascal’s wager. Who’s to say that God rewards Christians in the afterlife and not Muslims, or some other religion?

7. In what sense was Jesus a ‘Good Man’ if He was lying in His claim to be God?

Jesus may have been a nice guy, but I’m not sure he was a ‘Good Man’ considering that the was lying in His claim to be God.

8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?

Yes.

9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the ‘Good Book’?

Since when is the Bible universally regarded as the ‘Good Book’ when it portrays the stoning of disobedient women and children, genocide, a wrathful and vengeful God, and slavery? Honestly, I’m surprised anyone who’s read the Bible regards it as a ‘Good Book’.

10. From whence comes humanity’s universal moral sense?

As people became social creatures, a genetic, ingrained social structure was neccessary for the success of our species. Evolution genetically programmed rough ideas of good, associated with pleasure and happiness, and bad, associated with pain and suffering. Our intelligence and social ties form (or subvert) the rest of our conscience.

11. If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

I care and live honorably in this world because I love life and enjoy my existence, however meaningless and pointless it may be. I can assign value to my life and take pleasure in it.

12. Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.

I’m not sure what they mean by personality evolving from the impersonal, but order frequently results from chaos, due to the input of energy into a system.

13. If Jesus’ resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus’ disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

Perhaps they weren’t as intelligent as you assume? How should I know? I didn’t personally know them. There are plenty of cult sacrifices and suicides.

14. How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?

Everyone changes society more than others. Just because Jesus radically changed society does not lend any more credence to Christianity or the Bible; all it says is that Jesus managed to fool a lot of people, and people to this day are still fooled by such fairy tales.

15. Why have so many of history’s greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?

Many great thinkers have believed in God, and many great thinkers have also been atheists. However, a disproportionate number of great thinkers have been atheists. People’s belief in God is their own choice, and just because a great thinker believed or didn’t believe in God does not convince me that there is or isn’t a God. I think for myself, thank you very much.

16. Isn’t it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?

I never suggest that they are flat wrong in believing in God. They are free to believe in whatever they want and to engage in whatever forms of ignorance they choose, just as I am.

17. How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?

Irreducible complexity is a tired old horse which has been disproved many times over. Evangelicals should save this question for people who know nothing about evolutionary biology.

18. How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?

I hate it when people misinterpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics, thinking they’ve cornered an evolutionist with some obscure law of physics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only operates under a closed system. Considering that the universe is a closed system, entropy has been increasing since the big bang. The earth, on the other hand, has never been a closed system, which means that entropy does not necessarily increase or decrease over time. Again, evangelicals should save this question for people who have never heard of the Law of Entropy.

19. Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world’s ‘holy’ books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?

Most of the Bible’s predictions are vague or are self-fufilling, and many of the prophesies have turned out to be false.

20. On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians 1:8)?

It’s a book, written by man, filled with failed prophesies and contradictions, interpreted and translated by hundreds, if not thousands of people over hundreds of generations. I think that’s plenty sufficient basis. It’s a fallible historical document (like any other), not a magic book.

21. Is it absolutely true that “truth is not absolute” or only relatively true that “all things are relative?”

Evangelicals must expect to trip up many an unsuspecting naturalist with this question. Absolutism and relativism are both beside the point. The fact of the matter is that (almost) all of our knowledge is based on our senses, in one way or another. Since we are constantly experiencing new things, we must be open to the idea that what we once held true, could turn out to be false. This is called falsifiability, and that’s the real thing I’d like to see Christians address.

22. Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

I can’t be unwilling to submit to him if I don’t believe in Him first. This argument makes no sense.

23. Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

Yes, it does. I hope yours does the same for you.

24. How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?

Those who have had their lives radically changed by Christianity have changed their own lives by choosing to believe in the Bible and following it’s tenets. No God helped them to turn their lives around, they did it themselves. There are examples of people radically changing their lives due to conversion to hundreds of different religions. There is nothing specific or special about the effect which Christianity has on it’s followers.

25. Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?

