Presidential Race 2008
November 7
Proposing Homophobia
Proposition 8 in California has been generating a great deal of controversy. Whether the results will stand or not remains to be seen. Personally, I do not have a stake in this proposition, and I think there are many more important issues we need to deal with, although it is an issue of human rights and is important for that reason. The main reason that I am writing this is to help people, especially those outside of California, understand what has happened here with Proposition 8.
Proposition 8 is a proposition to amend the constitution of California to outlaw homosexual marriage. It won by a margin of 52% to 48%, although I and others concerned about human rights were against it. It was an extremely well-funded proposition. In fact, according to Thom Hartmann, it was the second most expensive election in the U.S., second to the presidential race, and 77% of the money in favor of the proposition came from Mormons, mostly from Utah -- not the Mormon church itself, which would be illegal, but conservative, rich Mormons, probably ones who want to pave the way for a Mitt Romney presidential candidacy in 2012.
There are two reasons why the proposition won. One was the massive and misleading advertising campaign in its favor. Ads for Propostion 8 implied that teachers would be encouraging children to have homosexual marriage when they grew up. "Princes are marrying Princes and Princesses are marrying Princesses" according to one ad. They also implied that homosexual marriage would lead to unisex bathrooms, public nudity and a total breakdown of human modesty. On the Chinese station that Eunice watches, there were ads implying that fathers would start marrying their own daughters, and so forth if Proposition 8 did not pass. Basically, it was a slanderous propaganda campaign, and it worked. The other reason why Proposition 8 passed is homophobia. The ads for proposition 8, of course, pandered to people's homophobia. Personally, I am not scared of homosexuals, but many people are. Many people have a misconception of homosexuality that it is somehow a result of socialization, and that homosexuals can recruit more homosexuals until everyone becomes homosexual ultimately if nothing is done to stop it. This misconception about the origins of homosexuality corresponds with a religious view of homosexuality as innately sinful. I know these things personally because my wife Eunice manifests this view of homosexuality, and she was in favor of Proposition 8. That was the one issue on which we disagreed about during this election. (Well, there was one other thing, which was her idea that the person who comes in second place in a presidential election should become Vice President. Actually, that may not be a bad idea, but on the other hand, it would guarantee that the President and Vice President would frequently clash on many issues. In any case, Eunice was feeling sorry for McCain after the election, especially after hearing his gracious concession speech.)
Thee results of Propostion 8 show that there is still a great deal of homophobia in society, and misconceptions about homosexuality. The evidence about homosexuality indicates that its origins are in the prenatal development of the brain; thus, it is biological and once formed, sexual orientation cannot be changed, although not genetic. A small percentage of individuals have always been homosexual, and such will most likely continue to be the case. It is not an issue of morality, but rather, brain wiring. To discriminate against people on such a basis is the true immorality. There is even homosexuality among animals. Thom Hartmann reported that he had a pair of homosexual male Ducks living by his houseboat for three years. They were constant companions and exhibited homosexual behavior. It will take more time and education to overcome the widespread misconceptions that so many people hold regarding homosexuality.
People got so worked up about this one issue, to the exclusion of other issues, largely as a result of religious influence. Eunice and I saw large groups of people along Day Street near our house holding signs, some in favor of Proposition 8, others against Proposition. Sometimes, the for and against groups would mingle and argue. Meanwhile, passing cars were making jarring homking sounds. The situation became ridiculous and laughable. Regardless of what others say, my feeling regarding homosexual marriage is that love is love, and makes a good basis for marriage, whether it is a heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage. We can use all the love we can get in this world. No sort of scare tactics can change that fact.
November 6
The Shrinking Republican Base
Yesterday, I did not mention Eunice and my voting experience. As always, we had no wait whatsoever in order to vote. Actually, there were a few people in the A-L line, but no one in the M-Z line when we got there. I guess I had heard something about our county, Riverside, getting rid of computer voting, but I was surprised when we got paper ballots. We had been voting via computer for about ten year previous to this election. Computer voting was still available, but one had to ask for it. I did not see anyone voting on the computer. Thank goodness that we got rid of such a major potential source of election fraud, although we still have a long way to go in that regard. On our ballots, we showed our votes by connecting two lines to make an arrow. As we were finishing our voting, Eunice's friend Lee-Long showed up to vote. Lee-Long is also from Taiwan, but now a U.S. citizen, just like Eunice. We talked with Lee-Long for a moment, then left. Afterward, I noticed that Lee-Long's "Bai-Ren" (White) husband Paul was not there, nor there 2 grown daughters. When I asked Eunice about this, she said she had asked Lee-Long, and she said her husband, a retired military member, did not like to vote, and neither did their daughters. How sad that so many people don't vote, especially Lee-Long's two daughters who are in their 30s, attractive according to Lee-Long (neither Eunice nor I have seen them), living at home and unmarried, and do not vote.
Perhaps they didn't vote because they are conservatives. One explanation of the election results that I heard.was that conservatives tended to stay away from the polls on election day. I saw an interesting statistic on television. In 1970, 90% of the voters were White. This time, only 74% of the voters were White. Clearly, fewer than 90% of the U.S. population were White in 1976. Thus, Whites were considerably more likely than non-Whites to vote at that time. Now, the percentage of non-White voters is more in line with their overall representation in the population. Thus, non-White voters were more likely to vote in this election than in previous elections. Perhaps Barack Obama's candidacy had something to do with that. But I think it also represents a political maturation of Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American populations, as more immigrants become U.S. citizens, and more non-Whites become politically interested, involved, and savvy.
The big factor in this trend toward non-White voters, however, is the increased percentages of "minorities" in the population. In fact, someday in the relatively near historical future, Euro-Americans will be in the minority. Republicans have long relied on conservative-minded, primarily male, White voters. Despite attempts to reach out to African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and women, they continue to rely on White conservative males. Their efforts to recruit members of other demographic categories have been largely unsuccessful, and I predict that they will continue to be unsuccessful, because their ideology just doesn't appeal to non-Whites or even White females, and it is becoming more and more clear that the Republican ideology does not work for anyone, including White males. Thus, the Republican base is shrinking, and I predict that it will continue to shrink. The demographic trend is unstoppable. Thus, the Republican Party as a whole is in a great deal of trouble. I predict that its influence will continue to decline, unless it reinvents itself by substantially changing its ideology. In fact, the history of politics in the United States shows that political parties emerge and disappear, or become hugely transformed over the years. This is so even though our "winner take all" political system encourages a two-party system. The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln's time, when the party was new, was the pro-civil rights, pro-reform, anti-slavery party. Over time, it has been transformed into virtually the opposite of what it was in its early days.
I am going to make a bold long-term prediction here. I believe that the Republican Party will either have to adopt reform-minded, progressive principles, and abandon many of its ideas which have not worked, or else it will be ultimately replaced by another, more progressive party such as the Green Party. I do not expect this to happen anytime soon, but within this century most likely. I further predict that we will continue to see an increase in politicians this century who do not fit the White male Christian profile, especially among Democrats, including a variety of women, African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, mixed-race, Democratic presidents, some of whom may not be Christian. Also, although it is too soon to make a prediction, there may be election reforms, such as proportional representation and instant run-offs, or public financing of elections, which will help establish other political parties, allowing them win substantial numbers of elections and establish niches in our government.
I will welcome all of these changes, but we still have a long way to go. Remember, McCain still won among Whites, a fact which is disturbing to me, considering what people with his basic ideology have done to our nation over the past 28 years, damaging our wellbeing as a nation almost unimaginably -- damage which applies to all human beings, regardless of race, creed, or color. However, most White people like and respect Barack Obama, and he would not have won without the support of a good portion of the White population. Over time, more and more of us should understand what we really need to do, regardless of our backgrounds.
November 5
Waking Up From a Nightmare
Well, we did it. Barack Obama decisively won the election, and Democrats as a whole continued to increase their majority in Congress. Not only are a great many Americans happy, but there seems to be a general sense of jubilance and relief around the world. In Kenya, a national holiday was declared in honor of Obama's victory. The town of Obama, Japan, is selling itself as a tourist destination. Personally, I feel a great sense of relief, but not jubilant. I realize that there is too much work to do, and too much that can go wrong, to allow me to feel that way. Maybe it is just that I lack a jubilant disposition, but I think my cautious optimism has much more to do with the challenges we face as a nation and as a planet. Yes, last night I must have been excited, because I had trouble sleeping and kept thinking about the political past and our hopeful future, but there are still many worries to deal with. My feeling is more as though I am just waking up from a long nightmare, a nightmare that actually began in 1980, but my vision is still fuzzy and my mind is still partially occupied with unpleasant images from the nightmare.
Meanwhile,Obama's victory, I suspect, should have been considerably bigger that it was. Millions of voters went to vote, only to find out that they were not considered registered voters. Other people voted via computer, only to see their vote flipped from Obama to McCain, followed by numerous attempts to correct the problem. It is hard to know what happened to those votes, or how it happened. Perhaps they were random results from malfunctioning machines, but it appears that flipping from Obama to McCain was far more prevalent than the reverse, suggesting perhaps, that these computers contained a patch which was meant to flip votes from Obama to McCain after the voter had left the scene. Perhaps these patches were malfunctioning and flipping the votes sooner than they were meant to. In the coming days, we are likely to hear of more voting problems.
I remember my first political argument. I had a teacher named Mr.Tilson while I was in Middle School in 1972, who liked Richard Nixon. I believe he taught World History, as well as Geography and such topics. I surmise that he let us choose books on which to do book reports, because I remember reading books about religions and philosophies such as Bhuddism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism and Confucianism. I think that class helped shape my electic spiritual and religious views, unbeknownst to Mr. Tilson, who liked to say that my hair looked as though I had combed it with an eggbeater, and who seemed annoyed that I was continually one of his best students no matter how he teased me. Frankly, I wish that Obama had adopted his mother's eclectic spirituality, but then again, the sad truth is that he probably never would have been taken seriously at this point in history as a presidential candidate, if he had. Instead, he had a convenient conversion to African-American style Christianity, went to an African-American church, and married an African-American woman, all of which made him presentable and acceptable to the public, with the exception of the revelation of Jeremiah Wright's rather nasty but accurate critique of our nation. (I often think that African-Americans see the real America more clearly than do Anglo-Americans, who tend to have a delusional pie-in-the-sky view of our nation.) But I digress with my mental time-travelling. Back in the Mr. Tilson's class, he seemed pleased when Nixon won his re-election in 1972. I remember him saying of his inauguration the following January "We have to Crown the Emperor," after I asked him why we actually celebrate the election of such a jackass when we ought to be in mourning, or words to that effect. That was my first political argument, and as usual, I was vindicated. Nixon's second term did not exactly end in the glory that Mr. Tilson had envisioned for Nixon. After all, Nixon turned out to be a cheater, and was caught, and had to resign in shame. However, Nixon's presidency did not really begin the present era of conservative corporatism. That era began with Reagan, and I vehemently hope and cautiously expect, ended yesterday.
I know: What about Clinton? Bill Clinton had a generally successful presidency, with much help from Al Gore, who was probably the best Vice President ever, and the most deserving person who never became President. In terms of helping the middle class, streamlining government, and reducing the national debt, Clinton's administration did well, but he was plagued by his womanizing habits, constantly harassed by conservatives, spent all but the first two years of his presidency with a Republican majority in Congress, and failed to stem the tide of rampant corporate and military influence in the United States. Then "W" came along and added religous influence to the mix, made bad, impulsive, poorly informed policy decisions, was financially irresponsible, and left us in our current mess. But the current mess really all began, not with "W" in 2000, but with Reagan in 1980, who basically was similar to the two Bushes, except that Reagan's role was to act as the initial catalyst in the corporatization, deregulation, privatization, evangelization and militarization our nation, and the redistribution of wealth upward, from the unrich to the rich. As Obama correctly pointed out during his campaign, Reagan's presidency changed the trajectory of the United States, and as Obama stated, he wants to change the trajectory of the United States once again and undo the damage done in the years since Reagan became president.
Words such as those coming from Obama give me hope that this is the beginning of a new, progressive era of politics in the United States -- that I have finally woken up from my long, political nightmare. However, there is much work and a variety of obstacles to overcome in order to make this a reality. Ultimately, it is only through the will of the American people, with the aid and support of the Obama administration, as well as world opinion, that we can manifest the promise of our nation as a people, put this nightmare behind us, and pursue the real American Dream, the dream of a progressive, just society in which all enjoy a decent standard of living and which promotes the best in human nature. We must not let Obama forget that. We must always let Obama and his administration know the type of policies we believe in for the good of society.
November 3
There is no Such Thing as a Wasted Vote
I have been hearing about how early voting is "going smoothly" and people are "only" waiting around 2 hours. That is encouraging voter turnout-wise. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to tell people to get out there and vote. On the other hand, the tales of long lines are discourging. Where Eunice and I vote, here in Moreno Valley, or for that matter, where I used to vote in Riverside, CA, I have never had to wait in line to vote. Perhaps I have become too confident that voting will be quick and easy. I intend to vote tomorrow morning, and if it takes a long time, I will have to eventually leave and get ready to go to school. I could still vote after school, since I get home normally around 5:45 p.m., and the polls do not close until 7 p.m., but I plan to give some students a make-up exam after class tomorrow -- not the kind that involves lipstick, but the kind that involves multiple choice questions about psychology. If it comes to that, I will just delay the exam until Thursday. I cannot delay voting beyond tomorrow, obviously.
I have heard a variety of excuses for not voting. I will have none of that. I do not believe there is such a thing as a wasted vote. I find it difficult to fathom how a person could rationalize not voting in a crucial election such as this. I suppose that those who fail to vote will be sorry they didn't vote afterward. Whether one votes for a major party candidate, a third party candidate, or a write-in candidate, every vote sends a message to our government. I have voted for all three in one race or another. I have written in a candidate's name for President. I have often voted for Green Party candidates and other third party candidates, but not for President. I am used to not getting my way in elections, ever since I started voting when I became old enough to vote, but that does not dissuade me. I suppose that I could become superstitious and vote for the opposite of what I really want, in the hopes that this strategy would make what I really want to happen come true, given that I have voted for losing candidates and losing propositions, or voted against winning propositions, the large majority of the time to this point in my life. But that would make me wrongheaded just like I feel all those voters were, who voted the opposite of the way I did. I am going to continue voting according to my conscience, with faith that eventually, the electorate will come around and see things more or less as I do, and the election system's flaws will be fixed. There is already considerable evidence of the public shifting its views on the whole, to come closer to mine. I hope I also will be able to say, once this election is over, that we have a free, fair, open, and transparent election system untainted by fraud. No vote is wasted, but they can be stolen, so let us not let that happen. I say, tomorrow is the big day, and this time, we will win! That is, "we" as in the "we people" (or is it the "wee people?") of which I have been writing (or is it "lefting?"), as opposed to the "me people," will win.
My friend Desi Urias, who passed away a couple of years ago, used to be a Green Party member. Perhaps it gets discouraging to a person who votes for third party candidates, knowing that they will not win. But we must vote according to our conscience. Otherwise, we will be permamently stuck with this two-party system of Democrats and Republicans for better or worse, and mostly for worse, I suspect. No vote is wasted. We must encourage election reform, by using such techniques as instant runoffs, and having representation by each party -- no matter how many parties there are -- proportional to the number of people voting for that party, as have been sucessfully used in other nations, in order to get beyond this system of two parties struggling for dominance. But until then, let us be empowered to change the course of this nation by ending the Reagan era of conservative politics, and beginning the Obama era of progressive politics. Let us do this for Barack Obama's grandmother, and for all the Desis in our lives who no longer have the chance to vote, as we do. And let us do this for our future. Let us feel the weight of our common will -- our common desire for the betterment of society -- as it pushes against history. We can never go back.
