IRS note

Dear IRS,

Thank you for the automatic extension.

I think the software messed up here and my loss on that rental should not all be deductible, but they are the professionals so I went with them.

I have included the penalty and interest for my late payment.

Sincerely

John Q. Taxpayer

PS  I am not now, and I have never been, a member of the Tea Party.

"Obama should sue right back"

I am sure that individuals ought not be allowed to sue the President.  But the House has the right of impeachment so if anyone can sue the president I suppose that the House is the one.


I saw this article and thought - "this should be funny."  It wasn't.

The author thought that gerrymandering (in the extreme at least) was undemocratic and the House is supposed to be democratic.  Therefore the Courts would have a right to require States to do this in a nonpartisan manner.

After I thought about it a minute I agreed.

 

Voter ID 4

I have talked about this and the motivation of those who hold strong positions on it.  I have indicated a general position about such matters, but I don’t think I have indicated how that position determines how I would view a particular voter ID law.

General Position:

A.   If a person claims to have a right or an entitlement to something, they should have to demonstrate that they are eligible for that thing.   This would include welfare benefits, SS, and medicare as well as voting rights.

B.   Since voting is essential to a democracy it gets special treatment.  There is a fundamental obligation by the government to ensure there is no impediment (other than eligibility and the time it takes) to the exercise of the right to vote.  In particular (24th  amendment) there can be no financial impediment – tax, charge, or cost.  In particular, if you require a picture ID, then you must provide a way for the voter to get one cost free.

I believe that these are pretty much self evident if you keep in mind that I expect the reader to know that we are taking proof to be reasonable documentation.

So here comes a voter ID law which will revise the current law.

It will require a birth certificate at the time of registration and a picture ID at the time of voting.

Here are the questions I would ask and the answers that I would need to get my support.  Someone would point out the absence of voter fraud as evidenced by the absence of convictions for voter fraud and someone else would note that that did not prove the lack of voter fraud.  In particular who are we relying on to report voter fraud?

1.  Why do we need this revision?

            This one is pretty easy.  Times change, improvements in technology, etc.

2.   Registration:  What do you do with a current or previous voter who does not have the birth certificate and can’t get one?

            If you grandfather these people in and keep them on the rolls, then I am OK.  If you want to throw them off of the voting roles then you are trying for too much. 

The burden of proof should be on the state to prove that someone should be taken off of the rolls.  The burden of proof is on the individual to get on the rolls in the first place.

3.   Voting:       Why do you require a picture ID?

            A picture ID is more secure, technological advances have made them easier to get and they have become the norm – almost everybody has got one.

                        What about those that don’t have one?

            They can go to the Driver’s License Bureau and we’ll make them one free. "part of the bill"

                        Who pays to get them there?

            The voter does.

                        That is not good enough.

            What do I have to do?

                        Pay all costs or go to their home.
The thing is that unless it is a reasonable bill it will have the media and the Democratic party all over it: using it as "proof" that the Rs are racists.  

The public debate is not connected to reason, it is based on paranoia and propaganda and goes like this:

D     Those Rs are just trying to deny the right to vote of the old, poor, and minorities who are expected to vote Democratic. They are racists.

R.     The Ds are just trying to fix it so that when  those 10-15 million illegal aliens become legal residents then the Ds can get them to vote illegally. 

So on this one if I have to choose between those, then I think that I would go with the Rs because ff the D’s are right in their paranoia then the R’s will have their leadership doing their dirty work (making bad voter ID laws) in full public view. I think that that is impossble.  On the other hand if the Rs are right then the Ds actions (voter fraud) would be carried out by the rank and file and not see the light of day.

Animal Farm revisited

In http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/07/msnbcs_krystal_ball_doubles_down_animal_farm_really_is_about_capitalism_you_guys.html
 Animal Farm Ms. Ball has proposed that Animal Farm is not a warning against communism, but rather against capitalism.

It has been awhile since I read it, but I suppose it could be a complaint against any kind  of tyranny from Nazis to Communists.

Of course those pesky elections and the people's continued use of  them  to  file off the harder edges of the system keep undermining the left's view of capitalism as tyranny.

