Election

If you only follow the mainstream news outlets, there's a fair chance that you have missed what is likely the biggest story this year - the current mass protests in Iran over the fraud of their recent election. From what I have seen and heard, it is being covered only in passing, and with absurd efforts to connect it to our own narrow political squabbles. But if you want to get a sense of what is really going on, I suggest poking around a bit - Andrew Sullivan is probably the best place to start. Though be warned, a lot of the material he is posting is pretty raw - meaning that it is bloody and violent, and much of it of indeterminate accuracy.

But given Iran's history (both recent and over the long scope of human civilization) and critical position in a volatile part of the world, what is happening there now is incredibly important. And in many ways, it shows both the best and the worst of humanity - the twin aspects of a quest for freedom and a dedicated hold on power no matter the cost.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to my blog.)

I'm not sure what to make of the completely-unconfirmed-yet-fascinating possibility that arose today that Ted Kaufman, the newly appointed U.S. Senator from Delaware, might be an atheist. (Props to Trina at Examiner.com for beating me to the story...she is quick!) The germ of this idea comes from a New York Times article today in which Kaufman refers to his "way of thinking" as "humanistic."

Characteristically overblowing the word's implication, as is their wont, Gawker sounded the we-might-have-an-atheist-in-our-midst alarm. As has been noted, if Sen. Kaufman is an atheist, and he confirms it, he would be the highest-ranking avowed atheist in American political history. But I wonder if such a confirmation would really do anything to advance atheists in the political realm, rather than simply serve as a brief oddity.

Over the course of the last few days, many writers have congratulated or condemned President Obama for his inclusion of "nonbelievers" in his inaugural address. Though there is disagreement even within like-minded communities as to how important or meaningful the mention was, there seems to be from my anecdotal perspective a fairly universal acknowledgment that part of the reasoning for the shout-out was raw numbers. And that raw, magic number is 16.1 percent.

16.1 comes from the most recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life which sampled over 35,000 adults to see how many people believe what in the United States. Atheists are included in that very sizable number, and according to Pew, it is the fasted growing segment of all! Hooray!

But 16.1 percent of the country are not atheists. This number actually signifies those who are "unaffiliated." That means exactly what it sounds like, and I'm just going to quote the Pew website here to clarify exactly how this breaks down:

OK, sound off - what are you doing this morning? Trying to get any work done, or have you just given up and are paying attention to the Inauguration?

One of the luxuries (also one of the dangers) of working for myself is that I get to set my schedule. And I long ago decided I wasn't going to try and get anything done at least this morning - I wanted to celebrate the removal of Bush from office. I admit, I would have preferred to have it happen with him either leaving in a box, or being dragged out in handcuffs, but you take what you can get - there are worse things than a constitutional transfer of power. I was going to get drunk in celebration of that bastard being gone.

The Concord Monitor comes out against Rick Warren at Barack Obama's inauguration. . .but not only does the Monitor oppose Warren because of his anti-gay views, the paper (once named by Time Magazine as one of America's best newspapers) comes to the conclusion that inaugural prayers ought to be done away with entirely:

Do we need an inaugural prayer? Somehow, in a country that has become more and more diverse, a country that includes not only Protestants, but also Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and nonbelievers, the tradition seems an anachronism that future presidents would do well to scrap.

Formal prayers by Christian ministers have been associated with presidential inaugurations from the get-go, but they're surely no requirement. And while you might assume such prayers would be of the tepid, generic, non-denominational variety, a quick look back at recent overtly religious invocations will surely give many Americans, regardless of their personal religious affiliations, pause.

Structure fires happen. Sometimes it's just an overloaded electrical outlet, sometimes it's carelessness with cooking, sometimes it's arson. You can seldom tell what the cause was until a competent investigation has been carried out. Almost always in the wake of a fire, even if arson is suspected, some local authority will make this kind of initial statement, as reported in an AP news story:

No one was injured in the fire, which was set Friday night while a handful of people, including two children, were inside, according to Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

* * *

"It's hard to say at this point. Everything is just speculation," he said. "We have no information on intent or motive."

Just speculation. Investigation pending. Let us get on with our work.

Which is why I find it rather telling that someone involved with the structure in question - a church - finds it necessary to say this:

Giving Up on God

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

OK, she still makes a bow in the direction of the alter, saying that private belief still makes people and society better. But the main thrust of her column is that religion has poisoned politics, particularly Republican politics, for the last generation.

*to the tune of Betty Davis Eyes. Apologies to Kim Carnes.

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

She's in Reagan's mold
McCain's big surprise
She won't be undersold
She's got Sarah Palin eyes

She'll turn her bullshit on you
You won't get to think twice
She's the Right Wing show
She's got Sarah Palin eyes

That quote from Havelock Ellis somewhat captures my mood this morning. The Onion's take on the election results captures another aspect of how I feel: we had to see things descend to the point where we were ready to make a significant change.