November 2
We Have Already Had Our Dreams Dashed
During the final push to the 2008 election, one of our local news stations played a clip of Sarah Palin telling potential voters not to let their American Dreams dashed by Obama's tax hikes, exhorting the crowd to vote for John McCain and her. Her message was a total piece of fiction. First of all, Obama plans to raise taxes only on those with incomes over $250,000 per year, which I imagine amounts to about the top 1 percent of the population, and even at that, the tax increase will only raise taxes back to what they were a few years ago. Meanwhile, others will receive a modest tax decrease. An very compelling argument could be made that taxes on the upper income levels should be raised much more than Obama plans to, in fact, but now, with the economy in a shambles, is probably not the time to do so. But even more importantly, the fact is that most Americans have already had their American Dreams dashed by the Republican-led corporate takeover of America. Most Americans are finding it difficult to earn a decent living, difficult to make house, car, or credit card payments, and are finding the American Dream to be just a dream, all while their work, and that of poorly paid foreign workers, supports an upper crust of political influence wielding corporate magnates. There are many reasons why I think Barack Obama will win the election, despite all the obstacles he faces, but this is the biggest one, the burden that threatens to break the back of the Republican Party. As time goes by, it has become more and more clear to even the most naive voters that, the Republican notion of trickle down economics simply does not work. It did not work when Kings taxed their subjects into poverty. It did not work when feudal lords made indentured servants out of their neighbors. It did not work when people with better weapons decided to make slaves of their fellow human beings. It did not work in the America of the 1920's, and it does not work now. The American Dream has been dashed on the rocks of neo-conservative ideology.
This morning, I went through my sample ballot and filled out my choices for each election and proposition. I must admit, I have been so involved in the presidential election that I had not paid much attention to any of the other issues. A couple of propositons in California have generated so much advertising that I could not help but pay attention, particularly Proposition 2, proposing minimum standards for the ethical treatment of farm animals, and Proposition 8, proposing that marriage be defined in California's constitution as only applying to unions between a man and a woman. I am for Proposition 2, and against Proposition 8. In order to decide who and what to vote for, I needed to peruse the California voters' information pamphlet. After going through the entire ballot and making my choices based on the voters' pamphlet, I looked more closely at the little flyer sent to us by the California Teachers' Association, and the one Cops Voter Guide. Neither voters' guide made a recommendation on every election and issue on the ballot, but the choices that I made agreed with all of the ones made by the Teachers' Association, and disagreed with all of the recommendations made by the Cops Voter Guide, except for the board of the College where I teach. Apparently, police and teachers are political polar opposites, at least in California on this election. And naturally, being a teacher, I chose the teacher's positions. These choices, I made without consulting either guide. I only examined their recommendations afterward. Interestingly, the police made no recommendation on the presidential race, while the teachers endorsed Obama.
"Yeah, that's interesting," correct? But I feel the reasons for the choices of the Teachers' Association are significant for reasons which go beyond the simple fact that they disagree with those of the police. Teachers are nurturers. Teachers are interested in the education and socialization of younger generations. Teachers are therefore generative in their outlook and primarily concerned about the future. They want leaders and policies which will have the greatest long term benefits to society. Also, teachers are generally intelligent, educated voters, not so-called "low-information voters." Thus, I trust the political judgment of teachers more than I would nearly any other profession. To take this argument even further, as a Social Psychologist, I have particular insights into human nature and society, and a special interest in enabling human beings to fulfill their special potentials. I would wager that at least 95 percent of Social Psychologists, and nearly as large a percentage of Psychologists as a whole, find themselves on the progressive, liberal, Democratic, Green Party, or whatever one wishes to call it, side of the political spectrum, as opposed to the conservative, neo-con, Republican side of the political spectrum. I would further suggest that there is a good reason for this, a selfless, nurturing reason -- Social Psychologists' political concerns are primarily not about what is in it for themselves, but rather, what will ultimately work best for society. It is true that Social and other Psychologists tend to support education funding, research funding, drug use prevention and rehabilitation programs, and so on, which do financially benefit Psychologists, but these programs also are investments in the future which are demonstrably cost-effective. In fact, education and research funding are not only cost effective, but modern society cannot function without these investments in our future.
Police, in contrast to teachers, are protecters and punishers. Their focus is concrete, and on the present. They tend to share the conservative world view of the world as a dangerous place full of bad guys. Their emphasis is on safety, conventional law-and-order morality, rewarding the good and punishing the bad. They are not concerned with nurturing better people who can create a better society in the future. Police do have legitimate concerns, but their focus is more narrow, and they lack the broad education and vision of educators. If only voters these past twenty eight years had listened to their teachers more, and their own selfish, short-sighted concerns less, our nation would not be in the mess that it is in. If only we had invested in education more and war less, basic research more and weapons less, if only we had built cooperative institutions which serve all of us, instead of competitive, cut-throat institutions which are only interested in serving themselves, the American Dream would still be intact. As it stands, we have to rebuild the American Dream from the fragmented scraps which are left to us. We can start by electing Barack Obama to be our next President, and continue by insisting that he do what is necessary to build a better society.
I have one other, idiosyncratic observation. I don't know that it means anything, but I noticed that the Philadelphia Phillies' very first World Series Championship was in 1980, just prior to Ronald Reagan's election, an election which started the current era in American politics. A few days ago, the Phillies won their second baseball championship. It is my hope that their current championship heralds the end of the Reagan era of politics, and the beginning of the Obama era of American politics.
November 1
States Don't Vote: People Do
The United States is Unique in the way that it elects Presidents. It is the only nation with an "electoral college" system. To give a little review of electoral politics, each state is worth a certain number of points, equal to the number of representatives that state has in Congress. In turn, the number of representatives which a state has in Congress is equal to the number of members of the House of Representatives that state has, plus two Senators. The number of members of the House of Representatives that a state has is proportional to its population, but each state has a minimum of one, along with two Senators, no matter how small the state's population, for a minimum of 3 electoral college points. As a consequence, less populous states are much better represented in the electoral college system than are more populous states. For example, a vote in Montana is worth 15 votes in California in terms of how much electoral college weight it carries. Now that is just not fair, is it? Furthermore, each state is winner-take-all in terms of electoral college votes. Thus, if a presidential candidate wins a very populous state, say California, since I am a Californian, by a very narrow margin, that candidate wins all of that states electoral votes. On the other hand, if the candidate loses another populous state, say Texas, by a very large margin, that candidate still has more electoral college votes than does the other candidate, since California is worth somewhat more points than is Texas, despite having fewer overall votes. This strange electoral college system has several times resulted in a candidate becoming President despite losing the popular vote, most recently and notoriously in the 2000 so-called election of George W. Bush, and that didn't exactly turn out well, did it?
It doesn't take a genius to see where I am heading with this topic. I say it is time we observe what other nations are doing correctly and adapt effective techniques from them. This is part of a larger issue -- that of American Exceptionalism -- which I feel prevents Americans from learning from their peers around the world. The United States has the world's oldest continuous democracy, and that is commendable, but there is much to be learned from other nations about democreacy and how to run a government. Unfortunately, politicians in the United States, and by-and-large the American public, are not willing to learn from other nations, or even take notice of what other nations do better than us. The electoral college system is one aspect of government to which this critique applies. The founding fathers of the United States were very bright people, as a whole, and well ahead of their time, but they were not perfect. They did make some mistakes, or make compromises which have now become antiquated and have outlived their usefulness. The electoral college system should be considered which should be jettisoned from American politics for both reasons. There probably never should have been an electoral college system in the first place, but what usefulness it may have once had no longer applies.
The fact is that the electoral college system was a compromise in order to give "southern" states a reasonable voice in politics, since they had fewer White males, the only people then allowed to vote, than "northern" states at the time. Another aspect of the electoral college system which was abloished along with slavery was that each slave counted for 3/5 of a vote. Thus, it was as though the slave owners were voting on behalf of their slaves. Do you think that the slave owners did a good job of picking presidents that the slaves would have wanted as their leaders, you know, abolitionists, perhaps, someone with the slaves' best interests in mind? Somehow I don't think so. In fact, due to the way votes were connted, the great majority of early presidents were slave owners from "southern" states such as Virginia. To me, that says that the electoral college system gave the less populous, slave states too much power. (For different reasons, as an aside, I feel that the southern states have continued to have too much political power, acting as an impediment to political progress in the U.S., but that may be changing.)
Now, the situation that we have in the United States, is that less populous states continue to carry more weight in the election of a president, relative to their populations, than do the more populous states. However, the political composition of a state also has a major influence on campaigning. So-called "battleground states" -- states in which the election appears to be close and therefore the outcome uncertain -- are the ones given by far the most attention, regardless of the size of their populations. Thus, California receives practically no attention from presidential or vice-presidential candidates, since Obama is virtually assured of winning California. As I recently found out from my namesake cousin, Texas, where he lives, also receives virtually no attention in this historic presidential contest, but in the case of Texas, because John McCain is the presumptive winner in Texas. This lack of political interest in the nation's two most populous states is a direct result of the electoral college system. Of course, every state should receive attention from the candidates more or less in proportion to their populations, but what really happens bears no resemblance to this ideal.
The argument of those who wish to keep the electoral college system, is that it makes candidates pay attention to "small states" and "small town America." However, other nations elect their leaders directly without having any such problems; whoever has the most votes wins. A vote in a populous state should count as much as one in a sparsely populated state. It does so in other nations, without causing candidates to ignore less populous areas. Small town voters count just as much, vote for vote, as large city voters, no more, no less. True democracy is simple; whoever gets the most votes, wins. The electoral college system is not true democracy, nor does it serve our democracy well. What it does, is create jobs for political pundits who spend their time counting who leads which state and how many electoral votes each candidate is likely to receive. If that isn't enough, the pundits pore over various combinations of states, sorting out all the possibilities. It becomes a game on a massive and ultraserious scale, one which not only political commentators play, but the candidates themselves are compelled to play. In doing so, they have rally after rally in so-called "battleground states," while the majority of us in populous states such as California, Texas, and New York must sit on the sidelines and watch. This system also invites election fraud, since changing a relatively small number of votes in certain, strategic locations can change the entire outcome of an election, as we were reminded of by voting debacle which took place in Florida during the 2000 election.. The electoral college system amounts to a useless, even counterproductive, complication to the election process, which operates on the ridiculous assumption that states vote, rather than people.
There are actually a series of changes which have been implemented in other nations to make democracy work more effectively. All of these changes, to be delineated in future posts, are ones which I feel should be implemented here, as well. The first change to be made to the way we elect our leaders, however, reflects the most long-lasting and egregious error in the procedures used to conduct our elections. That change is to rid ourselves of the electoral college system, and have a straightforward voting system in which the candidate who has the most votes, wins.
October 30
Today, I added my first links exchange, which is at the bottom of the page. It is to my internet buddy Pete's blog.
We are all Socialists
I have gotten sick of hearing Republicans "accuse" Barack Obama of being a Socialist, and for that matter, hearing Obama deny it. It behooves us to examine what is really meant by the term Socialist. When one does so, it becomes clear that all of us are Socialists to one degree or another. Progressives may be more on the Socialist side of the continuum than are conservatives, but we all accept Socialism in many aspects of government's function. Of course, as a Social Psychologist, I may be predisposed to think in terms of Socialism. After all, if you take the "Psycholog" out of "Social Psychologist," you wind up with "Socialist" (Ha Ha).
My Random House dictionary defines socialism as:
A theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.
Now I will mention some examples of socialism which are widely accepted in our society.
1. The United States' Postal Service seems to be doing a pretty good job of distributing goods.
2. Our bloated military-industrial complex manufactures a great many products, albeit largely instruments of death, so whether or not they are actually "goods" is in great doubt.
3. Police and military institutions are basically run in a socialistic manner. For example police and the National Guard may be called upon to prevent riots which would adversely affect the production or distribution of goods.
4 Government bureaucracy regulates (or should regulate) the activities of businesses which are producing and distributing goods.
5. Public schools educate persons (mostly young ones) so that when they grow up, they can produce and distribute goods.
6. Some of the most effective businesses are collectively owned, also part of the definition of Socialism. For example, Microsoft, which gives its empoyees stocks shares in the company, and Winco, a supermarket chain from Oregon, which has recently opened up several stores locally here in southern California.
7. The recent government bailout of financial institutions, along with others in recent years, are also a form of socialism, in which the government takes control of such institutions. (After all, it is our money, collectively.) It is a sort of reverse socialism in that the public is held responsible for helping the financial elite, on the assumption that these institutions are too large to fail, but it is a form of socialism (Republican style).
8. Welfare, anti-drug programs, mental health programs, social security, and any other form of "redistribution of wealth" which are the source of many of McCain's critiques of Obama's candidacy, are all forms of Socialism, which are actually widely accepted -- and thus, McCain's compaints are not resonating with the majority of the public.
The fact is that we are social creatures who live in a cooperative society, and it is our cooperation and intelligence which have allowed us to build productive societies. In other words, a certain degress of Socialism is necessary in order for a society to function effectively. Government is what binds the people of a society together, an institution which regulates, and in some cases owns and controls the means of production and distribution of goods. Good government does so for the greater good of society.
My next topic will be an examination of the Electoral College.
October 29
An Attack on Democracy
This is a continuation of the previous topic, since I realized that I had not completely characterized political violence or cheating. Some strange coincidences have occured in the intervening two days since my last post. That evening, after writing the post about the possibility of Obama being assassinated, Eunice was watching the "twilight zone" as I was preparing for bed. It was an episode about a person who goes back in time to the day of Lincoln's assassination. He does everything he can to warn people of Lincoln's assassination, in an attempt to prevent it from happening, but it happens, anyway. Strangely, it was an episode that I had never seen before, although I have seen nearly all of them. Yesterday, Eunice and I went to my parent's house because Eunice wanted to pick some baby plants and Plumeria cuttings to take home and plant. While I was there, I turned on the Thom Hartmann show on the radio and started talking about politics with my parents. I told them about the circumstantial evidence of computer programs which have been flippiing votes in recent elections from votes for Democratic candidates to Republican candidates. My parents seemed surprised and perhaps a bit skeptical, and said they had never heard of such a thing. A short while later, on my way home, I turned on the radio in the car, and Thom Hartmann was interviewing man named Chris Hood, a former employee of Diebold corporation, who said he had been asked by Diebold to put a patch on voting machines in certain counties such as Dekalb county in Georgia just prior to the 2002 and 2004 elections. These patches were vote flipping programs which were put on machines in strategic, heavily Democratic counties to change the outcome of elections. For instance, the patches in Dekalb county probably resulted in the election of Saxby Chambliss over Max Cleland to the Senate in 2002. Now, the evidence of vote flipping is not just circumstantial, and it is the very company that makes the voting machines, Diebold corporation, which is the culprit in this case! Hood went on to say that the owners of Diebold corporation are "Rush Limbaugh conservatives" who feel justified in doing anything they can to make their vision of America come true. In other words,they believe that the end justifies the means, just as I asserted earlier in this blog.
