What is a conservative? What is a liberal?

Let's start with an anecdote. I once had a former cube neighbor loudly accuse me of being a "damn liberal," in much the same tones as we often hear from the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and others. I almost couldn't believe he was "going there," as they say. The only reply possible, and which I gave him, was that he didn't know anything about me. Which he didn't.

So the other day I read that the voice behind Little Green Footballs is "parting ways with the right." Now I read that Andrew Sullivan is doing something similar. Many others, some of whom Sullivan cites, have done the same.

So, what about me? When asked, I describe my politics as socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I believe in public education--perhaps the single most important thing we could do with our money--and I believe that being the richest country (well, being in the top ten, or so) automatically makes us capable of providing for the health of our poorest and least capable. These folks are not all old, and we should take care of them simply because we can. I also see the value in some other "social programs" such as food stamps, because not everyone getting food stamps deserves to starve. Some will take advantage of the system, sure, but the good greatly outweighs the bad. So, I guess you could say I'm socially liberal.

But I am not a fan of the kinds of unlimited spending we've been experiencing. I think war and defense spending are outrageously over the top, because we are paying much too much to kill others, when we could/should be paying to help others. Soldiers die and big business gets rich. Meanwhile, over 15% of Americans are out of work. Something's wrong with this picture, here.

I manage my finances with care and restraint. I don't risk what I can't afford to lose. Everyone should, so I guess that makes me a fiscal conservative.

With respect to differences of opinion, I have no problem talking seriously with someone who doesn't agree with me. Let's talk; we can work it out. As long as we both are looking at the same problems realistically and rationally, and both agree that it will take all our combined efforts to fix things, then that's fine. I don't expect to get everything I want; no one else should expect that, either.

My take on today's "conservative right" is that many of them are simply nuts. They don't seem to have a firm grasp on reality, and to me that's just dangerous. Most so-called conservative pundits (like Limbaugh and Coulter) are simply pandering, and that's no better. It may even be worse, since they know the difference.

Follow-on to my post about racism

[T]he problem of race in America has never been solely or predominantly a minority issue. It is first and foremost, as Carter said, a problem of whiteness.

A little while back I posted my opinion of folks who are making very vocal complaints about being labeled racist. Today I come across this article which expands the point even further. It is a bit long but worth reading, especially if you care about eliminating the issue of race as a divisor in our society. The author makes a point I think bears repeating; it's summarized above.

A somewhat longer quote gets to the heart of the matter:

It's a one-sided deal for people of color; as "post-racial" in effect means post-black, post-brown, post-red and post-yellow, while leaving the normative racial framework of whiteness intact. Race is the challenge people of color must confront and, dare I say, "get over."

But a post-racial America does not demand the same of those who identify with, and claim the social construction of, whiteness and perceived privileges and cultural superiority therein.

This is why, it would seem, Obama's body standing behind the American presidential seal has a critical segment of America losing its hold on reality -- a reality, I would argue, few have ever been forced to acknowledge up to this point.

Whether it's the birthers, tea-baggers, deathers, indoctrinators, or "You lie!"-ers, they have neither veiled their racial animus nor cloaked their white nationalism. The prevalence of racist images of Obama brandished by protesters juxtaposed with calls of "taking our country back" are reminiscent of D.W. Griffith's fictional America as depicted in the film Birth of a Nation.

And the pride with which this segment of society has rallied the troops around its shared sense of whiteness reveals that their skin color is the one true object of pledged allegiance and determinant of professed patriotism. [Emphasis mine.]

Those who protest so very strongly that they resent being called racist not only are racist, but have reversed the historical role of an oppressed minority: they have become the oppressed minority of "white supremacy racists" in America. As well they should be.

Enjoy that label while you can, boys. [/sarcasm]

We speak of "playing the race card." Now it's become "playing the racist card." The first step in overcoming a problem is realizing you have one. Some of us are already past that point; some may never get there. But everyone dies, so I see a solution in sight. My family is largely Hispanic--of color--so I'm encouraged that my grandchildren will grow up not thinking they're "white" and that whiteness is somehow the preferred state. I mean really, just how pure are any of us?

I know I'm an "evil librul," but I see great beauty in diversity. There's an exotic newness; a great opportunity to learn and become better informed. But I do see a great division between people. It's between the educated and the critical thinkers, and the un-educated and slavish believers by choice. There is nothing at all noble or right about being ignorant, and certainly nothing to be proud of.

Don't believe everything you're told. Listen. Question everything. Think.

That is all.

Methinks whitey doth protest too much

Remember the other day I commented about racism in the South? I lived in and around Atlanta, and DeKalb County (they pronounce it "deh-CAB"--no "L") is one of the counties that comprise the metro area.

Now we have some white guy saying "I learned about slavery in history" when all he really needed to do was fucking look around. They got monuments to the "noble ideas of the South," most of which included the notion that one man could be owned by another. Let's not forget to mention that the owning men were white, like this particular journalist, and the owned men were Obama's color. Slater also says: "Racism is a very sensitive subject, and I don’t like being associated with it." Huh. Too bad. I say get over it. Rise above it if you can. But if the shoe fits ...

Just don't go on about how offended you are because a notable former president (and other perhaps equally notable personages) thinks you are the racist you are, and isn't afraid to say it. Apparently in this new world it's appropriate to show such utter disrespect to a sitting president. And if you can't somehow keep a civil tongue (yeah, Obama: he's the ultimate uppity n*****) it's not racism--it's ideology?

I said it before: Don't even try to bullshit me. I know the pejorative definition of MARTA (the Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority) it's "moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta." If you don't want to be thought a racist, then shut your fucking mouth.

A good time to start would be now.

Right concludes: everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Leftist

I looked at this headline, "Left Concludes: We're All Racists"

It's the lowest common denominator, folks. I am not a "leftist" though I suppose I have liberal views on social issues. I believe in public education and that we really need a better solution for healthcare. I don't think either of those positions makes me a leftist; centrist is fairly accurate, along with about 70% of all Americans.

I believe much of the right wing is racist, particularly the Southerners. I lived in Atlanta 18 years, though I am from (and currently live in) Ohio. Don't even try to bullshit me about racism--that is at the heart of this controversy, so calling it something else is disingenuous.

No one wants to be branded a racist, though we all are. The essential difference is that some of us are actually trying not to act like racists. Personally, I try to look at people as individuals, and see beyond their "labels." Because we all have some label that can be plastered on us to diminish us in others' eyes.

