Nick Oliva

I’m begin hammered for pointing out that Christianity is dying.

The defense is basically that Christianity can’t be destroyed. But, I don’t remember saying Christianity was going to be destroyed. No, I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that. But in case I haven’t always been clear, I’m going to clarify here.

What I believe is that Christianity is going to destroy itself.

It’s already happening around you. Christianity is holds itself together because there are enemies common to all sects. Just like America… Christianity will not be destroyed from without. When there is an external aggressor, Christians, like Americans will circle the wagons and fight…and win.

The only people that can destroy America are the people that undermine it. Republicans are pulling out the foundations of our system - such as with the destruction of checks and balances. These are the risks to America. You could destroy entire cities and not destroy America. But you destroy one branch of government and we’re fucked.

And what is Christianity? Has it been in existence longer than all other religions have been…or were? Hardly.

And neither is America guaranteed to survive, which is why we have to struggle to keep those that claim to be changing it to save it from destroying it.

Christianity is a hundred different things all evolving in different directions and competing for their dwindling share of the market in fools. With time the branches grow further apart…isn’t it ironic that evolution will bring about the extinction of Christianity?

Is Christendom more united today than it was a hundred years ago? I don’t think so. More a hundred years ago than two-hundred? I think not. Hell, the guy sitting in Church next to you has a completely different concept of "Jesus" than you do.

You guys aren’t founded on a rock, you’re in a Tower of Babel where everyone has his own "Pocket Jesus" to clothe and accessorize as he chooses. The only thing your Jesus has in common with anybody else’s is the name.

I don’t want to "save" people from Christianity and I won’t lift a finger against it. I just want to sit back in amazement that people are so easily taken in by mysticism and snake oils as to actually believe mythology. Yes, people are unfortunately susceptible to manipulation. Every believer in the world has always believed his particular belief system is the right one. You guys are far better off than the others though because yours really is the one that is true!

…until you watch it crumble around you.

whereIstand Tags

• oatney
• [Open Thread]

Tags: Religion by nick
3 Comments »

I added new functionality to help people browse the blogs on wIs. When you are on any blogger’s or public figure’s main page, go to the "browse by topic" tab (e.g., Adam’s View or John McCain).

You’ll see all of the topic categories and (depending on which item in "search criteria" you select) you’ll be able to drill into the topics to find things.

The presentation is not pretty or intuitive, so you’ll need to spend some time on it. If you have any constructive suggestions, please comment them on this entry… or send an email to nick@whereistand.com. As with other things, the first roll-out is fairly crude and occasionally buggy. In subsequent iterations, we’ll clean it up.

If you have created an account, the new "common ground" functionality should be pretty useful. When you go to the "browse by topic" tab for anyone on your blogroll, you’ll see a link that says something like, "agrees 25 % with nick on 4 of 9 issues", in the search criteria box. This means that there are only 9 issues on which both you and that blogger (or public figure) have both taken a stand. In the case of public figures, make no mistake, the "stand" is taken on their behalf based on evidence we’ve collected and the opinions of whereIstand users.

We’re going to make it easier for people to submit and vote on evidence for public figures soon…so if you want to help, please register or send an email to help@whereistand.com with any questions.

You’ll also see some "agreement" numbers in the blogroll section on these same pages. That’s the agreement between the blogger or public figure whose page you are on, and the blogrolled blogger or public figure listed - on all topics in which we can compare them. Soon, you’ll be able to click the agreement numbers and see the comparison in detail and drill through the topics as well. Then you’ll be able to do some fun things like point out where there’s more than a little smoke or dew that clouds Adam’s View….

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• oatney
• JohnMcCain
• Maintenance and Outages

Tags: Technology by nick
No Comments »

We all know the "law" that says a discussion has broken down once someone mentions Hitler or Hillary Clinton. I write to question exactly why this happens because it just happened again - although this time with Hamas (here or here). (Perhaps the rule is, "No comparisons that begin with the letter ‘H’"?)

A former German Minister of Justice invoked this "law" when she said that starting a war "to detract from domestic problems… was a popular political strategy" and then mentioned Hitler as someone who had done this (I’m quoting WikiPedia, not the minister. The actual remarks were heard but not recorded.).