When we look at the effects of such actions as election fraud, and more extremely, assassination and other political violence, it becomes clear that these are attacks on Democracy itself. In fact, for this reason, many conservatives are also disturbed by such actions, even when they are directed against liberals. Election fraud subverts the basic process of Democracy, voting, which gives each adult citizen a voice in choosing our legislators, leaders, and laws. It removes the rights of the individual and restricts their freedom. It results in people being represented, not by the choice of a majority or even a plurality of voters, but by the choice of a few unscrupulous but powerful individuals. Political assassination, of course, removes the choice of the people altogether. It is an attack on Democracy, and on everyone who believes in Democracy. Assassination usually does not have the intended political effect, but it assails the rights of all citizens. This enrages citizens, martyrs the victim of assassination, and motivates people to do the opposite of what the assassins intended. Thus, anyone who considers assassinating a President or other political figure is not only evil but being stupid. Nonetheless, this is a big and populous nation, and there are people out there who motivated enough, violent enough, and behaviorally uninhibited enough to seriously consider commiting an assassination, and some of them may be stupid enough to think that it might actually have the desired political effect. Let us be alert enough that we never let another assassination happen, and educate people enough that they will realize that neither assassination nor election fraud is going to work in the long run.
Remember, this is our Democracy. It is up to us to preserve it. Altering the results of an election cannot change the will of the people, and the assassination of a movement's leader cannot stop the movement. My next topic will be "We are all Socialists."
October 27
Is Obama in Danger?
I just heard a news teaser that a plot to assasinate Barack Obama was recently uncovered. This brings up a question which has been plaguing many people over the past year or so. It seemss that whenever a Democrat promises to bring true change, recalcitrant conservatives become alarmed and violent. There have already been individuals who have called Barack Obama a terrorist, and even called for his death at Republican campaign rallies. I remember when I was a child, and our nation was in upheaval due to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Junior. These assasinations followed, of course, that of John F. Kennedy, but I was too young to remember his assassination.
Conservatives tend to downplay these assassinations as acts of violence randomly targeting prominant individuals, having nothing to do with political persuasion. However, the fact that every time an assassination occurred, the victim was a progressive Democrat who acted as a harbinger of change, suggests that political persuasion had everything to do with who was targeted. As with the topic of election fraud, for which the evidence indicates that Republicans are more willing as a whole than Democrats to engage in cheating in order to win an election, it seems to me that radically conservative people are more willing to engage in violence than are Democrats in order to achieve their political ends. Consider how the Republican Party has become the party of militarism and American empire building.
Barack Obama represents a true breakthrough in politics -- a mulatto who is on the verge of becoming President. He is also a progressive who provides an opportunity, if elected, to change the trajectory of our nation from the conservative one that it has been on these past 28 years to a more progressive one. Conservatives realize that, and for both of these reasons, are likely to consider Obama a prime target for assassination. Obama is a symbol of a movement, much like Martin Luther King was, or even Abraham Lincoln. (I have even noticed a resemblance between Obama and Lincoln, although Obama is a mulatto. Take a look at their pictures side by side if you don't believe me.) Even if Obama is assassinated, I do not think that will stop the movement he represents, nor the inevitable changes taking place in our society. However, things will be much better if he is kept safe. I want no more assasinations of Presidents, not even Republican ones. Assasinations have long-lasting and damaging effects on society, such as tolerance of violence and desires for revenge directed toward innocent people. I hope that Obama has good security, but more than this, I hope no one actually attempts to assassinate him.
There is another strange thing about the next President. In Chinese culture, the number 4 is considered unlucky, because it is associated with death. The number 44 is doubly unlucky, and the next President will be the United States' 44th President. On the other hand, however, I have noticed that Buddhists tend to flaunt there disbelief in this bias against the number 4, frequently making 4 points in their moral discourses. The same seems to be true of the government of mainland China. Of course, there is no rational basis for such a bias; it is based merely on the similar pronunciation of the word for the number 4 and the word for death in the Chinese language. Whether one believes in such superstitions or not, Obama is a very prominant potential target for evildoers -- domestic terrorists, actually. It is a sad fact concerning our society that assassination is such a strong possibility. Perhaps an Obama Presidency can help to change that. This pre-election period or anytime during his Presidency would be a good time to pray, to whatever powers that be, for Barack Obama's safety.
Postscript: It seems that a couple of young skinheads were making a plan to kill a bunch of African-Americans, culminating with the assassination of Barack Obama. That seems a pretty far-fetched plot, but I am afraid some more plausible and serious plots will be forthcoming.
October 26
Is Voting too Anonymous?
Later yesterday, after posting about making sure your vote counts, Time magazine came in the mail, with its cover story being about all the things that can go wrong when we vote (9 of them, I think), and what we can do about it. The Time magazine article was pretty much in agreement with what I had written. There was also a commentary in this issue by someone named Murphy about how both sides, Republican and Democratic, become increasingly paranoid about the other "stealing the election" as the election approaches. His position was basically that the mutual fear of the other major party was the main problem, and that election or voter fraud was generally not that much of a problem. After reading the commentary, I read his qualifications, and things came into view to me when it disclosed that he was a Republican campaign strategist. It does sound balanced to say that both parties are equally to blame for the problem, and it is comforting to think that election and voter fraud are not as much of a problem as we fear it is, but that only tells part of the story.
The usual Republican fear, interestingly enough, is voter fraud which involves ballot box stuffing. In other words, uh oh, there may be too much voting going on here. There probably have been cases of ballot box stuffing by Democrats which changed the outcome of elections. When that happens, it is probably the result of actions by dishonest election officials. The type of voter fraud which the Republicans seem to be so concerned about lately, such as people registering under two different names in order to vote twice, is very unlikely to be successfully implemented. In order to do that, the double registrant would also need to have a fake set of identification materials. It is much easier for me to imagine some corrupt election official adding bogus ballots to the total post hoc.
The usual Democratic fear involves voter suppression, and behind the scenes cheating such as "vote flipping" or possibly dishonest officials stuffing ballot boxes as mentioned above. Of course, the voter suppression issue, in contrast to the concerns of Republicans, involves not enough people voting. Thus, Democrats in general want everyone to participate in voting, confident that a high voter turnout will favor them. while Republicans, as a whole, want only their members to vote, with as little participation as possible by the opposition. Another part of the story is the actual evidence of election fraud. Any objective analysis of past elections, indicates that the large majority of suspicious elections go in favor of Republicans. I once took a look at the Presidents who became President despite losing the popular vote in the U.S. I believe there have been about 5 of them, including the current President. The first was Thomas Jefferson. In Jefferson's time, there was no Republican Party. However, the others have all been Republicans. Republicans seem more willing than Democrats to govern without a plurality of voter support. More to the point, however, there was Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal (Nixon's operatives spying on Democrats to give him an unfair advantage in the 1972 election), the shenanigans involving Iran which helped Reagan get elected, the past two presidential elections involving George W. Bush, the Don Siegelman case in Alabama, in which a sitting Democratic governor was defeated by some statistically impossible last minute computer results, the strange election of Arnold Schwarzeneggar to be governor of California while recalling Gray Davis, and numerous congressional elections of Republicans, including one in Florida in which some 18,000 people in a heavily Democratic area were reported by the computer as having not voted for a congressional candidate, even though they voted on other issues. The Republican won by something like 300-400 votes. Democrats have won some close votes, but in recent years at least, none of these elections have been tainted by probable fraud, in contrast to the various suspicious elections of Republicans. Thus, it seems to me that a fair analysis of recent elections indicates that Republicans, but not Democrats, have engaged in numerous cases of election fraud. This fraud appears to involve a combination of voter suppression (such as "vote caging" -- claiming the voter is not a legal resident of the voting precinct), spying, and programming computers to flip votes for Democratic candidates to votes for Republican candidates.
All of this leads me to the main topic of today's discussion. It is my contention that making voting anonymous was a mistake made by the founding fathers. There is a reason for anonymous voting, which is to prevent punishment or persecution of voters who vote a certain way. However, having anonymous voting leads to a situation which invites election fraud. Politicians, and those who are empoyed by politicians, have the greatest stake in the outcomes of elections. Thus, among these people, who may have the means to perpetrate election fraud, there is great temptation and potential motivation to commit such fraud. This is what I suspect has been happening in recent years. Electronic voting machines have only served to increase fraud opportunities, thus making the problem worse. Exit polling used to be highly accurate, but in the past decade or so, exit polls in the U.S. have often shown more support for Democratic candidates -- including John Kerry in 2004 -- than the election results indicate. Yet, exit polls continue to be accurate in other nations. Claerly, there is something wrong here.
The solution to the problem of making sure one's vote is counted as intended, seems to me to lie in having public accountability for one's vote. That means that there needs to be some sort of paper trail, at the very least, confirming one's vote. For example, a compromise solution which would allow some voting anonymity, but also leave a paper trail, would be to give every voter a voting ID. After voting, the results would be recorded, along with the voter's special ID. The voter could subsequently check how his or her vote was recorded, or grant permission, if there is a question about the validity of the election, to have his or her official voting record checked by some investigative entity such as a newspaper. Alternatively, we could have fully public voting, with each voter receiving a printout of how his or her vote was recorded, along with the voter's name and other identifying information. Laws could be passed creating stiff penalties for anyone who uses another person's voting record against him or her. Either way, problems of "vote flipping" or even random mistakes resulting in changing a person's vote could be eliminated if such techniques were properly implemented. Even voter fraud or voter suppression would be made more difficult by these innovations, I believe. The result would be much fairer elections, an outcome we all should welcome.
October 25
Making Sure Your Vote Counts
I heard Thom Hartmann talking to a fellow named Brad Friedman a few days ago, about his website http://www.bradblog.com which has lots of information about politics from a progressive perspective. Much of it is about my previous topic, dirty political tricks such as voter suppression tactics, and mistakes such as malfunctioning electronic voting machines. It is very glitzy looking, which is the "in-thing" for websites these days. They ask for donations right off the bat, and apparently have several empoyees. Everything on the website has an advertisement-like feel and look, as do other popular sites such as MySpace, but BradBlog does have lots of good information. It even has an electoral college map which has Obama way ahead of McCain, with only 6 states left to be determined. However, that map is based on polls, and assumest that there will be no nasty surprises. There is this politically oppressed, skeptical side of me which has seen political disapointment after political disappointment in my life, a side of me which says "do not count your chickens until they hatch", even though they already seem to be "coming home to roost," which would seem to indicate that they have indeed hatched. As a nation, we just need to cross that road to get to the other side. Well, that is enough with the chicken sayings. I did have my premonition that Obama would be elected, and I still believe he will be elected if the election is fairly conducted, but the conducting of this election is a big question.
I have heard some information from the likes of Brad Friedman and others who want to make sure our votes count as we intended them to. These suggestions apply to any voter, of course, regardless of who they intend to vote for.
1. Make sure you are registered before voting. If you are not, do whatever you need to do in order to make sure that you are registered before the election is over.
2. Vote early, especially if you are not sure that you are officially registered. Frankly, I am waiting until November 4 myself, before I vote, but I have been registered at the same address for a long time, plus Eunice and I got the sample ballot, so we are confident that we are registered. If you do not get a sample ballot, that is a good sign that you are not considered to be registered.
3. When you vote, make sure that you filled out all of your votes with your choices, and did not make any mistakes. If you did make a mistake, you still have a chance to correct it. Also, if you are using a voting machine, make sure that it says you voted the way that you actually did. As I mentioned in the previous post, and BradBlog is monitoring, there have been malfunctioning voting machines found in at least 4 states already. Three of these have flipped votes from Obama to McCain, while another has been flipping votes from McCain to Obama. Brad Friedman feels that these are random errors by malfunctioning machines, but nonetheless, it is a bad thing to happen. There is an account on his blog of one person who had his vote flipped 5 times from Obama to McCain, but finally, said that he voted for Obama on the sixth try. Thus, it may be possible to correct the vote when this happens, but there is no guarantee of that.
4. It has been suggested that people take a picture or film of themselves voting, to prove how they voted. If the vote is flipping, make a film of it. That may seem a bit extreme, but that is one way to ensure that the world knows how you voted, and can see for themselves if a person's vote was flipped. It was suggested that the film be put on YouTube, but slowspeed computers such as mine cannot handle films such as are on display at YouTube.
What I would really like to see in future voting, however, is a definitive paper trail. That will be the topic of my next post. It is my feeling that our system of secret ballots is too secret, as it invites cheating political operatives, in these high stakes elections, to manipulate voters' ballots with little chance of being caught.
October 22
The Fix is in Progress
This is definitely a bad year to be a Republican. Chances are that even in the unlikely event that John McCain becomes the next President of the U.S., the Republicans will lose considerable ground in Congress. Republicans, who by now are accustomed to being in power, have been losing losing ground to the Democrats already, and they are starting to show signs of desperation. Obviously, I am not a Washington insider, but as an interested observer, some things can be inferred.
There are two ways of thinking about the current situation. One is that Republicans should more or less give up and concede the election to Obama. McCain has already stopped competing with Obama in several states which are usually battleground or even safe Republican states. With the current economic situation, to go along with the United States' two foreign occupations and other commitments, as well as its diminished international standing, the best strategy for Republicans might be to let Obama win, then blame all of their problems on the Democrats. Lord knows the Republicans already have had plenty of practice at blaming their mistakes on Democrats. They are really good at that, at least with a naive electorate receptive to this message. However, the electorate is not as naive as it used to be. Such duplicity does not seem to be as effective as it used to be, except among those hard-headed and loyal Republicans who are impervious to the truth. Nonetheless, 4 or 8 years of Democratic rule is sure to result in some propaganda ammunition for the Republicans to play around with. At this time, they have run out of bullets, and seem to be resorting to political sucker punches. All-in-all, I would say, having a Democratic President would be well worth the molehill of Democrat generated problems which the Republicans could point to. They would have to make a mountain out of a molehill, most likely, in order to gain much political traction in subsequent elections. Meanwhile, the goodwill and improving conditions that I would expect to see under an Obama administration would far outweigh its problems. Thus, the strategy of ceding the election to the Democrats does not seem very appealing to Republicans.
The other strategy would be to scratch and claw, bully, cheat, and racialize as much as possible in hopes of a victory for McCain. This seems to be the predominant Republican strategy. At least, this is the strategy of the McCain campaign, with Sarah Palin acting as attack dog. It seems abundantly clear that John McCain really, really wants to be President. After all, he is 72 years old, and dagnabbit, this is his "turn" to be President. Adding to the desire to maintain their hold on Presidential power, remember that many high-ranking Republicans will be out of jobs if Obama wins, and even worse, some of them might be prosecuted for their misdeeds during these past 8 years. That prospect alone might be enough to terrify easily frightened Republican minds such as that of Karl Rove into devising as many dirty tricks as they can think of to apply to these last few weeks of the campaign. Of course, relatively few Republicans in the Bush administration, if any, will actually be prosecuted, and most of them will probably wind up with lucrative jobs in "the private sector," such as being lobbyists, but still, just think of the poor fellows, deprived of their top-dog status. They really don't deserve our pity, though. Thus, the Republican politicians of 2008 bravely soldier on, making up tricks to fool voters into once again leaning their way. Lord knows the Republicans also have had enough practice at lying, cheating, and stealing their way to victory these past few decades, far more practice than the Democrats have had. By now, they should be really good at cheating. The problem with cheating, though, is that it is the same problem that surprise attacks have. At first, when plied on an unsuspecting public, which the citizens of the U.S. definitely were in the recent past -- a public with great respect for the institutions of voting, fair elections, and democracy -- the perpetrators tend to get away with everything they try, without their dishonest tactics being subject to scrutiny. Over time, however, more and more people become suspicious, and as they do, investigative journalists begin studying what is really going on during elections, and the public becomes more and more suspicious, if not outraged. In my humble opinion, the average citizen is still not as suspicious of political cheating here in the U.S. as he/she ought to be, but is considerably more suspicious than in the past (myself included). I believe a watershed moment in terms of the public's trust for the election process was the presidential election of 2000, especially the suspicious shenanigans that were happening in Florida, and the Supreme Court's decision favoring Bush. Ever since then, there has been a public undercurrent of distrust for the way that elections are held in the U.S., most strongly among progressives, but also among others as well.