The final firing of Carrie Prejean

Despite the fact I can't quite pronounce her last name, overall I really don't care what happens to her. But the news is: she's been fired as Miss California. Yeah, poor girl. She was asked a controversial question, and answered it to the best of her abilities. Whatever one thinks of the quality of her "abilities" to answer questions, one comment she's made recently has my attention:

"Three weeks ago I was asked a politically charged question with a hidden personal agenda," Prejean said. "I was given a question asking for my opinion and I stated my personal belief. Immediately after the pageant, judge no. 8 began a cultural firestorm in the media ... he was trying to be self-promoting and hateful.

"On April 19 on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech," Prejean continued, fighting back tears. "And I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America."

Was she "punished," or was she taken to task for her beliefs? She spoke them out loud, and so therefore invited criticism, whether she wanted it or not. If I stood up and said vapid blonds from California should be shot at dawn, I would expect to be criticized for that position, because not everyone will accept it. The same goes for those who have an opinion on gay marriage. If you're against it, some will be critical of you. If you're for it, others will criticize you for that opinion. If she can't handle the pressure of defending her views, I would suggest she's not very well prepared to be Miss California, or to spout her fundamentalist views in public, either. Something about heat and kitchens comes to mind.

Poor girl. Punished for her innocent viewpoint? Since she wasn't fired for that, I doubt that's the case. As to whether this should happen in America ... well, there are a lot of things going on in America these days--even in regards to free speech--that have my panties in a bunch. Carrie Prejean needs to get in line.

And the irony that her presence in the pageant wasn't also "self-promoting"? She may have not been acting "hateful" to Perez Hilton, but I know a few gay folks who would ascribe her attitude as hateful to them. My irony meter isn't broken, but it's pegged. (I had an extra-industrial-strength model installed when GWB got elected. Even then he broke it several times. But, that's another story for another time.)

Prejean's mother, Francine, came out in defense of her daughter, telling the blog MomLogic.com that the beauty queen is "being persecuted for speaking her opinion" about gay marriage. Prejean also told Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson that Satan tried to tempt her with a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant.

My only question, re: Satan and his Temptations (a really old pop-music group), is did he succeed? It would seem so, since she's now out and free to go for the really juicy XXX photos. She'll make a frigging fortune.

Fun times.

Characteristics of Fascism: How many can you find?

Depressing, isn't it? I look at this list of Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism, and I find far too many quite common in the U.S., today. (I'm not going to point them out--that's an exercise for the reader.) That we are ostensibly the "shining beacon of freedom in the world" either says something very bad about our world, or that we are NOT a shining beacon any longer. For my money, we've just become a place where freedom has gone to die. So, the terrorists HAVE won, I guess.

You know, I'd almost rather have a creationist like Ron Paul--a staunch Libertarian--than a more mainstream conventional politician, like Obama. Of course, I'm not ready to write him off, just yet.

Cory Doctorow: A DRM Dissertation

If you've been on the Internet in the past few years, you'd be hard-pressed to have not heard of Cory Doctorow. He also writes for BoingBoing, as well. This article may not be new, but it's ever so relevant. It happens to be directed at Microsoft, but Sony (and others) are also prominently mentioned.

I can only wonder if the buggy whip manufacturers association were as powerful as the music industry; we'd all be paying a buggy whip avoidance tax on every new automobile, and be paying an entire industry to exist without contributing any value whatsoever. And yes, music industry, I'm looking at you!

Good thing I'm a bit more open-minded

These "words of wisdom" are from Pat Robertson. [VIDEO]

I guess the gauntlet has been tossed down rather unequivocally.

Murder "works" too, but we still don't allow it

I'm not surprised to hear supreme wingnut Rush Limbaugh trying to justify the U.S.'s illegal torture of prisoners, by trying to "prove" that it works. That, of course, is completely beside the point. There have to be higher standards than the ones our "enemies" have. Otherwise, we're no different from them, and deserve no better. Maybe that's true, but I'd like to think it isn't. If we're just as evil as those who oppose us, then who's to say who should win?

Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong ...

The wingnuts are upset the government is monitoring them as if they were terrorists. Gosh.

Don't worry, wingnut extremists. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. After all, that's what y'all told us when you approved of warrantless wiretapping.

Yeah. Suck it.

PSA: Financial article from 1999 not-so-strangely prophetic

Back in 1999 Congress passed landmark legislation that paved the way for the financial collapse of today. Back then they lauded this effort as paving the way to the 21st century. Little did they know (but they should have known) that the 21st century they were paving would be one of joblessness, eviction and foreclosure, cities shutting down whole neighborhoods, and fucking Wall Street banksters (portmanteau word from "bankers" and "gangsters," in the Al Capone sense of the word) laughing at us while we drown in insurmountable debt.

Here's the money quote FTA:

''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.'' [emphasis mine]

Nuff said. Or maybe not.

PI answer to stem cell research disagreement

This should take care of the problem. In more ways than one ...

Chuck Norris advocating sedition?

The only people who would actively advocate an "armed insurrection" are those who 1) have nothing to lose, 2) just like killing and maiming, or 3) are nuts. Mr. Norris probably doesn't fit the first category, and may fit the second. He certainly seems to be freaking nuts, though.

Here's the sentiment from the blog post, and I agree:

The burning question we all face is what the Obama administration will do to cope with those that promote violence and armed insurrection against our own country. We don’t need a “civil war” or any other type of violence that disembodies our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Bill of Rights. Those who believe that violence is the only way to display their dissatisfaction with he Obama administration are committing treason - in my opinion - and I don’t seem to be the only one that share this belief.

I don't want to live in the Fascist States of What-Once-Was-America. There's a lot wrong, right now, and I'm not convinced this massive bailout is the right thing to do, but taking up guns to overthrow the government doesn't sound like a good idea. We need less polarization, not more.

I think he'd better watch it. He could be the first martyr of the failed wingnut "revolution." Most Americans are sheep, and I can say "baah" as well as anyone. It's called protective coloration.

I can haz integrative journalism?

While on the subject of NCCAM and Senator Tom Harkin, I found this rather funny blog post by The Tufted Titmouse. It reminds me of the Tinkerbell Effect, but indeed, why not mix traditional journalism with creative writing. Consensual reality.

Ignorance is strength
-- George Orwell, 1984

I mean, just look at all those fundies. They're all clapping like mad.

Yeah, I have time on my hands today.

Rush Limbaugh

Head of the Republican Party?

My first thought was: you got to be kidding. Then I thought: cool. They deserve each other.

Sorta like Al Franken becoming leader of the Democratic Party. Oh, wait. You mean Senator Al Franken? It could happen, and it doesn't even require winged monkeys and rectal exits. But I digress.

I have to say it: Holy Shit

Ahem. Remember when we used to say "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking REAL money"? Flock that. The new cool word starts with a T.

