In All Prahlbability..

This Dance Is Not Over

2008-04-30T16:56:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama cannot win this fight. Let's recap what's happened so far: First, the videos of Rev. Wright surface, causing nearly everyone, regardless of their politics, to ask what Obama has to say on the subject. Then we hear everyone speak their piece, argue for awhile, and do it all over again.

Then the speech. Sen. Obama gives a speech on race in America, a speech that either heightened suspicion, or made people remember why they like Barack Obama in the first place. The enemies claimed political posturing, bad comparisons, and dodging the bullet. The friends claimed it was a great American speech, and would go down in history. What we know for sure is that it did not fix the problem.

After that, there were debates, press conferences, blogs, editorials, and columns. And when you pare it down, nothing new was said. But then Rev. Wright comes back, after accepting his highly questionable retirement package, and saves (bad word choice?) us from the monotony. And yesterday, Obama gave what I'm guessing was supposed to be the nail-in-the-coffin speech.

That brings us up to date, but nothing has been fixed. I'm not sure what Sen. Obama can do to get rid of this, but I know the only satisfactory solution would have been avoiding that church altogether, and spending the last 20 years somewhere else. No matter what he chose today, though, his judgment looks very sketchy.

Of course everyone realizes that ignoring this and pushing ahead wasn't an option. When most of the country takes a day or a week to denounce Mr. Wright, it's hard to accept a candidate who puts apparently blind faith into him. Obama tried to convince America that Mr. Wright wasn't that guy, that the whole picture wasn't available, that he didn't preach hate and division, and so on. But the Reverend just couldn't let that happen.

The dumb, hateful remarks just kept coming, and finally Obama said enough. I foolishly thought at first that people would be satisfied seeing Sen. Obama finally agree with them and end this relationship. But I was wrong. There still remains a 20-year friendship that hasn't been explained, and let's face it: nothing Barack Obama can ever say or do will make the criticism go away, short of going back in time and fixing this before it started.

And in addition to that, we have a new negative spin: Sen. Obama's remarks disowning Wright were "political posturing." Six weeks ago he defended and still cared for Wright, now he suddenly doesn't. It obviously couldn't have had anything to do with Wright acting a fool lately. But you see where this is headed. The complaining won't stop because nothing is going to fix this, and every response is wrong.

Personally, this whole thing never really bothered me, for a few reasons. (1) I don't expect my president to be perfect, or to have kept his bid for office in mind since he was ten years old. (2) I don't subscribe to the idiotic belief that everyone you know must agree with civil Christian values, and that if you do, you're obviously unfit to lead others. In fact, to survive in Washington, isn't it good to have experience dealing with zealous fools who can't think rationally? And (3) even if this can be called bad judgment, I'd say Obama's got an impressive record. He has a relationship with Rev. Wright, and loose ties to William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan. This is absolutely unremarkable compared to the Clinton legacy of overt lies and and their record of doing anything at all at the expense of others simply to save face.

Hillary Clinton actually used her shameless history as a badge of honor in the Pennsylvania debates. She admitted she had a lot of baggage, and claimed she's better off for it, since it's all out in the open. That we know about it is true enough, but that doesn't excuse anything, least of all her most recent fabrication about her Bosnia trip. Never mind that her wealth of foreign policy experience consists of flying around on taxpayer money to have grip-and-grins with foreign dignitaries.

Realizing my very biased position, I offer this take: Obama's mistake was the same as the other two candidates: spending the last 20 years in any church at all. You're not going to tell me Billy Graham is any better than Wright. Or that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't prey and profit on racism. Obama's handful of mistakes tell me that he's human. I give him credit for doing so well. Hell, he deserves a medal, if we're to accept the idea that this guy has no experience whatsoever. He's done far better than Hilary Clinton in every measurable way, and with far less shame.

There are no words..

2008-04-11T22:50:00.002-05:00

I just read another story about the worst parents in the country (see previous post) - They apparently still believe, according to police, that she could be resurrected. These people really should be in a padded room. Yes, according to them, the two people in history: Jesus Christ and the little girl from Wausau who was tragically killed by her parents asinine excuse for a religion.

More lives fall to religion, more Americans fall to idiocy.

2008-04-11T21:34:00.002-05:00

First of all, let me just say that I can't believe that I'm writing about this. It seemed from the get-go like a simple matter of complete lack of common sense. A couple of parents who should've been stripped of their right to bear children. But in what I can only describe as a real asshole move, the country just can't seem to tip back from the point of insanity we're dangerously close to reaching.

If you haven't heard of the story by now, here it is: In Wausau, Wisconsin, an 11-year-old girl had diabetes, and it killed her. A similar thing recently happened in Oregon, this time it was pneumonia. The reason this is such an outrage is because no one realized she had it. For "religious reasons," her parents had not given her any medical attention since she was 3 years old, deciding instead that a divine course of action would be more suitable: praying.

At this point, I thought that everyone would have the tiny bit of intelligence it would take to realize that her parents are horrible human beings, and that the tragedy here was that some illness had not claimed them before this happened. They are, after all, the ones who made this choice, paying for it in other lives, not their own.

I was wrong, however, and I heard on a conservative christian radio show the host casually brush this off, proclaiming that "of course the parents shouldn't be charged" with anything. He then went on to try to find a way to show that the police should not have intervened in a religious compound in Texas, where a 16-year-old girl was allegedly sexually abused and impregnated by a man more than 3 times her age.