If I say that the sky is blue, then later I mention that the sky is red, that could considered a contradiction, as the sky cannot be simultaneously blue and red. Logically, it could be resolved by assuming that the sky was blue during the day, and it was red later in the day while the sun was setting. Of course, equally likely, you could have resolved the contradiction by saying that I was talking about two photoshopped photographs. Or I could have just been lying in one of the statements. The fact is that anyone can come up with an explanation to solve a contradiction, but just because it can be explained, does not make it any less of a contradiction. Furthermore, I highly doubt that every contradiction has been answered, and that every answer is both intelligible and credible.

26. What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?

I agree that some parts of the Bible are historically accurate. There are also parts of the Bible which are not supported by secular historical documents, and I don’t regard those parts as historically true or reliable.

27. Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?

Because there were crazy people who were brainwashed by it and wouldn’t let it go? The fact of the matter is there never was a worldwide attempt to destroy and ban the message of the Bible. Granted, it was a quiet cult for about 300 years after the death of Jesus, but after that, it was legally tolerated within the Roman empire, eventually becoming practically the exclusive state sponsored religion of Europe, which would eventually come to culturally dominate the western world. Compared to many religions, christians have been persecuted much less than others.

28. Why isn’t it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent ‘God’ when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?

I don’t understand what is meant by this question. In what sense would an existing God be greater or better than a non-existing God?

29. Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?

If I told you that my grandmother rose from the dead, would you believe me? Perhaps if I wrote about it in a book, you might believe me in 2000 years? Yeah, I don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead either. Claims don’t mean a thing.

30. How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?

An empty tomb is hardly evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. If I showed you an empty tomb and told you that my grandmother used to be in there, would you assume she rose from the dead and walked out of there?

31. If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?

Ok, so now I’m going to tell you there were guards at my grandmother’s tomb. Do you believe me now?

32. If the authorities stole Jesus’ body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?

I don’t pretend to know the motives of politicians from 2000 years ago, and neither should you.

33. If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?

Ever heard of a thing called bribery?

34. How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?

So now the standard of truth and reality is whatever 500+ people tell you it is? I’m sure its possible to find 500 witnesses who will testify to the life changing ability and veracity of the Koran. How can one realistically discount their testimony?

35. If all of Jesus’ claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn’t He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?

Whose to say He didn’t exhibit lunacy in other areas of His life? Furthermore, I would argue that claiming to be the son of a supernatural deity is enough evidence of lunacy.

36. If God is unchanging, wouldn’t it be true that one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that he/she is “God” therefore isn’t God?

I don’t believe in a changing or unchanging God.

37. Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?

No, I have yet to see how the Christian’s God is perfect. How is it that a vengeful, wrathful God who endorses slavery and genocide is perfect? Furthermore, the arguments I have heard concerning why God created evil, or allowed evil to occur have been unconvincing. Christians claim that God created evil so that we could have fee will, then freely choose to love him, but why didn’t God create a world in which we freely choose to love God without all the pain and suffering caused by evil. If God is perfect and all powerful, he could have done that. He would rather see some people suffer so that others will freely worship and glorify Him.

38. How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?

The Bible was edited very carefully by the Catholics, leaving out books from the Cannon which they felt did not belong. It’s not that difficult to mix, match, and put together a cohesive book from disparate pieces when some of those pieces can be discarded.

39. Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that “all men are endowed by their Creator…”?

I fault the Declaration of Independence no more than I fault the Iliad for referencing Zeus, Hera, Apollo, and Aphrodite. Each are important works of literature which reflect that time period’s culture.

40. Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical ‘science’ amount to anything more than just another faith system?

A great many things in science are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable yet. A God based on this fact would be nothing more than a God of the gaps and an argument for such a God is simply a plea from ignorance.

41. What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?

Ignorance fosters belief in the supernatural. If I don’t understand what lightning is, or where it comes from, it isn’t much of a stretch to make up a supernatural explanation.

42. Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?