Check out this rather informative Flash animation at the Guardian UK. Dog love him, Obama's $800-some-odd-billion incentive/relief/bailout package won't even cover one day's interest on the real debt.

We're flocked, folks. Buy a big gun, and don't let anyone in your door waving "official" papers. "Possession is nine-tenths" will be the new watch word. Of course, when they shut off the gas and power you'll have to start chopping up the furniture (or the neighbors, or something).

Irony: When your credit card company calls and asks if their interest rate is "competitive enough." Funny, but zero is competitive enough for the moment. (I got one of those temporary introductory rate deals.) Yeah, for the moment. I'll let you know.

Unsurprising, but still disappointing

Congratulations President Obama. I voted for you, so I'm glad you're finally in office. Yes, of course I want you to succeed--I want America to succeed--especially since I'm handcuffed to the American Dream. If the economy collapses, I lose my job, can't pay the bills, get thrown out on the street, can't buy gasoline, can't buy food, and have to resort to less polite means to survive (and probably get toasted in the process) ... I will be quite unhappy about the whole thing.

But I came across this statement from Rush Limbaugh. He must be smoking something powerful, because he's completely lost touch with reality. "Liberalism," as he puts it, is no more to blame for our present situation than is "conservatism." The former Republican administration was less conservative than even the most liberal Democratic administration we've ever had. That is, if you count Federal spending. No so-called "liberal" government could get away with spending half a trillion dollars on social programs (particularly money we don't have). Social programs simply can't inspire the kind of fear that motivated and enabled the government to lose its head. Trust me. Limbaugh would lose his lunch if Obama were to ask for $100B in new dollars for education--not that Obama could get that past Congress without a fight. But Limbaugh would be OK with spending the same money to lay Afghanistan to waste. If he's the measure, "conservatism" is simply bat-shit craziness. I'm pretty sure it's not, so therefore he's just bat-shit crazy.

Many of us have had to shut up and put up over the problems of the Bush administration. Perhaps Limbaugh should do the same. But then, he's still entitled to his opinion. And we all know what opinions are ...

Not news: We're gonna need a bigger basket

With apologies to this movie. That is all.

I was right about Palin, and more

This is schadenfreude, pure and simple. Reports now are that Palin was not just a "maverick" but a loose cannon on the deck of the McCain campaign. Apparently she was very irresponsible, initially very ignorant, and left Arizona in a 12-vehicle motorcade accompanied by 18 family members. McCain drove himself home, Lindsay Grahan riding shotgun. To be fair, she was 2,500 miles from home, but we still need to ask about her expentidures for clothes. Well, we don't need to ask, but I sure am glad she's not the vice president.

Oh, and what about Ralph Nader's comment about "Obama needs to decide whether he'll be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"? Seems the President has more choices than that, but what an awful thing to say. What's worse, he tried to defend the statement. Talk about jumping the shark ... it's just sad.

Finally, I have to say that if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, and if we'd had a chance to see the real man during the campaign, then my choice would have been made much more difficult. I think Obama will do well as president, particularly since he will very obviously be a huge contrast to the last 8 years. A Democratic Congress isn't necessarily a good thing, and for the same reasons the Republican Congress wasn't good. I do want them to work together to do right, but I am also aware that the term "Congress doing right" is almost an oxymoron.

Oh well, I must be a closet optimist, after all.

Laws against sin

I passed by this article on same-sex marriage. In the article they quoted one woman as stating "same sex marriage is a sin."

Here is my question, since the woman was obviously against permitting it. Should our law attempt to legislate morality? Should there be a law against sinful behavior? Specifically, this kind of behavior.

There are laws against committing murder, for example. Few, even the godless, would argue that murder should be permitted. I'd think the answer to this should be obvious: murder affects others in a profound way. It disrupts their lives, etc., and I agree murder shouldn't be permitted. We've had laws banning strong drink, but they were controversial at best. Adultery isn't illegal, and most states with sodomy laws have repealed them mostly because us straight folk wanted to engage in that behavior without fear of being arrested.

I've been trying to go down the list of "sins" in the Ten Commandments, but can't find too many that are against the law. Except murder. And perjury, which I believe is the false witness injunction.

Even if you believe same-sex marriage is a sin, is that reason enough to make it illegal? There are lots of "sins" out there, but our system of laws tends not to recognize them. Reason being, one man's sin is another man's hobby. I'm not saying same-sex marriage is a hobby, and I'll agree some would find it sinful, but is it a good candidate for legislating?

I've already put my two cents in on this subject. My posts said nothing at all about how I feel about the behavior of gays, but just for the record: I say live and let live. To each their own. I play Dungeons and Dragons, too. Some would find that sinful, but thankfully it's still not against the law.

Lastly, I saw this quote: "We've made bad selections as presidents but survived as a nation. But if we move down the path towards the dissolution of marriage we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of that." Correct me if I'm wrong, but allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't dissolve marriage, it extends it. Of course, they aren't saying exactly what the consequences would be, and in what way they would be irrevocable. I suppose that's just as well.

We voted today, early

We waited in line at Veterans Memorial in downtown Columbus, Ohio over 4 hours this afternoon to vote. Lines wrapped all the way down the side of the building, and even longer inside the building itself. It's hard to judge, but I'd say there were minimally a few thousand people in line continuously from the time we arrived until about 5:30 when we finally finished voting. The line's end had just entered the building as we walked out.

The demographics of the voters was by far the most interesting aspect. I would not be exaggerating to say 80% were black, with the remainder comprising Somalians, college students, and just plain "white" folks. More women than men, too. If most of these people were voting for Obama (and I believe they were, since only Obama volunteers were on hand and everyone carried Obama pamphlets), my humble estimate is that McCain doesn't stand a chance. At least in Ohio. This time around, most Americans are voting, and this is a very good thing. Republicans probably aren't feeling so good about it, but they had their chance and they flat-out blew it.

My wife says this is history being made. Though I suppose the election could still be stolen, from what I saw I sincerely doubt it

But this means, more than ever, no matter who you support--get out and VOTE!

I missed it last night, but here it is

It's worth listening to, perhaps even if you don't support Obama. We really need an injection of hope, and not just dire warnings and fear-mongering. We all have things we fear, and these times are becoming more and more uncertain, daily. But the best medicine for fear is hope. Roosevelt (FDR) knew that, and he was a strong voice during two times of great uncertainty.

I'm not saying; I'm just saying ...

Hat tip to ERV.

When you believe, but don't know why you believe

I caught this gem on Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's a clip from Fox News interviewing "Joe the Plumber" about his "statement" that electing Obama would mean the death of Israel.

