Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

December 1, 2007 - Saturday

1705 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3881
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28582

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77353
(MAXIMUM): 84502
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $473,314,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

Ron Paul’s answer to the question, “What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?”: He said, “You wouldn’t need it.”

Really? You wouldn’t need the EPA? So, we don’t need the work the EPA is doing to stop arsenic and PCBs and mercury and raw sewage from entering our rivers? We don’t need the work that the EPA is doing to control acid rain, or smog? We just don’t need it?

I suspect that what Ron Paul meant to say is that big corporations wouldn’t need the EPA. That’s precisely why we don’t need Ron Paul as President.

(Source: Grist, October 16, 2007)

[This is the 3rd post of the serial discussion regarding vital queries on existence and life. The 1st and the 2nd posts are “Is the Truth Attainable?” and “Evidence of Essential Existence in the Nature” published in The Irregular Times on the 9th and 28th November 2007 respectively.]

This universe and everything in it (generally considered as material beings) are ever changing and dominated by some set of natural rules or causes and effects. When pre-conditions of emergence of something are prepared then that thing comes into existence. Thus all the present things are debtors to previous things. Thus we may go back to the primary source of this universe. But the source dominated by cause and effect rule cannot be the primary source, because in that case a cause would be necessary for that cause or source. So according to reason the primary source must be non-material and above domination of cause and effect rule, rather initiator of not only the first material existence, also initiator of cause and effect rule or natural rules. Such a source must be ever-existing i.e. above beginning and ending, birth and death, development and decaying. Such an existence is essential for the beginning of all the conditioned existence of our experience - existence of which is conditioned to preparedness of necessary causes. So we may term these material existences as possible existence and the initiator of the possible existence and natural rules dominating over these existences as the Essential Existence.

But materialists, particularly the atheists are not ready to accept this simple truth. They blindly deny the existence of the Essential Existence behind this material world, though they are not able to explain the origin of the universe that wherefrom emerged the material world and the natural rules dominating the world.

The origin of such kind of blind conception is their blind faith that existence is equal to matter and there is nothing other than matter. So they can’t understand the existence of a living all-powerful wise non-material Essential Existence. In this way of blind faith they advanced to the extent that they deny the existence of life, or in other words existence of themselves. They claim that life is nothing but chemical reactions of matter. Do they really “feel” it? No doubt that matters have physical and chemical reactions. But matter itself can’t feel anything. Then how do they “feel” it?

We may understand the reality of life from another characteristic of human beings. Mechanical reactions of matter are straight and there is no room for hesitation in such reactions. For example, if a piece of iron is put between two magnets on a point with same distance from the both free from other influential material elements, then it would proceed to the stronger one without any hesitation. But in question of many deeds we see hesitation in human beings before doing the work; they analyze many aspects of a work to take decision whether to do or not and if the decision is positive then they do it. Analysis of a future work by a human being sometimes includes not only material aspects of its reactions, but some non-material aspects, such as moral, cultural etc. too. Sometimes physical and biological needs and their fulfillment are explained as automatic physical reactions in the material sense. But it is evident that physical reactions are not mere material reactions. Because there is a personality in every living creature, though quality or level of personality varies among different kinds of creatures and among different individuals of one kind of creatures. But the non-material characteristics are more evident in human behaviour. When a hungry cow sees some grasses it do not hesitate to take it. But when a hungry human being get a fruit and sees no hindrance in front of him that may resist him/ her taking it or may create danger in future for him, yet sometimes he/ she does not take it. Here a non-material characteristic popularly called as morality resists him/ her from taking it. In fact terms like morality, kindness, honour etc. are purely non-material and are not applicable to matter. Human beings debate regarding many things including the existence of the Essential Existence and existence of a non-material entity in human being. Also this debate proves a non-material existence popularly known as soul or personality or self in the human being, because there may be no room of debate in matter. These characteristics do not conform mater. So it is quite clear that works of human beings are not limited to material reactions, but there is at least one non-material existence in a human being. It is beyond doubt that lifeless matter cannot create such non-material existences like life, soul or personality even through a billions of years’ process, because these sorts of existences are superior to mater and it is evident that inferior existence cannot bring a superior existence in to existence, rather there must be an existence more superior than these superior existences. This superior most existence must be the Essential Existence. The system of continuation of all the species and their inter-relationship is wonderful. Some species, such as plants and trees and some kinds of worms and germ-like small animals take non-living food items from the nature. Some species take only grasses and plants. Other species take at the same times mineral items, leaves & plants and flesh & blood of other animals. In general superior animals take other animals as food. But some animals having superior development than others take leaves and grasses instead of taking inferior animals and are used as food by animals those are superior to them. If this kind of animals (such as cows, ships etc.) would take meat like tigers, lions etc. then it wouldn’t be possible for human beings to make them domestic. Then they couldn’t collect enough meat. We see some categories of trees are giving fruits and human beings and birds take those. Many of the fruits have no direct relationship with reproduction. There are plants and trees those produce only seeds for their reproduction. Some plants and trees produces seeds those are fruits at the same time and are taken by other animals beside their role for reproduction. But there are other fruits those produces fruits having seeds within and other animals take these fruits leaving seeds. So the eatable parts of such fruits have no role for their reproduction Was there any harm if these trees and plants would produce only seeds for reproduction like the first group? So there is no doubt that these fruits grow not for those trees and plants but for other animals.