To illustrate what the reaction has been from the moron point of view, here are some comments I have heard or read:

from an anonymous dope,
"In this context and based on the parents beliefs, neglect could only be attributed IF the parents were NOT praying for their child. Under their expression of faith they were perfectly caring and supportive of their child's health. YOU don't have the right to call them neglectful. I think it is wrong what they did and that this is a tragedy, but I am not about to assume that what they have been through was easy. Imagine their pain and sense of loss, imagine how their faith is being tried right now. Imagine how they must feel isolated and persecuted in their own country?"

from a reverend,
"it's easy to judge a family for doing this or not doing that, but the bottom line is, they did what's best in their heart, and the result turned out to be bad."

from the POLICE who investigated this!
"There is no reason to remove [the other children]. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

It seems to me that DEATH is abuse enough to make an effort to protect the older children. There's no reason why the parents would single this girl out to fend for herself, is there?

Anyway, a forum where this was posted at www.indymoms.com (make your judgments before proceeding), left me flabbergasted. Many of the responses said that although personally, the reader was appalled at what happened and thought the parents were stupid, we should not charge them, and we should respect their beliefs. I don't care if God lived down the block from me, when you're beliefs start killing people, fuck respect.

And to top off the night, getting back to the radio show I was angry at, a caller (who I will define as a practicing atheist) said, "You know, uh, I'm not a practicing christian or anything, but uh, that thing about praying to make people better... you know, there might be something to that."

I trust that you'll be able to generate your own outrage based on those half-wits' comments, and move on. Keep in mind that two of these have recently made national headlines. I'm sure many more go on unreported. Then we had the sexual abuse in Texas, which was handled properly by police, thankfully. No charges have been filed in this Wisconsin case, but I sure hope they are soon. If you know of a murder, but don't try to stop it or inform police, you're an accessory. If you find out even after it's done, and don't inform police, you're an accessory. But there's a chance that it's possible to stop every force that could save your daughter's life, and instead watch her wither away in your own home without telling anyone, and be completely innocent? I don't think so.

I wonder what people would say if I took a relative off life support without telling anyone, and prayed for them to survive anyway? There is discussion of what kinds of constitutional issues are involved, but I don't think it's that complicated. I had this crazy idea in my head that I had rights, and I was the only one who could wave them. What was that one right? The inalienable one? Oh yeah: LIFE. If we've decided as a country that our rights can be taken away by other people who aren't punished for it - people who are forgiven purely because they're ignorant rubes without the slightest capability for logical thinking left in their bodies, then I swear...

I'm going to go live with the socialist, Godless, Euro-weasels.

I'll plagiarize now a Christopher Hitchens line, that he used when speaking about the late buffoon Jerry Falwell: "I'm sorry there's no hell for her parents to go to."

A Friendly Reminder From The Chicago Tribune...

2008-04-04T10:01:00.002-05:00

Factor military duty into criticism

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades.

Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him.

We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons.

Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country.

How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.

While words do count, so do actions.

Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.

Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss are, respectively, Navy and Marine Corps veterans. They work at The Center For American Progress. Korb served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration.

(And a note from me: I was reminded by someone recently that Dr. Martin Luther King, for all the praise we give him today, also had a lot to say criticizing America towards the end of his life, and those comments got him dis-invited to the White House, and possibly contributed to his murder. You'd think we'd have grown up.)

The Failing of Christopher Hitchens

2008-04-04T01:32:00.002-05:00

In a past radio interview of Christopher Hitchens conducted on Dennis Prueger's radio show, a question came up which I feel that Hitchens did not answer to his full ability. Throughout the show, Prueger used a series of theoretical questions imposed on Hitchens designed to force him into admitting a preference toward the religious. They were heavily tilted questions like, "If you were in an unfamiliar American city, lost, late at night, and ten men were approaching you, would you be comforted by the knowledge that they had just come from a bible class?" Also, "If you could either rid the world of religion, or of evil secular dictatorships, which would you choose?" Notice the choice is always between a wide-spanning influence on the world and a distinctly negative one.

At any rate, during a brief touch on the subject of evolution, Prueger posed the question to Hitchens, "If you had a choice, would you rather be created by an intelligent designer, or a process of random mutations that were then selected for survival?"

Hitchens gave a long answer, not directly addressing the question, and though what he said had merit, it was not a satisfactory answer one way or another. He discussed the tendency toward wish-thinking that is, as he called it, "a mammalian failing." I will go on record here and say that of course, given the choice, I would choose a designer, as I suppose would any intelligent person, whether you've studied evolution or not. There's no reason not to choose certainty in this case.

And this is what I wish Hitch (if I may impose the informal appellation) had addressed. Though most anyone would wish for such a thing, that is not our failing. The failing of the human species is the ability to be completely and utterly swayed by emotion. Dennis Prueger's emotions have convinced him that if we are uncertain about the answer to a question, the wisest choice is the one you would hope for. Emotion can manipulate us to throw away any semblance of logic we may have had. It can change our vote, change our philosophy, change our tolerance, and change our morality. And it can be used most efficiently for creating irrational evil in people. That's arguably the most effective way to reduce a decent person to an immoral machine.

The other point of contention that is often missed, and conceded by the secularist without even knowing it in many cases, is that no amount of Utopian dreams or theoretical preferences makes anything a fact. The obvious fact, that many people want, or hope, that their religion is true does not convey any credibility to the belief. I wish that I could produce money by means of mental concentration, and of course no one would think that's possible even if the whole world wished it so. But more absurd than that would be for me to base my life, morals, and philosophy on that wish. And when my point is taken to this level, so rarely done by non-believers in arguments or debate, it shows an inherent weakness in the case of the pious.