The man is nothing but a parrot spouting words he doesn't understand. He believes, or so he says, but has no clue at all why he believes.

Here are some logical steps one could take to get from "Obama agreed to meet with our enemies without preconditions" to "Obama will cause the death of Israel." First one must make some assumptions, based on lack of trust (or faith, if you're so inclined) in Obama. We'll say he meets with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and somehow caves in and agrees to something injurious to our interests. Seems unlikely to me, but OK, let's assume Obama is weak and ineffectual (all evidence to the contrary). Now Iran, emboldened by the American President's truckling (look it up) decides to declare open war on Israel. Of course the US, having previously made bad decisions and agreed to something stupid with Iran, decides to abandon many very long-standing agreements and partnerships, and trust, and such that we've had with Israel, now decides to sit idly by while Iran sweeps through the region and obliterates Israel.

Wow. Help me out, here, in understanding just how all these things would come to pass. They must really believe Obama is a secret terrorist traitor, or there's just no way we could get ourselves into this position. Of course, let's not forget the impeachment power (so very much under-utilized these days) of Congress. Would you think they would just stand by and do nothing? Where's the will of the American people? *sigh*

Joe is right about one thing: Everyone needs to go out and do their own research and find their own reasons for voting. And then do it. Vote. But I would suggest he reevaluate his "reasons" and employ just a little bit of critical thinking before he opens his dumbass mouth again. Moron.

And I agree: "Man, it gets frightening sometimes," is spot on. Idiocy, as demonstrated by McCain's poster child is frightening. I'm grateful there is at least one person in this race who is using their brain to do the thinking.

One more discrimination straw man

Yesterday I posted a long article addressing some of the most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage, but left (at least) one out. So, in the interests of completeness, I hereby provide my take on the following:

"Being gay is a choice; we don't have to permit these people to choose"

In some respects I can't believe I didn't think of this when I was running down the list. But let's take a look.

First, I would assert that being gay isn't just something you choose. But that's just my belief, based on my experiences with friends and family members. Yeah, I know gay people. And there are also those who are, at heart, bisexual and capable of having relations with persons of either gender. But for the purposes of this straw man, we assume being gay is choice, and an invalid choice according to some.

I can think of many things that are choices, but it's difficult to fathom a choice that would cause such difficulty, engender such discrimination, and/or isolate and alienate the one making the choice. I may be willing to accept that one's sexual preferences are simple preferences, but how far would you go in order to ensure your choice is realized? Seems to me that if a gay man could simply choose not to be gay, then in public he would do just that. What he does in private is nobody's business. But, he doesn't choose that. In fact about 10% of us don't "choose" that. Gotta be a little more compelling than mere choice, if you ask me.

So, if choice is all there is, then the case for permitting same-sex marriage is weak. A scam, perhaps. Maybe that's what I thought before. I'm not sure; I really hadn't given it that much thought. And that's the basic problem.

Now for the second part of the argument, that of not having to legitimize the choice. Other than the "moral implications" that some see, I'm having a really hard time finding fault with choices in human sexuality that don't harm anyone. Pedophilia and the like are clearly harmful, as children are not capable of giving informed consent. But adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves. And should. I can think of many sex acts heterosexuals routinely perform with each other that wouldn't be allowed if some folks had their way. I mean, no one should ever tell me what I can and cannot do with my wife, who certainly consents to our actions. I'm not doing it out in public and stopping traffic, etc., so what's the deal? For me, and I may be thoroughly amoral from your perspective, I really can't see the essential difference between various sex acts, whether the persons involved have penises, vaginas, or some combination of the two. Your equipment is just an accident of how you're made. All you really need to do is find someone else with the kind of equipment you like, and that likes the equipment you have. Period. Everything else is mechanics.

So, since the choice is as legitimate as any other, I'm hard-pressed to deny someone the right to marry any other kind of human adult that they choose. It's not a moral decision; it's no longer a matter of the impact on me (since in some situations children are involved, and they trump everything else). What I mean to say, if we must allow same-sex parents to marry so their children are taken care of, then the issue of choice becomes irrelevant.

Now, my argument may be specious because I'm using something I argued previously as "proof" in my current argument. Begging the question, as it were. But I still would fall back on the idea that being gay is not really a matter of choice. You either are, or you're not. Everything else in between is a choice. I won't even get into multiple marriages. That's another argument for another time, and the decision there is probably just as surprising.

My last point about not permitting choice is a fundamental part of my beliefs. Obviously there are choices that are harmful to others. But even the notion of "harm" can be a matter of opinion. Some feel "liberals" (a choice of political philosophy) are harmful to the political health of the country. Others might feel the same way about conservatives. But we still do need both sides of the debate. Governing in a democracy should be a balance, a compromise between extremes. You need dark for light to be important. Because the acts we perform legally with our spouses don't appear to rip the fabric of society, I can't really see how having a spouse who happens to have the same equipment as me is any more damaging. Not harmful if I don't have to see actions I don't like. And that's a choice I can make that no one is trying to inhibit. No one.

Denying choice for what are harmless relationships between consenting adults is not a strong argument. There are just as many currently legal choices that are clearly much more harmful, yet no one is proposing to limit those. Call it what you like, legally enabling parental partnerships is essential. The law must be clear and non-discriminatory, which implies that if we allow marriage between people of the same sex for parental reasons, we have to allow it for any other reason (or no reason), as well, OR we must limit marriage between heterosexual couples for the exact same reasons. No discrimination can be permitted based on sex, race, or sexual preference. What's good for one is good for all--or for none.

While we're talking about discrimination ...

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy posted a video where every reference to "same-sex" was changed to "interracial" in an appeal against Prop 8 in California. For those of you who might be living under a rock, that's the amendment being proposed that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California. Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal. A bunch of folks, many NOT Californians, have decided to weigh in on this decision by supporting the amendment. Yes, it's stupidly framed, but voting "Yes" here means voting "No" for same-sex marriage. "Yes" means you are against it. Got that? (Me, either.)

Here's my background on this: Some time ago I was opposed to same-sex marriage because I felt it would be extending certain benefits under law in situations where they should not be applied. Yes, it was a very naive perspective. So I got educated. Turns out (to no one's surprise) that many same-sex couples have children. Perhaps they're from a previous heterosexual arrangement, or perhaps from some other arrangement. For me, I would want the children to be taken care of, and that means that both partners absolutely MUST have the same rights with respect to the kids. I don't care what their sexual orientation is, you just don't take children from their parents (or their families, if 'parents' is too restrictive a term for you), and you don't deny the rights of any parent to care for their children.

