Thursday, March 30, 2006

"Online Freedom of Speech Act" Update

Here is an update from The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has issued its court-ordered regulations covering political expression on the Internet. Individuals have been largely exempted from the burdens of the campaign finance regulations. So far so good. But the Incumbent Protection Gang won't be satisfied. They'll almost certainly file suit claiming the FEC has not complied with the original court order. Meanwhile . . .

The House leadership has withdrawn the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" once again on the grounds that it is no longer needed. This is a mistake. If they would go ahead and pass this bill the whole matter would be settled. Otherwise, the entire issue is going back to the courts, which have already ruled that Congress originally intended for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to apply fully to the Internet. Only Congress can inform the courts differently by passing the "Online Freedom of Speech Act."

Here's the bottom line: The only reason the FEC went easy on the Internet was because of public pressure. Remember, the original Internet regulations they drafted were harsh, not easy. Public pressure makes a difference! So now we need to apply pressure on Congress to go ahead and pass the "Online Freedom of Speech Act." You can do so here:
Contact Congress

Plus, if you reside in the districts of the House leaders, Hastert and Boehner, please call them and ask them to bring the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" to a vote. Our system will provide you with their phone numbers after you send them your electronic message.

This is an issue where public pressure has worked, and it can continue to work if we continue to apply it.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Dumbing our kids down by banning sugar from the cupboard

It's that time of year again.You know which one I'm talking about. Children everywhere are growing obese in alarming numbers. What are we to do? Should government come up with an emergency plan. I can hear it now. Threat level is cupcake alert. Government stepping in is a bad idea in itself and is better left a subject for another article. Preventing kids from having sweets and junk food all together is the solution that has been catching my eye of recent. A war on junk food where the first casualty will be our kids' minds.

When we hide all the snacks or prevent our kids from having any sugary snacks at all, we take away our children's opportunity to use their mind.
Self-responsibility is born out of making decisions. A child must
learn the fundamental principles of making a good decision in order
to survive and prosper in life. It is our job to guide and educate
our children in those principles. This would require that we give
them as many opportunities to make decisions as possible.

As parents, we default on our responsibilities when we do not take every
opportunity to help our kid think for themselves. Banning sweets from
the cupboard and school vending machines is an example of dropping
the parent's responsibility ball. We have to give facts to why we are
preventing them from doing something. Often is the case, that the
parents have not checked the facts themselves and can not back up
their decision. If we do not give an explanation when we prevent the
child from doing something, this leaves the child with two
decisions. Do I continue to ask questions so that I can figure out
why my parent has made that decision, or do I just accept my
parent's authority and let them do the thinking for me. No
matter what we do , the child always has one basic choice. This
is to think for themselves and try to figure out the answers to their
questions or to submit to the parents answer of "Do it because I
say so!" A child that submits to his parents, when they
have not given him real answers, begins to think for themselves
less and less. The child grows to be dependent on his parents for
guidance instead of learning to think for himself. As an adult,
he is unsure of himself and has low self-esteem. When he runs into a
situation that his parents did not give an answer to, he is totally
lost and immobilized. Furthermore, the commands of the parents may
have been irrational. So he would follow irrational guidance in a
situation that could be detrimental in his life. Let's say that his
parents are racist and he never questions their views. In adult life
he may act out on that racism and beat someone up or seriously get
hurt while attacking someone.

Our children will prosper the more we give them the responsibility to think.
The principles we need to guide them on is using Reason and Logic. They
need to keep things in context by checking all the facts in the
situation. Then they need to determine based on those facts, what
actions and choices would be best in that given situation. This is
why we need to sit down with them and teach them the
facts that too much sweets can make them overweight, have cavities,
and bad health. However, in teaching them the facts, they would also
learn that balancing their meal would allow them to have sweets,
without leading to the destructive outcomes of over eating those
sugary snacks. This process of learning to check the facts of a
situation, and evaluate the costs and benefits of each decision, will
give them tools to combat any situation that life throws at them. I
say let them eat sweets, but make sure you are taking the parent's
responsibility to show them how to apply their minds to the world
around them.

esbn 4379906032135512614 Rate content:

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Monday, March 13, 2006

"Freedom Jacked"! Congress is trying to pass another Abramoff Deal

Did you hear about the new lobbying scandal? It is an "Abramoff Deal". What is an Abramoff Deal you may ask? It is when a person or group of individuals try to gain an advantage by playing both sides. Similar to a Faustian deal, they both come back to bite you in the behind. However, an Abramoff Deal is worse. In a Faustian deal, you at least know that you have a good chance of the screws being put to you. Yet with a Abramoff Deal, they will support you and your adversary at the same time. This way they gain more money or advantages from the escalating conflict between you both.