Another characteristics of living beings other than a few such as germs and viruses, is being male and female. However it was possible that every species would be genderless having capacity of reproduction or would be female having capacity of reproduction without help of the male. But then generations of every species would be like a tree having branches and sub-branches, instead of present network form. But that wouldn’t be enough helpful for sustaining of species. For example, at the present system, among many of the species after giving birth of child or laying egg one of the couple stays beside that or those for protection and the other goes for searching food. If only one was to do both the works then their enemies would easily take away that or those. Moreover, for superior animals particularly for human species this system helped formation of society and mutual cooperation and its benefit is evident. Progress of science and technology wouldn’t be possible in absence of social system in tree-like generation system due to absence of necessity of cooperation that exists in network system.

And the sex; it is the evidence of a wonderful programming. Sexual instinct is the strongest instinct after thirst and hunger; even sometimes it defeats thirst and hunger. This inspiration bounds the male and the female to unite and take the responsibility of continuation of the species. We see sexual instinct remain at its peak during the period the female has reproduction capacity (those who are unable to reproduce are in fact naturally defective or ill). It indicates that aim of this strong instinct is to make them bound to play appropriate role for continuation of species.

We can find the same target behind the affection and love for children without which the human race couldn’t continue its existence. Also the thirst for having children in human nature is very strong to the extent that in spite of risk for life women want to become mother. However, the western materialistic culture injected into human beings the tendency of consumption and enjoyment avoiding natural responsibility on the one hand and has invented methods elements to help sexual enjoyment avoiding responsibility of having children and risk-free delivery on the other. But during the period when there was no method or element for risk-free delivery women used to have children more than the present era though they were not unaware about the trouble and risk of delivery. Though sexual instinct is a very strong natural instinct, yet one can suppress it or can fulfill it through unnatural way to some extent and can avoid the risk of delivery. But always in the past the women folk used to welcome this risk. Why? Only due to the strength of the instinct for having child in them to the extent that it defeats the fear of life-risk. No doubt that this instinct assured the continuity of the human species.

Is it possible for the lifeless blind nature to programme the living creation in such a way even in billions of years? It is possible only for a living, wise and all-powerful Existence Who initiated the creation from nothing other than by His will.

If one stress upon one’s claim that the nature has done it, then surely the nature would be an existence other than matter and natural rules dominating the universe and He must have created matter and rules. Then the Nature (in this sense) must be everlasting, ever-living, willful, almighty and wise whom we call the Essential Existence and we have no objection if you call Him the Nature just like others who call Him God, Allah, Jehovah, Ishwar etc. The definition of this Existence is our concern, not the names given in different languages or groups of people.

Progressives aim high, even as they realize that their ideals may never be realized. We don’t believe that one day’s failures justify an abandonment of our efforts to succeed in creating a better society. We agree with the words of Aldo Leopold, who urged the consistent striving for improvement even in the face of corruption and defeat. Leopold wrote, “We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve, but to strive.”