I’m drawn to the a Richard Dawkin’s quote here: “. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”

43. If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?

Christians constantly press naturalists on precisely what “created” the universe, but who presses the Christians on precisely what “created” God? Christians are eager to say that everything has a cause or a creator, of course, except God, yet they can’t accept the same reasoning for the universe.

44. What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?

Unforeseeable and exceptional first-hand personal experience. When I die, I’ll find out whether I’m right or wrong.

It reminded me of a book I read over the summer, Hey Nostradamus! by Douglas Coupland. In the book, one of the characters has a friend who works at a facial recognition data bank where they collect and store the facial structures of thousands of people. She manages to track down someone who has an “analog” (the same facial structure) of her missing boyfriend and was struck by how similar they were in appearance, yet so different in in mannerisms. Several sections of the book, including that one, were masterfully written. I thought, in general, the book was pretty good; worth the read, although it didn’t particularly stand out among the books I read this summer. It takes a hard look at religious extremism and redemption, which I found appealing.

Anyways, back to my unimportant musing, since moving to Florida from South Carolina, I run in to people who are analogs of people I already know all the time and it kinda weirds me out each time. What would I do if I ran in to my own analog? Would I recognize him? Would we both see it in each other? If we did, that could turn in to a really strange friendship.

I thought it was wonderful to see one of the world’s largest religions support mainstream scientific thought and exemplify how evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Sadly, this mindset of God versus science is deeply embedded in our culture. A poll done by CBS in October of last year shows that over fifty percent of Americans believe in biblical creationism. Obviously, we’re willing to live with our illusions, instead of accepting scientific research. Certainly Catholicism’s capitulation on the matter will do nothing to advance science and knowledge in the world.

Intellectual masturbation seems to be a very common occurrence on the internet (along with the regular masturbation, I guess). Some people manage to write posts and expect readers to just be “yes” men to whatever they write, and when someone develops a well thought out and well laid out counter argument, they refuse to argue the points, claiming it’s just their belief, not offering to defend it. Personally, if I ever make an argument that I can’t reasonably sustain under debate, then it’s not an argument worth having. Clearly, some matters fall into belief and faith categories, but even those should atleast have some kind of debatable reasons to back them up, otherwise it’s at best an illusion.

The way I view homosexuality is not a personal judgment; in fact, it is only I expressing before man my true beliefs, which I am so called to do.

Clearly, he is expressing his personal beliefs but the weight of the world’s largest religion is behind him, and he also implies that a universal, omnipotent God is backing up his personal beliefs as well. The Nazis were called upon to spew anti-semetic and anti-homosexual rhetoric, believing that they had a universal and omnipotent God behind them, is this any different (minus the anti-semitism)? It’s important to realize that anyone can invent a personal God to back up their moral convictions, but that doesn’t give anyone more authority over those who don’t bother with personal deities.

Not only was my post geared toward homosexuality, which was only a small facet of what I was truly speaking on, it was about general moral decline. I remain in hope that people’s eyes will be open to truth, and that conviction will occur. I have no apologies for what I have said, nor will my views on Christianity or morality be affected.

Truth is extremely common in the Christian’s lexicon. They love to imply that because they have invented a personal God who agrees with their moral convictions that they have the exclusive right to “absolute truth”. It’s nothing more than cheap rhetoric. And when Christian social conservatism is laid true for the hypocritical bigotry that it is (as it was so eloquently done), Christians refuse to accept it, claiming that their faith remains true, and hoping that one day, you will be able to see the “Truth” too.

After reading the debate, I have to wonder, if there is such proliferation of the “adulterous lifestyle” which is just as bad as the homosexual life style, why are gays targeted and not remarried couples? I know it’s because it’s (partially, but in no small part) remarried couples are doing the gay bashing, but where is the Biblical support of such hypocrisy?

Recently, the FDA approved the drug, Plan B, to be available over the counter for women over the age of 18. It basically prevents the egg from being fertilized, or from lodging in the uterus, if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Naturally, anything that prevents overpopulation and teen pregnancy enrages Republicans and Democrats pandering to Republicans and this is no different.

