The Road Not Chosen

For Your Consideration

Don’t Tell Me When to Die!

This interesting tidbit comes from the L.A. Times:

Obama discusses deathbed measures

At a healthcare town hall, he says stopping futile procedures for the terminally ill can lower costs.

By Peter Nicholas
June 25, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

I’m all for people making the most informed medical decisions possible. I don’t think the government should tell me when I or my loved ones should die. I also don’t want the government telling me I can’t have a surgery but just have to “take the painkiller”. Another way of saying that is “Sorry. You are just going to have to deal with a crappy quality of life because Big Brother says you don’t need surgery.”

(Did you know that in Nazi Germany they rounded up the mentally retarded and the mentally ill and started killing them before even the Jews had been rounded up? The Nazi started it’s murderous rampage with those society sees as the weakest, those who were least able to fight back. I’m just sayin’….)

I’ve actually been surprised at the L.A.Times which has always been a liberal paper, for calling out Obama on the various issues that he is trying to propose that would erode the freedoms we have been granted under the Constitution. I knew the tide was turning when Bill Maher stated on his show that Obama turned out to not be the guy Maher thought he was.

All I know is that we need to pray, fast and keep asking God to move in power in our nation. I don’t want us to be like the nation of Israel who so turned their backs on God that He allowed the Babylonians to capture Israel & drag them off to slavery.

Each day seems a bit darker than before in this nation. I am so glad that my life doesn’t end here on earth and that no matter how dark it looks or becomes I have an eternity of joy in Heaven to look forward to. What about you?

Could You Explain That Please?

"I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by promises that my administration keeps." – Pres. Obama speaking on Monday to gay men & lesbians gathered at the White House to commemorate the 40th anniversary  of the Stonewall Rebellion.  (The Stonewall Rebellion marked the rise of the modern gay rights movement.)

Obama said the above because he had made promises to the gay community that he has not kept. As a result they don’t really trust him thus his odd “assurance” to them. The interesting thing is that the President has made many promises during his campaign and in the early days of his Presidency that he has not kept. Or sort of kept, maybe halfway. Not only the gays are wary of his promises but other special interest groups and regular citizens feel that way as well.

As I listen to the President, read transcripts of his speeches, watch press briefings with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, I realize how many tricks of logic that they use. Of course, these aren’t used just by the current administration. Both sides of the aisle are quite adept at whipping out a logical fallacy when needed.

To help you recognize some of these, I dug out my teaching notes on Critical Thinking to show you a few of the more common devices used to throw your opponent or audience off track.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it.

excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes.

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument.

appeal to ignorance: appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist).

appeal to numbers: this fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Harold & I are competing with each other to see who spots the false argument first. Who needs board games when you have politicians?

“140 chars is a novel when you’re being shot at.”

The statement above is one of the thousands of tweets (Twitter updates) on Twitter at #Iranelection. You have to admire people who are living in a dictatorship and risking their lives to try and tell the world what is going on in their country. Twitter only allows you 140 characters to update your status on that social networking site.

During the last couple of days, if you haven’t heard, hundred of thousands Iranians are protesting what they feel is a rigged Presidential election. They are doing their best to keep the demonstrations peaceful but have been attacked & shot at by the government police.  The government has basically shut down the web, TV stations, etc. Outside journalists are not allowed in the streets to film or talk to people. However, free speech is not so easily destroyed. Social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook & Flickr are still available in Iran because they are run from outside the country. The Iranians have been getting the news out through those outlets.

The title of this post got me thinking. What would I say, what would you say, if you only had 140 characters to get a message out before your freedom of speech was completely taken away? (Excluding goodbye to loved ones.)

Think about it and get back to me. I’ll post mine in a couple of days.

Today’s Brilliant Quote

I am a huge admirer of writer/professor/social critic Camille Paglia’s ability to sum up a situation in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. While Ms. Paglia’s view on several subjects (feminism, sexuality, politics) can at times seem a million miles from my own views I love the way that she refuses to bow to the sacred cows of the aforementioned subjects. For instance, she is a devout atheist who admires those who have deep and sincere religious beliefs. She is an ardent feminist who is not afraid to call her sisters out when they are being hypocritical. or man-bashing, or elitist. She is a lifelong Democrat who has long been very critical of the party’s tendency to demonize Republicans.

I was reading her current essay in Salon titled “Obama’s hit & a big miss”. She was writing about Obama’s trip to Egypt and the speech that he gave there. This speech was supposed to be ground breaking and start Muslims, Chrisitans & Jews on the road to peace. Paglia so succinctly summed up some of my pet peeves about Obama that I thought this was worth sharing.

“It was also puzzling how a major statement about religion could seem so detached from religion. Obama projected himself as a floating spectator of other people's beliefs (as in his memory of hearing the call to prayer in Indonesia). Though he identified himself as a Christian, there was no sign that it goes very deep. Christianity seemed like a badge or school scarf, a testament of affiliation without spiritual convictions or constraints. This was one reason, perhaps, for the odd failure of the speech to acknowledge the common Middle Eastern roots of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, for both of whom the holy city of Jerusalem remains a hotly contested symbol.

Obama's lack of fervor may be one reason he rejects and perhaps cannot comprehend the religious passions that perennially erupt around the globe and that will never be waved away by mere words. By approaching religion with the cool, neutral voice of the American professional elite, Obama was sometimes simplistic and even inadvertently condescending, as in his gift bag of educational perks like "scholarships," "internships," and "online learning" -- as if any of these could checkmate the seething, hallucinatory obsessions of jihadism.

…At the finale, his recitation of soft-focus quotes from the Koran, Talmud and Bible came perilously close to a fuzzy New Age syncretism of "all religions are the same" -- which they unequivocally are not. The problem facing international security is that people who believe something will always be stronger and more committed than people who believe nothing -- which unfortunately describes the complacent passivity of most Western intellectuals these days.”