There may very well be better arguments out there for belief, or hypothetical proof that such beliefs are true, but if the person being challenged doesn't know them, they should seriously doubt their own convictions. Hope or trust, or some variation on those feelings is not a reliable or useful center of life and world view. As Dawkins said, to presume God because you think it to be the best possible answer, "is to presume the truth of every conclusion we seek to prove."

Press 2008: Running For Offices of Nobility, Democracy, Concern

2008-03-31T14:45:00.002-05:00

Well, with no primary coverage to instill the urge in voters to violently abuse their tv screens, the press has decided on their own campaign message: fairness. They have flooded their papers and websites with stories and editorials championing the right of Hillary Clinton to stay in this race, for the benefit of the people. They're compassionate. They believe voters need this to continue so we can be more informed, know the issues at stake a little more in depth. But oddly enough, this seems to be little more than a symbolic gesture.

A quick scan of the New York Times and the Washington Post political pages hardly shows a well balanced array of stories about health care, the economy, what candidates think of real political issues. Why was it that the controversy over the democrat health care plans wasn't resolved by the papers? Why did people instead have to sit through endless campaign ads that quoted big-name opinions on who left behind the most people? A health care plan seems to me to be one that is designed with numbers, prices, tax brackets, and policy. Shouldn't these things easily fall under the purview of fact, not opinion?

One should keep in mind during this crusade to get back to issues, the high strata of integrity that is Michael Kinsley of the Washington Post decided to give us hard-hitting campaign coverage of why Hillary deserves credit for her make-up routine. So glad to know he did his duty and kept us up to date. It's this duality of the press that needs to be resolved. The New York Times stated that although they endorsed John McCain to be president, they felt that publishing that premature and under-researched article spreading 8-year-old rumors about his personal life was okay, because the editorial staff doesn't communicate with other departments. A real tight ship. I'll concede, whether it was premeditated or not, it was to their advantage, giving them something to fill some more columns with and certainly selling a lot more papers.

When we are faced with candidates calling in favors, making promises that are either empty or not possible to achieve, we need the press to report on issues, to call candidates on flawed plans, and to make sure the voters aren't fooled. We can't have them making empty promises and calls to action as well. If a paper or a network wants us to be informed, start informing, rather than criticize Obama supporters who think it's time to gear up behind him and fight John McCain. Why hasn't a news source tried to explain what it's going to be like transitioning to a new health care system, if a democrat succeeds? Why hasn't anyone stated that even if we elect an award-winning economist to the oval office, or cut taxes until the government's the size of a mom and pop store, there will still be poor people. And there will still be well-off people who live extravagantly and have little or no self-control who will say they're poor.

I'm still waiting to hear what any of the candidates have to say about agriculture subsidies, or college tuition, or school vouchers. Why was Mike Huckabee the only guy to go to for a great education plan? Seems ironic since in every other respect his campaign was about fighting a war and overturning Roe v. Wade.

Democracy will fail when the press loses it's freedom. Someone who works at a network should not be suspended for asking a question that Hillary Clinton doesn't like to hear. They should be fired if reported wrong information intentionally. But asking an honest question? And then when Hillary pretends that Chelsea is a defenseless child and must be protected from the public, even when she's campaigning in places her mother doesn't feel are important enough to visit herself, what do we get? We get David Schuster going on the air and making a pathetic half-hearted apology, and then trying to hang on to a job for asking a simple question, that still deserves an answer. The Clintons, or any other candidates, for that matter, should not control the press. NBC should offer to stop covering Hilary altogether, if she doesn't like them.

Forget the democrats, the national press needs to grow a pair first.

Christians - Stop Trying To Claim Deists As Your Allies.

2008-03-29T20:44:00.004-05:00

It is time to end the excruciating process of continually debating whether founding fathers of America, or eminent scientists of old, or any other respectable figures give merit to the arguments for or against dogmatic belief in a monotheistic religion.

We must make a distinction, before proceeding, between world views based on theory and those based on practice in everyday life. The necessary state of being for the Christian religion, if it is to survive in some semblance of its present form, it that of a practical belief. By that I mean that your views about God, what his wishes and plans are, and what his history is, must play a central role in your choices. You must take your religion into account in some cases with respect to which clothes you wear, what food you eat, the people who you may associate with, socially acceptable hobbies or practices, and what habits you permit indulgence in.

But deism does not mean that one who claims it as characteristic of their views is sympathetic in any way to the monotheistic tradition, or that in the absence of any persuasive factors, a deist would default to favoring dogma over reason. Deism, by definition, means that in theory one may indulge in a hope or fantasy in which there was an ultimate creator being, or some larger force in this universe, but that such an entity would never, and has never played a role in pedestrian affairs on the level of humanity.

This is crucially important. In theory, that is all well and good, but it is not more significant than claiming that one believes in Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. None of those beliefs will sway your views of morality, of politics, or obscure reasoned debate. A deistic god is one which we will never know until after death. We cannot know its mind or its passions. We do not know its concerns or its love. It's comparable to the belief in extra-terrestrial life in that, in all but a few extreme cases, though it may be a notable conversation starter, such belief is never going to manifest itself in a deliberate changing of habits, lifestyle, or choices. I will even be so bold as to say that a dogmatic follower of religion is insulting to a deist, given the unabashed arrogance of a theist who claims to know the mind of god, and what's more, to be endowed with the responsibility of upholding such standards.