Pro-lifers who believe life begins at conception, consider the contraceptive tantamount to abortion, and social conservatives fear that emergency contraceptives will encourage promiscuity.

What these social conservatives don’t realize is that we face a serious social problem and Plan B is just another solution to that problem. People are having sex, transmitting diseases, and having unwanted pregnancies. First of all, no one can stop people from having sex. Some social conservatives feel that sexual behavior out of wedlock is immoral and try to legislate morality by blocking solutions to the problems which sex causes. Sexual freedom should not be abridged by our government just because of some people’s religious convictions; our government standing in the way of the prevention of STDs and unwanted pregnancy simply lowers our quality of life and solves nothing.

What we need to focus on is preventing the transmission of STDs and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, for adults and teens alike. This means we need to educate children on the usage of condoms and other safe sex practices, as well as educate girls on types of contraceptives, including Plan B. Finally, we need to make these available to them. If the FDA requires a prescription for Plan B, there is no way anybody will be able to have access to the drug with only 72 hours notice. It will help no one by keeping this drug out of everyone’s reach; it’ll only create more unwanted pregnancies. And best I can figure, that seems to be what social conservatives want. Go figure.

Apparently, a New York man was arrested for broadcasting Al-Manar, which is the news station associated with Hizbollah, to the tri-state area. I can understand how actively supporting the terrorists is considered illegal, but watching or broadcasting their news station? From what the article says, Al-Manar is designated a terrorist organization and doing business with them is accordingly illegal. I’m sorry, but information, regardless of it’s source is not terrorism. Ok, so it’s biased to support the Lebanese side in the recent conflict, but is it really that much different than our own propaganda from news stations like Fox News, which is biased to support the US/Isreal side? It seems to me that the government is trying very hard to control what kind of propaganda and information reaches our ears or eyes.

If this keeps up, it will be illegal to be sympathetic to any side other than what our almighty dictator, uh, I mean, elected president, decides. Almost none of the developments over the past few years bode well for our civil liberties in the next twenty or thirty years. All I ask for the right to see news, regardless of whose propaganda it is, and the people who broadcast that news to me should not have to dodge the law in order to provide that service. I’m perfectly capable of recognizing and dissecting propaganda when I see it; My government doesn’t need to cover my eyes and ears for me.

If we could somehow massively cut oil consumption in this country over the next 10 to 20 years, I firmly believe that our future in the long run, would be much brighter. I would support huge tax increases on petroleum importation, domestic production, and consumption. The key objective would be two fold: to spur companies to produce more energy-efficient products, as well as invest in new technologies that don’t require petroleum, and to get consumers to become more conscious of their petroleum consumption. Since it would be necessary for economic alternatives for petroleum to be developed at first, the tax increases would be gradually phased in, so that undue pressure isn’t place on the consumer or the economy.

1. Electricity production needs to be shifted from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Wind farms are an excellent source of power in some places, and people need to stop complaining that it will ruin their view. If developers want to put up a huge energy wasting condo that ruins my view from my beach house, I have no hope of standing in it’s way, but when environmentalists advocate for clean, domestic power sources like a wind farm, it becomes a free-for-all. We also need to begin phasing in new nuclear facilities. For some reason, both sides, environmentalists and anti-environmentalists, agree on this issue and stand in the way, but neither side really investigates the issue. Nuclear waste can be disposed of properly, and emerging technologies, such as thermonuclear reactors and breeder reactors (these can be built already!) could significantly reduce or even eliminate the nuclear waste produced as well as use fuel which would be plentiful for the next several millennia.

2. Our culture of waste needs to change. For some reason, no American likes to be told to conserve. It’s taken to be our right to waste whatever we want. People need to wake up and realize it’s not about a personal choice to drive a hybrid or a hummer; our waste today will create problems for our entire society in the future. Increasing the cost of energy is the only way to do this. People should invest in solar panels for their homes, and reduce electric consumption where ever possible. Architects need to focus on designs that will minimize the use of air conditioning and heating. City planers need to look at New Urbanism as a way to create energy efficient cities.