She explicitly (according to reports) said immediately afterward that she was not comparing Bush to Hitler. She was just noting that a particular thing that Bush was doing was similar to a particular thing that Hitler did.

Why the uproar?

Certainly, there’s a suggestive quality to this kind of comparison, but double-meanings aren’t always intentional. One obvious way to defuse a situation such as with the German minister is to ask exactly what is meant. This appears to be just what happened with the people that heard the comment.

In the present case, Adam overreacted opportunistically. What I said was that "his religion doesn’t leave any decisions in the hands of ‘the people’", and that "Hamas does the same thing." Some of you will agree with Adam and say I unfairly compared him to Hamas. But I don’t think that’s right.

For example, not everything Hamas does is reprehensible. It is very well known for helping its people. In that sense, it’s like Christianity: Two groups that each help their people by creating social support structures.

Ah, but you say, "I won’t be compared to Hamas!" Well, suck it up because that’s not your fucking prerogative. Freedom of Speech, remember?

If you read my original post that inspired the backlash, you can hopefully see that I was not saying Adam is a "genocidal racist". He just chooses to immunize himself from being compared to any person or group that has any quality he doesn’t like… or does he?

[The following are not actual quotes, they're dramatizations. The names have not been changed in order to highlight Adam's folly.]

Nick: "Adam, you have the strategic brilliance of Winston Churchill."
Adam: "Now you’re calling me a drunkard!"

Nick: Adam, you strongly support states’ rights. Jefferson did the same thing.
Adam: Wow! I guess supporting the Tenth Amendment makes you an enslaver of men.

Of course, Adam wouldn’t have reacted with the above responses because his majesty allows himself (selectively) to be compared to Churchill and Jefferson. Adam won’t be able to express any general guideline that can be used to determine which comparisons he likes and which he doesn’t other than, "those which Adam deems favorable are acceptable."

You overreacted, Adam. I’m calling bullshit. Have a couple of drinks and just learn to live with the factoid that the lives of many ordinary Arabs are impacted in many ways by Hamas that are similar to the ways in whch Christianity impacts the lives of ordinary Americans.

whereIstand Tags

• jallard
• NP
• Terp
• adamelijah
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?
• [Open Thread]
• [Open Thread]

Tags: Politics by nick
5 Comments »

An interesting, and depressing, perspective from Jallard:

…in America today there is only opportunity, never responsibility

We certainly are living in times when the frontiers of opportunity are being very actively mined. We’re all looking at the same country and world and seeing different things wrong with them. Witness our new top blogger’s conviction.

I’m probably wrong to generalize here, but I think there is genuine concern and a will to fix the problems. But we’re all scrambling like they do in queues in the Dominican Republic. Down there, they don’t form one line for anything. Everyone jumps to the front and waves his money. Eventually, the cashier "picks" you and you get to walk away happy.

This, of course, is happening because "the other side’s efforts won’t fix things, they’ll just make things worse!" This is argued by all as well as blaming the "other side" for having created the problems in the first place. (Full disclosure: I’m actually correct when I say the other side created the problems, but in the interest of diplomacy, I’ll pretend I could be wrong).

Things broke down when it became fair game to argue that people that disagree with you aren’t "patriots". This was institutionalized in the Patriot Act. Another problem is the pervasiveness of illogical or contradictory conclusions and of conclusions based on ideology and then legitimized with false or contrived premises. This was institutionalized in George W. Bush.

We don’t have a process we can respect because we’re missing an umpire. It’s like in baseball when it becomes acceptable to blame the umpire every time you strike out or lose a game. They exercise their judgment in ways we may question, but is there a movement out there to remove umpires from the game?

In politics, there is. Adam wants to leave decision-making for his sacred cows up to "the people". Of course, his religion doesn’t leave any decisions in the hands of "the people" so he’s effectively arguing theocracy. Hamas does the same thing.