There is also pantheism, or the belief that the word "god" is merely a label for energy, or matter, or nature. Examples in this line of thinking may be the transcendentalists of the 19th century like Thoreau or Emerson, who held the position that the earth , or untamed wilderness, was divine. This also is a notable observation, but ignoring possible conservationist tendencies, this view once again holds no control over the mind's navigation.

Atheism is the most extreme view on the sliding scale, holding that no god or divine presence exists or ever did. And again, two atheistic scientists could argue until they're blue in the face over opposing theories of the origins of life or the universe, and no conclusion will instill the idea in anyone that, for example, one shouldn't eat pork.

The very fact that we have a term for non-belief in God is only a symptom of the times we live in, when such people are in a small minority. Atheism does not carry with it necessary adherence to any rules or traditions; it is simply a statement that one won't be beholden to religious coercion without sufficient evidence of benefit or necessity.

When one reads a history of the 19th century, particularly in America, an account is not found of racists, and non-racists. An account is nearly always concerning "people," and "abolitionists." Interesting that there was not a common label for those who had beliefs in inherent inequality, only one for those who realized such beliefs were absurd. In modern times, "people" now refers to the equivalent of abolitionists - those for equality - and "racist" is now the most common term to describe the norm of that time, or "people" of the 19th century.

The point, is that a label, though it may be accurate, maybe also be a symptom of the times, or it may be a symptom of other factors outside the realm of what a given label describes. To say that you believe in some sort of God doesn't make you for monotheism, or dogma, or against reason and action based solely on evidence.

What is important to note about beliefs is the effect they have on how you behave, and how you treat others. In this respect, atheists, deists, pantheists, and even the occasional monotheist agree that nothing we believe without evidence gives us the right to make moral judgments about actions that don't hurt or affect other people. Dogmatic believers are on their own in the fight to say that what benign activity someone does anywhere in the world, even someone you will never meet, is possibly personally insulting. You would be hard pressed to find a deist who supports that.

A More Perfect Union

2008-03-23T16:29:00.002-05:00

And this, from Slate.com (url - http://www.slate.com/id/2186849/):

The Full ObamaBarack Obama's sweeping speech on race.

By John Dickerson
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at 3:16 PM ET Barack Obama

Can you give a State of the Union address before you're president? Barack Obama talked about race in America for 45 minutes in a nearly 5,000-word speech. That was longer than some of the annual presidential addresses, and though, yes, those speeches tend to cover more topics, this one felt like it addressed the actual state of our union more than those dreary January list readings presidents are obligated to perform.

The speech was deeply personal. Barack Obama is America. He contains multitudes. He started with the contradiction in the Constitution that celebrated freedom but allowed slavery and continued embracing and exploring contradictions throughout—from his own complex heritage to the complex makeup of the black church to the white immigrant experience. All of this was in the service of addressing the contradiction that threatens to derail his campaign: how he can embrace his former pastor and denounce him at the same time.

Can Obama's speech of so many words blot out the YouTube videos of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright saying "God damn America"? It probably can't as a blunt political matter. Obama didn't answer Wright's rebuke with an equally hot riposte. The speech failed to address head-on Wright's damning of America or any of his other remarks about 9/11 or AIDS. Obama asked for points for political courage for not abandoning Wright, and he should get them. Abandonment would have been more expedient. White blue-collar men in Pennsylvania would have applauded shoving Wright over, and his rock-solid black supporters probably would have understood. But Obama's courage didn't extend to directly taking on the words that have caused such controversy.

Instead, Obama was cool and reasoned. At times he sounded like he was giving a graduate lecture in need of editing both for length and tone. He didn't need to refer to Geraldine Ferraro twice. His speech was flying at 30,000 feet, and the dip to the crass political level didn't feel right. It also seemed like a cheap attempt to loop Wright and Ferraro with the same lasso, suggesting a moral equivalence between a former congresswoman's stupid remarks and the stone-cold preaching of hate. Obama should have known that's how it would sound. For a candidate who promises to reach across the aisle, Obama also probably didn't help himself with Republicans by arguing that Ronald Reagan profited from the white anger equivalent to the black anger that gave rise to Wright's remarks.

Still, if you're a Democrat, I imagine Obama's speech probably made you feel like you wanted him to be the one you cheer on the convention stage in Denver. Hillary Clinton has been claiming that his candidacy amounts to "just words"—and making a pretty good case for it. Today was a speech, too, of course, but it also showed the power of language to move people to common understanding and to persuade, a key presidential trait. It touched on a highly sensitive subject with art and skill and called listeners to the same kind of collective action that Obama has successfully sold all throughout the campaign. Even if you didn't buy everything he said, you might be impressed with a person who can take on such a subject so quickly with such scope. Obama managed to chart the topography of the black church and failures within the African-American community as well as put his finger on the elements of anger that exist in the white community. Remember also that he did all of this while in the middle of a sleep-stealing, gut-punching presidential campaign, which is like writing the speech while riding backward on a flaming unicycle.

Obama made several deft pivots in the speech, first seeking to put Wright's remarks in context of the black experience without excusing them and then pinpointing the sense of permanent grievance that will always hold those with Wright's views back. It was an attempt to go beyond simply condemning him but to understand and learn from his paralysis. He then sought to do the same for white anger about African-Americans. It was bold and risky in a way that Obama often claims for his candidacy but rarely achieves, and we got a glimpse of how his attempt to bring people together works in practice rather than merely having to take on faith his assertion that he can do so.