3. Not only do our cars and trucks need to become more efficient, but we also need to focus on alternative forms of transportation. We need to start car pooling to work, again, which will happen naturally as gas prices rise. Cities also need to start investing in public transportation; Light rail systems for larger cities, and busses for smaller cities. Cities also should be designed to encourage pedestrian traffic where possible (see New Urbanism). We also need to revamp our train network to allow for high speed rails to connect larger cities throughout the country and then improve service on low speed trains which serve small cities. I looked at the Amtrak schedule between Florida and New York and it’s no wonder no one uses it. Half the cities along the track only get service during the middle of the night! Auto makers need to focus on hybrids, as well as other forms of fuel such as ethanol.

I think if these things could be implemented, it would be realistic to expect that petroleum consumption could be cut in half. Bear in mind that I’m not advocating that we completely stop all consumption of petroleum, just a major reduction. If gasoline cost between seven and ten dollars a gallon, along with a similar level of increase for electricity prices, people would shape up. Of course, this would have to be implemented very slowly, and the revenues from these taxes used would be used exclusively to improve our public transportation infrastructure and invest in alternative sources of energy. A small rebate program could be organized for the poorest citizens; nothing large, just something to offset the costs of heating and cooling their homes. Instead of driving to work, we would take public transportation or carpool to work. Instead of paying more for electricity, we would use less electricity.

It’s entirely possible to conserve, despite the fact that the idea makes most Americans sick. While I was in Italy, I noticed that no one used driers to dry their clothes. Instead, everyone would hang their clothes outside. Nor did anyone use air conditioning, everyone would simply open their windows. Certainly no one can live in the south without air conditioning (I know, I’ve lived in Florida basically all my life) but the fact is that it’s definitely possible to use it less.

Ah, but the big question is, why not just use cheap electricity for as long as we can? Certainly its possible, but we must realize it’s effects, which is what most people ignore. First, this would massively help our environment. I’m not an insane environmentalist who’s willing to chain myself to some tree to save the green noobian spotted owl, but we need to realize that if our government doesn’t step in to prevent environmental abuses, neither will corporations. There will always be an exception to the rule, but by and large, people will always buy the cheapest product. And the company who is worried about the cheapest product won’t be worried about the quality of the environment fifty years from now. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about environmental issues, and perhaps as a society, we will never come to the realization that pollution can destroy the natural balance in which we thrive. In that case, I guess we will go extinct like any other animal, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I’m ok with that; one man can’t control the direction of society.

But as the topic of the post, the real issue here is terrorism and instability in the middle east. Right now, they have us over a barrel, an oil barrel to be specific. OPEC basically controls the world energy production, and since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the western world has had it’s fingers all up in the middle east’s business. By cutting petroleum consumption by half, we could completely stop oil imports from the middle east. In fact, we could let the Israelis sort out their own problems and there would be no need to have any involvement with the Middle East. Let it be as fucked up as it wants to be; there is nothing we can do about it. Africa is just as messed up with warring factions and ethnic problems, however they don’t have oil. We leave them alone and they leave us alone. We acknowledge that it is their responsibility to take care of themselves. The same should be done in regard to the middle east.

Opponents of this idea might say, “Well, that’s just letting the terrorists win!” and in a way, I guess it is. But the point is that without the oil money, or our presence in their territory, which is their excuse for hating us, there would be much less extremism in the region. If they want their theocracy, that is their decision. Who are we to stand in their way? We’ve already proved with Iraq that we physically are not capable of just “liberating” who ever we feel like. It’s time they realize that it’s their responsibility to make their own democracy, not ours. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, let them have nuclear weapons. We need to stop being the international bully that every country in the world feels that it needs to protect itself from.

Unfortunately, there is no way any politician would endorse such a plan. Apparently, as a society, we have real difficulty in planning a course for the long term, and perhaps that will be our fatal flaw. If things are still as fucked up in 2024 as they are now, you can write me in as a presidential candidate.