Congress is trying to pass the new Abramoff Deal as they normally like to do it. They present their bill with a name that everyone can like or would find hard to oppose. For example, the "Patriot Act" and the "Real ID ACT" both sound like something we should favor. However, if Congress would only READ THE BILLS they pass, we would cut down on some of the Individual Rights being lost and get a chance to DownsizeDC. Now, Congress has a new bill "The Lobbying Reform Act", which will make grass roots activism more difficult and costly to accomplish. It does this by requiring grassroots groups to fill out all kinds of paper work on its members and adds layers of regulation. While Congress can continue jet setting with high powered lobbyist to beautiful vacation spots rather than hear the voices of the people they represent. This puts us under scrutiny instead of the politicians.

Instead of the politicians and government power becoming more limited, it cuts out the grass roots competition. A government created monopoly helps no one except government and it's friends. As if this were not bad enough, a very important bill for individual rights (The Online Freedom of Speech Act) has been lumped together with the "The Lobbying Reform Act". The Online Freedom of Speech Act would protect our freedom of press and apply it to individuals as it should be. This way blogs and websites would rightfully enjoy the same protections as the mainstream media. The Online Freedom of Speech Act has no reason to be combined with another bill and should be voted on its own. Here Lays the Abramoff Deal, by supporting the good bill, the bad bill is passed. The bad bill will make the good bill null and void. If the The Lobbying Reform Act bill is shot down, so will the Online Freedom of Speech Act bill. Congress can now say, they supported both lobbying reform and freedom of speech or its opposition. While at the same time, they would get exactly what they wanted all along. Which is to cut out their competition and silence their critics. This allows them to continue to grow their governmental power. Congress would be playing both sides to get what they wanted.

Is this Abramoff Deal signed, sealed, and delivered? The answer is not yet. Groups like are making it easier for our representatives to hear the full force of our voices in unison for a return to a constitutionally limited government.

esbn 63233-060314-549462-33 Rate content:

Technorati Tags: , ,

Tired of big government?

Ever feel like your paycheck, your life, and your Individual Rights are
shrinking everyday? While the size of government continues to grow
bigger everyday. There is only one group I know that has made it very
easy to voice your opinion about downsizing the government. That's
right it's

Co-founder and board member of, Jim Babka will be on the Alex Jones show for an hour tomorrow. This is a big show
with a big audience, broadcast in 50 cities. You can listen on the
Internet. Go to and click on "Listen Live." Then click on Channel 1 or 2 to get the free feed.


1:00 PM Eastern
Noon Central
11:00 AM Mountain
10:00 AM Pacific
Recorded RE-PLAY available on-line at 10:00 PM Eastern

Stations by State:

Shortwave: WWCR 9.475

Prattville/Montgomery WIQR - 1410 AM


Buena Vista KDMN - 1450 AM
Colorado Springs KWYD - 1580 AM
Denver KLMO - 1060 AM
Vail KSKE - 610 AM


Bridgeport WICC - 600 AM


Chattahoochee WTCL - 1580 AM
Pensacola WVTJ - 610 AM
Pensacola WASG - 550 AM
Sarasota WIBQ - 1220 AM


Havana WDUK - 99.3 FM
Murphysborough WINI - 1420 AM


Estherville KILR - 1070 AM
Maquoketa KMAQ - 1320 AM
Mt. Pleasant KILJ - 1130 AM
Oskaloosa KBOE - 104.9 FM
Oskaloosa KBOE - 740 AM


New Orleans WTIX - 690 AM


Denton WKDI - 840 AM


Boston WBPS - 890 AM


Fulton KFAL - 900 AM
Liberty KCXL - 1140 AM
Mountain Grove KELE - 1360 AM
Salem KSMO - 1340 AM
Springfield KWTO - 560 AM
Thayer KALM - 1290 AM


Glendive KXGN - 1400 AM
North Platte KOOQ


Ainsworth KBRB - 92.7 FM
Ainsworth KBRB - 1400 AM
North Platte KODY - 1240 AM
North Platte KOOQ - 1410 AM