OK, here's the logic I had to use to get from A) no same-sex marriage, to B) same-sex marriage permitted. I'm going to construct some straw men just to knock them down.

"Marriage is only between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else."

Good one! But now we have to define procreation, because my wife isn't capable (anymore) of having children. And I knew that before I married her. Oh, and yes, I did marry her legally. Just ask the State of Ohio, County of Franklin. Procreation is the creation of more human beings. But beyond simply getting pregnant and having a rugrat or two, it's about providing for the optimal care of the younguns. It's about having help raising your kids. From your partner.

We can't decide that men and women can't marry each other if they don't intend to have kids. No one can predict the future, and even if you marry someone with the intent to raise a family, you can't then go back and declare them unmarried if they fail in that regard. Maybe men used to divorce their wives because those wives couldn't bear pups (I'm looking at you, Henry VIII), but these days that's not going to hold up. So clearly it's not practical to deny marriage between heterosexual couples on the arbitrary basis that they can't or won't have children. The law has to be permissive, here, because no one can predict the future. Case in point: I have a grandson. If something terrible happened to his parents, then I would want to be there to care for him. And so would my wife. Having us married means we both have the same necessary rights to provide the best care for him. He may not be blood-relation to me, but he is family. I'm his "grandpa."

"Same-sex marriage will force us to do things against our will/belief/etc."

Ah, this is a subtle argument that says churches will have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Bottom line, it's an argument that because someone doesn't happen to like same-sex couples, they don't want to be exposed to them, see them, talk to them, interact with them, etc. OK, fine. That's the exact same argument Christians use against atheists. They don't like them around, so they want them to just shut up and go away. "If you don't like America, then get the hell out." Of course, who gets to define what America really means? Is it you? (Methinks not.) Ironically, opponents of same-sex marriage frame this as a First Amendment argument, claiming same-sex marriage threatens their rights of free speech or freedom of religion or choice. Huh. Odd way to think of it.

Let's play a quick analogy game. Let's say a new religion is starting up, and has strange beliefs that many Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Wiccans) find offensive. Not too hard to do, under the circumstances. So, if we see people subscribing to this new religion, the established religions start saying that it's somehow going to force them to acquiesce to these strange beliefs, thus robbing them of their rights to have whatever church services they want. But that's absurd, isn't it? You can do whatever you want in YOUR church, including throwing people out who don't fit your idea of suitable church attendees. No one is going to force you to admit these strange folk, if you don't want them. And that even includes interracial wedding ceremonies, too. Don't want them? You don't have to have them. I really cannot see same-sex weddings being any different. If you don't want to host them, you won't have to. Just don't do it.

But let's attack the "I don't want them in my face" argument. I've heard this argument many times from Christians in reference to atheists. Leaving my beliefs out of it, for the moment, I want to substitute "bricklayers" for "atheists" and repose the argument. I don't like bricklayers. Damned filthy men standing on scaffolds all day, getting their hands in all that muck and goo. Carrying bricks up, mixing mortar. Disgusting! Can't we tell them to go somewhere else so we don't have to see their despicable, immoral behavior?

This is a pluralistic society. It has all kinds of people, and in fact it takes all kinds. You can't simply tell one part of us to go away and get out of your face. No matter how strongly you feel that you represent the One True Notion of what being American means. It's changing all the time.

OK, so this isn't about atheists, but about gays. Frankly, the arguments are identical in my mind. Some states are trying to pass laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Yeah, let's see them try to keep openly gay people from holding public office. It would decimate the Republican party, at the minimum. And easily do worse to the Democrats. Those damn Liberals! They're all gay!! (And I'm kidding, of course. But you get my point.)

As as matter of law we have no choice but to rule on the side of what's best for our kids. This means we cannot narrow the definition of marriage, even between a man and a woman. If we accept that there are children in same-sex partnerships, today, and we must because there are children in these families, then if we are honest and truly have our children's best interests in mind, then we have to allow same-sex couples to marry, under the legal definition of marriage. As I said above, we can't take these children away--that's inhuman and does not provide the best standard of care for them. Whether you think the "beliefs" of gays is best for kids, or not, you have to allow that followers of strange religions will also have kids and want to teach them in their own, strange ways. Just as you want to do. Being gay, of course, is not a "belief," it's who you are. Like being short.

All it takes here is a shift in perspective. I'm not calling for the abolition of religion, or the removal of personal freedoms to act and believe as we all, as Americans, want the freedom to act and believe. Bricklayers are people, too, and they deserve the same rights (if not the privileges) that everyone else has. Two Wiccans can marry and teach their kids to be tree-worshipers, and no one bats an eyelash (well, except in one famous case, but that was ridiculous). Personally, I worry about the utter nonsense that some Christians want to teach their children, because those beliefs run completely against my strong beliefs in rational thought--my belief in reality. We need more rational thinking, not less, but obviously I don't have the power to force them to do anything. I suppose that's a good thing.

We need to keep matters of law separate from matters of belief, because I don't want to have to be or believe a certain way, just because it's the law. Rather, the law must allow all of us to be and believe, and more than that, achieve our own persoanl versions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(I didn't put in a bunch of links to the things I mention, above. Do your own damn research if you care enough about it.)

Voter fraud?

Here is the money quote from the article:

Our nation's economic foundation is crumbling like sand beneath our feet. Middle-class families are losing their jobs, homes, savings accounts and college funds.

Retirement nest eggs are fried to a crisp. Nine million children in America don't have health care coverage. We're fighting wars on more fronts than we can handle.

And John McCain is talking about ACORN?

The charge that ACORN is a front for an organized program of voter fraud is almost as silly as the charge that it's destroying democracy. I saw a TV ad against Obama claiming that his giving driver's licenses to "illegal" immigrants will create voter fraud by more than 3M people. Sounds like flaws in the systems that grant driver's licenses, something correctable, or maybe it's just racist hype.

A personal anecdote

Racism is alive and regrettably well in my own neighborhood. My wife is Hispanic. Puerto Rican, to be exact. All Puerto Ricans are Americans, but since she was born in Manhattan--New York, NY--that point is moot.

A few years ago the homeowner's association in my complex circulated a petition to prohibit owners from a) selling to corporations, and b) renting their units to others (i.e., becoming non-resident landlords). Sounded suspicious to me. The main reason, I was eventually told, was to keep the neighborhood from becoming a jungle of corporate-owned rental units whose tenants had no vested interest in maintaining the property values. The argument was that having slobs living in the neighborhood would drive down property values. And by slobs they meant ...

Well, I objected to that idea mainly because I feel that anyone who can afford the rent on a unit in my complex, should be quite responsible enough. But that's not what turned me off. OK. Wait for it ...