He closed his remarks just as expertly with a moving story about a volunteer's selflessness—first in dealing with her cancer-stricken mother and then by devoting her life to helping others—that will likely make "I'm here because of Ashley" a rallying cry for his campaign. I found myself wanting to find Ashley and thank her.

The penultimate clever pivot was maybe too clever, though. In his speech, Obama decried the YouTube era of politics that reduces everyone to small, grainy clips endlessly replayed on cable news. But if it wasn't for the replaying of Wright's remarks on YouTube, Obama wouldn't have been forced to give the speech on race in the first place. (He ducked a question about Wright during one of the last debates.) And yet if he's claiming the speech as a great act of political courage, then why did he need YouTube to bring it about? This is making a virtue out of necessity, I suppose, but it also seems like he's claiming too much credit for himself.

We have a choice, Obama said, about the kind of politics we practice. How we behave next will be a test of whether we will accept a "politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism" or demand something new. That's what he's been preaching all along, so when he warned against continuing to fixate on Wright's remarks and slicing and dicing exit polls for racial data, it seemed like he was calling voters, the press, and his opponents to join him up on the high road he's been riding for a year. But in his list of bad political behavior, he included pouncing "on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card." It was his campaign that raced to the airwaves to jump on a Drudge Report item about a supposed Clinton staffer supposedly passing around a picture of Obama. And it was his staffers who made the most of Geraldine Ferraro's remarks. Obama didn't come out and say that, though, and so in a speech with lots of first pronouns, he missed a chance to talk in a needed way about his own falling short of his standards. It was another contradiction.

A Great Way To Muddle The Presidential Race

2008-02-24T12:44:00.003-06:00

Patriot

Noun

1. One who loves and defends his or her country.

Look closely at that definition. There are two things you can do to be a patriot: love or defend your country. Or both. When the definition becomes, "wear an American symbol on your lapel," then maybe I can have an intelligent debate with the conservative right. The key concept in this and all situations is action. To call yourself anything you must do what you claim. If I call myself a writer I must write. Simply buying a t-shirt that says I write does not establish anything. Symbols lose their significance when 1) they are overused, or 2) when they are abused by people who do not understand them or attach false meanings to them.

John McCain is a patriot. I say that because of his career and his actions in serving this country for most of his life, not because I saw a picture of him with an American flag on his chest. Barack Obama is a patriot because he has served the people of this country in a different way, to give them a better life through his public service. Wearing a pin says nothing about either of them.

I've got some sorry news for a lot of people. Wearing an AIDS ribbon does not help the cause against AIDS; it's not getting us any closer to a cure. The same goes for the pink breast cancer ribbon, or any other disease that has been commercialized. Magnets on the back of your car don't establish anything about your character, except that you want un-due praise. I have never been in the military, and if I wore an army uniform around town it doesn't make me anything of a soldier, and certainly doesn't entitle me to any respect.

These symbols are empty. What matters here is the actions performed, the sacrifices made, that these petty objects represent. You don't need to advertise what you do with your time, as long as you spend it doing something meaningful. A soldier has served his country, and whether he wears his medals in public does nothing to change that.

A man does not need to perform superfluous ceremony and carry evidence of what he has done. The actions will speak for themselves, and when you have performed actions for the good of this country and it's people, no amount of clothing accessories or shallow formalities will change that.

Republicans, supporters of John McCain or not, do not want Barack Obama to be president. Is it because they don't want a president who didn't wear a pin? If that were true this would be a sad, dark day in our country's history. The real reason is that they disagree with what he's proposing to do in office. So why can't they say so? Until the opposition stops fabricating problems and false criticisms, they are destroying the integrity of the race to the highest office in the country.

And that's precisely why they are lesser patriots for it.

On The Problem Of Plagiarism...

2008-02-22T14:23:00.003-06:00

Tobin Harshaw put the issue of Barack Obama's plagiarism to bed today with his piece in the New York Times. As he points out, a line from a Bill Clinton speech in 1992,

“The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time,”

bears a striking resemblance to the line Hilary Clinton touted last night as her crowd-winning finish:

“You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

So now Hilary Clinton's got a clear choice: either drop the childish charges of plagiarism from her attack arsenal, or hold a press conference apologizing for doing the same thing less than an hour after calling Obama on it. Or maybe it's okay to borrow lines from your husband, just not a close friend.

Maybe her cute little insult, "That's not change you can believe in, that's change you can xerox," would have been effective if she didn't do the exact same thing, and if it didn't come across so obviously written that it even drew groans from the live crowd. The whole world knew she was sitting on that stinger and was squirming all night in anticipation of using it.

When will the Clinton camp figure out that every petty insult they throw at Obama does a lot more to hurt their own cause? It only highlights the stark differences between Obama's relatively clean campaign and the Clinton temper-tantrum as they realize that her self-proclaimed advantage in experience is filled with dirty politics and underhanded techniques, rather than honest sacrifice and service to the people.

Take What You Will

2008-02-19T22:53:00.002-06:00

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/02/che-guevara-flags-in-obamas-houston-offi/'

It looks like the final numbers in Wisconsin show 58% for Obama, 41% for Clinton.

Everyone Throw One Back, We'll Be Okay

2008-02-18T20:02:00.004-06:00

Now, as is often said, they start with the dirty-talkin'. First up to bat: Hilary Clinton. Her campaign is starting to huff and puff a bit too much, causing those in the area to snicker under their breath, and in a few cases, leave the room. The one thing the Clinton's are great at is thickening the air.