Republicans Controlling Congress

The idea that the Republicans will keep the House and "take" the Senate seems to be building momentum.  I don't know how credible all of the talk is.  Nate Silver is calling the Republicans a slight favorite to win the Senate and I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Democrats are going to take the House.  So this got me to thinking about how I feel about that.  How would I feel about the Republicans controlling congress?

My answer?  Meh... If the people want to give the Republicans a chance then lets do this.  Maybe then we will get to see more substance in their proposals.

1. Healthcare - In keeping with the actions of the Republican controlled House I would assume the first thing they will do is vote, in both houses, to repeal Obamacare.  They may even get a few Democrat votes.  Of course as long as Obama is in the Whitehouse it still won't get repealed.  But in the course of these actions maybe, just maybe, we will get a better idea of what the replace part of "repeal and replace" is.  I don't think I will like it but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

2. The National Debt - I would absolutely love to see some real work get done on this.  The Republicans are supposedly the party that wants to do something about the national debt, even though it is my understanding that the last Republican President oversaw increasing the national debt by about 10/17 of where it stands now.  When they have both houses of  congress maybe they can make some headway on the issue like when they controlled both houses of congress when Clinton was in office.  Obama needs that legacy.

3. The economy - There is very little for me to like about anything I've heard from Republicans about how to
to "jump start" the economy.  Of course, trying to pay down the national debt AND jump starting an ailing     economy is quite a challenge  for either party.  In spite of what I said in #2 above, the economy should take
precedence over paying down the national debt in the short term.   A lot can be accomplished with a booming economy.  I am assuming that we have the wherewithal to get the economy booming.

Those are a few thoughts.  Anyone else like to comment on what the benefits/consequences of a Republican controlled congress might be?

Argument by Motivation 2

In motivation and Voter ID (April 4th) we discussed the left's opposition to voter ID laws on the grounds that the advocates' presumed  motivation was to prevent a certain class of people from voting.  I have seen people who are well aware of the invalidity of this type of ad hominem fallacy find it so appealing that they cannot resist it. It is reasonable to consider motivation in analyzing an advocate's reason's for opposing a position, that is, for the purpose  of judging the advocate.  However, it is not, in fact a valid argument against the position itself.  Consider about any martyrdom case.  The position is to eliminate the individual and thereby shut down the person's belief, program, cause ... .   But it frequently doesn't work for example the French Revolution, Nelson Mandela, or for that matter, Jesus Christ himself.  Just because X is the motive of your action does not mean that X will be a consequence of that action.

The right likes this kind of argument too.
In this situation in fact many on the right believe that the left is opposed to voter ID laws because the left is motivated by a desire to get the votes of millions of people who are in the country illegally and do not have the right to vote.  Just as the right has some who would like to suppress voting, there are some on the left who would like to stretch the access to voting to include some who would not have traditionally qualified.  If you listen to TV discussions on this you will sometimes hear "all eligible people" should be allowed to vote and sometimes they will simply say "all people".

This is at least part of the reason for the fact that we do not have an immigration bill.  Each side assumes the worst possible motives on the part of the opposition -  i. e. they seek to demonize them.

Here the fallacy allows you to oppose the law without having to deal with what the law says.  Just oppose the presumed motives of the opponent.  As usual with ad hominem arguments it involves much less thinking.

With all  of the discussion on the other point I still did not see someone on the left say that they agreed with the statement:

If you are entitled to or have a right to something from the government you should be required to prove your eligibility for that entitlement or right.

Motivation and Voter ID 2

I find the use of an alleged “motivation of your opponent” as an argument against his case to be rather boring and persuasive only to those who desperately want to believe.  The idea is:  Don’t argue that the opponent's case is invalid, argue that the opponent’s motivation is nasty.  I suppose that it is a subcase of the abusive ad hominem argument: A fallacy which usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments.  In this case the opponent’s motivation is the particular aspect of the person that is attacked.   The merits of the case, one way or another, often get lost altogether.  Of course, if you don’t have a good case, then perhaps avoiding an argument based on merit is your best chance.  (Did I just slip into the motivation fallacy?)