I am too old, too cynical, (and this morning too hungover), to think that the election of Barack Obama means that everything is going to be perfect in the coming months and years. Nor do I believe that our politicians will be able to completely resist the urge to return to type and put their own power above the needs of the nation. The mindset of "screw the other guy" is just too entrenched.

Via 538:

Today's Polls, 3 AM Edition (11/3)

Barack Obama's position has become somewhat stronger since our update this afternoon. We now have him with a 5.8 point lead in the national popular vote, and winning the election 96.3 percent of the time. Earlier today, those figures were 5.4 and 93.7, respectively.

If you're not too much of an election geek, you may not know 538, because they're pretty hardcore. Basically, they use all the available polling information, and run simulations to see what the distribution of different results depending on voting models is. When they say that Obama has a 96.3% win rate, that means that of their simulations, Obama wins 9,630 of 10,000 (they run 10,000 simulations each time).

We'll know soon enough, but what's your prognostication? I'm thinking that we're going to see something very rare in American politics - a true landslide. I'll say Obama will get close to 400 electoral votes, when all is said and done, and have something in the vicinity of 55% of the popular vote.

What's your prediction?

Jim Downey

An interesting examination of the linguistics behind Sarah Palin's assertions that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists", from Anil Dash:

What Sarah Palin Is Saying

Sarah Palin has been unsurprising in her criticisms of Barack Obama's credentials and policies, fulfilling the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate being the most aggressive and pointed rhetorical attacker in a campaign. But a closer look at her deliberate use of vernacular and language reveals that she has gone far beyond any other candidate in vice presidential history in the dangerous and irresponsible implications of her attacks. She has phrased her attacks on Obama in a way that avoids accountability to the press while specifically addressing the subset of her audience who are most likely to advocate extreme actions against Obama.

* * *

An old friend sent me a link to a video the other day. I've been busy enough getting ready to go on vacation next week that I hadn't taken the time to sit and watch it.

I wish I had - it's hilarious. Obscene, ranting (in a musical sort of way), but very funny. Well, it is to me, anyway, though if you're a fan of Sarah Palin I imagine that it will make your head explode.

After the jump:

. . . there's this thing called a Constitution, and you can't just suppress people's freedom of speech (no, not even children's) without damned good reason and clear application.

*sigh*

Fightin’ Fifth-Grader in Obama T-Shirt Causes Flap at Colorado School

Another week, another free speech flap in our nation’s public schools. This time, we head to Colorado, where 11-year-old Daxx Dalton (insert snide “Daxx” comment here) has been suspended for refusing to remove a homemade t-shirt that reads: “Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.” Dalton’s suspension was reportedly for willful disobedience and defiance, not for wearing the shirt.

Spent some time today messing around tracking a chain email from a guy named Joe Porter out of Illinois who took the trouble as a purported independent to tout John McCain in a long-winded and substanceless way. I'm sure the piece is getting around, but has little web presence so far, probably because it's so stereotypical. It's theme is, essentially that the author is the possessor of immense Republican street cred, being:

46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner

And that, while being a POW for five years does not qualify someone to be President, John McCain is qualified to be President because he spent 5 years as a POW.

That's pretty much it.

Sarah Palin doesn't matter. John McCain doesn't matter. Obama doesn't even matter.

Both parties could run lampposts for office and get the same results. That Republican lampposts could do less damage than their candidiates is irrelevant because people would vote for them anyway along party lines.

My cynicism is based on the observation that, while individual people tend to think like Democrats--generally in favor of the proposition that government should help people who need help--when in groups, people tend to think like Republicans--other peoples' problems are just that, and government should help people who are deserving of help, i.e. "us".

The basically tribal nature of humans means that they will act as their group identity suggests to retain that group membership, regardless of the suicidal outcome of that action. Since they want to go along with the group, they are very suceptible to being told what the group thinks by anyone in the group who cares to do so.

I had never even heard of Sarah Palin until Vox Day picked her as the VP nominee two full days before it was announced by the McCain camp. (How the heck did you see that one coming, Vox?)

Now, a week or so later, I am a bit worried.

You see, like Mrs. Palin's future son-in-law Levi, I'm also a fuckin' redneck. I like to to camp, hunt, ride dirt bikes, shoot guns, and hang out with the boys. Like Todd and Sarah, I too have five kids. I worked in blue-collar, 12 hours a day, up-to-your-elbows-in-grease jobs most of my adult life. I like country music. I wear a cowboy hat. I ride horses. I drink Coors Light. I listen to the Blue Collar Comedy guys, and think Larry The Cable Guy is an unsung comedy genius.

Like I said - a redneck.