In a quick desperate grab for this race, Hilary's slicing some tires in her attempts to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention, though no one was allowed to campaign in Florida and Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot. To make matters worse, she's urging super-delegates to ignore the popular vote and decide for the people (who are incompetent) "what's best for the party." Obama is absorbing the blows and trying his damnedest to stay clean. One thing is certain at this point: Hilary won't win a fair fight.

And an eye-poke from Hilary accusing Obama of plagiarism for paraphrasing a section of a speech made by Deval Patrick a few years ago. Mr. Patrick readily stated that this was a ridiculous claim, as he spoke with Mr. Obama many times and they have talked about this issue in the past. Ease up, Clinton, it's starting to look petty.

Matters were worsened when Bill Clinton lost control of his temper a couple times, and struck a spectator in the face with his elbow, inadvertently or not. We can expect the attacks and low-brow efforts to increase dramatically in the next 14 days leading up to Texas.

John McCain has been fairly quiet, picking up polite endorsements now and then. The bastard just can't make up his mind now about his views anymore. Sounds like someone's making a mad dash for the presidency before it's too late. McCain should've started sooner, his pandering skills are very transparent and underdeveloped. However, I will give him major credit for not using his son's very recent service in Iraq as a cheap boost in the polls. Now that people are noticing, he's getting much more credit than he would have for keeping his dirty old mouth shut, the sly bastard.

Ahh, now for Obama. The glaring problem is not his fault, nor can he do much except enjoy it - for now. The dangerous game going on in this corner has everything to do with the voters. Sure he's getting a lot of support and everyone loves him. His charisma has worked too well. Now, I'm not going to say he's all face and no fist, because any informed person knows better than to take such a deplorable stand. No, no. The problem is that his charm has swept this fact from many of his own supporters' minds, and they've simply stopped caring for the fist. He's just so damn pretty!

This doesn't make much difference now, but it will in the future. According to the Obama Spend-O-Meter (I know it's from the GOP, but take heart - they've cited it all, o doubtful ones), Barack has proposed $874 billion in new spending initiatives at this point.

So we've got two roads to go down. The first, obviously is that he pulls it all off, against all odds, and the tax burden devastates the middle class (and the poor aren't much better off for it, either). The country goes into a horrific downward spiral and we take 40 years to recover, handing over the title belt for the Super-Power weight-class to the European Union!!

No.

Which leaves the other road. We all know that obviously these things will not happen. Maybe some will pass - hopefully health-care, if he likes the idea of a second term. But this is not what Barack Obama has got to do in the White House to survive, though. Listen very carefully:

Barack Obama needs to win the election, and immediately reign in the hope and the audacity and the rest of it, and send a clear message to the American people saying, "This is not all going to happen, calm down. Get real." And then he needs to keep a solid foundation of support underneath him to get done what he can. He knows he can't possibly accomplish all of his new programs and initiatives and reforms. However, a large portion of his followers do NOT know this yet. And if he doesn't handle this potentially volatile situation carefully enough, it's going to bite him in the ass, hard.

P.S You Dirty Animals

2008-02-18T12:47:00.003-06:00

It would appear that I shot way low when I guessed at the number of debates between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. It turns out there have been 18 debates already. 18! So the dumb bastards I mentioned who haven't bothered to watch any of them and are crying for another deserve their citizenship even less than I originally thought!

Mike Huckabee's speech in Eau Claire today was much more inspiring than others have been of late. I believe I would vote for him tomorrow if it weren't for his desire to overturn Roe V. Wade and end assisted-suicide in all cases. He came out strong for the fair tax, and showed a burning desire to be sure America is always the country with the least tax burden on businesses, and thus individuals.

He also knocked me off my feet when he brought forth the fact that our education system is designed to destroy the creativity of children. It's been a long-fought, losing battle in the school system between the budget and the arts, or new football helmets and a music program. Mike Huckabee wants art and music education for every student, and that's a huge help to the mind of a generation.

Not only that, but the son of a bitch is going to make those damn teachers unions take a sharp strike to the jaw, and return education to the states. Abolishing the Department of Education AND the IRS, although not as much as Ron Paul has promised, also doesn't come with Nazi endorsements, and would be a helluva legacy for any President.

I did have a problem with the first half of the speech, though. Huck wasted way too much time making terrible Wisconsin references and kissing our feet for living in snow. The resident redneck population got a good wink too, with the declaration that he's the only candidate who knows how to load and fire a shotgun safely, and likes to hunt a deer or too. Hot damn! If he didn't love Jesus and fetuses so much I'd be a Huckafan too.

Candidates Cover Eyes, Swing Wildly

2008-02-16T21:05:00.002-06:00

In the last five days citizens of the honorable state of Wisconsin have been reeling. Thought no candidate has yet to speak directly to a voter, Obama has come the closest. Rather the campaigning has been a vain shouting match, each hopeful not-so-slyly glancing behind them to make sure the other one heard their shot.

TV Ads have done nothing but spoil the airwaves. I give this round 10-9 to Obama since he came in nearly a week before the Clinton thug with a clean message. When Hilary finally found enough money to pay admission to the event, she stumbled in smelling of alcohol and throwing swings at her "opponent." She has ceased to use Mr. Obama's name for over a week at this point. Then things became downright dirty when Obama's second ad appeared, a duplicate of Hilary's ad. Same defense, same exact attacks, same statistics. The differences were minimal: alternate sources, name reversals, and opposite dopey grin. When Hilary took her final swing with her second ad, it was nothing more than out-of-date pompous marching with 20 different clips of her smiling leather face looking upward while turning to one side or the other.