The place this is currently getting a lot of play is in the Voter ID laws.  Those Rs are just trying to deny the right to vote of the old and poor who are expected to vote Democratic.  The D’s are just trying to fix it so all of those illegal aliens can vote for them.  Both arguments totally ignore the fundamental question:

A.   If a person claims to have a right or an entitlement to something, should they

1) have to demonstrate that they are eligible for that thing or

2) should the government grant these rights and benefits on the honor system.

B.   Since voting is essential to a democracy it gets special treatment.  There is a fundamental obligation by the government to ensure there is no impediment (other than eligibility) to the exercise of the right to vote.  In particular there can be no financial impediment – tax, charge, or cost (24th  amendment).  That is, if you require a picture ID, then you must provide a way for them to get one cost free.

I choose A1 and B.  A1 it seems to me is self evident.  B is a bit harder to implement, but not really that bad.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying either group does not have the alleged motivations.  I am not saying that motivations are not important.  They may explain why someone is taking a certain position.

But an argument based on the opponent’s motivation is not valid.  There are at least two good reasons:

1.  Even if their motives are bad the result could be good.

2.  Unless you are God, you don’t know their motives.

Retirement of Tom Coburn

I am saddened by the retirement of Tom Coburn from the Senate.  He seems to me to be one of the "good guys".  I have little hope that his replacement will be.

George Will's move to Fox

I really was sad at this move.  It is just one more step in the movement toward opposing media camps that reflect the parties and cannot be relied on for a public debate about the issues.

Mandela

If an American could imagine a kind of Washington-Lincoln-King all rolled into one, he would have what I think the South Africans see in Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela was a violent revolutionary in his youth, a paragon of patience in his middle years, and a peaceful nation builder in his later years.  His enemy was South Africa's apartheid - the strict separation of the black and white races and the absolute supremacy of the white race. 

After being held in jail for twenty-seven (27) years for the crimes of his "youth" he was released in 1990 in response to world pressure at the age of 72.  To me the most impressive thing about Mandela is that he emerged from that 27 years without being overcome by bitterness.  He kept his eye on the prize and his approach was the antithesis of seeking revenge.  He worked with his former jailers, the Apartheid government, to build a new South Africa.  He produced a new Constitution and universal elections which placed him in the presidency.  He also instituted a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (chaired by Bishop Tutu) which is renowned for meeting the objectives of its name.

He received over 250 awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Soviet Union's Order of Lenin.

They call him Mandeba or Tata - the father of the nation.

Maturity

E J Dionne began an article yesterday about what we lost on Nov 22, 1963 with the following:  

"Whenever we reflect on the horror of Nov. 22, 1963, we mourn not only the murder of a graceful and inspiring leader but also a steady ebbing in the years thereafter of our faith in what we could achieve through public life and common endeavor."

Readmore: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/21/112263_what_we_lost_120736.html#ixzz2lHwhAKqv 
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

I think that this is the kind of claptrap that comes out a very naive version of modern liberalism.  It is a liberalism that believes that, not only is man perfectable, but that it can be done in the short run.  They end up letting the perfect make them condemn the good.

Consider the main aspects of "the good life":

1.  Material - I think that most people in this country and certainly in the world who make a living in activity X are better off now than they were in 1963. 

2.  Health care - The same is true.  The "30 million" uninsured is 10% of the population. The percentage was higher in 63 since medicare did not even exist.

3.  Opportunity and Social Justice – Were at that time denied to a good majority (minorities and women) of the population.

Dionne and others unlike him are unhappy that “then” we felt that government could do great things and now we don’t.  What happened?

Well I say that what happened is:

a) that we undertook to actually do some of those things that he thinks needed doing,

b) we have made a lot of progress in all of them, particularly 2 and 3 and

c) those things are very hard.  (Find another country as racially diverse as this one that has even attempted to achieve social justice.)

So we have had a little dose of reality about what government can do and maybe some of what it cannot do.

It is called maturity and it is not a bad thing.
(minor modifications at 7:40 AM same day)

Voter Fraud

Full disclosure:  I believe that you should have a picture ID to get any of the things that we get  from the government including access to the voting booth.  The government should provide an easy and cost free way of getting  a working ID for voting.

