When the McCain campaign announced Palin as a running mate in 2008, I was dumbfounded. I just could not understand how supposedly professional and experienced political operatives could make such a ridiculous move.

I spent some time since then trying to understand the reason for the Palin choice. The only thing I can conclude is that they assumed Palin would appease the Republican base. But what about the other base?

Presidential politics is more often than not a balancing act. For every revolution or movement there is bound to be a counter-revolution or counter-movement, kind of Newtonian physics for politics. I assumed I would not likely see a more stupid political move than the Palin nomination for some time. President Obama reminded me what comes from assuming this week by coming out in support of gay marriage.

There are people in this world who are incapable of taking care of themselves. Any decent society, through one means or another, will provide for those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves.

There are others who are capable of providing for themselves but would much prefer to live off tax payers. These sorry bums fraudulently obtain government benefits and while away their hours watching daytime TV, surfing the web, abusing drugs, or whatever else sorry bums do.

Many recipients of welfare benefits fall in between these two extremes, being honestly disabled or disadvantaged to a certain degree, yet still capable of a little work or a little responsibility.

Total dependency is an awful thing. Obviously it is awful for taxpayers, but persistent dependency on welfare and charity by adults is damaging to the recipient and the recipient’s children. When social service agencies, be they private charities or government entities, don't demand some accountability and responsibility from those who receive their services, they do a disservice to the individual, taxpayers, and all those who give to charity.

My father-in-law worked hard during his career. In retirement he has hardly broke the habit, staying busy as much as possible with one project or another. During the 30+ years he worked, his life was mostly: 1) go to work on the weekdays 2) work overtime when possible 3) keep up his cattle and farm equipment after hours and on the weekend 4) go to his kid's ballgames and events.

My dad was at first a truck driver and then later the manager of a motor pool at a large military installation. He also spent several years in the national guard. His life was mostly work on the weekdays, honey-do lists on the weekends, and attending ballgames 1-2 times a week for 9 months of the year.

Neither my dad nor my father-in-law took much of a role in housework and basic child rearing tasks early on in their marriages. Oh, in a pinch I'm sure either would have attempted to change a diaper or bathe a kid or whatnot. But their main function when it came to hands-on child rearing was administering punishments pronounced by their respective wives. To quote Bill Cosby paraphrasing his mom, “When your dad gets home, he is going to shoot you in the face with a bazooka”.

If a corporation is a person, or a close approximation thereof, and when justice called for it, we the people should be able to strap the corporation into the electric chair and pull the switch.

To begin with, let me just say that I don't hate corporations. Corporations are one of the most ingenious structures ever fabricated by man. They allow individuals to share the wealth of an enterprise, raise large amounts of cash for operations, and spread the risk of losses. Individuals bound together as business “partners”, that is shareholders, not only act as a single player in the market, but also participate in society generally speaking. In this sense, corporations can be very positive entities in our communities, behaving as good and responsible citizens.

However, corporations can also be evil and do a lot of harm to a lot of people.

I have never quite understood the point of trying to convince atheists there is a God by quoting scripture. Well, hardcore atheists anyway. I suppose some atheists can be inspired by various religious texts and messages and therefore change their views.

But arguing for the existence of God based on scripture, which must be accepted on faith, is circular reasoning. And as such, should never sway someone from a rational point of view.

It is not my goal nor desire to change anyone's opinion in regard to the existence of God with this article. Rather, it is simply an outline of an argument that occurred to me some time ago which I hope some will consider. In particular, there are those who have a rather haughty opinion of their atheistic beliefs and see themselves as dedicated to a superior evidentiary centric and rational world view. It is chiefly these individuals I wish to influence into considering the possibility that the existence of God/god may not be nearly as impossible as they imagine.

Yesterday the State of Tennessee passed a law allowing teachers in public class rooms to “teach the controversy”. The controversy in question concerns the natural laws that govern the development of species over time. It isn't really much of a controversy anymore, except among a minority of fundamentalists who ignore the science out of loyalty to their chosen doctrine, and of course among ignorant individuals who don't understand even the basics of Darwinism. Oh, and I suppose evolution also remains controversial among the slimy politicians who pander to both these groups.

With the Republican nomination all but over, the now battle tested and inevitable Presidential nominee Mitt Romney needs a little help. A great advantage to being an incumbent President is that normally you don't face any serious competition for your party's nomination. (There are two counter-examples that pop to mind: Pat Buchanan did some damage to George H.W. Bush in 1992, although he didn't actually win any delegates, and Ted Kennedy did serious damage to Carter in 1980.) And this means that you don't spend any money while your opponents exhaust funds practicing character assassination on each other. However, thanks to the Citizens United ruling and Super-PACS, this advantage is no more.

More on that in a moment. I want to take a quick detour and mention something I find particularity hilarious. At the Republican national convention this year you will very likely see Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and a few other also-rans, stand up in front of everyone and the Almighty and heap praise and flowers upon Mr. Romney.

On Tuesday, citizens of Wisconsin will vote in the state primary. Normally all the focus would be on the GOP contenders for President, but this is not a normal election year in Wisconsin. In fact, there has been very little of “normal” in Wisconsin politics since Governor Scott Walker took office.

Walker's initiatives to strip teachers of collective bargaining rights have deeply divided the state. Walker and his supporters have claimed that doing so is necessary as a means to balance the budget while Walker's opponents, such as organized labor, cast the GOP backed measures as an attack on working class people.

image credit

One afternoon a couple of weeks ago, a 9 year old girl got off of her school bus in Gadsden, Alabama. Her grandmother discovered that she had eaten a candy bar on the bus. As punishment the little girl was made to run in her backyard. For three hours. Without water. Without a break.

The little girl died.

The stepmother and grandmother were charged in the case and have pleaded not guilty. Now it is true that concerned neighbors called the police. And I don't pretend to know all the details. However, how many among us would have gone over to that house and put a stop to this abuse while it was in progress?

A couple of days ago, President Obama warned Iran that the US would use a military option if necessary to keep it from developing a nuclear weapon. Obama then urged Israel to drop any plan for a strike against Iran as any such attack would rally support for Iran in the region. However, President Obama stated that Israel has a right to defend itself. Netanyahu responded in part by saying:

“I appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and that all options are on the table. I also appreciated the fact that he made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option.”