In these times, when the right wing forces of violence, exploitation and authoritarianism are destroying so much of the progressive foundation of the United States of America, it is tempting to conclude that all is lost, that we have been defeated, and there is no more use in trying to resist. The truth is that we will never achieve perfection, but, as Aldo Leopold reminds us, we can move toward a society that is more perfect.

We can progress. To be a progressive is not to engage in an all-or-nothing struggle for utopia. True progressives do not give up when they meet powerful opposition. Being a progressive is about working, as much as we can, to make things better. We know that reliable progress comes from persistence.

(Source: Round River, Aldo Leopold)

In 1970, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature, but could not give the address. In the speech he prepared, however, he wrote:

“Let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle. At its birth, violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.”

I like the sound of what he says, but is it true? Isn’t violence a brutal form of honest communication? Isn’t any falsification of the violence separate from the violence itself?

If not, where does the falsehood come in, afterwards?

Mitt Romney is getting all indignant about Mike Huckabee asking a simple question about the religion that Mitt Romney says makes him fit to be President of the United States. (”Freedom requires religion!”) Well, wipe the froth away from your mouth Mitt, and answer the question.

Do Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of the Devil or not?

And now you, too, Mike Huckabee. You answer for your weird theology too.

How can you say, Mr. Huckabee, that Jesus is not the brother of Satan? God made Jesus. God made Satan. How does that not make them brothers?

Be careful, Mr. Christian Candidate. You’ve opened up the crazy Pandora’s box of religious literalism in American politics. So, now, there’s an awful lot more kooky stuff than just the relationship between Jesus and the Devil that you have to answer for in the Bible, Mike Huckabee.

[This is the 4th post of the serial discussion regarding vital queries on existence and life. The 1st, the 2nd and the 3rd posts are “Is the Truth Attainable?”,“Evidence of Essential Existence in the Nature” and “Life: Evidence of Essential Existence” respectively.]According to the verdict of reason the ever-changing natural world is a possible existence and so its primary source must be an Essential Existence.Followers of religions believe in Essential Existence, however not by this name; they have given this Existence different name in different languages. That doesn’t matter. In English language this Existence is called God and for the sake of language we see no problem to use this name. But the problem is the definition of the Essential Existence or God. Religions differed each other regarding His definition. To solve these differences we must rely on the verdict of reason that is universally, irrespective of religions, common standard, hence should be accepted.Reason can find some positive attributes those are unavoidably necessary for the Essential Existence and some negative or relatively negative characteristics from which He must be free. In a nutshell we can say that He must have all the attributes necessary for perfectness and He must be free from all the characteristics those indicates directly or indirectly deficiency, weakness or need. Now we shall discuss regarding these attributes of perfectness and negative characteristics.

1) Life: The first attribute the reason can find essential for the Essential Existence is life. A lifeless existence can create neither a living thing nor a lifeless thing. A lifeless thing cannot inject or inspire life to a lifeless thing. Because we are living, so the Essential Existence must be a living existence. His life must be eternal i.e. beyond time. He is the Creator of time too, so He may not be limited within time.

2) Power: The Essential Existence must have unlimited power to do everything including creation of material and non-material living and lifeless existence, natural rules etc. If He had no absolute and unlimited power then He couldn’t start creation from nothing.

3) Will: The Essential Existence must have will to do or not to do anything, otherwise in spite of having absolute and unlimited power He wouldn’t create anything.

4) Knowledge: He must have absolute knowledge i.e. complete knowledge of His own existence and knowledge about all forms of past, present and future of His creation. Absolute knowledge means He is capable to plan and execute the plan of creation and its management. Otherwise He couldn’t do this or couldn’t do this in the best manner.

5) Unlimited: His existence must be unlimited, because limitation represents weakness. So He must be free from all sorts of limitations including that of space and time. Due to the same reason none of the created things; even the whole space can contain Him. So He cannot enter into the body or self of a creation.

6) Invisible: He must be invisible, because visibility is the characteristic of some material existences and they are naturally limited.

7) Non-Material: He must be non-material. Even He may not be semi-material. Matter and semi-material things are naturally limited. Being limited is one of the signs of weakness and imperfectness. So the Essential Existence cannot be material.