Now how many times have you heard or seen the following argument:
Voter fraud is a fake issue because there have been only a small number of prosecutions for voter fraud.

Here are two more arguments using this reasoning.

You can count the number of drinkers by counting the number of prosecutions for drunkenness.

or

You can count the number of young women who are engaging in sex by counting how many of them are getting pregnant.

Tea Party and Science

Those who are open to evidence about the Tea Party might be interested in the following article

Tea Partiers Score High on Science Literacy

in the Cultural Cognition Project from Yale Law School.

The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities. Project members are using the methods of various disciplines -- including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science -- to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decision making by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and consistent with sound public policy making.

The Current Language of Politics

Apparently I am not (in the last two entries) communicating well in the exchanges in the posts of Oct. 3 and Oct. 4.  Whether we continue them or not I want to try again to state what  I think about this and some things that I don’t think about this. 

1.  I am with the supporters of the ACA on the issue.  However, the Republican general position (smaller government) is a legitimate position and they have a right to use all legitimate methods to pursue it.  One is to use the rules of the House to prevent a vote on "the Senate Bill".  They can do that - and Obama can get on TV and say: "Just have a vote!" and make them look bad.

2.  I am offended by the tactics that my side (let’s call them the Ds) is using – in particular the name-calling.

As was noted in one of the posts "extortion  does have a definition": 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.  

Please note the word criminal.

3.  It seems to me to be particularly offensive to call the opponents (let’s call them the Rs) “extortionists” when the Rs are using the same tactics that the Ds have used in the past (when the Rs and Southern Ds held a majority in one body or the other of Congress).  This kind of hyperbolic language was not used.  You can say that it is because our politics was not so bitter then, and I will say sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between cause and effect.

4.  Since a basic principle of the ACA is that the government will “rob Peter to pay Paul” by forcing the payment of a fee or a tax or a premium by Peter. (I agree with C J John Roberts that a rose by any other name …)  The money will be used to provide “affordable” health care for Paul.  Does that sound like any criminal activity mentioned above?  I would agree that the operation of the ACA is technically not extortion.  But I agree only because it is the government which is doing it and it is done according to law.  Still, it seems to me to be spectacularly ironic for the Ds to say that the opponents of the ACA are engaging in – extortion.

5.  Consider the following two things in connection with Obama’s sudden adoration of “the law”.
1. a) About the ACA's health care individual mandate Obama says: “It’s the law we can’t delay that.”
b) About the ACA's health care employer mandate Obama says: “We are delaying that.”
2. About the “Dream Act” (which did not pass and change the immigration law) Obama said I’m not going to enforce that part of the immigration law. Poof

This is not a minor irrelevant discrepancy from out of the blue.  Obama makes 1.a)  the justification for calling the Rs extortionists.  Because “the ACA is the law and therefore I can’t negotiate about that”.  The other two are the evidence that he doesn’t take that argument seriously.

6.  I support the ACA and I think the Rs are messing up bad on this and that they will pay for it.  I think the arguments that can be brought to bear against their position are strong and persuasive.  Instead the Ds have chosen a type of name-calling that leaves their defenders making arguments like, “Well, I don’t really know what the president meant by that.”

I support Obama, but I am depressed about him. In general, I believe that we should not have to wonder what the President intended to say and, especially, the world should not have to wonder whether or not he meant it.

 

Extortion

Andrew Sullivan calls it “Racist vandalism”, Friedman says “Our democracy is at stake!”, and everybody calls it extortion.

This language is so childish.  Is that really the level the “majority” is operating on?   It is also inaccurate.  I am among those who want the well off to foot the bill for healthcare for all through a single payer system.  It is my side of this argument that is using this extortion language.  But let’s examine it for a moment.  We are saying that we want Peter to pay for Paul’s healthcare.  AHA is a step in that direction.  Affordable means that someone else is paying for it. That is we advocate using the power of the government to force Peter to pay for Paul’s healthcare.  Peter gets himself some Congresscritters elected to oppose this plan of ours for FORCING Peter to hand over his money to pay for Paul’s health care.  The Congresscritters engage in perfectly legal efforts to do that and our side calls that extortion.  You gotta have a lot of gall to do that.