Voter fraud is not the problem; election fraud is the problem. Remember, there are unscrupulous people in politics, unscrupulous people who view the President as the most powerful person in the world, and who would do almost anything to get their candidate elected and gain access to such power. The stakes are extremely high -- high enough that the end justifies the means in the minds of some. Remember, too, some Republicans, in particular, feel entitled to power -- entitled by birthright, by experience, or by divine intervention. People who believe that God has predestined them to wield power can probably justify to themselves any actions they need to take in order to gain such power.
Let me look at some of the suspicious happenings in recent weeks.
1. The Republican attempt to prevent about 200,000 newly registered voters in Ohio from voting because they wrote their names differently in the voting roles than they did on their driver's licenses. The Supreme Court ruled against the Republicans, fortunately, but now, Ohio Republicans are appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court. (I don't know how that works; I thought the U.S. Supreme Court was the final arbiter of legal cases.)
2. A purge of voting roles is taking place in Colorado, focusing on removing people likely to vote for Obama.
3. Michigan Republicans are threatening to disallow any persons whose homes have been foreclosed from voting.
4. Montana Republicans are threatening to prevent anyone who has moved without officially changing their address in the voter roles from voting.
5. At least 75 people in Florida who voted early saw their votes flipped from Obama/Biden to McCain/Palin before their very eyes, and were unable to change their votes back.
6. The same vote flipping problem that was reported in Florida has also been reported in West Virginia and now two other states, although in Tennessee, votes were actually being flipped from Republican to Democratic.
Meanwhile, Republicans including McCain and Palin are making an issue out of a small number of fraudulent registrants signed up but then rejected by ACORN, the organization which attempts to register new voters. Nobody ever would have attempted to vote under these fraudulent names, anyway. These were attempts by ACORN employees to pad their numbers of newly registered voters. These employees were subsequently fired. Nonetheless, Republicans continue to cry foul, another attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.
So far, there have been no reports of "vote caging" in which people are prevented from voting due to the failure to respond to a mailed message, but this is still early in the election process. Other examples of likely election fraud are likely to occur. I will attempt to document the ones that I become aware of. Notice that in every case, the suspicious activity favors the election of Republican candidates, including the McCain/Palin ticket, and most of these problems seem to be occuring in battleground states.
October 20
The Tyranny of the Majority versus the Wisdom of the People
As the basis of Democracy, voting is intended to elect representatives who have the approval and support of the majority of people. This is a sound principle when the majority of people understand what policies work and which candidates support those policies. However, such is not always the case. Sometimes, common "wisdom" is not so wise. Thus, we often wind up with the "tyranny of the majority" (a term which I believe was coined by a Frenchman named Alexis de Toqueville). For example, Adolph Hitler was elected with an overwhelming majority of votes in 1933. Of course, we do not expect any of our political choices to be perfect, but some can be atrocious, especially when a majority group insists on persecuting or discriminating against minority groups. It can also be a problem when a relatively uneducated electorate opts to elect leaders who attempt simple-minded and wrong-headed solutions which more knowledgable persons know will not work. These are the sorts of problems which De Toqueville warned against.
Imagine if the majority of the population in the U.S., who have brown eyes, voted to put those who have blue eyes in concentration camps, or if the right-handed majority voted to cut off the left hands of the approximately 10% of the population who are left-handed. Those examples are pretty far-fetched, "right?" Yet the government of the U.S., with the support of ost Americans, put Japanese-Americans in the equavalent of concentration camps during WWII, leaving those of German or Italian descent alone, conveniently. In fact, around the world, there are many independence movements which threaten to break up existing nations. The basis of these independence movements almost always seems to be based on ethnicity. One part of a nation, where one ethnic or religious group predominates, is in jeopardy of breaking away from the rest of the nation, where another ethnic or religious group predominates. In the worst cases, nations bloodily rip apart, as is case with the former Yugoslavia. This is a tragic case of the tyranny of the majority. When we have democracy, there is always a risk of the majority of citizens making a poor choice.
However, it is better to have government with the support of the majority of the populace than without it. There is a sense of somewhat of a consensus when the majority agrees with its government's point of view. The alternative to majority rule is some form of minority rule, which tends to quickly degenerate into fascism, nepotism, and despotism.For the most part, the views of the majority do represent good and reasonable policy. There is such a thing as the wisdom of the people, if they have the means to acquire such wisdom -- that is, an educated populace living in an intellectually enlightened environment, much like the one which fostered the thinking of the founders of the United States. The keys to having a successful democracy are as follows:
1. Ensure that minorities have basic human rights which cannot be violated by majority rule;
2. Ensure that minority views are listened to thougtfully and with an open-mind (combating the possibility of Groupthink);
3. Have expert opinions which are carefully considered but not considered to be the final word on a subject;
4. Ensure that elections are conducted fairly so that election outcomes represent the will of the majority of people; and
5. Have a well-educated and involved electorate which has the knowledge it needs to make good, informed democratic decisions.
Only in this way, can a society maintain a viable democracy while avoiding an unfortunate situation in which the majority exerts unfair, impractical and perhaps brutal rule over the minority.
October 4
This is a period of time personally when there is so much happening in my family that I could write many blog entries about these personal events. Thinking about it, I have opted not to at this time, but this is a difficult period for many people on both my side of the family and my wife's family. If it is appropriate later, I will discuss the significance of these events. Personally, I am fine, except that I continue to be racked by one of the worst allergies I have ever had these past 8 days, and I am an allergy prone person who has suffered many allergic reactions in my life.
The Great Debate: How Can We Make the Messages Add Up?
One of my students asked me yesterday whether or not I would blog about the Vice Presidential Debate. I was not planning to, but after thinking about it, I decided to take a break from the Perspectives on Fear series to write about the debate, especially since that was the only one between the Vice Presidential candidates.
As a whole, I thought the Vice Presidential debate was similar the the first debate between Obama and McCain, with the Democrat making more reasoned and nuanced points about how to deal with problems and help the average citizen, as compared to the Republican who seemed like a repetitious "talking point" machine who spoke without much regard for the truth. Thus, as Obama handily won the first debate according to polss, his running mate Joe Biden, polls showed -- except on places which only Republicans go to such as Fox News -- handily won the second debate. I am pleased with the outcomes of both debates, although there are certain topics -- the primacy of the bailout plan, plans to escalate military involvement in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, unquestioning support of Israel's government -- with which I still disagree with the Democratic ticket.
However, watching the debates and the post debate commentary, it has occurred to me that, much as a wrote an earlier blog about how candidates play an unofficial game with certain unfortunate unwritten rules, we see the playing out of this disengenuous game by both sides during these debates. It is quite clear that what the candidates say, really does not add up to a realistic, comprehensive picture of a possible future. We now the future is going to come, and we know that it is not going to resemble the one painted by the candidates in many ways. In choosing between the two visions, I know that the Democratic one in this election is the more realistic and better course of action than that of the Republicans, but neither one is really an honest vision. Let me do a run-down of where the promises of the candidates conflict with reality.
1. No candidate would adequately allow for the compromises that would have to be made due to the current and worsening budget crunch. Thus, the numbers financially are not adding up, and if either party does all it wants to do, our debt and likelihood of total financial collapse will only continue to increase.
2. No candidate would admit to the possibility of raising taxes to alleviate our government's budget shortfall, and none of them had an adequate explanation for how they planned to lower our deficit.
3. All of the candidates seemed to favor the current bailout of the financial institutions which Congress just passed, although it seems like the wrong approach to really help our hurting economy. I understand that the bill does include some protections for consumers and may be a first step toward much needed reforms of the way our financial institutions are run in the U.S., but it seems utterly wrong to focus on helping the rich, narcissistic troublemakers who run our financial institutions, rather than us hurting, innocent consumers. No wonder the bill is so unpopular among the public.
4. They all seemed to buy into the idea of overseas military interventionism, the Republicans more than the Democrats, even though it clearly is counterproductive and enormously costly.
5. They all accepted the framing of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as "Wars" although they are clearly occupations by a foreign army (ours). In fact, I would assert that neither was ever a war in the first place, but rather, a hostile takeover by an overwhelmingly superior military force, with no organized resistance. As I recall in studying wars in history, they are fought between opposing armies, but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq even had an opposing army.
6. All of the candidates pledged undying, irrational, uncritical support for Israel's government. Israel has a right to exist, but it is also obliged to observe the rights of non-Jewish as well as Jewish persons. The idea of a nation founded on the basis of religion -- no matter what the religion is -- is an atrocious, nonsensical, and impractical one, ultimately doomed to failure. However, Israel can be a success if Jews, Muslims, and others living in the region learn to cooperate and respect each other. That means, to me, that Muslims and others must be allowed equal access with that enjoyed by Jews to participation in Israel's government.
All of these problems seem to reveal a culture of politics in the United States, one in which certain memes are accepted as fact even though they fly in the face of reality. It is really a matter of framing the issues; once the issues have been framed a certain way, largely by Republicans of the past such as Ronald Reagan, they become very difficult to change. But the more they stay the same, the more they need to change. We need to make it clear to politicians that their world-view needs adjsutment, that the lenses they view the world through are distorted.
I would like to end with some reasons why Palin's and McCain's views especially don't make sense, which I believe is the main reason they lost their debates, since most viewers, of not commentators, were smart enough to realize this.
1. "We are the Mavericks. We will change the way things are done in Washington." Try juxtaposing that with the fact that they belong to the same party and largely espouse the same views which have determined the way things are being done in Washington.
2. "We Republicans will lower your taxes and Obama will raise them, and that will stimulate the economy out of its doldrums" How much lower can taxes get, especially for the wealthy? Republicans have been trying the same discredited "Trickle Down Economics" approach ever since Reagan was President, and that has proven not to work, leading only to a society of "pee-ons" lead by a few inordinately wealthy people. This is another example of how a McCain-Palin administration would not change the way things are done in Washington.
3. "We must 'win' the 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to defeat terrorism.". In the first place, they are unwelcomed occupations, not wars. Consequently, since these occupations are really not wars, there is no such thing as "winning" them, which explains why neither McCain nor Palin can ever define what "winning" them means. In the second, military intervention is a counterproductive, bull-in-a-China-shop approach -- or a bullying, if you prefer -- way to deal with terrorism. This is a most destructive form of stubborn and wrongheaded thinking, and yet another example of how a McCain-Palin administration would not improve our government.
Of course, we can add to that Palin's lack of understanding of the issues, and that her apparently average intellect does not offer us much hope that she ever will adequately understand the complex issues that we face as a nation, while McCain's world views have long since solidified and offer no prospect for improvement as he ages further.
September 28
Greetings! I took Eunice to Isabella's house yesterday, where she is staying for a couple of days. Eunice said she needs to talk to Steve (Isabella's would-be boyfriend). I hope her venture works out. Meanwhile, I have a Sunday off from church duties.
The Other Foreign Policy Debate
The foreign policy debate I am "writing" (lefting) about is not the one between Barack Obama and John McCain which took place Friday evening, but rather, the one which should be taking place between the American people and their government. I listened to and watched most of the debate on Friday (missed the beginning since I was still fishing), and I thought Obama won. I was also encouraged that Obama won the debate by wide margins in the various polls. I don't know if I have written this on the blog before, probably not, since I know some people might consider me to be a delusional kook, but I seem to be psychic on occasion, and one of those occasions was just after the supertuesday primaries in February, when Hillary Clinton was still leading the Democratic Delegate count. I was driving to school one day, when I had a strong mental vision of Barack Obama giving his presidential acceptance speech amid a cheering crowd. It was a premonition type of feeling which I have on occasion, but not often. Since then, I have felt that Obama will be elected as our next President. However, there have been many pitfalls and uncertainties, and I have always felt that part of the "deal" is that I need to do my small part in helping Obama to get elected, as I have been doing. Now, the goal is in sight, and I can see things falling Obama's way, although I still don't trust the Republicans and their dirty tricks, especially the Karl Rove wing of the Republicans.
Even after Obama is elected, assuming that actually happens, the public's work is not done by any means. In some ways, it will just begin then. Progressives and other fed-up Americans will finally have a leader who will most likely be receptive to what they have to say. All of this is my roundabout way of saying that even though I -- and most other Americans -- prefer Obama's vision of foriegn policy and our role in the world, I was still disappointed with it in the sense that Obama seems to buy into the notion of the United States imperialistic military might to some degree. You may call me radical, but I believe I am just being reasonable and realistic, when I say that this notion must change. (Actually, it is my intention to write a series of posts which might eventually turn into a book called "The Myth of War" but that is a future topic.) In thinking about the issue of America's role in the world, I think there are a number of circumstances which have led us to the point that the United States government's use of military force in the world has become a dangerous and counterproductive force in the world.
1. Presidents endowed with the world's most powerful military apparatus, as leaders of the free world and maybe the world's only current superpower, find the use of this military on fereign soil to be an irresistable proposition.
2. With the constant invention of new military weapons and other equipment, there is a constant drive to test these apparatuses in the field, which means using them in foreign nations against those deemed to be our enemies.
3. Since the use of American military force on foreign soils was initiated with apparently good intentions during World Wars one and two, and was widely perceived as a great success (although I would question that), our people and our government has become intoxicated with the notion of power stemming from military might for the purpose of good. Basically, America has become too big for its own britches. We paint ourselves to be the heroes riding into battle on a white horse to save the day. That makes Americans feel good about themselves, even though it is a delusion.
4. There is a great reluctance to criticize U. S. military personnel or anything that they do. Rather, they are consistently honored for having served in the military, regardless of their individual actions or motivations. The problem with this is that, it is difficult to separate the personal honor of military personnel, from the worthiness of the missions in which they are deployed. If our military personnel are being so honorable in Iraq, for example, how is it that their mission is an entirely wrongheaded and immoral one which never should have been embarked upon in the first place? I think this is a question which Americans have been struggling with at least since the Vietnam War. Still, many people seem to wind up contradicting themselves. The soldiers are great, but the war -- or occupation -- is terrible and wrong. I think a more appropriate sentiment would be sympathy and even pity for the soldiers, for having gotten into the situation that they are in, and having made such great sacrifices. But we must remember that military personnel are imperfect human beings, too, and in the context of war or occupation, some of them may do atrocious things. I would assert that just because one is a soldier, that does not mean that one abdicates responsibility for one's personal decisions and actions. (This applies to John McCain, too, who dropped bombs on North Vietnamese targets prior to being shot down and captured.) We have an all-vounteer army. These people have made a decision to become part of the American War Machine.