Without Limbs or Body: The Essential Existence must be free of having limbs or body. Body limits an existence, so the Unlimited Existence may not have a body and for the Existence without body question of having limbs or organs does not arise. Why do we need limbs, organs or physical senses? We need due to physical and qualitative limit of our existence. We see with our eyes, but all the scenes are reflected in the Essential Existence, so He does not need eyes; He can see without eyes and can see better than us. We have ears to hear and listen, but all the sounds are reflected in Him; He can hear and listen without ears and can hear and listen better than us. We smell with our noses, but all the smells reflect in Him. So He does not need any nose. We taste and talk with our tongues and throats, but He is the Creator of tastes and informative sounds, so all the tastes reflect in His Knowledge and He can transfer any message without voice and if will can create informative sounds or voices in ears or minds of listeners. We touch and catch with our hands, but everything is within the control of His will, so He does not need hands. We need our legs to move from one place to another place, but He is beyond place or space and is the creator of space, no space can conceive Him, so question of having legs for moving from one place to another does not arise for Him.Though no example, particularly material example matches to the very existence of the Essential Existence, yet to make the point more clear we can put an example. Suppose there is a living being with unlimited expansion of existence to the extent that all the material creations are within it and every particle of that existence has the capacity to see, hear, smell, taste and preserve & transfer all kinds of information of everything. Then should such an existence need eyes, ears, nose, tongues, throat, hands or legs? Then how may it be thinkable that the non-material unlimited Essential Existence, who is the creator of all material and non-material limited existences, should have necessity to have body and limbs or organs for Him? He does not need ears; He can hear.

9) Non-Dissectible: The Essential existence may not be a complex existence composed of parts or particles or atoms. Because an existence composed of parts is dependent on its parts, and the Essential Existence must be free of all kinds of dependency. So His existence must be non-dissectible and beyond analysis. He must be non-dissectible both from physical point of view and also from intellectual point of view i.e. from development of the very existence and qualities. Any kind of development is related to imperfect existence or quality that does not suit to the Essential Existence.

10) Oneness of Existence: It means any quality of the Essential Existence is the Existence Himself, not different from His very existence. So when we say that He is living it means His life is not different than Him. We can assume a human being or any other living being as lifeless too, but He Himself is His life. Similarly when we say that He has willpower it means He Himself is His willpower. On the other hand He sees and listens without separate seeing and listening power, but He Himself is His seeing and listening power.Though He is above any kind of material example yet this point may be understood to some extent from some worldly examples too. Generally people think that ear or hearing sense is necessary to hear and eye or seeing sense is necessary to see. But there are animals void of ears such as snakes that have no separate ears; a snake listens with its tongue besides tasting. Similarly an ant sees without eye by the help of its horns. So we can think about a living being that its body itself substitutes all of our five senses. This is regarding weak and imperfect created beings, so it is quite clear that the very ‘existence’ of the Essential Existence is capable of doing all the works those we do with our senses. Because He is the creator of senses, so He is free of the necessity of senses or qualities other than His ‘existence’.

Relative Qualities:

We can assume some qualities of the Essential Existence those focus upon His relationship with the creation. It means those are not essential for His existence for being essential existence, but emerge as the relationship with the creation Therefore, we can term these qualities as relative qualities. If He wouldn’t create anything then these qualities wouldn’t be conceivable. In a nutshell these qualities are: He is the initiator or creator, manager, guide, all-knowing, all-seeing, kind, judge, just, executioner of punishment etc. Some questions may arise and clarifications may be necessary regarding this attributes that may be discussed separately. We think in the present topic only mentioning (as done) is enough.

Why not Similar or son?

Some people ask question: If God is all-powerful then why is He unable to create another God or a Son for Him?

Such kind of question is illogical. Because, ‘being created’ is related to possible existence; related to neither the Essential Existence, nor impossible thing. If He creates anybody with all His qualities, yet due to being created and being limited within the frame of time, it may become neither eternal, nor essential, so it may not become His similar. The question of son is same. Son of a man must be a complete man and son of an ant must be a complete ant. So if the Essential Existence has to have a son that must be Essential Existence. But due to the same cause mentioned above a second Essential Existence is impossible.