Consider Terp’s tirade against the U.N. The United Nations, like all organizations of man, has problems. But, it’s as the saying goes… the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

In America today, "conserving" (i.e., conservatism) is the pretense for the destruction of institutions, the removal of existing barriers (such as between church and state), the raising of new barriers, and the discrediting of checks and balances.

But here I go blaming the "other side"… well, I couldn’t help myself. It’s what I do and… everybody does it.

In all seriousness, I believe the problem is one of self-interest over sincerity. When one side becomes too powerful, the positive feedback loop needs to be checked. If the power is used to remove the potential checks then you have a problem.

Is this problem unprecedented in America? Probably not.

Does this mean we’re heading for disaster? There are two different perspectives depending on which view of history you choose to consider.

(1) America has always passed every test and will pass this one too.

(2) All civilizations in history passed every test until there was one test they could not pass.

Should we be pessimists or optimists? Well, Jill Carroll was just released, so sometimes people that hold all the cards really do decide it’s in their own self-interest to take a step back.

whereIstand Tags

• jallard
• NP
• adamelijah
• Terp
• [Open Thread]
• [Open Thread]

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
2 Comments »

I remember writing on wIs a while back (but I’m in too much of a hurry to search for the link) about the history of U.S./Cuba relations and its relevance to U.S./Iraq.

Now there’s a big stink because democracies aren’t supposed to be dictated to by foreign governments.

You know the old, "if you love something set it free…" line? All colonial powers have a hard time letting go.

All this talk from Bush about democracy…where does it lead? If Iraq is a democracy what right have we to pressure them to remove their leaders?

A century ago the United States fucked up the Cuban Revolution. Remember the Maine? No…most Americans don’t. It was another case of American recklessness resulting in tragedy and followed up with a show of force. In this case, it gutted Cuba’s only hope for independence (until America fucked up with their choice of puppets and paved the way for Fidel).

I’m not saying the U.S. is wrong to want to protect its interests. After all, "you break it; you bought it" usually means you "get to do what you want with it". But Bush didn’t put Iraq in the charge of the U.N. for ten years. He forced democracy on them.

I happen to think democracy is something for which not all countries are ready. Pakistani democracy was a nightmare. Musharraf isn’t FDR…but he’s our boy.

I know Republicans don’t recognize contradictions when they’re pointed out - at least not on wIs. But you can’t have both democracy (rule by the people) and foreign control (selection of prime ministers, etc. by the U.S.). They contradict each other unless you intend to manipulate election results….oh, oh… we’re talking about Bush here… manipulating election results…. I think I’ve said too much….

whereIstand Tags

• When will the United States and its allies completely leave Iraq?

Tags: War and National Security by nick
1 Comment »

There was some talk on wIs a week or two ago about how history will view George W. Bush. I haven’t been giving this any thought, but like an infectious melody that you can’t get out of your head, I’m just minding my own business and it intrudes on my privacy.

Bush is in some ways like Pinochet. He has so much power that he believes he can act with impunity; that he’s beyond repproach. History has always shown that such leaders commit attrocities - and Bush has been no exception.

The question is whether the next President ought to pardon Bush or let him be held accountable for his crimes. This is not a thread for apologists of Bush. Will the American form of government suffer more for letting a Bush off the hook (and signaling to future presidents that they have "presidential immunity"), or for holding him accountable for his crimes?

whereIstand Tags

• Should President Bush be censured?

Tags: Politics by nick
6 Comments »

I am often criticized for complaining about Red America (the one on the far right, not the one on the far left…though they’re both equally full of shit).

So, I expect the people that drop those criticisms, and who aren’t immigrants themselves, will give me a little ground when we’re discussing immigration. After all, English is my second language….

I want to refocus my energies into issues I really care about - and away from issues I just get pissed off about. Immigration is one of these. The future of Cuba is another…but I’ll save that one for later.

I should be packing for my trip to Miami, but Terp’s post was so callous that I felt like I had to do more than just post a comment. Now, I’ve got my share of stories on this subject, but there’s one I like to tell about the plight of people that makes them want to come to America. (My father spent two years in Cuban prisons for trying to escape to America. He finally entered the U.S. illegally and as one result, I’m here today. As another result, he missed my second through fifth birthdays. But that’s not the story I want to tell.)