5. An argument could be made that we have become dependent upon the idea of using the American military to help ensure the flow of cheap goods from foreign lands, especially oil. I do not totally buy into this idea, but I heard this argument made by a professor named Andrew Bacevich on Bill Moyer's Journal just after the debate on Friday. Dr. Bacevich has written a book called "The Limits of Power" in which he asserts that this is the case. The book has some subtitle as well, but I forget what the subtitle is. (Virtually all academic books these days seem to have a subtitle.) The main problem I have with this notion is that it does not seem to be working, as the American people are acutely aware of. The price of oil is skyrocketing, not remaining at low prices. Also, we have cheap products from other countries -- wherever there is cheap labor -- that have absolutely no American military presence. Anyway, Dr. Bacevich eventually described himself as a conservative during the interview, which was astounding considering the contempt he had for Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, and his praise of Jimmy Carter's farsighted vision when he proposed in 1979 that we wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil as soon as possible. However, Bacevich is the traditional type of conservative, a true conservative rather than one of the neo-cons who have been ruling our nation. He is the type of conservative who truly believes in limiting spending, including military spending and involvement, as well as limiting the size of government and its intrusion into the lives of citizens. Thus, it turns out that progressive such as myself really have much in common with true conservatives, when it comes to our vision of foreign relations and the use of military force. Dr. Bacevich mentioned, as well, that terrorism should be treated as an international policing problem, not an American military problem, and that terrorists are basically criminals. I have been saying the same all along. Our military should be a small, limited force which stays here in the U.S. in order to protect the public from potential threats. Of course, that means they would have very little to do, since we really face no invasions or major threats which the military is best suited to handle. But that is the way it should be. In that case, there would not need to be so much discussion about whether or not we are really "supporting the troops" or how best to do so.
The really sad part of the interview with Dr. Bacevich came near the end, when he revealed that his own son was killed in Iraq last May (2007). Andrew Bacevich was probably already writing his book by then.
To get back to the point of this post, we need to make it clear that the United States cannot afford to continue being "the world's policeman" or pursue the democratically imperialistic dreams of its leaders, nor should ever have done so, even were it affordable. We need to assert that the public is the true commander-in-chief of the United States. Hopefully, Barack Obama will be elected to be our next President, and he will be receptive to that message.
September 20
Taking Stock of America
With recent events, it behooves us to take a look at the United States of America from a big picture point of view. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that we have a dysfunctional government and an untenable economic system in the long run. Perhaps a thumbnail sketch of our nation will help to elucidate why.
Nation: United States
Major Exports: Cultural -- Entertainment such as Movies and Music, Fundamentalist Christianity; Political -- Wars, Occupations and Weapons in Misguided Attempt to Export Democracy; Material -- Technology
Major Imports: Cultural or Political -- None; Material -- Various Types of Goods Produced by Cheap Overseas Labor Which Help Maintain Accustomed High Standard of Living, Technology
Basis of Economy: Shifted From Industry to Moving Money Around (Buy Low, Sell High) and Retail Sales
Natural Resources: Agricultural -- Good but Dwindling with Environmental Degradation and Population Increase; Mineral -- Limited and Dwindling
Pastimes: Watching Obscenely Highly Paid Actors and Athletes
Distribution of Wealth: Increasingly Concentrated in the Hands of a Small Number of Wealthy Industrialists
Distribution of Power: Money Talks -- Following the Money, the Wealthy Have Increased Their Access to Power
Education: Both Public and Private, Although Republicans Would Like to Privatize and Christianize Education
Health Care: Private and Often Prohibitively Costly
Social Security: Public, Although Republicans Are Attempting to Privatize it
Worker Status: Labor Unions Diminished by Corporate Friendly Government, Wages Diminished with Dual Career Households an Economic Necessity
Balance of Trade: Hugely Negative
Budget: A Huge and Unsustainably Growing Deficit Owed to Foreign Banks (Especially Chinese Banks)
Hopeful Development #1: Internet Technology, Allowing Greater Worldwide Communication and Exchange of Ideas and Information in this Computer Era
Hopeful Development # 2: Public Becoming More Aware of These Problems and Wiser to the Tactics Which Make Them Possible, in Part, With the Help of Internet Communication
I wrote a few days ago that if McCain and Palin are elected, thre is likely to be social unrest, especially if the election results are suspicious. I also wrote that in the case of a Republican victory, the U.S. is likely to undergo another depression or at least a bad recession. Events of recent days have only helped confirm these fears. In fact, there may be social unrest (probably coming from the other side of the political spectrum) even if Barack Obama is elected, and we definitely seem to have tough economic times in store over the next few years, no matter what kind of administration we have.
Remember, a President and his/her administration can only last a maximum of 8 years, but many of their policies may take decades for their consequences to become evident. Such is the case with the policies and political trends begun by the Reagan Administration. That is why I continue to harp on the issue of the harm done by the Reagan Administration. To quote Reverend Jeremiah Wright "The Chickens are coming home to roost." The process has taken three decades so far to begin approaching its ultimate conclusion. Reagan may have been wildly popular with most Americans while he was President, but these voters were being short-sighted and selfish. Remember, Adolph Hitler was the elected leader of Germany, and for a long time, he was wildly popular as well. (I am not comparing Reagan with Hitler here, but merely making a point.) Sometimes, an electorate makes poor choices, which is not an indictment of Democracy, but rather, shows our shortcomings as a people. We need a politically educated electorate, not a naive one, and over time, as people pay attention to what is happening politically in their nation, their choices should become better informed and more wise. With better political choices, we can use the processes of democracy to help us reverse the negative trajectory that the Reagan Administration first put our nation on.
September 18
The Problem With McCain
In previous posts, I have made the case for Barack Obama as the person who best can help us reverse the destructive trajectory of the United States which began when Ronald Reagan was President. I also critiqued McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate (which is also a critique of McCain's judgment). Today, however, I would like to add some perspective on John McCain in particular.
McCain in the past was known as a moderate, and what was to many such as myself a relatively tolerable Republican. In 2000, he was still that way as far as I can tell, but George W. Bush beat McCain in the Republican primaries, partly because of name recognition, partly because of the fact that the Republican primaries are dominated by far-right conservatives, and partly because of the Bush campaign's dirty tricks (implying that he had a child out of wedlock with a Black woman, and that he was undergoing psychiatric care, neither of which were true). McCain has changed, however, in addition to growing 8 years older and less vigorous. When the Republican primaries were taking place, I asked my Republican parents ("Eisenhower Republicans," which is far different from what the Republican Party has now become), who they were going to vote for in the primaries. They said they wish they could vote for Obama, like I did! They reluctantly voted for -- not John McCain, but Mitt Romney. "We really like Obama" my father said. "McCain has changed." Before it was reform and compromise, now it's "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and the 100 year war (occupation really) of Iraq, as well as who know whatever other military misadventures he would get us into. Even if McCain had not changed these past few years, I feel that Obama would still be a much better choice for President than McCain, but McCain has taken a right turn in his politics, which makes him an even worse choice now.
Actually, this militaristic attitude was that of McCain all along. Remember, he was the son and the grandson of 4 star Admirals. He spent the Vietnam War bombing Vietnamese people. No one knows how many Vietnamese, both military and civilian, whose deaths he is responsible for. But "it was war." McCain gets a free pass on that. He was just doing what his deranged government asked him to. Still, it shows a lack of judgment or compassion, and possibly racism, that a young man would not mind killing large numbers of people in such an impersonal way. (Frankly, research has shown that it takes something of an Antisocial Personality -- a criminally minded person -- or a Narcissistic Personality -- an enormously self-important mindset -- to become a bomber such as he was.) It's no wonder the Vietnamese wanted to shoot down his airplane. Yes, what he did took great bravery, and his life was in grave danger, but we should also consider what he was doing and why he did it. While in prison at the Hanoi Hilton, McCain was tortured, and that is certainly a shame. But that does not qualify him to be a leader, especially given that he gave into the torture, and eventually gave 30 antiamerica messages for the North Vietnamese. We never hear that part of the story, and McCain has been running from it ever since it happened, pretending to be some sort of mentally indestructible maverick who defied the North Vietnamese the entire time that he was a prisoner. That is a lie and a myth. I don't necessarily think that McCain should be blamed for his fallability in such desperate times, but he is not the hero he is portrayed as. Yet the media seems to accept the myth of McCain's heroism. But the main point is that McCain is a military man with something to prove -- a sense of shame and inferiority he is attempting to overcome -- in much the same way that Bush and Cheney are politically well-connected oilmen, with something to prove, especially in the case of the younger Bush trying to make his father proud. The McCain scenario is a dangerous one, militarily, just as that of the Bush-Cheney ticket was.
McCain really has not paid that much attention to economic issues, with his military obsession and his reputation as a maverick reformer to uphold. The fact is, although he talks about fixing whatever is wrong with Wall Street and our nation's other economic woes, he really endorses the same policies which have brought us these problems in the first place. In fact, his advisors are people who advocate such policies as deregulation which have brought us these problems, so it is no surprise that he is offereing no real solutions. Basically, he has learned from the Bushies how to win votes by towing the right-wing conservative Republican line. For example, he has recently declared himself to be a fundamentalist Christian and changed his religious affiliation to Southern Baptist from Episcopalian. I wonder what his Sothern Baptist friends think of his numerous affairs he had while married to his first wife, or the way he dumped her to marry a wealthy beer distributing heiress. And the Republicans call themselves the party of family values. Yet their opponents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have such spotless personal family records that the Republicans have nothing to say about their personal lives. Thus, as with the other Republican campaigns in recent decades, the McCain campaign is resorting to a variety of dirty tricks to either win votes or prevent people from voting for their opponents (more on this in another post). Meanwhile, McCain's policies and choices have become more and more right-wing, even while he and Palin advertise themselves as maverick reformers who would be agents of positive change. I think they have themselves confused with Obama. Actually, a McCain Presidency is exactly what we do not need at this time.
September 15
Here is another one of my MySpace posts which ended up looking more like a "Box-Free Blog" post, so I transferred it over here, with a few small modifications.
The Presidential Election Polls Are Not Adding Up
Current mood: worried
Category: News and Politics
What I don't get about the polls is that registration of Democrats nationwide has been increasing for several years, and that of Republicans has been decreasing for several years, yet pollsters still claim that the race for the presidency is practically even. The Democrats have gained something like 1 million voters this year, and the Republicans have lost something like 2 million, so that now, Democrats have increased their registration lead over Republicans to about 10 million (42 million Democrats to 32 million Republicans nationwide, with the rest being independents or members of other parties). Unless independents vote overwhelmingly for the McCain-Palin ticket, the Obama-Bdien ticket should be well ahead, and win easily.
Things just aren't adding up, especially given the Bush administration's dismal approval rating. Also, there have been clear trends in recent years toward Democrats, with Democrats winning more and more governorships and spots in state and national legislatures. Demographic trends also favor Democrats. Meanwhile, many voters find Obama to be an exceptional candidate and are excited about his candidacy. So what gives?
Here are possible reasons for the discrepancies seen:
1. The pollsters don't poll younger voters, since they have no track record of voting. Younger, newer voters are more likely to register as Democrats, and presumably vote Democratic.
2. They may poll equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in some polls, despite the differences in numbers.
3. Racism may be reducing the Obama-Biden numbers in the polls; this is even more worrisome when considering the Bradley Effect, which was discussed in a previous post. The Bradley Effect is named after the race in California years ago when an African American Democrat named Tom Bradley lead by something like 5 points in all of the polls, but lost the actual election to a white Republican guy named Deukmejian by about 5 points. The explanation given is that some people who are racist are reluctant to appear so during pre-election polls, since they are usually done over the phone, so the person says he or she will vote for the African-American Democrat, but during the actual election, which is done anonymously, any latent racism emerges, and the person votes for the White Republican guy. (I voted for Bradley in that election, by the way.) I suspect that some sort of election fraud may be occuring during some of these elections as well, and voter racism is being used as a cover.
4. Perhaps the pollsters and the media want this election to be neck and neck until the end, because it generates more interest.
5. Republican manipulation of polls can make it more feasible for them to claim another victory in the end, by cheating if necessary and shiftiing votes using computers, etc, from Democratic to Republican. I know this sounds cynical, but the more I learn as time goes by, the more I learn not to trust the Republicans, in particular, when it comes to elections. And remember, people who think they were appointed or annointed by God to lead our nation, will likely find justification for whatever means necessary to gain power, including cheating.
6. Remember, the people who own most of the media are wealthy Republicans, so their perfect scenario is a close, profit generating race, culminating in another close Republican victory. Also remember, these people do know quite a lot about how to manipulate public opinion. I remember driving through various states earlier this summer, such as Nevada, Utah, and western Colorado, and hearing nothing but right-wing propaganda on the radio. (In fact, I posted about this topic on Thom Hartmann's message boards and it generated a great deal of interest.) Liberal Media Bias My Ass! That is just another conservative media lie. Fortunately, media manipulation of public opinion does have its limits. Many people already have strong opinions, obviously, and even for those without firmly held opinions, reality sets in at some point.
The bottom line is, do not let ourselves have another election stolen by the Republicans! If we do, the great United States will be in really bad shape, and I fear there will be riots and another depression much like the Great Republican Depression that began in 1929.
September 9
Greetings to box-free bloggers out there. I did not do a post yesterday, but I did link all (but one that I couldn't get to work) of the other webpages on this site to this homepage. I did that because I did a Google search for this blog a few days ago (good idea to see how it's working on Google), and found that all of the links to this website were to archived pages, not the homepage.
Sarah Barracuda, the Ice Princess
There have been Barracuda sightings in recent years in Alaska. Maybe it's a sign of global warming. Wait a moment -- that's Sarah Palin, whose nickname is Sarah Barracuda. Now that I think of it, this former Alaskan beauty contestant doesn't believe in global warming, except perhaps as part of God's great end times plan. (Maybe hell is bubbling up from down below.) As the stern, ultraconservative Ice Princess of Alaska, I suppose she would be in denial about human's role in global warming.. Of course, she wouldn't really be on our radar, except that John McCain chose her to be his running mate. (Rumor has it that she was really his third choice, after Democratic traitor Joe Lieberman, and Tom Ridge.) Now, John and Sarah are inseperable. It looks like John McCain has a new girlfriend, of sorts. In fact, he can't seem to keep his eyes off her. With her stern, ultraconservative beauty queen looks, and those harsh evangelical Christian schoolmarm glasses, she makes an astonishing Republican poster girl. With her lack of experience, she is a malleable entity ready to be molded in her Republican education as she sees things through the light of her ultraconservative, evangelical lenses. It is clear to see that her selection was a ploy to appeal to female voters. Unfortunately, so far it is working, at least with White women. Before selecting Palin as his running mate, McCain was trailing by about 10 points among White women. Now, he is leading by about 10 points among this same demographic group. We know that people are not supposed to vote based upon shallow demographic characteristics such as race or gender, but it is clear that it happens! Actually, the shift in White women's votes only represents about 10 percent of White women changing their stated preference. But 10 percent of a large demographic such as White women, is a big deal in an election, enough in many cases to change the outcome of an election. And this shift in the poll numbers occured despite the fact that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are largely opposites in their politics, Hillary has much more political experience, and the two women really share nothing in common, other than being White women. Hilllary Clinton was not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, but she would be vastly better than Sarah Palin as a potential President or Vice President. In fact, having Sarah Palin in the White house is a scary prospect, perhaps even more so than John McCain, for reasons which I will detail below.