Brockport WMJQ - 105.5 FM
Brockport WASB - 1590 AM
Canandaigua WRSB - 1310 AM


Canton WCER - 900 AM
Uhrichsville WBTC - 1490 AM


Greenville WALE - 990 AM


Anderson WAIM - 1230 AM


Alcoa WBCR - 1470 AM


Austin KWNX - 1260 AM


Ladysmith WLDY - 1340 AM

Brockport WASB - 1590 AM
Canandaigua WRSB - 1310 AM


Canton WCER - 900 AM
Uhrichsville WBTC - 1490 AM


Greenville WALE - 990 AM


Anderson WAIM - 1230 AM


Alcoa WBCR - 1470 AM


Austin KWNX - 1260 AM


Ladysmith WLDY - 1340 AM

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Thursday, March 09, 2006

The Soul of Science Vs. the Ghost of Intelligent Design

The most frustrating thing about the
Evolution vs. Intelligent design debate is the voluminous research
both sides have done. How can either side condense that information
into a paragraph or sound bite in order to persuade the other side.
When it comes down to it, the essential driving force of both groups
is philosophy. It deals with two main branches of philosophy,
epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology deals with the theory of
knowledge. In other words, how do we gain knowledge and how do we
know it is true. Metaphysics tells us what kind of universe we live
in. Your answers to these questions will determine the quality of
your science and whether something should be considered science at

Starting with metaphysics, do we view the
universe as something that has always existed, with everything having
a set identity and nature. This would entail that based on each thing
having a set nature, set consequences would occur by different things
interacting with each other. In other words, cause and effect is the
expression of the set nature of things applied to action. Which in
discovering the set nature of things and observing the cause and
effect of their identities in action, allows us to find universal
principles that apply to many things besides the ones we are
observing. For example, water boils when the right amount of heat is
applied. On the other hand, do we view the universe as something a
all powerful being created. Things did not always exist only the
powerful being was eternal. This universe would not have set
identities and natures. It would have the natures that the powerful
being or beings (god or gods) would give it. If the nature of
something is created by a god, it can be changed by that god. So a
car could be turned into a living human being if a god decides to. A
house is a lion if god wishes it so. Observe the different views of
life those two different ideas create. The universe that
always existed(UAE) suggests that studying every
thing's specific natures and their interactions with each other will
lead to an ever growing knowledge that uses past knowledge as a
stepping stone to reach new heights. A universe that was
created(UWC) suggest that we can never really know the
truth about anything because god can change the nature and identity
of something, by simply wishing it so.

This lays down the foundation of epistemology. In a
Universe that always existed, knowledge is attainable. It is
derived from the facts we observe, as well as the abstractions we
make that can be traced back to the basic things we observe in the
universe. Like links in a chain connected to an anchor, so must our
abstract ideas link back to the information we gain from our senses.
For in this type of universe, we have a specific nature. Our hearts
pump blood, lungs take in air, and our senses receive information
about the world out side our body. If we accept that our senses are
the base of knowledge, then it is a simple answer to the question:
“how do we find truth”? A good place to start is Reason, our
faculty that allows us to identify and tell the differences between
the information we get from our senses would give us the first clue.
If knowledge is a matter of identifying and differentiating between
things that we discover, then truth is a matter of integrating all
the knowledge we gain in a non-contradicting way. Think of it like
putting a big puzzle together. Ideas that do not link back to the
facts of existence would be like puzzle pieces from another puzzle.
They would not fit. We will not have an accurate picture if we try to
smash the pieces together in order for them to fit.

A Universe that was Created would give us a world in which we
could not trust our senses. In the UWC all things can be its opposite
at the whim of an all powerful creator. If the puzzle pieces did not
fit, our faith and prayer could possible persuade the creator to
transform the pieces so that they would fit. The truth would be
what ever the creator told you it is. Your senses could not be
trusted. The only thing that can be trusted is faith in the creator's
word. You guessed it, gaining knowledge only from the creator is
where it leads us. Since there is no objective way to determine the
truth, special people with the gift to communicate with the creator
would be the ones to give us knowledge.

Now for the fun part, science implies a philosophy that
recognizes a Universe that always existed. Hence, why the scientific
method relies on experimentation to gain information about the
natures of what exists. Using logic, scientist weed out any ideas
that contradict facts that have been verified by many fields and many
experiments. Intelligent design's major arguments filter down to the
main idea that if things that exist are very complex, then a creator
must have made them. They do not offer evidence for a creator's
existence. Instead they claim that if we do not have all the answers
to every aspect of evolution, all at once then a creator is the only
possible answer for the complexity we see around us. As if humans
gain knowledge automatically and all at once. Here we see the UWC
view of knowledge. Humans gaining knowledge like osmosis, rather than
through discovery and putting each part of the puzzle together to see
the full picture.