The old woman who came to my door initially knew my cohabitor was Hispanic. Yet she was stupid enough to tell me to my face that their petition was "to keep the Mexicans out." I shit you not.

If you think Mexicans shouldn't be living in your neighborhood because they're dark, short, drive funky cars, have lots of children and eat funny food, then that's your business. Perhaps you can see, though, why I took exception to her statement. Her slam wasn't against Mexicans--it was against all Hispanics. And, oh by the way, against me as well.

So, that's my story of racism in the polite sections of town. I refused to sign the petition, but the bastards passed it anyway. If I cared I'm pretty sure it could be shown to be unenforceable, but I plan to live in my home, so it's not an issue for me.

I won't change racist attitudes single handedly. I simply choose not to add to the problem.

So what does this have to do with ACORN and charges of voter fraud? One word: Disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities. OK, more than one word, but you get the idea. Make them scared to vote as American citizens, claiming they will be arrested when they try. In this day and age I want to see everyone participating. The last 225 years' rule of the white and the rich (and the Christian) hasn't worked out all that well. Let's see what we can do with a slightly different perspective. Bring em on. America was designed to change--to evolve. It doesn't look anything today like what our founding fathers saw; in the future it won't look anything like what's here today, either. Frankly, I'd like to see the first Muslim (or even atheist) candidate for President, because that accomplishment signals something much more important than simply religion or race--it signals a desire to choose the best person for the job.

Remember they said JFK would turn the US into a papal state? How ridiculous does that seem, today? I'll bet you didn't even know he was Catholic, did you?

One more attempt to scare the rubes about Obama ...

At the risk of over generalizing, the woman in Pittsburgh who claimed a tall black man attacked her because she is a McCain supporter, and LIED ABOUT IT (making sure you can see this, cause, you know, rednecks can't read too good) is pretty typical of the whole approach of the Republican party. The lies keep getting bigger, and scarier, and more and more driving toward those buttons of distrust and hate that seems to underlie many poor, ignorant Americans.

Come on, give it a rest. This doesn't fool Obama supporters, and it won't fool the five people left in this country who haven't decided yet, either.

Let's do this thing, people

PZ Myers is controversial for many reasons, but he does have an argument about the election that I've been trying to make (and not quite succeeding).

... None of our candidates are perfect; there's a lot I personally dislike about Barack Obama, for instance. What we have to do on 4 November, though, is balance our concerns about the issues in the election, and perhaps follow a harm reduction model of politics — let's try to get a candidate in office who at least moves the government in a better direction. I think we all know what that means, and the choice is clear: despite his flaws, we need to put Barack Obama in office. Let's make the country better. Not perfect, but better.

There are two choices this November. Many might view this election as the lesser of two evils, hence why some support McCain. For them a black man with a strange, foreign-sounding name is waaaayy too scary, so they'll vote for the doddering, scary, blinking man with the fundy YEC running mate. Yeow.

Sady, there is a lot at stake, this time. More, I think, than any one of us can possibly fathom. So let's make this count. I want my president to be the smartest person in the room, and a damn good public speaker, too. Communication is essential, and a well-reasoned approach to governing has been distinctly lacking of late, and so very, very sorely needed. No "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" for me, or "drill, baby, drill," either.

It's rank politics, but the numbers are interesting

I just ran the numbers for Obama's proposed tax cut vs McCain's proposed tax cut.

Believe them, or don't believe them. Mine was more than $1000 (Obama) vs $0 (McCain). I ran the numbers for a friend who I'm sure will vote for McCain, and his cut was the same as mine, and he has 3 kids. Of course, I'm pretty sure he's not sure he's paying as much income tax as I am, because of his kids, and because his wife is not employed outside the home.

Honestly, I'll believe it when I see it, but lower taxes aren't the reason I support Obama.

What's the best defense?

Obviously, it's going on the offensive, even if totally wrong.

I remember John Lewis from my years living in Atlanta. He is a very respectable man, and if he calls out the McCain campaign then you should pay attention. It doesn't matter he's a black man, his commentary isn't racially motivated. He isn't calling McCain supporters racist -- he doesn't have to, because their own words speak volumes.

I understand McCain's rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. Obama isn't the anti-christ they make him out to be, and neither is McCain evil (despite his tactics). Both men can do the job, it's just a question of who you think best represents your interests.

But to many of the people who are attending these rallies, they are so fearful -- outright scared -- what McCain has done is associate that fear to a person: Obama. He's the one they should blame, not the current administration. He's convinced them that if Obama is elected the world will end. While some of us know that's not literally true (i.e., it's just campaign rhetoric) many people aren't as skilled at critical thinking. They tend to believe what they're told, especially if their favorite politician is telling them.

Of course they would see Obama as a Muslin, a terrorist, a socialist (or communist, take your pick). He's going to eat their babies and make them stand in long lines to see a doctor. Of course, I'm exaggerating about that long lines thing. Heh.

The rhetoric is intended to energize the base, and it has worked. All anyone is saying is to recognize when you've gone far enough, and stop lathering up the crowd. If you don't, then pretty soon they'll become a mob and do something bad. After that, everyone loses.

Some apparent holes in John McCain's healthcare proposal

I admit I'm not an expert on the problem. It's very often hard to see the agenda hidden in various politicians' proposals, but if one starts with the assumption that McCain's big contribution to the 21st century is "deregulation," then his health care proposal is spot-on.

The mistake many Republicans make is in thinking everyone is the same kind of money-grubbing rank capitalist that they are. Fuck the little guy, in other words. Well, fuck the granola idiots in California, at least.

We need to realign the health care industry. Eliminate such anomalies as California in favor of a much more level playing field. But a "level playing field" for whom? A realignment according to McCain's plan would signal a drop in coverages for lots of people, but with the ability to shop the best plans, some others would no doubt benefit. Do the changes offset each other? It's hard to say. A single-payer system has the same, or similar problems.

Everyone is running around with their hair on fire predicting doom and gloom if such-and-so is elected to the White House. It's on both sides. I'm a little more pragmatic about it. Neither candidate is without problems, and any President's plan is subject to the approval of Congress. While the House is currently Democrat by a margin, it's not enough. We're in for some interesting times, no matter who wins.

Policy does start at the top, so I'm basing my vote (partly) on whose policy I would rather have. Your mileage may vary.

And I'm not the only one ...

The AFL-CIO denounces McCain-Palin tactics:

In a world where unspeakable violence is too often promulgated by extremists, it is no small or trivial matter to call someone a terrorist -- or to incite potentially dangerous individuals toward violence ...