Or maybe you thought that it wasn’t Peter it was the government that was going to pay the bill.

In the next to the last line gall was originally spelled gaul which was wrong.  Thank you, Honoria.

"War" on pride

If you ever wonder why some conservatives believe that the democrats want to increase our dependence on the government, you might find this interesting.

The U S Dept of Agriculture is in charge of the food stamp program called SNAP and so it seeks to inform people about the program.  Or is that what you would call this:   USDA combats ‘mountain pride,’ self-reliance to boost food stamp rolls

language and the war on terror

One of the things that irritates me is the misuse of the language, particularly by the press who are among its professionals and should be among its guardians

Two examples:

"to beg the question" is a term of logic that means to assume what you are trying to prove.  For example:  "those people" have a higher crime rate because they are more violent.

The press uses it to mean "to raise the question".

"to decimate" was a disciplinary practice used on the Roman legions.  If they fled in a battle, then they were lined up in some order and counted off.  Every tenth man was executed.

The press uses this to mean "to destroy".

The latter example may prove useful to the President.

During the 2012 campaign he and Biden loudly and frequently declared that they had decimated Al Queda.  (Notice the restraint - I did not say "brayed".)  On Oct. 21, 2012 I wrote here that the President's misrepresentation of what happened in Benghazi was probably motivated by a concern that it would make his middle eastern policy appear to be a failure because they had, in fact, not destroyed Al Queda.

Now it appears that Al Queda is far far from destroyed.  Perhaps Carney will soon explain that the President had never said that he had "destroyed" Al Queda, only that he had "decimated" them which everyone knows means killed about a tenth of them.

A One Party System vs. Democracy

The link below is to a TED talk by a fellow by the name of Eric Li.  He argues that China's current version of a one-party system is better suited to future success than the countries that are run by democratically elected leaders.  He makes some good points. 

The thing that I find most striking is that his description of how China's political system works sounds a great deal like a corporate structure. 

I have argued in the past that government is not a business, does not have the objectives of a business, and should not be run like a business, but the corporate structure of promotion based on performance and merit has its definite advantages over electing leaders because we think we would like to have a beer with them.  I don't know how many times (a lot) I have heard people say they were going to vote for a particular candidate either because "I don't know, I just like him/her" or because they don't "like" the opponent.  And even if they have actual political reasons, often times those reasons are simply not even true and are based on something they saw on a TV ad.

The biggest problem, Li admits, is corruption.  Luckily, we don't have that with democratically elected leaders.;-)

I would be interested in any reactions others may have to this.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ebXA1lRqDfM?rel=0

The name game - 2

This is a repeat with one additional example below the starred line.  This is not to take a position on any of these issues,  just to point out the cleverness in the use of the language.

Choosing the appropriate title for your organization or group is very important if you are involved in something controversial. [Perhaps even if it is not controversial.  For example, people who play golf are called golfers which flows much better than say chess players.  But we chess players would probably not respond to chessers.]

 This post contains a few items like this and solicits additions to the list.

I think groups should be able to choose their own name. Up to a point.  The point is when they start to usurp other people's legitimate titles and roles.  Undocumented workers does that on two counts.  They are not all workers and "undocumented" is an attempt to make it sound like they are the same as a legal resident except for a little detail about papers.
Perhaps you have seen on TV a discussion in which one of the advocates says "undocumented workers" and the other says "illegal aliens" when they are both talking about the same group of people.  People also appear to refuse to use the word illegal and attempt to conflate the two categories (legal and illegal immigrants) which allows them to claim that if you are opposed to illegal immigration then you are opposed to legal immigration as well. 

You once had pro abortion rights and anti abortion groups.  Both sides got smart and went for pro choice and pro life.  Both of those seem legitimate and positive.

Any one born in this country is a native american so I don't like using that title Native Americans for the indigenous population of the Americas.  In Canada they use the title First Nations which seems quite appropriate.

Sometime in the last forty years the term sexual preference (which indicates choice) gave way to sexual orientation (which does not).