About six years ago, I was visiting my relatives in Cuba. My uncle, Osvaldo, worked in the rock quarry with his grandson. They went six days a week to carve tiles from stone using hand tools. Osvaldo passed away a year later.

They took me to the quarry on a Sunday. There was only one guy there in this wide open space. His job was the same as my cousin’s, "la coa." This is a big metal bar that you lift and drop to make vertical cuts. We borrowed his coa and got pictures of me working the rocks. I spent about three minutes doing it and worked up a nice sweat.

I gave the guy back his tools and we talked for a while before I apologized for taking him from his work. I gave him $5 and he looked at the bill in a strange way. I thought maybe I should have given him $10.

We walked away and after about two minutes my uncle told me to look back at the guy. He wasn’t there. My first thought was that I insulted him or something and I asked my uncle what happened to him. He said, "That guy? He’s here every day. He doesn’t make $5 in two weeks. He took the money and went home."

What a hopeless existence! If only it was rare. it’s not. Would you work your ass off while you put your children to bed hungry? Or would you crawl under the barbed wire or jump in an inner tube?

It’s quite insulting to tell people to get an education and return to their countries. These are very hard-working people. They contribute far more to the economy than they take away. For every illegal worker sending $100 home to his family, how much do you think his American employer is putting in his pocket? Why is it that I don’t expect Terp to be outraged by this….?

It’s hard to be outraged these days because people are so desensitized. I have nothing but respect for people that risk their lives so that their children’s lives are better.

whereIstand Tags

• Terp
• [open thread]

Tags: Politics by nick
3 Comments »

No… not that kind of Travelin’ Man…. you forget I’m married to the most wonderful woman in the world!

Anyway… we’re the kind of travelin’ people that are heading to Miami for a weekend with my relatives.

I saw Darkslider’s travel post and was reminded of our last ride to the airport.

The driver was not very happy that we were fifteen minutes late in coming out of the building. I knew that we would be running late when I called for the car so I asked what their policy was and the person on the phone explained it in detail… including the part about the first fifteen minutes of  wait time not being charged, as a courtesy.

When I got in the car, the driver said I already owed $15 for being late - it had not yet been fifteen minutes. We argued about the policy, but I finally told him it was OK and to drive on to the airport.

At the airport, before pulling up to the curb, he handed me the credit card slip to fill out and sign. I gave it back - with zero tip. He wasn’t happy. He started getting belligerent and I calmly explained that, as there was a discrepancy with which I wasn’t pleased, I had decided not to leave a tip. He started getting really angry as he repeatedly screamed something about "fifteen to twenty percent"….

When I tried to get out of the car, the door was locked (those rear-door child-safety locks really ought to have a release for when adults need to open the door!) I told him to unlock the door and he refused! I told him to let my wife out of the car and he and I would settle things. He refused and kept screaming about his tip. I told him I would give him a tip…but he first had to unlock the door. He refused. He said I had to give him a tip or I couldn’t get out of the car! I told him I was going to call the police. He didn’t seem happy about that as I started to dial on my phone… but I really didn’t want to sit in the car and wait for the cops!

Things were getting ugly and I was looking for something to introduce into the equation. I saw a skycap waiting by the terminal entrance and I turned off the cell phone and screamed through the window to him to come for my bags. As he approached the car, I climbed over the front seat to the passenger side door-panel and unlocked the doors. Everyone got out of the car.

I put the bags on the cart and, as the skycap walked away, I told my wife somebody needed to stay with the bags (I knew she wouldn’t otherwise walk away and I didn’t want her to stay there.)

The driver, still in a rage, started screaming that I had said I would give him a tip when we got out of the car. I said, "Yes, and I will. Here’s the tip: Don’t ever lock anyone in your car."

He cussed me out in a foreign language as I walked into the terminal at JFK.

My wife asked if I was going to call the car service company or the police. I responded, "Of course, not. That guy knows where we live. You want him to lose his job?"

I think we’ll take a taxi to the airport tomorrow.