Most of the material which follows has been gleaned from Thom Hartmann's radio program, whose link is on my links page. But it merits a summary here. Basically, when Sarah Palin's life and attitudes are delved into, she appears to be a kook. Meanwhile, John McCain is an elderly, impetuous, military and corporate oriented hothead, with a history of infidelity, who appears to be infatuated with Sarah Palin. But the focus is on Palin here. Her church in Alaska is a fundamentalist Christian church, whose beliefs include that we are in the "end days" of humanity. Her pastor preaches that Alaska will be one of the last refuges for humanity in the near future as the end approaches. Palin has a variety of ultraconservative views which stem from her religious training. Among them is the view that sex education should not be taught in school. (She probably wishes all schools were parochial schools, and wants to privatize the education process -- the buzzwords for that being "choice," "competition among schools," and "school vouchers.") Apparently, her 17 year old daughter decided to try some "hands on" sex education, and now is pregnant. Of course, the Republicans are trying to turn that into a good thing. "She is going to marry her boyfrend. She is living out her values," especially since Palin wants to outlaw all abortions (no exceptions). If a Democratic candidate's teenage daughter were pregnant, she would be most likely demonized and made an example of failing family values which would be blamed on the Democrats. Given all we know about Palin's religious views, it seems likely that she thinks she is being appointed by God to help run this country, and perhaps help bring about the "end times." That really scares me. George W. Bush apparently believes he was appointed or annointed by God to be President, and his presidency hasn't exactly turned out well. If anything, Sarah Palin is even more extreme in her religious and political views than George W. Bush was, and that's really scary. And remember, a person who thinks he or she was divinely appointed, is likely to do anything to keep that appointment, including cheating and unfair election practices, and feel justified in doing so. I think we have seen this phenomenon already on a consistent basis with Republican candidates these past few decades, and that makes me feel morally outraged, scared, and oppressed.
In the area of politics, it turns out that Palin's husband, Todd, has been or had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party for years. This is a group which advocates that Alaska secede from the United States. Its leader, whose name is Vogler, I believe, has been recorded stating that the "fires of hell are like frozen ice compared to his hatred for the U.S. government." Yet, Sarah Palin has been giving sympathetic speeches to this group at their conferences. A strange thing happened when Sarah Palin was about to give birth to her most recent chid, Trig (the one with Down Syndrome). She was in Texas at the time, when she went into labor. Any rational person would quickly go to a nearby hospital, I would think, to give birth. Sarah Palin, however, got on an airplane, and went all the way back to Alaska to give birth in an Alaskan hospital, an arduous trip even for someone who is not about to give birth. Could it be that she wanted her child to be a citizen of Alaska? Regarding Palin's knowledge of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the nation she is in position to lead or co-lead, she does not seem to know much except that these invasions are part of God's will for the approaching "end times," and that her eldest son Track, with whom she was pregnant when she got married, will soon go there. That means that Track will soon be saying goodbye to Piper (airplane), Trig (onometry?), and his other oddly named siblings. I am suppose he will be hailed as a hero by the media. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin seems to be in a honeymoon period with the press, perhaps a permanent one, and information such as this has been kept out of the mainstream media. Let us do our part in getting the truth about Sarah Palin out in the open, and let us hope and pray that these truths showing what a kook Sarah Palin is, will come out before the election. Perhaps the weight of the evidence about Palin will become so heavy that even FOX news and the Limbaughs of the world can no longer ignore it.
I am all for having a woman as President or Vice President. I just do not think that Sarah Palin is the one.
September 6
Which Will it Be: Peace, Love and Understanding, or War, Hate, and Misunderstanding?
Earlier today, I saw a new inspirational psychologist named John Izzo. I think I may have seen him briefly before, actually, but today, I saw the majority of his show. Being a Psychologist, a Humanist (or Universalist, to be more inclusive), and an advocate of peace, love and understanding, I love to see people such as this, and my eyes are glued to the screen when I see a new show which fuses psychology, philosophy, and spirituality. Previously, the person who has been doing this type of show is Dr. Wayne Dyer. Dr. Izzo has advanced degrees in Psychology, Theology, and a Ph.D. in something to do with communication which I had never heard of before, but seems more associated with Psychology than with any other major discipline. The shows I am talking about are on public television. We do not get cable at my house, but when I do see cable, I do not see shows such as these, which reflects poorly on cable television.
Dr. Izzo's presentation was largely about love and his research on what the happiest senior citizens had learned about life, from a philosophical perspective. Of course, their happiness had much to do with love. This website, and Dolly-Verse, are also essentially about the positives in life, such as peace, love, and understanding. That is something I hope to never lose sight of. Even if no-one else pays attention, even if there are no awards, no best selling books, no television shows, I must have faith in human rationality and the greater goodness of human nature, and know that it will be worth the effort. After all, these posts, as well as poems, pictures and so forth, are my gifts to the world. People can choose to reward me, or not, but all I give on my websites are given freely by me and with joy to the world.
I have been largely writing about political issues on this site, in recent months, and that is for good reason. I feel very strongly that the upcoming election in the U.S. will very likely be a turning point in which we as a nation, either begin moving once again in a positive, progressive direction, or we allow our nation to slide into a deep conservative, corporate-dominated funk from which it will take generations to recover, and will put us far behind in our evolution as a society. Ultimately, I believe the course of history is one of progressive trends. However, it is imcumbent upon us to recognize the capacity for ignorance to rule people's minds, for hatred to rule their hearts, and the destruction of war to ruin people's lives. Thus, I believe that in order to promote the good in us, such as peace, love, and understanding, we must also pay attention to the bad, the wars, hatred, and misunderstandings, and what may be done to minimize the bad. And social psychological research shows us that, it is only human to pay the most attention to our problems, so that we may gain some insight, from an attributional perspective, into how to solve these problems. (Just examine the content of our news programs, for instance.)
From the perspective of peace, love and understanding versus war, hate, and misunderstanding, the choice becomes rather simple. Do we aspire to create a better society and choose leadership which focuses on building a society which brings people together in peace, love, and understanding, or do we give in to fear and distrust, and choose leadership which promotes war and hatred against those who disagree with us, or those we do not understand, a leadership who needs and searches for enemies in order to magnify potential threats, and chooses to ignore evidence and even science when it does not support their preconceived notions? If we want to better ourselves, we must choose the Obama/Biden ticket. If we want to feel endlessly persecuted, and unending military misadventures, wars and occupations of other nations, and let big business control our economy and politics, with a declining standard of living, meanwhile falling more and more behind other nations, we choose the McCain/Palin ticket. The choice is clear. We need to vote Democratic. The issue of third parties is another important one, which I will address in more detail at another time. Last night, even my mother was agreeing with me that we need to move to a system of proportional representation by political parties, in order to give other parties a chance to become established. There is much to complain about concerning both major parties, but clearly, we desperately need to go Democratic at this time. Even my parents, who are Republicans, appear that they are going to vote for Obama, and complain about Republican candidates and the news coverage on stations such as FOX news.
John Izzo had one insight into wisdom that I really liked. He said that wisdom, the highest of the three mental capacities (intelligence, creativity, and wisdom), is the knowledge of what is truly important. I see Barack Obama and Joe Biden focusing on the truly important issues, and trying to find solutions that will work. They show a good measure of real wisdom. On the other hand, I see John McCain and Sarah Palin focusing on vague threats such as terrorism, or using gimmicks such as Palin's gender to attract voters, and when they do focus on real issues, such as our economy, present jaded conservative ideas which have been proven not to work, and which will ultimately further empower wealthy corporatists, and disempower the rest of us. And meanwhile, they say they don't believe in government, yet they want to run our government. That is not what I call wise, nor is their strategic use of war, hate and misunderstanding.
September 5
Republican Groupthink
Like many people, I watched parts of both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Obviously, I am not sympathetic to the Republicans, so I could be accused of being biased. However, I do not think I am being biased when I write (or left) that there is a marked difference in the culture of Democrats and Republicans, which is evident when viewing their respective National Conventions. For one thing, even my wife noticed that "All the people" at the Republican Convention "are White" (Bai Ren in Chinese), while a high percentage of the people at the Democratic National Convention are non-white, with Eunice noting the Blacks are especially prominant. I mentioned to her that Blacks wer more numerous this time in particular at the Democratic National Convention because Barack Obama is of African heritage. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party. Furthermore, I would stipulate that the White people at the Republican National Convention tend to be the type of White people who only like other White people, while the White people at the Democratic National Convention are generally White people who like all types of people equally.
Watching Eunice responding to the speakers at the Democratic National Convention, she seemed mostly disinterested, except that she really liked Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Mostly, their speeches seemed too nuanced for somebody with limited command of the English language and limited knowledge of American politics such as her. In responding to the Republican speakers, she seemed interested in every one, although she did not always agree with them. Everything about the Republican Convention was attention catching. There were war heroes, chants of "Drill, baby Drill!"along with "America First" and "U.S.A." Meanwhile, there were speakers giving relatively simplistic and emotionally laden appeals to the public imploring them to vote Republican. What did not work with Eunice? One thing was there was too much hero worship and militarism. "We need peace" Eunice said. The other that she saw was Sarah Palin, especially the part when she was suggesting drilling in ANWAR for oil as though that would solve our energy problems. (It also didn't help that Palin's speech was interfering with Eunice's Chinese show, and she thought that "Palin" looked like the word "Pain.") What worked with Eunice? I also suspect that Eunice would not have found McCain's acceptance speech very interesting, but she was preoccupied at the time, since Isabella was here, so she did not pay attention to McCain's speech. What worked for Eunice? She liked it when speakers referred to self-reliance, a common Republican meme. I told Eunice I thought that nearly everybody wants to be self-reliant, including Democrats, etc. but some people are not able to. In fact, Eunice is a huge contributor to charities for those who need help. Ironically, also, she liked it when they were saying they were "straight talkers" and seemed to agree with many of their glittering, but untrue, generalities. I told her that the problem with these speeches are that they may sound good, but they are very "tricky." Republicans, in particular, say that their policies are working, even though they are not, or will work, even though they will not. And they will do so, even when they know these policies do not work; they are basically telling lies, because it makes them and their ideas sound good, and win votes. It is true that Democrats do the same sometimes, but not as consistently as Republicans do. When I saw the Democratic National Convention, I saw politicians who primarily wanted to speak truths and serve the public, albeit with a Democratic bias; but when I saw the Republican National Convention, I saw people who were out to serve themselves and do anything to keep their party in power, including blatant lies. I saw Republicans, members of the party of the rich White businessman, the party of the status quo, talk about change, and meanwhile, blame Democrats for the problems that Republicans themselves had created. Of course, they also decried the so-called "liberal bias" of the predominantly Republican-owned and largely Republican friendly media.
Consistency, in fact, is a characteristic of the Republican Party (which they predictably use as a selling point), along with its lack of diversity. With it chants and one-mindedness, the Republican National Convention showed a true mob mentality, a sort of cultish groupthink of group leadership, one which was nowhere to be seen at the Democratic National Convention. The nomination of John McCain resembled an orgy of hero worship, and a coronation more than a nomination. Actually the entire scenario reminded me of the book "1984," a book which I read for two different classes while in school. (I had teachers who were concerned about just the sort of thing that is happening now in the U.S., before it happened.) In this book, a fascist society has developed, one in which people are propagandized and mentally manipulated to believe whatever the government wants them to believe. The government presents blatant lies as the truth, which they call "doublespeak," and use it to justify their destructive and self-serving policies. For instance, "War is Peace" was one of their slogans. This was used to justify the government's constant war-making. When Ronald Reagan was president, I knew we were in trouble when his administration came up with the slogan "Peace through Strength." Hadn't anybody read the book "1984?" And of course, Reagan was first elected in 1980, then re-elected in 1984. I had the feeling that Reagan was putting us on the path toward a society something like that which George Orwell wrote about in the book "1984." Unfortunately, since Reagan left the Oval Office, our society has continued down this atrocious path, for the most part.
There are some differences between Orwell's book and what is happening in the U.S., though. For one thing, Orwell was British, and his book was set in England. Another, is the connection of politics with conservative Christianity. The Republican nominees seem to be resembling a pair of Evangelical Pastors more and more with each election cycle. John McCain even changed his religious affiliation recently to Baptist, from Episcopalian, and displays a newfound Evangelical Christian attitude, which Sarah Palin also displays. A thrid difference is that, rather than everything being run by the government, our culture is increasingly being run by large corporations, with government cooperation. And finally, and most hoepfully, we still have an influential and viable political alternative. We still vote, and we can vote to reverse the process that the Reagan Administration began.
Fixing the damage that conservative Republicans and their ideas have done to our society promises to be a difficult process, and it will take quite a few years, but as a society, we can do it. We can begin the process by voting for Obama in November, and making it clear to him that we want to change our nation's course. We also need to make sure that we have a fair and free election. Don't let these Republican Clones, such as those seen at the Repblican National Convention, foist themselves upon us once again, or let them dictate our future as a nation. .
Saturday, August 30, 2008
I just found out that I can transfer posts from MySpace to my blog, so here are the past two posts I put on MySpace. Perhaps I can do the reverse as well; I may try that on another day.
Sarah Palin wants to be my friend
Current mood: honorable
Sarah, age 44, of Alaska, a former Alaskan beauty queen, now wants to be my
friend. She also wants my vote. Apparently, she did not read my blog entry from
yesterday. Sorry, Sarah, but there is not a chance of that. Granted, Sarah did
not contact me on MySpace. She contacted me via the television and radio.
Actually, I had friend invitations from Monica and Kimberly yesterday. However, Monica had disappeared already, and Kimberly was another one of those "invalid ID" gals. Then there was Mike, who actually seemed legitimate, so I put him on my friends list.
To get back to Sarah Palin, I think choosing her is a ploy to try to get more women to vote Republican in the upcoming election, especially dissafected Hillary supporters. I doubt it will work; I hope not, but there are arguements on both sides. It seems stupid to vote or not vote for someone just because of the candidate's gender, or race, but unfortuantely, some voters are that stupid. I remember when African-American Tom Bradley was running for governor of California many years ago. He was leading by someting like 5 points in every poll prior to the election, but he lost the actual election by something like 5 points (to a Republican guy named Deukmajian, I think). And I voted for Bradley. Darn! The analysts believed that the difference between the polls and the official results was latent racism which prevented many voters from actually voting for Bradley, although it could have been one of the earlier cases of Republican cheating, as well, for all I know (which they attributed to racism). I hope the same does not happen to Obama. I know things have changed since the Bradley gubernatorial race in California, but I don't know how much. With Sarah Palin, her gender could be one of those infamous "double-edged swords." She might attract some women voters, and even some men with her looks, but even though she is reportedly popular among conservatives, I would think that many of them would be reluctant to vote for a woman vice president, especially with McCain's age. And her inexperience is almost appalling. I think McCain picked her partly based on gender appeal, and partly based on his attraction for her. She does have attractive features, but has that hard, mean look, in my humble opinion, that so many Republicans have (eg., Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, Dana Perino) Maybe that comes from hunting Moose, Bears, and Wolves in Alaska as I have heard Sarah Palin likes to do. (I am not sure if what I have heard is accurate, except the Moose part, but it wouldn't surprise me.)
There is one additional reason to vote for Barack Obama that I forgot to mention yesterday. If you want a president with character, integrity, and morals, vote for Barack Obama! If you check out McCain's past, you will see that he was succeptable to enemy propaganda, has changed his political views markedly to conform with the Republican agenda, in order to gain the Republican nomination for president, despite selling himself as some sort of "maverick," and suddenly dumped his first wife in order to marry his beer heiress second wife. McCain's current wife Cindy comes from a family that got rich by making people drunk, and alcoholic, one of the two most unsholesome industries in the U.S. along with the tobacco industry. Okay, maybe that's not her fault, but it is suspicious that McCain appeared to go for the money. (Yeah, Kerry did too, but at least his second wife is a ketchup heiress, which is a lot more healthy than beer.) And Cindy MCain, like her hnusband, is known for having a bad temper. For example, she is reported to have done ungodly things to a hapless duck I remember watching my older brother's delinquent friend drown a duck when I was a kid, and it was a traumatic experience, as well as something which helped me become a compassionate and animal loving person. I definitely would not like to see people such as these in the White House.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden, on the other hand, seem to be people of true integrity, faithful husbands (unlike Bill Clinton or John McCain) and true public servants, unlike John McCain, who is commited to serving corporate America.