The United States imports 13 percent of its food, but the Food and Drug Administration does not even inspect one percent of that imported food in order to ensure that it is safe for consumption. The Republican response to this problem: Inspect even less food. Republican-appointed FDA commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach has proposed cutting the number of FDA field labs in half.

(Source: Sierra Magazine, November-December 2007)

Will the Clinton for President campaign have any staff left at the end of this week? I ask this question in light of last week’s discovery of the Clinton campaign’s shameful activities spreading malicious rumors about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has become more successful with voters than Hillary Clinton, as voters have considered Senator Clinton’s questionable connections with corporate interests, and her less-than-progressive voting record in the Senate, including Clinton’s infamous vote to help George W. Bush start the war in Iraq.

In response, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has started spreading false rumors about Barack Obama’s religion, which shouldn’t even matter, and about Barack Obama’s behavior as a teenager, which has even less relevance.

When Clinton’s campaign was caught pushing these false rumors around, it fired a couple of staffers, as scapegoats, blaming the trouble on them. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t take responsibility herself. Besides, those campaign staffers were only fired after the story went public.

You don’t see Barack Obama engaging in this sort of skullduggery. He might criticize Hillary Clinton, but it’s on the issues. That’s why I support Barack Obama for President, not Hillary Clinton.

I am shocked to see someone who calls himself Frank Liberal daring to criticize Hillary Clinton, who has done more to carry water for liberal causes than Frank Liberal could hope to in an entire lifetime.

We have the duty to elect a Democrat as President in 2008, or we are serving the dark mission of the Republican Party. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that there is any other choice.

Yet, this Frank Liberal character chooses to focus on Hillary Clinton’s supposed schemes to spread lies about Barack Obama. Frank Liberal should concern himself with the lies of Rudolph Giuliani, not the lies of Hillary Clinton.

Whether or not we agree with all the policies and positions of a particular Democratic candidate, it is time for us to unite behind one Democratic candidate for 2008. The time for debate is over. America needs unity, and the unity candidate is Hillary Clinton!

I’m really disturbed at the number of people who came by yesterday and gave a positive rating to Proud Partisan’s article, in which it was declared, “Whether or not we agree with all the policies and positions of a particular Democratic candidate, it is time for us to unite behind one Democratic candidate for 2008. The time for debate is over.”

The time for debate is not over. There hasn’t even been one official vote cast in even one state primary election yet!

The idea that we have the duty to unite behind a single candidate, even if we do not agree with that candidate’s policies and positions, is more than absurd. It’s profoundly anti-democratic. I mean that with a small “d” - something Proud Partisan seems unable to understand.

I find that Hillary Clinton’s supporters are more of the lock-step, fall-in-the-party-line, voters-must-obey variety. That’s one of the reasons I prefer Barack Obama.

I’m not a Republican myself. I’m a Democrat’s Democrat. Yet, I can recognize that many Americans are dedicated Republicans, and they have their needs too… needs that can be served by a good Democratic leader like Hillary Clinton.

Over at New York Newsday yesterday, there was a great story about a woman named Shannon Mallozzi. Mallozzi has been a Republican all her life, but she’s campaigning for Hillary Clinton now.

Republican Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clinton for President too. Plenty of Republicans supported Bill Clinton. If they supported one Clinton, they can support another.

I know that it’s supposed to be a political taboo to cross party lines and support someone on the other side. Haven’t we all had enough of those kind of rules now?

At long last, America can finally breathe a sigh of relief and come together. I think it’s time. Time for Republicans to support Hillary Clinton for President.

I am mesmerised by Rosati’s approach to architecture. By multiplying windows times doors the occupant achieves more possibilities for entrance, exit and ventilation than the sum of component portals.

How this is actually achieved is a mystery to me. But perhaps a mystery is intended, hence the “Rosati window” aka the “Italian Rose Window” hence the Vatican connection in worship of time, space, and the creation of dimensions permitting unlimited multiplication.