Let's all just calm down, and on election day vote for the ticket we think represents our best interests.

Fear and ignorance

Ignorance and fear.

If that's all you've got to sell, it's truly a sad day. Check out this video. Half these people are simply parroting what they've been told, and have exactly zero skill in critical thought. The other half are just racists. I mean, seriously. "Do you think Obama is a terrorist?" "Could be." Dude, WTF?

This does not make me proud to be an American, where so-called "good" Americans are calling a presidential candidate a terrorist. But consider this: if any one of them decides to take action and use a gun or a bomb to "rectify the situation," then they are terrorists.

What happened to respect? What happened to tolerance? What happened to the level of debate in this country? Totally lacking. The people interviewed in the video have been whipped into a frenzy by the McCain-Palin campaign, which now prompts me to ask: are these the kinds of people we want running this country? Not my country.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know you're not. Fucking sleazebags. Add one more reason I cannot vote for McCain. He's a racist, and so is his running mate.

A slight clarification

In my previous post I may have created the impression I thought Bush and company were "tax and spend" wild-eyed liberals. That's incorrect. They are responsible for only half of the current cluster fuck--the spend part. The taxes needed to pay for these sins will be borne by our children and grandchildren.

Thanks, George, from my 18 month old grandson. He isn't very eloquent, yet, but he does know how to say "uh-oh." From him it's cute. Trust me, from politicians it's simply sad.

I lied ... one more political posting

Andrew Sullivan, notoriously unhappy with Palin as VP candidate (with which I agree), posted this YouTube video.

I am not against John McCain. But he is hugely hamstrung by the turmoil within his own party. I want a real conservative--I should say a real fiscal conservative--to run for president. I am not worried Obama will "tax and spend" us into oblivion. It's too late for that.

We're already there, and Bush is the guy I'd impeach. (For that and any number of other sins, up to but not including his rank mediocrity. That's the fault of all the stupid uninformed and short-sighted voters in the country who voted for him.)

Fuck you very much.

P.S. I may choose to post more of these rants once martial law is declared, and the election is "postponed."

My final post on the presidental election

I've decided for whom I will vote. This only documents my reasons. And they're possibly not what you think.

But first, some background on my politics. My family is notoriously liberal Democrat. So, I suppose, am I, but I am very conservative on fiscal matters. I pay my bills. I watch my credit card spending, though I am in a little more debt than I am comfortable being. I like my gadgets and my technology. Too much.

Where I am definitely biased liberally, is on the value of social services. Education in particular. For my money (and it is) we really must focus on improving and maintaining the quality of public education. For everyone in this country. Education is the greatest equalizer. Just ask India. Just ask China. We can compete, we just need to teach our children well. Better, if we can.

I also see benefit in other types of public assistance, even if no one in my family depends on them. I am not naive enough to think they are, or will be 100% effective. There will be abuses and missed opportunities, but that's not enough reason to simply abandon programs. The poorest Americans need help, and we are obligated to provide that help. Just because we can.

But along with everything the government must collect and allocate money to, we need to be intelligent about our budgeting. We cannot intentionally continue spending when the money isn't coming in. National defense is important, but so is education. I would argue that if we educate ourselves well enough, we will need less defense, but that's not my call. America must get its spending under control.

On to the presidential election.

I am not against John McCain. I was very interested in him back in 2000, because I thought he represented as good an alternative as Al Gore, the presumptive Democrat candidate. In retrospect I think Al Gore would have made an excellent president, but in 8 years as VP he hadn't yet made the right kind of impression on me. Now there's no question he's the most qualified man for the job. Why? Because he gets it. But this is not about him. Why not John McCain?

McCain is older, and in even less control of himself and his emotions than he was, before. He's too irascible, too volatile, too politically motivated. He truckled under to the Bush political machine, and has been giving Bush handjobs for too long. Rebel? Not that I can see.

McCain should have chosen Joe Lieberman for VP. Or Hillary Clinton, even. His current choice is unconscionable, and dangerous. I cannot risk Palin becoming president, so sorry, John, you don't get my vote.

But, what about Obama? He is largely untested, but he's anything but lacking in leadership or intelligence. I recently read criticism against him from someone who claimed that his ability to keep his cool was indication of his lack of both intelligence and leadership. Seems they're seeing only what they want to see. He really cannot afford to lose his cool in this race. It's one very obvious way of distinguishing himself from McCain. I do not want my president losing his cool when the next 9/11-style attack comes, and rushing off to bomb Iran. And John, I'm looking at you, here.

I am disappointed that Obama is high on platitudes but low on details. McCain has much more in terms of substance, and this is a point in his favor. McCain has also been around a long time, also a good thing. But, unlike one pundit who commented "McCain has been around 25 years, and Keating is the only scandal you can come up with?", the lack of controversy in McCain's tenure doesn't quite fit his "maverick" persona. Maybe he is ethical and honest, and the sleazy ones leave him alone. I think the same thing is characteristic of Obama, as well. Ayers is not a scandal for Obama. Ayers isn't a scandal to himself, either. He's a frigging college professor, for pete's sake.

I'm probably where a lot of people are mired. I can only vote against someone, and not for someone. The same was true in both the past elections, when I did not vote for Bush. Kerry missed some opportunities to take to task the sleaze-meisters behind Bush, and therefore lent credence to their specious claims. Obama isn't making that mistake; he's taking the offensive, and that's as it should be.

My history of voting isn't very auspicious. I have notoriously voted for candidates that lost, and I have wasted my share of votes by voting for candidates that had no chance of winning. This time around I have to vote for the candidate that I fear the least, and whom I believe will do things in the best interests of the bulk of Americans. And not just for the wealthy. As Obama says, trickle-down hasn't worked. Shit, it never worked, even when Reagan (who is being hailed as a great man?!?) said it back in ... I dunno, 1980, or so.

No. Any time you give more money to the wealthy, they just get wealthier. Now, maybe they deserve the great wealth they have, but it's because they are wealthy that we can expect them to pay their fair share of the bill. Buffett agrees; he's not griping about the taxes he has to pay. Frankly, I'm not, either. I just want it spent on things other than getting our soldiers killed in Iraq. Yes, my stepson is still in Iraq, and his mother wants him to come home.

Who is the most likely candidate to bring them home? Obama, and that's for whom I'm voting.

OMG, what were they thinking?

Charles Gibson interviews Sarah Palin, presidential hopeful behind John "die in office" McCain, and catches her with her knickers down. So to speak. Jeremy Gerard on Bloomberg.com has rather scathing commentary about it. I don't watch these things on TV, but perhaps I should start. I just read blogs, then blather on as if I know what I'm talking about.