All that said, and irrelevant, Obama's speeches and appearances have never turned negative. He will walk into a hall, make some requisite exclamations and then remind everyone their why they showed up in the first place. The standard routine has changed in the last few days, and he's addressed all his shortcomings, leaving the only attack available that he has not debated Hilary Clinton in Wisconsin. We are reminded of this, incidentally, no less than 8 times an hour, with Hilary making the point, "Why won't he debate? He's just hiding behind attack ads."

How many debates have there been from the left since this whole exhausting mess began? 8? 10? 12? There needs to be an independent bullshit committee that can send a personal message at this point to everyone in Wisconsin, as well as those in the Clinton camp that if the dumb bastards in this state looking for a place to put their allegiance haven't paid attention until this point, then they should have their voter registration chewed up, sucked on for a while, and spit back in their face. Nothing causes more devastating, lethal horror in this world faster or more effectively than ignorance.

The only really notable happening to come out of today's appearance by Obama is his mention and compliment of a person wearing an "EAUBama" t-shirt in the crowd. Aside from that, anyone who's payed even the slightest attention knew everything that was going to be said beforehand.

Eau Claire will not get the same opportunity to feel disenchantment from Hilary Clinton, however. Let's run-down the events of the last two weeks.

-Hilary ignores Wisconsin while going broke, heads to Texas.
-Chelsea Clinton shows up in Wisconsin, as if that means something at all.
-Hilary spends her own money making two mind-numbing ads that run during every commercial break.
-Bill Clinton shows up in Wisconsin.
-More time in Texas
-Hilary decides Wisconsin (and Eau Claire) are necessary stops to save face.
-More time in Texas
-Two days before showing up, Hilary cancels Eau Claire event, stating that it takes away from more important stops elsewhere.

So on Monday the people of a couple southern cities of our state will see the half-assed courtesy call made necessary by the shameful beating Hilary Clinton has taken since Super Tuesday. Similar to John McCain canceling a trip overseas and pretending to campaign earlier this week so as not to appear the arrogant, two-faced, confused old man he is. Happy voting.

Tentative Final Count As Of Today

2008-02-06T10:43:00.000-06:00

Delegate Scorecard

Democratic (Needed to win: 2,025)	Delegates
Clinton	872
Obama	793

Republican (Needed to win: 1,191)	Delegates
Huckabee	172
McCain	561
Paul	14
Romney	222

Incidentally, yesterday Hilary Clinton won only 8 more delegates than Barack Obama.

A Lonely Waiting Game

2008-02-06T00:29:00.000-06:00

And thus begins the tallying, the slower reporting, the steady rise in delegate counts until morning or midday tomorrow. The leads in delegates mean little at this point, as candidates who won states on the democratic side were awarded their proportion of delegates (Hilary got 60% of them in California) while the loser has not yet been awarded any (Obama has no showing of his 40% at this point).

Issues polls from all sources point out some very clear trends. On the Democratic side, change is overwhelmingly the number 1 issue, and the economy holds a powerful second place. And an issue once-thought the overriding concern of Americans, health care, is barely even registered.

On the right, things look similar. Economy is 60% of the battle according to the polls, whereas Iraq and terrorism were ranked most important by less than 20% (sometimes lower than 15%) of conservative voters.

Polling of conservatives about whether they consider themselves very conservative, moderate, or liberal did not agree at all with who their favorite candidate was, and most other conservative polls showed irrelevant or completely contradictory information.

So we wait.

From the Washington Post:
"Lost in the hubbub was Clinton's victory in American Samoa where 285 people gathered in a hotel in Pago Pago to cast their votes. Clinton claimed two delegates to one for Obama."

Leaderboard - More Live Updates Below

2008-02-05T19:27:00.001-06:00

Live Updates During Super Tuesday

2008-02-05T17:44:00.000-06:00

I'll be watching and reporting what I see on NBC live-coverage of the primaries tonight.

5:44 PM - In a poll of Republicans, the most important issue to them was the economy, followed by immigration. In third place was Iraq, and lastly, with a dismal 15%, was concern for terrorism.

Sounds like talk radio and fox news are much more out of touch with voters than they claim. This being just among republicans, I'm guessing withdrawal from Iraq is much more do-able than the press seems to believe.

Side note: I enjoy noting how many press people complain and talk about "the mainstream press." It seems to be this giant invisible force that seems to piss off everyone not in the mainstream press (i.e., anyone who's ever denounced them, or most news outlets in the country).

6:30 PM - Received alert from Washington Post that Obama has an overwhelming victory in Georgia, carrying black voters 6 to 1. Will await delegate count.

6:42 PM - Democratic polls have shown that twice as many people care about the ability to bring change to Washington D.C. than care about experience. On both the left and the right, the economy is one of the top 2 issues, and will likely be a subject of much debate between Clinton and Obama in the weeks to come.

7:14 PM - A.P. Projects Winners: Obama in Ill.; Clinton in Okla.; McCain in N.J., Ill. and Conn.; Romney in Mass.

Caution: NBC has claimed in the last few minutes that the Oklahoma win for Clinton may not be correct, but Fox News has called Tennessee for Hilary.

Up-to-the minute reports seem to indicate Huckabee is on the road to victory in Georgia and West Virginia, but by a very close margin.

7:22 PM - McCain has won New Jersey, Connecticut, possibly Illinois. Citizens are raucous.

7:35 PM - John McCain has also won Delaware.