Get out there and vote for Obama, and Biden!
It's too bad I couldn't inject my posts these past couple days
with more humor, but some topics are totally serious.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Speaking well of the living, and ill of the dead
Current mood: hopeful
Category: News and Politics
Now that the Democratic National Convention is over, I am going to lay it on
the line here -- no humor today. It is time to speak well of the living, and
ill of the dead. I have written extensively about politics on my boxfreeblog
(but not this week), although I have not summarized things quite like this.
I remember when stadiums were named after places or features, not corporations. I remember when "Invesco Field" where Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech, was called "Mile High Stadium." How Symbolic! If you want a future where we are not peons made to pay homage to the Coirporate Gods, vote for Barack Obama!
I remember when CEOs were not paid milllions of bonus dollars on top of their multimillion dollar salaries, and I remember when their employees were able to pay their own way, rather than having more debts than assets. Two of our immediate neighbors on my street have had their houses foreclosed just in the past few weeks, and they had to suddenly move without being able to sell their houses. That is because the bank now owns their houses. If you want a decent economic future, with some semblance of economic fairness, vote for Barack Obama! If you do not want all the "Goodies" and power concentrated in the hands of a few people, vote for Barack Obama!
I remember when the United States was internationally respected, and was not the immoral, militaristic bully of the world. If you want the United States to back away from its rampant, caustic, immoral and destuctive military imperialism, vote for Barack Obama!
Of course, few people, including myself, are likely to agree with everything about Obama, but it is clear that he is a remarkable and brilliant person, a wonderful orator, a great leader, and a man who has the correct priorities in general for both the United States and the world. And as Obama said during his acceptance speech, this election is not about him. It is about us. It is about us as a nation finding our better nature, and moving forward in a positive direction. It is about us as a nation, not attemting to assert our dominance over other nations, but rather, treating them as equals. Truely actualized people do not need to proclaim their greatness; they lead by their example, good will and ideas. It is the same with nations. We may be a leader among nations by our example, good will, and good ideas, but never by force.
Now that I have spoken well of the living, I will speak ill of the dead, as well as some of the living. Who is to blame for these problems we face as a nation? Clearly, it is the conservatives and the so-called "neocons." Yes, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and other like-minded individuals high in the power structure share some of the blame, but they only represent the continuance of policies which were begun many years ago. In fact, the person who should take the most blame for our current troubles, is Ronald Reagan, along with the colleagues who helped get him into power and spin his image in such a way as to maintain his popularity. The corporate media shares some of the blame for what has been happening in the U.S., and make no mistake, the media is biased and corporate in nature. It is true that some media outlets are progressive, such as Air America, whose Thom Hartmann I am listening to now, but by and large, the media is controlled by wealthy conservatives, such as Rupert Murdoch (thus, my disdain for him). The voting public also shares some of the blame for what has gone on in American politics. Voters have been rather easily duped by Republican scare tactics (eg. terrorism or communist "threats") and naive appeals to self-interest (eg, tax cuts and "freedom from government interference"). Meanwhile, conservative politicians have constructed a mighty coalition, one which I call the MIRP complex. That stands for Military-Industrial-Religious-Political complex. However, I sense that the public is waking up to the unfair tactics of Republicans and the inevitable failures of their policies.
Strangely enough, Reagan used to be a Democrat, and Thom Hartmann has played a tape of Reagan several times, railing against corporatism and encouraging voters to vote for Democrats. A couple years later, he married Nancy Davis, the daughter of a wealthy and prominant conservative, and began working for GE doing a radio talk show. Suddenly, he apparently sold his soul to the conservative movement. Ever since then, our nation has been on a dangerous and downhill course, led by the "neocons."
By the way, George W. Bush is pretty much the same type of president that Reagan was, except that Bush had a Republican majority in congress, and Reagan did not. Even the Clinton presidency did not do much to reverse the trend toward the MIRP complex, probably because he was working with a Republican-dominated congress, and maybe because Clinton is more of a moderate by nature.
If you want to reverse the destrcutive course our nation is on, and put our nation back on the path of progress, please vote for Barack Obama! Remember, this is one of the most important elections in the history of the United States, and the future is in our hands. I am a believer in the idea that good will win out in the end, good ideas that work, and the people who put those ideas into action. Now is the time to make it happen.
July 28
Do Lefties Rule?
There is a trait which I share with Barack Obama, John McCain, and approximately 10% of the world's population: all three of us are left-handed. For that matter, so are Bill Clinton, the first George Bush ("the father"), and I believe, Ross Perot. Even Ronald Reagan claimed to be left-handed, but I never saw him do anything that looked left-handed. He definitely wrote right-handed. Perhaps he was one of those right-handed people who trained himself to bat left-handed while playing baseball. While I am on the topic of lefties, both of my brothers are left-handed as well, along with what I am fairly certain is a disproportionately high percentage of scientists, athletes, architects, engineers, artists, musicians and authors. It seems that politicians, at least here in the United States, is another profession to add to the list. On the other hand, a disproportionately high percentage of lefties are retarded, dyslexic, or I believe autistic, as well. Also, lefties tend to suffer medical maladies such as alllergies and asthma at higher rates. (Of this list of mental and physical maladies, I only suffer allergies, although some people do think that I am "retarded." At least that's what Eunice says.) Lefties are also more likely to be homosexual than right-handed people. (My brothers and I, along with the above-mentioned politicians, are all heterosexual, though.)
As a lefty who is also a psychologist, I pay more attention than most people to the issue of handedness, including its causes and effects. One thing I have noticed about myself is that I am larger on the left side of my body as a whole, not just muscles, but my entire left side, although the difference is subtle. (Don't worry; I don't look like some sort of deformed person.) For example, my left leg, as I found out when I was a child, is about 1/4 inch longer than my right one. My hair even grows noticeably faster on my left side than my right (and I have a lot of it). These facts may be true of other lefties, or the converse true of righties, but these are the sort of things one usually never talks about, and tends to notice only of oneself, not other people. Observations such as these, as well as the fact that handedness tends to run in families, seem to indicate a biological basis for handedness. Although geneticists, many of whom are left-handed themselves, suspect a genetic factor in handedness, such a factor has not been definitively demonstrated. (My eldest brother in fact, is a geneticist, and he once told our familiy about how 7 of the 12 geneticists working in his lab, including himself, were lefties.) On the other hand, brain damage during the formation of the brain as a fetus, and hormonal factors have also been implicated as causes of left-handedness. The brain damage factor could account for the high incidence of retarded persons who are lefties, while the hormonal factor could account for both the observation that males are more likely to be left-handed than females, and the relatively high incidence of homosexuality among lefties. The issue of why right-handedness is so much more common than left-handedness also remains murky, and perhaps, multi-factored. Perhaps it is a genetic quirk. Perhaps it is a conformity issue from long ago, when righties may have even persecuted and ostracized lefties. For reasons such as those mentioned above, right-handed people mght tend to be somewhat more healthy, or more likely to have children. Another possibility is that right-handed people have a verbal and analytical advantage, since they are more attuned to the left (verbal and analytical) side of their brains.
This last possibility relates to notion that left and right-handed people may use their brains differently. There is a brain-body connection, such that the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body. Thus, right-handed people seem more oriented toward activities in the left hemisphere of the brain, and left-handed people seem to be more oriented toward activities in the right hemisphere of the cerebral cortex (thus the saying that "lefties are the only people in their right minds").. Since functions of the left and right cerebral cortices are different, it can be argued that left and right handed people think differently. In particular, since the right brain is more spatially oriented, more emotional, more musical, better able to see the "big picture," it only stands to reason that left-handed people would thrive better in related fields of endeavor. Certainly, such careers would include artists, musicians, humorists, architects, and engineers. Furthermore, lefties tend to have a larger corpus callosum, the bundle of nerves which connects the two sides of the brain. Thus, lefties may have somewhat better cooperation between the two sides of the brain. Since the left side of the brain tends to be the lingual and analytical side, such within-brain cooperation may be crucial to thought processes involved in science, writing, and politics. Add to that the fact that the right side of the brain is more the "big picture" hemisphere (to be technical, simultaneous processing as opposed to the sequential processing of the right hemisphere), and we may garner some insight into the phenomenon of lefties becoming so prominant in the politics of the United States in recent years. Clearly, both Obama and McCain are "big picture" thinkers, although the picture that McCain sees is quite different from that which Obama sees. In any case, it seems clear to me that the recent abundance of prominent left-handed politicians is not just happenstance.
Actually, I have a hypothesis, although I am not very confident that it is true, about handedness and political affiliation. Basically, I suspect that physical lefties also tend to be political lefties as well. However, the fact that such political righties such as McCain and George H. W. Bush ("the father") are physical lefties, calls this idea into question. On the other hand, one should keep in mind that both McCain and "daddy" Bush were born into prominent Republican families, with the proverbial "silver spoon" adorning their little mouths. There must have been consicerable pressure put upon them while growing up, to "get with the program" and adopt their parents' conservative political views. For the average lefty, however, the tendency to look at the "big picture," and to focus of people's emotions, seems to point in the direction of concern and empathy for the welfare of the public as a whole and that of the less fortunate in particular, which would tend to make lefties sympathetic with progressive political policies. Also, lefties may view themselves as minority of sorts, even though being left-handed rarely results in any sort of problem. (It can though; there is a subtle bias toward right-handedness in this culture -- "that's right," "righteousness," "raise your right hand," "right-hand man," "right hand of God," "sinister intentions," etc. In some cultures, the bias toward right-handedness is far less subtle, for example, slapping lefties for writing with the left hand, only allowing people to eat with the right hand, etc.) Minorities tend to identify with progressive political policies, as well. Of course, it would be easy to design a study to investigate this issue. The dominant, right side of my brain can envision it clearly. For the time being, I will have to leave this issue as speculation, however.
I have one other possibly handedness-related phenomenon to leave you with. It is another one of those facts that I never usually discuss, but I find it relevant here. Right now, the right side of my forehead is tingling. I just "tingled" it to make sure it is working, and sure enough, it is. I do not know if other lefties can do this, or if righties can tingle the left side of their foreheads, but I doubt it, since I have never heard of anyone else doing this. Nonetheless, I can voluntarily make the right side, but not the left side, of my forehead tingle with a warm, ticklish feeling. Apparently, it is something that I can do by creating certain activity in the right side of my brain. I noticed that I could do this as a young teenager. I do not intentiionally "tingle" my right forehead very often, but I did a moment ago just to make sure it still works. I believe it has something to do with being right-brained -- just some brain food for thought.
July 18
I probably would have done a post on Wednesday, but Eunice had me help her put together a decorative wooden "wishing well" which took pretty much all afternoon. We wound up with seven remaining screws that we couldn't find a place to put, while using tape instead on the roof of the wishing well. That is pretty much "par for the course," though. It actually looks okay. I would have done a post yesterday, as well, but I went to the Opthalmologist in the morning, and he dilated my pupils, so I couldn't focus most of the day. Oh well, things happen.
Take Away This Ball and Chain
A few days ago, I mentioned that conservatives in the U.S. tend to be happier according to surveys than progressives. Today, I want to revisit that issue. There is a catchy current hit song called "Take Away This Ball and Chain" which is about the singer's personal situation, but whenever I hear it, I think of politics. Republicans and other conservatives have been having their way for so long, partly through very suspicious events such as electronic election results in favor of Republicans when exit polling showed the Democrat winning (another future post topic), that it feels to me as though I am carrying around a ball and chain, and it keeps getting heavier with each election of a Republican. I am sure this is a collective feeling among progressives. It makes me feel that I know what it's like to be part of a repressed majority -- that's right, majority, not minority. Perhaps, when these surveys show that Republicans are generally the happier people, it is mainly because they are the "fat cats" who have an easy life and have things going their way by "crook or hook." And many of them are crooks, whether legally or otherwise. They have robbed us of our government, impinged on our freedoms, impoverished the middle class, enriched themselves, and generally taken advantage of people around the world. I think it is difficult to realize the enormity of the psychological burdens placed upon the average American by the forces of conservatism and corporatism. I also think that peoples around the world are unaware for the most part of the seriousness of the political situation in the United States. They realize that George W. Bush is a conservative president, who currently is unpopular both in the states and abroad, but they probably do not realize how long and insidious the process of conservatizing the government, corporatizing the economics, and militarizing the influence of the United States has been, nor how these processes have affected the psyche of American citizens. For that matter, most Americans do not realize these facts, either, even though they are suffering under their burdens. As mentioned in previous posts, these processes really took hold during the Reagan Administration, beginning in 1980, yet Reagan had most of the public fooled, and was actually, and most undeservedly, a popular president.
During the past few years, Americans seem to be waking up to problems created by conservative-dominated government. Unfortunately, Democratic politicians, for the most part, seem timid about confronting the Republicans, afraid of commiting some sort of political gaffe, apparently, which could end their political careers. The public needs to elect progressive politicians, and make it clear to them that there is no need for them to be timid about confronting and reversing Republican strategies and policies. I feel a rising political revolt among the political prisoners of the United States -- not a violent revolt, but an angry one, one in which Americans demand that their votes count, one in which suspicious political outcomes favoring Republicans are subject to intense protest and examination. At least, I hope this is the case, and I sense that the public is moving in this direction. Even my parents, lifelong Republicans, are disgusted with their own party, and eager to vote for Barack Obama as president. And they are not unusual among Republicans. Obama consistently leads in polls, despite some questionable recent moves on his part, and voters who intend to vote for him tend to be much more enthusiastic than those who intend to vote for John McCain. In fact, it is difficult to fathom any reason to be enthusiastic about voting for McCain, whereas there is plenty of reason to be enthusiastic about voting for Obama.
Consequently, I am confident that Obama will win the election. It seems to me that the only ways that McCain might win are to successfully scare massive numbers of Americans into not voting for Obama, or massive and blatant cheating. Unfortunately, evidence has been mounting that Republicans have been cheating over the past 10 years or so in various elections, and getting away with it. If that happens this time, it is my fervent wish that the citizens of the United States not stand for it. There may be a real revolt in the U.S. if it comes to that, but that may be what is required to attain political justice. However, I doubt that even the Republicans, and John McCain who portrays himself as an honest political reformer, will go to such extremes. It is simply too dangerous. The Republicans, having bankrupted the United States, have themselves become a bankrupt party, with little to offer other than failed ideas which have been converted into failed policies. Thus, I truly believe the large majority of the American public will have to vote for Barack Obama, even among those who have reservations about voting for him. He represents our greatest hope to reverse the failed policies of the past 28 years, and set a course of positive change in our society. However, we, the public, need to do our part in consitently pushing and encouraging Obama to follow his progressive thoughts and feelings in guiding our nation. Only then, will this chain which conservative politics has placed upon our nation, be broken, and the growing weight of the ball of repression we have been burdened with, finally removed..
July 15
Is Patriotism Really a Good Thing?
In the post from July 12, I mentioned that part of the game that presidential candidates play is that of representing themselves as true "patriots." Patriotism was then defined directly from my dictionary as "someone who loves, supports and defends his or her country." In itself, that definition seems okay. However, what it does not say may be problematic. It may be inferred by some at least, that patriotism means loving one's own country more than other countries or humanity itself, supporting one's own country even when that means hurting other nations or humanity as a whole, and defending one's own country against threats, real or imagined, by other countries. Essentially, this is called nationalism. Some may argue that nationalism is a good thing, but I am not among those. I would no more say that nationalism is a good thing when it may lead to policies which hurt people around the world, or even kill them by leading to war and other ignorant policies, than I would say that having some prejudice for one's own race is a good thing. In fact, nationaliism basically is nationality-based prejudice, and I have heard my share of it by Americans against those of other nationalities. "America is the greatest nation in the world" I hear. "Only in America" Americans say. "The strongest nation in the world," "the world's only superpower" goes the refrain. Such unexamined tripe reeks of ignorance. It may make Americans who say such things feel good, but only if they fail to examine the world in its totality.