The gay rights movement's marriage equality was a stroke of genius.  Technically a gay man, G, and a straight man, S, both had exactly the same marriage rights before the current changes in some laws.  That is, each of them could marry a person of the opposite sex.  Of course, since G was gay, those were not the marriage rights that he wanted.  Marriage equality now means that each has a right to marriage with their preferred partner type.  [I wonder if the advocates of legalized marijuana could make a similar case for intoxicant equality.  That is, I should have the same right to my preferred intoxicant as you have to yours.]

******************

Another beautiful example is that global warming has become climate change.  Global warming is a checkable thesis.  If the temperature levels off then you have some explaining to do.  See Climate change scientists puzzled over lack of global warming during past decade.  However, climate change is happening all the time.   It always has been and it always will be.  Your thesis cannot be disproved.  Finally any one who disagrees with your conclusions is no longer called a doubter - which is a respectable position.  They are now labeled as deniers - which calls up images of the holocaust.

I would not argue that people shouldn't engage in these kinds of maneuvers. On the other hand, folks should be aware of the games that are being played.

Bush and Obama in Africa

 On his meeting with Obama:
KARL:  What did you talk about when the cameras weren't rolling?
BUSH: What a big pain the press is.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: You probably agreed entirely on that.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: We just chatted about his trip. He's at the end of the trip. I remember how tired I used to get. I said, you got to be kind of worn out, he said, I had a great trip, looking forward to getting back home. And I asked him about his girls, were they having a good time? He said, you bet, because I remember bringing our daughters on some of these trips and how meaningful it was to be with them. And we didn't sit around hashing out policy.
KARL: Did you talk to him? Not much at all?
BUSH: No, not really. He's busy. And I'm retired.

On his own work in Africa:
BUSH: We (Obama and I) both represent a great country. People admire America. And Africans are thrilled with the idea that American taxpayers funded programs that save lives.
KARL (voice-over): One of those programs, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, which President Bush signed into law 10 years ago is now celebrating a remarkable milestone. One million African babies born HIV-free, thanks to programs preventing mother-to-child transmission. Another 7 million with HIV are getting the drugs they need to survive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I think this is one of his crowning commitments. Because of the commitment of the Bush administration and the American people, millions of people's lives have been saved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: President Obama said this is one of your crowning achievements. Do you agree with that?
BUSH: That's nice of him. I view it as an achievement of American generosity. And it has been an extraordinarily successful program. And I was honored to be a part of it.
One reason we're in Africa is because we have found out and discovered that women are dying of cervical cancer. They have been saved from HIV through antiretroviral drugs, yet they're dying of cervical cancer. We think it's needless, and we're trying to do something about it.
...
KARL: Why Africa? I mean was there a moment where this clicked for you? You visited earlier.
BUSH: There was a moment because I was the president of the most powerful, rich nation and a pandemic was destroying an entire generation. And I thought it would be morally shameful not to act.
KARL: How important is Africa to your husband's legacy?
LAURA BUSH: I think it's very important. I think it's really important for people to know that the generosity of the American taxpayer has saved lives here. And that now seven million people are on anti-retroviral drugs and are living full, productive lives. They can contribute to their economy. They are not leaving orphans like what happened earlier in the big pandemic. I think it's, I think Americans should feel great about it.

On Obama's lack of concern for Africa:
KARL: President Obama has been criticized by those who say he hasn't done as much for Africa as you did. That he's neglected Africa. Is that a bad rap?
BUSH: President Obama cares deeply about ... people on the continent of Africa. All I can tell you is that the State Department under his leadership and under Secretary Clinton has been incredibly helpful in our efforts to deal with cervical cancer. It doesn't surprise me that presidents get criticized.
...

On Gay Marriage:
KARL: I saw a journalist in Zambia asked you about gay marriage and whether it is compatible with Christian values. And you had an interesting response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I shouldn't be taking a speck out of somebody else's eye when I have a log in my own.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I meant that I'm not going to answer the question then and I'm not going to answer it now in terms of the political question about whether or not, I just don't want to weigh back in the debate. I'm out of politics.
But I meant it's very important for people not to be overly critical of someone else until you've examined your own heart.