The idea that complexity equals a creator and many variations of
that idea spawned from Rev. William Paley. Paley's analogy was that
if you found a pocket watch on the ground, that it was unfathomable
to think that it came to being naturally, but would have needed a
creator because of it's intricate workings. Some people call this
the Watchmaker idea. Richard Dawkins a very knowledgeable person on
evolution, enjoyed this analogy so much he wrote a book called the
which shows that the complexity we see around us
was created by the blind forces of physics. In this book, he talks
about how he created a
computer program
to show the cumulative effect of small changes
through time. The program starts with a parent biomorph and shows
what the possible offspring would like like by varying the genes
slightly. Then you would select a child that looked most like a
design you want and it would become the parent instead. Then the
process is repeated by showing you the new offspring. In the end you
will have a complex design if you continue to select the more complex
design to be the new parent. Some may say that we take on the role of
creator in this biomorph software. However this misses the point, the
real role that we are actually playing in this computer game is
nature, selecting who survives long enough to reproduce. Whether they
survive because of better physically advantages, environment, or
mating habits. The point is they lived long enough to reproduce and
pass on their genes. The game just shows us that complex things can
be created by the different gene combinations guided by the blind
hand of physics.

On another note, we often forget that our ideas do not become
true just because we falsify some one else's ideas or find some error
with some of their ideas. There are Intelligent design advocates that
offer no proof of the existence of a creator. A key component of
science is falsifiability. It is not a matter of just falsifying
other people's ideas, but our own. For something to be proved true,
in other words verified, it has to be able to be falsified. Here's
the deep thought of the day, what evidence would you accept, that
what you believe isn't true. It is often heard, that we can not prove
that an all mighty creator doesn't exist. I must ask again,"
What evidence would you accept that their isn't an all powerful
creator." The only answer I have ever received to this question
is a reversion back to the supernatural or faith. For example, some
one told me they would need to take a time machine and go back to the
beginning and witness their was no creator. This assumes that time
travel adheres to the facts of existence. Which it does not, and is
another story for another time. An alternative way to look at this
question is court cases. Anyone can claim a person guilty. However,
that person is not guilty until proven innocent. The one making the
claim must provide some evidence of guilt before you can prove that
claim wrong. Hence the rule of law, the accused is innocent until
proven guilty. It is like someone claiming that Johnny is an arsonist
and wants us to prove that he is not an arsonist. There would be no
context of proof to offer if the person making the claim never gave
any evidence to their claim. If the accuser stated that they saw
Johnny at the scene of the crime before the house burned down, then
we would have to prove that he was somewhere else or doing something
legitimate at the scene of the crime. On the other hand, if the
accuser says Johnny did it with out proof to back up their claim,
then we could spend eons finding evidence that he did not do it. Yet
all this evidence may not make a difference if we do not know what
proof the accuser has against Johnny. That is why another important
concept is that the burden of proof is the responsibility of the
accuser. This is the same situation when we take a look at
creationism and its offspring Intelligent Design. The accuser says
that you can not prove that a all powerful creator exists or that the
things in the universe are to complex so they must have been made by
a creator. In the first part we have to ask what evidence has the
accuser provided that a creator exists. In the second part, it sounds
like they are offering evidence by saying that complexity points to a
creator. However, this is not a new idea. Before there was science,
when we did not understand something, our claim or idea was that god
must be doing or creating it. For example, lightning was claimed to
be god's doing. This was the catch all phrase for “I don't know”.
Intelligent Design advocates can not fathom any other possible answer
for complexity in the world that is supported by the facts provided
by our senses. So they say, “God must be doing it”. If they do
not provide evidence, then their claim is arbitrary. It is an idea
separated from the facts of existence.

The supernatural or faith is not science and neither is its
offspring Intelligent Design. Advocates of Intelligent design (ID)
state that they provide a theory like every other scientist. However,
a theory suggests that some evidence exists, but not enough to be
conclusive. There are many things that may falsify their theory. ID
scientists either have no evidence or theories that flat out are in
no way connected to the facts of existence. We called that arbitrary
claims in the old days. However, when it comes to the theory of
evolution, most scientists acknowledge the fact that evolution
occurred in the past, present, and will occur in the future. This is
not what is at question. There is plenty of evidence of evolution
through out many fields of science and growing. The true theory in
dispute is by what process is evolution happening. Natural Selection
is a big factor, but not the only one that causes evolution.

We do not teach voodoo or snake oil treatments along side doctors
that teach medicine to cure your ailments. Let's not start teaching
Intelligent design along side biology. Allowing ideas that have not
the sliver of evidence into our training of knowledge is like letting
someone one dump a box of puzzle pieces that do not belong with the
puzzle you are working on. It prevents you from seeing the big
picture sooner and in some cases prevent you from ever completing the
puzzle until you realize that those foreign pieces do not belong and
need to be removed.

Rate content:

esbn 54512-060308-462258-25

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,