But then, so do you, so I suppose we're even.

I wish Obama had chosen Hilary, but I can understand why he didn't. I'm not so very dead-set against McCain, but since he gave up so easily to Bush back in the 2000 race, he lost my support and hasn't regained it. He would have been a much, much better president than Bush. I think we can all agree.

And Obama will be that much better than McCain. He's the person we need, and this is the time we really need him.

Frankly, we need a president who's elite. I want my president to be the smartest one in the room, and I want the VP to be capable of taking over, should that prove necessary. The combination of McCain and Palin just don't have what it takes. Had McCain picked Lieberman, he'd be in a much better position to argue their qualifications. Really, had he picked almost anyone else, he would be in a better position.

Spiritual/religious considerations aside, we have real-world problems to solve. Praying isn't going to end the war, and bring our servicemen and women home. Well, let's just say it hasn't worked, so far. YMMV.

Great post about religion vs survival

I just found this post and had to cite it here. It's a really well constructed argument for why we should put away this debate about religion and the One True God, and focus instead on using our brains (and science) to enhance our survival.

It's not reasonable to assume anyone is "out there" who will come rescue us at the last moment. We know what we need to survive; why don't we do it? My idea of god would want me to use the tools given to me--all of them, and in any ways I can imagine (and probably in ways I can't even imagine, yet). We're not animals with no volition or choice.

The universe doesn't give a damn about me, or us, or anyone or anything. It's actually hard to say that we care, either, but I know some of us do. Let's wake up, people.

Signs

Stolen from cectic.com.


FSM FTW!

Q: Should atheists be barred from public office?

How long this poll on atheists holding public office will be active is anyone's guess. Probably not that long. The question is the same as my title, above. (It's also been hijacked to where it's now 97% - No, and 3% - Yes.)

I found the following comment (possibly trolling for disagreement) on a post in the blog of a prominent Science Blog writer. Said blogger may also have non-theistic tendencies, as well. On to the comment:

If a man will not acknowledge a Creator, why would he show any reverence for creatures?

If an atheist is consistent in his beliefs, he has every reason to be a tyrant when given authority over others. He has no compelling reason to respect anything in creation.

I find this curious because of the very invalid assumptions this commenter is making. I want to take them one at a time:

1. "If a man will not acknowledge a Creator, why would he show any reverence for creatures?" Wow. Leaving arguments that seem to claim that babies believe in a Creator without any prior knowledge, this would suggest you need belief in a deity in order to be capable of love. Let me suggest that babies and animals do not know or acknowledge any sort of Creator deity, and they are certainly capable of love. But reverence isn't, strictly speaking, love. They just seem synonymous, to me.
   
2. "If an atheist is consistent in his beliefs ..." Curious. I thought an atheist didn't have these kinds of "beliefs." Otherwise, there is nothing at all consistent/inconsistent about what an individual believes. It has nothing to do with anything.
3. "... he has every reason to be a tyrant ..." I am not aware that non-belief in a deity means one must completely disregard others. Disregard for others is sociopathic behavior, and certainly not part of any "atheist manifesto."
   
4. "... no compelling reason to respect anything in creation ..." Other than his acknowledgment that other people and things do, in fact, exist. This doesn't require any sort of belief system, except belief in the existence of the world. Kind of hard to ignore for most people, I'd think. Of course, there may be reasons for one to not have respect, but one basis for respect is acknowledging the existence of something. I respect my car, but I'm pretty sure some guy built it.
   

Only when you can make such broad, baseless assumptions about someone, can you believe such statements as these are reasonable.

So, on the surface the poll question seems curious. As was suggested, a better question could have been "would you vote for an atheist?" which is much more to the point. Both questions hint at the same kind of non-pluralisic thought, but the second one is more valid. We really can't keep someone out of public office for such capricious reasons. I mean, what if we tried to ban all redheads? Makes as much sense--that is, it makes none. But, if you don't like redheads, then you have every right to be utterly ignorant and bigoted, and not vote for them. Can't do anything about that but try to change your mind.

I think we can easily accept that non-believers are just as capable of love, respect, and reverence as anyone else. It doesn't take belief in some supernatural god to see the majesty and magnificence of a mountain. Or in the cosmos. This universe is a truly amazing place, regardless how it came into being. Scratch any scientist and you'll find a very (insanely) curious kid who wants to explore everything and eventually know everything. If there wasn't amazement at what they find in the universe, then I doubt they'd be interested in learning more about it. You can believe everything was created, or you can believe the opposite. It doesn't change your level of engagement. What I'm driving a is this: Many scientists have no faith in deities. Sociopaths are few in number, many fewer than even atheistic scientists. I want to suggest that the most ethical and moral among us have chosen science. It's that insane drive to know, and to act well with that knowledge.

Perfect example of splitting

The news out of Knoxville isn't good. This is what happens when an unfortunate man becomes so powerless and disenfranchised that he seeks a solution to his anguish by striking out at others as if they were to blame for his failures. We all know these folks he injured and killed were not responsible for his plight. As the title suggests, this black-and-white world view is called splitting.

In general, how would you attack something so nebulous as "the Liberal Movement"? What embodies such a thing? Now, the church he entered was a Unitarian Universalist church, which seems to be a rather liberal institution, but of course none of those folks actually prevented him from getting a job. No one person or group did. I hate suggesting it, but I think he may have fallen under the misguided influence of certain "conservative" radio commentators, who seem to see an ung-dly liberal bogie man in everything. Wow, us liberals are more powerful than we thought.

Ironic that our administration for the past 8 years has billed iteself as "compassionately conservative," and yet this man sought to blame liberals for his problems? Methinks he's confused. Of course, since he opened fire in a church and killed two people, his abundant confusion would seem self-evident.

Man, it sucks being under the bootheels of an unfeeling economy as aided and abetted by an elitist "conservative" government whose only accomplishment has been to put us in this situation, then blame others for their own incompetence. Brillant.

Regarding political satire

I've seen the New Yorker cover that portrays Obama as a towel-headed muslim and his wife as a terrorist.

My only problem with this is that some people will believe it. Of course, it doesn't help my already poor opinion of the magazine, either. They're pandering to a bigoted and racist base, but I won't be one to tell them they can't publish the cover, or say any damn thing they please. But people is really ignorant, and some will believe the most fantastical things imaginable. Who's to say this won't be one of them? Obama is some kind of America-hating muslim? Sure, why not.

Behind his "outrage," I'm sure McCain is chuckling. He can't buy this much good publicity for the negative racial stereotypes I'm quite sure he'd like to nail to the foreheads of the Obamas.