Right wingers like to talk about traditions, assuming that what has been traditional must support what they want to do. Sadly, they have forgotten the American tradition of preserving liberty in spite of all threats. After our nation was attacked for one morning of one day, the right wing couldn’t move fast enough to wreck America’s freedoms in the name of security, starting with the Patriot Act and moving quickly on from there until the Bill of Rights was full of holes wide enough for any tyrant to glide through with ease.

One of America’s true patriots, Sam Adams, had harsh words for that kind of cowardice: “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards.”

Sam Adams didn’t say that the liberties of our country, based on our Constitution, are worth defending unless we get scared, or unless a hazard seems particularly troublesome. He said that the liberties of our country are worth defending against all hazards.

What part of all hazards does the right wing not understand? It’s progressives who truly honor the American tradition of liberty. Right wingers disrespect the tradition with their trembling Homeland Security.

Loyalty and pronunication:

I love the United States of America. I love my country’s flag. I love my country’s language. I promise:
1. That I will not dishonor my country’s speech by leaving off the last syllable of words.
2. That I will say a good American “yes” and “no” in place of an Indian grunt “um-hum” and “nup-um” or a foreign “ya” or “yeh” and “nope.”
3. That I will do my best to imporve American speech by avoiding loud, rough tones, by enunciating distinctly, and by speaking pleasantly, clearly and sincerely.
4. That I will learn to articulate correctly as many words as possible during the year.

Pledge encouraged by American Speech Committee 1918; cited in John Algeo in “Issues in the History of Humansitic Linguistics; The response of English teachers to language variety,” in Linguistics and the University Education, Michigan State University 1980.

Back in 1998, asked by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette why he left being a Southern Baptist preacher to become a politician, Mike Huckabee said, “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

I’m confused. Mike Huckabee and his ilk say that the United States is a Christian nation. If that’s true, why do they need to take the United States back for Christ?

Furthermore, I’d like to know who Mike Huckabee thinks he’s taking the nation back from. It seems that Mike Huckabee thinks that Non-Christians should have America taken away from them.

Finally, what “alarm clock” is Mike Huckabee talking about? Is he one of those people who thinks that the End Times of Armageddon are just around the corner? How is that a part of his decision to enter politics? Does Mike Huckabee intend to pursue public policies from the White House that are designed to facilitate the End Times in order to bring Jesus back from the dead in the End Times?

It appears that Mike Huckabee’s design upon entering politics was theocratic from the start.

(Source: Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 8, 1998)

Ron Paul has personal religious beliefs that lead him to the theological conclusion that human rights begin in complete form from the moment that an egg is fertilized - even before the fertilized egg implants itself in the womb. The idea of a fertilized egg floating around in a fallopian tube being a full person is odd enough, but Ron Paul has odder ideas too, and seeks to spread those ideas using the power of government.

For example, Ron Paul has on multiple occasions introduced legislation to forbid any federal program from spending any money on family planning programs. The reason? Ron Paul seems to have something against contraception. If a married couple has limited resources and can’t afford to provide for additional children, or if a single person doesn’t want to make a child without a stable family situation, contraception is a responsible choice. However, though the government will lose quite a large amount of money providing services to assist families in raising children, Ron Paul is opposed to helping families make the relatively unexpensive choice of when to start pregnancy and have children.

Abortion is not the issue. The legislation that has been introduced by Ron Paul forbids all family planning services, not just family planning services related to abortion.

Whatever Ron Paul has against families using contraception on his own personal basis, it is uncompassionate, socially unwise, and economically unsound for him to work to restrict American families’ efforts to make responsible choices about when to expand their families.

(Source: Library of Congress)

Mike Huckabee loves to tell people about how he is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. What he has been more reluctant to share is that he took tens of thousands of dollars from a cigarette company while he was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas.

Forty thousand dollars is more than what many Americans make from an entire year of work, but it’s what Mike Huckabee got for making just one speech in front of the group representing a secret source of money, which was in turn funded by a cigarette company. Huckabee claims not to have known about that, but witnesses place him meeting with an executive from the cigarette company about the fund and where its money came from.

Taking money from big corporations while he was in public office was no big deal, says Huckabee. If that kind of payoff is okay with you, then Mike Huckabee for President may just be your favorite campaign. If not, vote for a clean, progressive candidate for President instead.

(Source: Newsweek, December 17, 2007)