Now, questions about Barack Obama's patriotism have prompted him to wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Even so, the poorly made spoof on the cover of the New Yorker, portrays him and his wife as a couple of radical Muslims bent on the destruction of the United States. The biggest problem with this satire, if that is what it really is, is that it fails to include any caricature of the conservatives which it claims to be satirizing, Rush Limbaugh and those who think like him. The picture should show conservatives such as Limbaugh gloating over their false and slanderous portrayal of the Obamas in order to be an effective satire, as Thom Hartmann points out. Instead, it merely shows a caricature of the Obamas as though it were accurate. How far will this "Rush" to patriotism (pun intended) go? It is hard to say, but I guess that, as long as conservatives think that it will hurt Obama's chances of becoming President, they will continue down that road. If the backlash becomes strong enough, on the other hand, and they begin to look like the bigots that they probably are, they will most likely stop.
To get to the heart of my arguement, that patriotism tends to lead to nationalism, and nationalism is a highly destructive form of prejudice, I need to write about some Social Psychological theory. One theory of prejudice is that it is learned by observation of others, especially one's elders. This may explain how nationalism, for instance, is transimitted from one generation to another. Another theory is that it results from competition between groups. This may explain the immigrant-bashing form of nationalism, especially among those who feel that their potential jobs may be taken by immigrants. But the most relevant theory of prejudice to the current topic, is called Social Identity Theory. The basic idea of this theory is that when a person bases his or her social identity on some demographic characteristic, such as race, or nationality, it creates both pride and prejudice -- pride in the group with which the person identifies, and prejudice against anyone who does not belong to that group. "If our group is so great, special, and worthy of pride" the person reasons, "we must be superior to those of other groups." Thus, prejudice is born, and prejudice can lead to discrimination, harmful behavior directed against members of any "outgroup." Thus, nationalism leads to prejudice against peoples of any other nation, which may lead to conflict, including war. In fact, many of the most destructive wars between nations, including World War II, appear to have been direct outgrowths of nationalism. In other words, "true patriots" went off to other lands to murder (let me call it what it is) citizens who had the poor fortune of belonging to a less nationalistic nation. Unfortunately, many Americans currently feel that they have the right to go to other nations (in the form of our military, or even privatized security such as Blackwater) and murder those who do not agree with us (making them "enemies"), or whoever gets in their way (collateral damage for which they are not held responsible) . And our President agrees with that. In my humble opinion, we are badly in need of a president who does not feel that way, and we need to start demilitarizing the United States, both physically and psychologically.
There is a way out for patriotism in all of this. Patriotism does not have to lead to nationalism, it only tends to. If people can train themselves to love their nation, but love humanity and the world even more, support their nation, but support humanity and the world even more, and defend their nation, not by being warlike, but by being peaceloving, and only resorting to aggression in direct response to another's aggression, as when invaded by a foreign army, then patriotism need no longer be linked to nationalism. Thus, there are two types of patriotism, one that which puts nationality above all else, which leads to national prejudice and is ultimately destructive, and a second form which puts the greater concerns of humanity and the environment above the love of country, which leads to national unity and harmony without the destructiveness of nationalistic prejudice.
To me, however, the ultimate solution to the problem of nationalistic prejudice is for people not to form social identities which are so dependent upon nationality. People need to view themselves as citizens of the world first, and as citizens of a nation, second. In this age of distant travel and instantaneous worldwide communication, that should not be such a difficult goal to achieve. People can love their countries, but they can love other countries, as well, and be concerned, as they should, for the welfare, economy, and environment of the entire world. What I am suggesting is similar to a trend that is currently being seen among the majority of America's youth, a lessening of the importance placed upon racial and ethnic identity, and a growing ability to relate to people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, politicians often find advantage in promoting nationalism, so political devices such as propaganda are continually employed in order to promote nationalism. As citizens of the world, we need to see through these political ploys, and insist on a multinational, rather than nationalistic, approach to both life and politics, an approach based on building mutual understanding and appreciation of all other cultures, and a cooperative, rather than competitive, attitude toward other nations and their citizens.
July 14
Not Playing Fair: Republican Election Strategies
Republicans have been outnumbered by Democrats for many years, yet, they have dominated the presidency since 1980, and at times, have dominated congress. This post is about the strategies that Republicans have developed which have allowed them to have success in elections. Prior to listing these strategies, I should point out 2 things: 1. Democrats are a more diverse group than Republicans and do not vote as consistently for Democratic candidates as Republicans for Republican candidates, and; 2. demographic trends favor Democrats into the future, adding further impetus to Republican strategists to find ways to convince voters to vote for their candidates, something which will probably and hopefully become a more difficult task. However, this fact is complicated by the Republican-like behavior of many Democrats, who seem to defer to Republicans out of fear of voter retribution on many topics, as described yesterday. That is why it is important for the public to be well-educated about the issues, and to make their feelings known to politicians. Most of us do not want a political choice between conservative Republicans, and semi-conservative Republican-like Democrats. I believe that most Americans want the chance to vote for people of truely different perspectives, including true progressive candidates, in addition to conservative candidates.
Unfair Republican election strategies include the following:
1.Making a deal with a foreign government -- Reagan's advisors, including the senior George Bush, apparently made a deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the election in 1980. Reagan, who had been trailing Jimmy Carter, ended up winning the election, largely as a result of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. There is considerable evidence that in order to complete their part of the deal, the Reagan Administration gave many millions of the recently deposed Shah of Iran's money to the new Iranian government plus $150 million in arms for their war with Iraq. Israel was also compicit in this deal-making process (Looking up "October Surprise" on the internet yields references too numerous to mention on this topic.);
2. Using fear to motivate voters -- fear of terrorism, fear of foreigners, fear of crime, fear of foreign invasion, fear of loss of individual freedom, are all issues which Republicans regularly exploit in order to gain votes;
3. Appealing to a sense of individual freedom -- a common theme is that each person must stand alone and be self-responsible in order to prevent the loss of freedom;
4. Appealing to greed -- the whole "greed is good" philosophy was begun during the Reagan Administration; taxes are viewed as antithetical to human nature; Individuals are seen as having the right to as much money as they can get their grubby little hands on;
5. Doing strange things with voting machines, otherwise known as cheating -- in "swing states" or close elections, strange things favoring Republicans have been happening rather regularly; also, Republicans do better in final vote counts than in exit polling; This has never been the case before, nor is it in other nations, so something very suspicious has been happening;
6. "Vote Caging" -- this is when registered letters are sent to voters in Democrat-dominated areas, usually ones with a predominance of non-whites, and any letters which are returned unopened are used to argue that the registered voter does not live there, and therefore, is not allowed to vote;
7. Having too few voting stations in urban, Democrat-dominated areas, so that long lines, mostly of minority-race voters, form, and some eventually give up and don't vote, or they run out of time to vote;
8. Defining Democratic candidates in the most negative possible terms before the candidate has a chance to define him or her self in positive terms, even lying, if necessary, in order to do so (for instance, the John Kerry Swiftboat ads). Of course, Democrats do some of this sort of negative campaigning against Republicans, as well, but Republicans are particularly vigorous in using this tactic, and have virtually made a science out of it.
9. Blaming Democrats for everything that ges wrong during their administrations, even if it is the result of Republican ideas. For example, Republicans in the California State Legislature pushed for one of their pet projects, deregulation of electricity, and got it. After it was implemented, it turned out to be a disaster, with electricity prices spiraling out of control, and Bush's buddies at Enron and other electricity companies making out like bandits. However, the consrvative media with all of their Rush Limbaugh talk-alikes continually blamed the problem on then Democratic Governor Gray Davis, and managed to enact the special recall election which removed him from office and replaced him with another phoney-bloney Republican actor Governor, California's current Governor, Arnold Schwarzeneggar. As you can tell, I am more than a little angry about this entire sordid and revolting affair.
I know that many of these issues have been mentioned in previous posts, but for the sake of importance and continuity of recent posts, I felt I needed to put all of this information together in one post. Besides, not playing fair, and especially cheating, offend my sense of ethics and infuriate me, especially when something so important as the direction our nation takes is at stake!
July 13
More of the Same Game: Dems Acting Like Republicans
Yesterday evening, as it happened Eunice and I met a friend of her daughter Isabella named Cheryll, who works as an aid to a state assemblyman named Benoit. I don't really recall his name, but according to Cheyll, we should be in his district. His name does sound vaguely familiar; he is probably one of those Republicans that I never vote for. (We live in a relatviely conservative part of California, politically speaking, even though California is a very progressive state.) Cheryll's job did not come up in the conversation very much, except that she gets lots of holidays, and her job involves travelling to many social functions and meeting lots of people. This started me thinking about the various ways in which Democrats kowtow to Republican policies and ideas, which is the next logical step in this blog entry sequence.
1. The Democrat will try to "outmacho" the Republican, or at least, not appear to be "soft" on national defense, since this is one of the issues pre-empted by the Republicans.
2. Similarly, the Democrat will "talk tough" about crime, in order to show that he/she is a "tough on crime" person, too, since this is another issue that the Republicans have pre-empted.
3. The Democrat will most likely promise not to raise taxes, since this is an issue which Republicans are always harping on and blaming Democrats for.
4. The Democrat will promise to be fiscally responsible, since overspending is another topic about which Republicans have blamed Democrats. However, Republicans have totally lost credibility on this issue, since they lower taxes but end up spending more than Democrats especially on their precious military toys and military ventures, creating huge deficits. Nonetheless, Democrats still need to tread carefully around the issues of taxes and spending, lest they commit political suicide by appearing to raise both for no good reason (and there are many voters who do not seem to understand that there can be good reasons for raising taxes or raising spending).
5. The Democrat needs to pay homage to and kowtow to big business, especially the corporate media, all the while, selling him/her self as a man/woman of the people. They know that money is the milk of politics, and that it is big business that holds the pursestrings to that big pot of gold, running (or ruining) things from behind the scenes, as it were.
6. The Democrat will need to try harder than the Republican to show outward signs of Christian faith -- attending church services, quoting the bible, meeting with pastors, etc. This is especially true of Barack Hussein Obama, with his Muslim sounding name, unfortunately.
There is hope with regard to these topics, that public opinion is changing. Many of the Republican "chickens are coming home to roost" as the failures and hypocrisies of their various poicies gradually become evident to the public at large. With the events of the Bush Administration, Republicans have lost much of their percieved advantage in terms of national defense, and have lost creadibility worldwide. However, a substantial proportion of voters, for reasons which remain a mystery to me, still give them more credit than the Democrats for defending our nation against threats. Republicans have lost some of their initiative in terms of crime fighing, as well, since our overcrowded prisons have become a worldwide joke, and crime rates meanwhile have dropped somewhat for demographic reasons (fewer young men) that have nothing to do with politics. Republicans are also getting beat up over their "tax breaks for the rich" as well as for rich corporations, along with their fiscal irresponsibility, so they are losing ground on this issue, as well. Many voters are also reconsidering the role of religious faith in politics, with more religious voters going liberal, and more voters going non-religious. (The fastest-growing group, in terms of religion, are those who do not believe in any particular one.) The largest obstacle to progress, as I see it, is the bloated role and political power of big business in modern society, a trend which was begun by the Reagan Administration. Large corporations are badly in need of regulation so that they can be brought down to reasonable and manageable sizes. We need an administration that is not afraid to do something about corporatism in America. As I mentioned in a previous post, the best strategy is probably to say little about the issue until being elected -- since corporate concerns rule the mainstream media itself -- but once elected, proceed vigorously in taking steps to reverse then rampant corporatism which burdens our society, and has similarly invaded many other parts of the world. Ultimately, I believe that public opinion about the role of corporatism in society will be very influential in controlling its affects, just as public opinion has in the past (for example, the business reforms of the early 1900's). We all have a role to play in making this world a better and fairer place. And perhaps, with all of these changes in public perceptions of politics, Democrats will no longer feel compelled to act like Republicans.
July 12
It's a Shame They Play the Game: Unofficial Presidential Politics
It has been a while since I have written about the presidential race. Now we are in a faze in which the candidates have essentially been chosen, but not yet officially nominated. Over time, certain conventions have developed. Perhaps it is human nature to create conventions over time, but such conventions tend to stultify the process and create resistance to change. What I have noticed in terms of conventions which apply to both Democrats and Republicans include the following:
1. During the primaries, the candidates appease their base, but after the primaries, the candidates move toward the "center" in order to attract votes from moderates. One can clearly see this happening with both Barack Obama and John McCain.
2. The candidates profess their Christian faith, and pay homage to the "faithful" everywhere, praising people of all religious faiths (but not those of atheist, agnostic or spiritual but non-religious leanings), while making their Christian faith readily apparent.
3. The candidates pay homage to those in the military, whether they advocate peaceful policies (Obama), or a continuation of militaristic policies (McCain). Yet, one will never hear them praise teachers, scientists, mothers or other people who truly play vital roles in the building and maintenance of society and the abiity to think and act freely.
4. Each President must have at least one dog. Cats are okay, but dogs are essential. Apparently, as commander-in-chief, having an animal with a relatively macho image under one's control makes a president seem qualified to make life-and-death decisions regarding the use of our military. It also makes the president seem like a "regular person." Barack Obama is going to need to get a dog. (He says he wants to get one for his daughters.) John McCain already has two.
5. Both candidates will pay far too much attention to their "advisors" who will give them lots of advice, much of it bad, and much of it advocating the appeasement one "voting block" or another.
6. Special interests groups will attempt to get each candidate's ear, quite often with success. Thus, the candidates will play the game of pleasing special interests, while at the same time, acting as though they wish to reduce the power of lobbyists, and advocate campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, the each candidates will advocate himself as a "different type of candidate" beholden to no one. Actually, the real solution is probably to have 100% publicly funded elections. For instance, each taxpayer could pay $5 toward the general election. I understand that in fact. Barack Obama has taken a step in the right direction by not taking corporate donations for his campaign.
7. Both candidates will present themselves as true "patriots," whatever that means, figuring that to do otherwise, would be political suicide. My dictionary defines a patriot as "someone who loves, supports and defends his or her country." The problem with this the concept of patriotism is the same as the problem with social identity in social psychology: it leads to and implies prejudice and discrimination, perhaps violently so, against foreign nationals and foreign nations. Thus patriotism in actuality is not probably not a good thing, in my humble opinion, certainly not when juxtaposed against the love of humanity or the love of our beautiful planet's precious resources and environment. (I plan to have a future post on this topic.)
8. Both candidates will claim to run an ethical, clean campaign, while simultaneously using their surrogates to negatively define their opponent.
Perhaps some of these conventions will weaken and will not be as evident during this election cycle as in the past. I hope so. However, the historical trend is, if anything, that these conventions have become stronger over time. One thing that is different now, is that the candidate no longer has to be a white male. However, many voters may be mistakenly assuming that having a president who looks different will necessarily equate to a president who does things differently. This is really the case. It is how the candidate acts and what he advocates which predicts best what he or she will do. For example, if a politically conservative Aftrican -American such as Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice were president, we would in all likelihood have an administration similar to the conservative one we have now. Barack Obama, on the other hand, promises to be different, but how different is still an open question. John McCain, on the other hand, definitely offers more of the same which we have experienced under the current Republican rule.