Palin

I like the Sarah Palin pick for VP. I like that she was a governor and a woman and from Alaska; she seems so American. She doesn't seem like the politicians that everyone else is. She's a member of the NRA, has 5 kids, hunts moose, and lives more of a normal life. It seems like conservatives really like her too, especially after the pro-choice scares. I thought her speech was good too - seems authentic and un-Washington. She's conservative to bring in the base. She's a woman which is a slap in the face to the libs and Hill-dawg. She's young to contrast McCain. She's un-Washington to enforce McCain's change message and excite the party.

The one thing that makes me a little nervous is that she has a 4-month old baby who has Down Syndrom and 4 other kids at home. I'm afraid that she wouldn't "be her kids' mom." She seems very involved with her kids - she was a member of the PTA at her kids' schools so maybe that wouldn't be an issue.

Rush Limbaugh had a montage from Obama's speech Thursday where he said "I ...." a million times. It was a few minutes of "I see...I will....I make....etc" and then at the end "it's never been about me..." I laughed out loud - Rush is clever like that. As a side note, people didn't like Obama's speech as much as I did or as much as I thought they would.

The experience issue is not a big deal to me - I actually like it (Sean Hannity welcomes the debate too). I like governors more than senators because it seems like a governor's job is more like the president's than senator's. I like how they have to run something and are responsible for their state. Being on a city council, then mayor, then governor seems like just as good if not better qualifications than being a state then federal senator.

I could have been a Democrat, but they found out my parents were married

I was watching Biden and Obama this weekend and I was thinking how growing up in privilege has become a liability. I could never run for a democratic position because I didn't grow up in a poor, broken home. Obama and Biden both grew up poor and lived the American dream to get to where they are now (well, I heard Biden has a negative net worth, but whatever), and they were touting that all day. I'm in the minority, but I don't care about whether they were brought up poor or wealthy. Gosh, Biden's like 65 now - who cares whether he had a wealthy elementary experience?

California has a major budget crisis: ~15 bil under for a ~100 bil budget. We are pretty highly taxed now and sounds like our sales tax will go up 1% for 3 years to raise revenue. Californians sure like to spend money...sometimes I wish I didn't live in a democratic state. Although, Californians shouldn't have to spend so much time in purgatory because of how much they love the poor.

Sex

I've been thinking about sex lately.


It's not a subject I think of much, mostly because I ain't gettin' any and don't plan to for a looong time. But being surrounded by people of a more promiscuous nature has made me think of it more. I've been thinking of what I would think of it if I was going to Hell .


It seems like Christians have a much higher view of sex than others. We think of it as intimacy and how it creates a bond between partners that's sacred to marriage. If I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't buy that; I think because I would never think of a philosophy of sex. Who does? Even if one did in passing it would be so tainted by how much they wanted it. It's weird to me how so many (especially half-ass Christians) have come to the persuasion that sex is good if they are in love, regardless of marriage. Thus many partners are inevitable and the eventual bond between spouses is cheapened (think of 40 Year Old Virgin). It's weird for me to even think of that because I have had no such experiences and don't plan to. But, even if I wasn't Christian I think I would still be a virgin because I have no balls.


It's weird to me too how many Christians get involved with non-Christians. Obviously it can work out, but it seems very dangerous. Of course the hope is that the other will be converted and you'll both go to Heaven. I can see good things come from this, as in you get a better understanding of non-Christians and save a soul. The danger is in assuming you will influence them and they won't influence you. It could be my upbringing, my lack of initiative toward women, or my Christian bubble but I am not drawn toward non-Christians. I find the whole "you are going to burn in Hell for all eternity" kind of a turnoff.

God's Will

I started this out by railing on how people say "God's Will" all the time and I don't like that term and don't know what it means, but upon further consideration this is what I think.

First, I think of will as desire or wanting. To say God's will is saying what God wants, as in "it's God's will that I don't fornicate." I think there are 2 ways to view "will:" one as moral decisions and another as not moral decisions. For the former, his will is that all be perfect or as close as possible to perfection and that's the end of that. The latter is for decisions without moral considerations such as where to live or work. The former seems clear so I'll deal with the latter.

It seems to me that these decisions have various degrees of "good." If I am undecided about whether to live in city A or B, there may be a place I would be happier and more useful but it's probable I can't know it. Plus, my happiness and efficacy are largely dependent on my moral decisions so the 2 forms of will are joined. I often get distracted with "God's Will" because I think of the morality form of will and think that if I was perfect the non-moral decisions wouldn't matter much because I would be hugely effective wherever I was. However, maybe there is a form of God's will that makes sense - where I can be most efficient for God. So for specific questions it's good to seek God's will.

But then what about my whole life? Does God have a "plan" for my life?

First, the wordplay of "how can an omni...God have a plan?" messes me up, especially the time-dependence part. A plan is sequential whereas God sees all time at once. But I don't know what to say to that so I'll move on.

It's not useful for me to think of God's "plan" for my life because again I think of his moral plan or how I think he wants us to figure it out more on our own and not do the "if it's God's will it will happen so I'll stop thinking" bit. Thinking of "plan" as made up of many little decisions all dealing with efficacy makes more sense to me - just an extrapolation of the God's will part. But then is it really a plan because depending on moral decisions the plan can change? It's not a plan if God sees it as we see history.

In short, the "God's plan" part is very confusing to me - I need to think of it more. At this point I don't think God has a plan for my life because it seems like a nonsensical question. (Good thing the sermons at my church are boring so I have half an hour every Sunday to do nothing but think because I sure ain't listening.)

Religion and Truth

I was chatting with a barely-understandable postdoc at Caltech and somehow started talking about religion. They were saying that raising their kid with religion (Buddhism, Christianity, whatever) is good because it encouraged good morals. All I could think of was "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." I really wanted to go Dr. Cox on them. Of course I didn't and tried to explain how I don't know any Christians who are in it for good morals or some crappy reason like that but because we think it's true. Somehow it doesn't even occur to people that religion can be true and knowable. That's why I love Christianity - it is at its heart a historical religion, meaning it is historically reliable. It's hard for me to have patience for people who disconnect religion and truth.

Creation Account

I've seen some aversion to the idea that the creation account in Genesis is not historical narrative. They say, "If you say that's not historical narrative where does it end? It's got to be all or nothing." Obviously it would be easier to say it's all or nothing, but I think that idea's retarded. The answer I always want to giveto their response is, "Well, you have to use your brain." They also say "literal" which I hate. I don't know what that means - I use historical narrative because literal also has an importance connotation. As in, if you don't take it literally you don't take it seriously.

I don't think Gen 1 to 2:3 is historical narrative. 1) I don't think the Israelites took it as such, 2) it wasn't eye-witnessed but a special revelation from God, and 3) the message/purpose doesn't require it to be historical narrative. It seems like people do a cursory reading and assume it's historical narrative and/or are afraid of going down that slippery slope so they don't even think of it.

But if we didn't have the info we have from science about the universe's origins, I wonder if we wouldn't take it as historical narrative. I take the equal position of science and the Bible (the Book of Nature and the Bible), so science does influence my biblical interpretations. I think that's also a deterrence.

I'm also skeptical of people trying to make the creation account fit into the scientific account. It's a kind of progressive creationism, as in people say the days were long periods of time and the order of creation is consistent with science. I don't think the Israelites would have seen Genesis as such.