The one thing I don't share with my farmer-tanned brethren is god belief. I don't have any, but most of them do. This places me into a really weird position politically. For most of my life I voted Republican. Heck, I was a conservative Republican. But the overt and covert religiosity, and the growing dominionist, theocratic themes in the GOP turned me away. I switched over to the Libertarian Party - but it's not a great fit for me either. I don't think I'll ever be a registered Democrat. I just don't identify with enough of their platform. That's not to say that I won't vote for a Democrat though, or for a Republican for that matter, if I decide that they happen to be the best person for the job.

In any case, my point is that Sarah Palin could have stood up at the Republican National Convention and read the phone book (well, People Magazine, anyway,) and the redneck "Get 'er Done!" folks would have still voted for her - not McCain alone - in droves.

I am *already* hearing it from my redneck friends and family members. "She's just like us!" They exclaim. "That nice Levi boy is going to marry Bristol, and she's not going to kill her baby! And her mom supports her!" And what about "Iron Dog" Todd Palin, commercial fisherman, champion snowmobile racer, and oil field worker? "The First Dude is a real man - did you hear how he finished a snowmobile race with a broken arm? Very cool. I think it'd be awesome to hang out with him and have a beer." Not to mention the absolutely golden video of little Piper Palin licking her hand and smoothing down Baby Trig's hair was about the cutest thing they say they've ever seen.

Do not underestimate the redneck vote. They will rise up in a flurry of mullets and "Who Farted" hats and absolutely crush Obama and Biden if those two don't get their poop in a group and do something quickly. (Here's a tip, Barack my friend; I like you, but ease up on the anti-gun stuff, and please try to stop coming across like an Ivy League asshole when you talk to us regular joes. It's going to lose you this election if you're not careful.)

I don't know if McCain made this choice, or if it was orchestrated by Rove, but whoever did it thought it through. It is either an act of sheer genius that will sweep McCain into the Oval Office, or Palin will self-destruct even past the point where getting the redneck vote can save her. The Republicans are betting that she holds it together, obviously, and she well might.

If she does hold it together, then we might all be in a lot of trouble. Because make no mistake about it, she is a far, FAR right religious theocrat who has used her political power in the past to endorse her own wacky theology. She seems to believe that she was chosen by her God to do well in the political arena, spurred by her prophetic pastor's encouragement from his pulpit - and the VP nod is only going to fuel their conviction that she is being supported supernaturally by Binky The Magic Space Clown (or whoever she thinks made the universe with magic.)

In short, we've got to win this one folks. If we don't, we're screwed. McCain is just too damned frail to have someone like Palin sitting in the on-deck spot.

Your thoughts? What am I missing here? Is it as bad as I think it is?

If John McCain sits under the Cone of Silence ...

Does that mean he's really Maxwell Smart?

In his own inimitable way, the Rude Pundit this morning posted about the absurd FISA legislation currently being debated in the Senate. The non-obscene central point:

If Madison or Benjamin Franklin could, they would bitch slap the Democrats in Congress for legalizing the ability of the President to authorize spying on Americans with no oversight, no cause other than whatever whim the President wants to call an emergency. And to the Republicans who pinched each other's nipples in joy at how the Democrats raised their haunches for easy access, the Rude Pundit hopes you trust the hell out of President Obama.

That's the thing that amazes me: the Republicans, almost without exception, are willing to turn this kind of power over to a Democratic president. Who will likely have a solidly Democratic House and Senate behind him.

Have they lost their minds?

Nah, not me. That's the title of a new Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi.

Taibbi went 'undercover' to attend an Encounter Weekend at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in Texas. Hagee, you may recall, has been recently in the news for being batshitinsane, and oh yeah - for endorsing John McCain for president.

And Taibbi is not being metaphorical or ironic in his title. He is referring to the culmination of the Encounter Weekend, where:

Today Romney gave a speech on his Mormonism to squelch the effects of religious bigotry on his chances of receiving the Republican nomination for President. In the speech Glen Johnson of AP cites these three quotes in succession (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_28;_ylt=...):

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

He assailed "the religion of secularism" he said was creeping into American life, and drew chuckles from his invited audience as he complained that Europe's picturesque cathedrals are largely empty amid societies "too busy or just too `enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."

Romney said: "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders, in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

So let me get this straight. We should be tolerant of other people’s revelation of the divine.

But if your personal revelation should lead you to a secular worldview, then you should just accept that you are not a citizen. At least that is what I take from his condemnation of the enlightenment (which by the way the founders would have taken a dim view of) and his endorsement of the phrases In God “WE” trust (if you don’t trust God you are not part of WE) and “One nation” under God (if you don’t believe in God you are not part of this “one nation).”

Way to attack religious bigotry Mitt. By perpetuating that a significant percentage of the American public is less American than others because of religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

Tully