7:39 PM - ABC News has begun questioning Hilary Clinton's strength tonight, as she's reported to have been under the weather and had near-uncontrollable bouts of coughing during interviews today. This coupled with her occasionally fragile emotional state has people wondering if she's up to the job. No mention of this from any other source, however.

7:49 PM - As of this minute in Alabama, John McCain is ahead of Mike Huckabee by exactly 19 votes. Not indicative of anything, I just thought interesting.

AND Obama in the same state is crushing Hilary Clinton by over 30 points.

8:14 PM - Hilary is assumed to have won Arkansas, Massachusetts, and New York. This means Hilary is projected to have about a 30-delegate lead with the states thus far.

8:20 PM - Hilary is on the verge of winning New Jersey, while Barack Obama can now claim victory in Delaware. And behind the times, I see Huckabee is projected wins in Alabama and Arkansas, as well as being very close behind John McCain, and well ahead of Romney in several other southern states.

John McCain has won NY and 101 delegates, giving him a commanding lead with nearly 300 delegates, as opposed to Romney's 91.

8:29 PM - In North Dakota, Barack Obama has 55% of the vote with 27% reporting right now. Soon the win will be confirmed by most sources, as Hilary is trailing by at least 6 points.

9:07 PM - In polling democratic voters, it was discovered that Barack Obama is receiving 81% of the black vote, and 44% of the white vote. Hilary has 51% of white voters, but hardly any in the black community. They are now 31 delegates apart.

Obama also has Utah and now officially: North Dakota

9:30 PM - Obama has also picked up Connecticut and Kansas in the last few minutes.

9:42 PM - Huckabee has just won Georgia, bringing him ever closer to catching up with Romney. Also, Barack Obama now trails Hilary Clinton only by 32 delegates.

11:17 PM - The first results have come in from California, with Hilary Clinton ahead 22 points, and with her 55% right now, it has been declared hers. However, not even a quarter of results have come in yet, so perhaps Obama can at least close the gap and make a good fight for delegates. Overall, Hilary's lead has been creeping forward, but the race is nowhere near wide enough for Obama to be considered falling behind.

Analysts expected each candidate to have somewhere close to 800 delegates when all is said and done, so the fact that officially no democrat has been awarded even 200 yet means much remains to be decided and fought over. And this night is far from over.

The #1 Reason You Should Strive For Self-Reliance

2008-02-02T00:29:00.000-06:00

1. Those who don't experience a lower level of humanity and are content with it. They also have more trouble in the areas of thinking, problem-solving, being useful, and containing enough interest to spend any time on.

That said, this is mainly about politics, which is only a thin and ugly-tasting slice of the pie.

It was said recently that the reason we seem to have larger and larger numbers of independent voters is because people are slowly starting to wake up. They realize they can have gay marriage and a secular life and the occasional abortion and not have to turn every establishment over to the current government's whims. And they also realize that we should be able to stop the government from stealing money in the form of tax dollars (to fund unbelievably asinine efforts) without having to become religious morons and cling to ancient values that have no basis in reason today.

Whatever forces decided that party lines should be drawn where they are must be the degenerate bastard sons of natural selection.

The good news is that with more independents, candidates will start fighting for the votes of more and more individuals, rather than sweet-talking the leaders of large groups of people that can't think for themselves.

This in turn will start to make every vote carry a little more weight, and people will become more involved in the process. This is only natural. If you're one of those people who says "My vote doesn't count," or "All politicians lie and/or are evil (and/or are all the same)," then I don't want you deciding who my leader will be either.

As long as we're on the subject, anyone who deals in absolutes, or generalities (see the irony?) should be immediately disgraced and violently ejected from discussion.

Best Of Obama Yet To Come

2008-02-01T17:23:00.000-06:00

The momentum keeps building, as the endorsements come out one after the other in planned succession. Ted Kennedy and MoveOn.org in the last two days, and from many others in the past, including Oprah and Toni Morrison. Today he got the endorsement of the largest union in California, the S.E.I.U., and if Obama can secure a two-thirds support of members of the A.F.L-C.I.O., he can chalk that one up as well.

This all sounds good for now, as long as he's got enough up his sleeve to keep this alive over the weekend and into Tuesday's primaries. But the endorsement from MoveOn.org could hurt him in the general election if he's nominated. Talk radio regularly rails MoveOn.org for their left-wing action, but that's to be expected, and may be a testament to how effective it is. Having said that, though, talk radio does have a lot of influence, and may bring some of the Republican support Obama has been receiving back to their base. That is, of course, when the far-right ends it's temper tantrum over McCain's immigration policy and his success.

In addition, in 10 years this is the first time MoveOn.org has endorsed a presidential candidate, and it'll be interesting to see what their efforts will look like later in the race. Perhaps we'll see more ads in the New York Times. This time covering John McCain or Mitt Romney.

The biggest problem with MoveOn.org isn't their politics, or their supporters, or even George Soros. The problem is the (sadly) high percentage of people who are going to make their judgements about the site and it's implications with regard to Obama based on nothing more than whether they listen to Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann, both of whom make a habit of letting their emotions or personal vendettas get in the way of saying something useful about these issues.

But for now, Obama will continue to rise until Super Tuesday, and hopefully very soon we'll have a nomination. Also, during the next few days, watch for Al Gore's endorsement of Obama to become public. If he thinks he'll have any influence because of it, he shouldn't wait much longer.

Worth Watching - Milton Friedman

2008-01-31T00:19:00.000-06:00