I’ll be working on a suntan when next I blog on whereIstand…

whereIstand Tags

• darkslider
• [open thread]

Tags: Art and Entertainment by nick
No Comments »

This is a follow-up to my last post on states rights.

Part of the argument Republicans are making for the marriage amendment is that they are forced to go to the federal level because gay-marriage supporters intend to use the courts to undermine states rights.

In typical fashion, their conclusion that the amendment that should pass is a "marriage amendment" doesn’t necessarily follow from their premises.

If their objective is really to protect states’ rights (and not, as I believe, to enforce their religious objectives) then why aren’t they proposing an amendment to specifically delegate powers to legislate marriage laws to the states?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenth amendment argument presumes a fallacy. Whether you like it, or not, anything done by the Supreme Court is, by definition, merely an interpretation. It is a contradiction in terms, though it has been popular, to say "legislate from the bench". Feel free to freak out over this. I don’t like the Kelo ruling, but it’s wrong to attack it as "legislation from the bench". It’s not. It’s interpretation.

The court has ZERO powers to legislate. Claiming the court legislates from the bench is like claiming Bush legislates from the throne. I don’t believe he does. I believe he goes too far in "executing". It’s up to the checks and balances to deal with that.

A proper (i.e., not hypocritical) approach for Adam, et al. would be to support an amendment that precludes the courts from "violating states’ rights" in this case by granting the power, expressly, to the states.

Perhaps this is a problem in Constitutional Law, but Is it not possible to amend the constitution to specifically grant powers to the states? Some will argue this is redundant. I leave it to the lawyers to clarify….

If "interpretation" being too broad is your bugbear, wouldn’t an amendment that specifically takes marriage legislation out of the federal arena satisfy you?

It depends on who your daddy really is: States’ Rights or Religion.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Tags: Law by nick
No Comments »

We’ve been having this argument on wIs about states rights in the context of the proposed amendment to, among other things, ensure that gays may not "marry" each other.

We’re at an impasse on something where I think we ought to be able to achieve consensus. Of course, the green unicorn next to me disagrees and tells me I’m dreaming.

I wrote the following in the comments to JHW’s post:

I believe when you say that laws regarding marriage rightly belong at the state level, that you are a hypocrite if you are also working to get laws regarding marriage passed at the Federal level.

This seems pretty obvious to me and the conservatives aren’t buying it. Are the liberals agreeing with me?

Adam is a man of principles. I think his principles have been co-opted by ideology and he doesn’t get it. Republicans have found justification for violating what they say are their principles in the acts of "other people"…and they’re doing this on a wide range of issues.

Adam says that marriage legislation does not belong at the federal level. I can see where he would go to the federal level to keep it at the states. I can’t see how he justifies going to the federal level to usurp states rights. His argument is that that’s exactly what the other side is doing - as if the other side has the ability to grant him this indulgence! When you go to the after-life you’re expecting, Adam, and you’re called to account, how will you answer to, "Did you adhere to your principles?"

According to Adam, Oatney, and JHW, it’s Democrats that have no respect for states’ rights. I can easily agree that not every case that is brought before the courts belongs there. It’s up to the courts to decide whether that’s really the case. Anyone can bring litigation. Attacking people for bringing lawsuits  is like trying to patch the sky to keep it from raining instead of patching the damn to keep it from leaking.

It’s a straw man they’re attacking.

If the judicial system is breaking down, perhaps it’s because Republicans have been attacking it from day one? It’s not like Republicans have been working to solidify the courts, you know…. They "starve the beast" and then blame it for not carrying its burden properly. But, I’ve already called them hypocrites and I don’t mean to belabor the point….

Take any other issue that is currently in the scope of state legislation; add every one of Adam’s arguments for a marriage amendment; throw in a little salt and pepper - to taste, and bake it for 30 minutes. What you end up with is that states rights, according to Adam, are those rights which the federal government has yet to take away.

But that just can’t be what he really believes…. it can’t be.

whereIstand Tags

• JHWhicker
• [open thread]
• Are there persuasive non-religious reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?

Tags: Law by nick
4 Comments »