What's that about electability?

Don't Be Fooled: Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes

Many DNC insiders fear that if Hillary Clinton manages to lose the pledged delegates, she may still take the lead in the popular vote, thereby causing the superdelegates to make a hard decision as to which candidate they should choose come August. Their fears are rooted in the notion that Clinton is only behind by roughly 800,000 votes, and that she could feasibly catch up with a big win in Pennsylvania.

They'd be wrong.

In fact, Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.

When voters everywhere were watching the returns of, say, Kansas on Super Tuesday, most of them naturally assumed that Barack Obama won 27,172 votes to Hillary Clinton's 9,462. But those aren't voters they're counting, they're really just more delegates. County delegates. The county delegates represent an undefined amount of peoples' votes, depending on how many people arrive to the caucus and how many county delegates are assigned. This number could be anywhere from 5 to 100 people and beyond.

Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20.

Therefore, in Kansas, Barack Obama gained 543,440 votes to Hillary Clinton's 189,240 votes. This is a far wider margin of victory than Clinton supporters would like to admit, but decidedly more accurate.

But let's just say, for arguments sake, that we're overestimating how many people a county delegate represents. Let's call it 10 rather than 20. Then the tally becomes 271,720 votes for Obama, and 94,620 for Clinton. Still a substantial victory. And that is the absolute rock bottom lowest average estimate.

If we apply this math to all of the caucuses, the results are astounding. But to be fair, we won't count Texas for the final tally. Their caucuses were basically repeat voters who most likely voted in the Primary earlier in the day. Also, there are no clear figures as of yet for Washington and Wyoming.

There have been 13 caucus states so far in the Primary and Clinton has only won one of them. Obama handily defeated her in Iowa, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming. Clinton won Nevada.

The current tally of county delegates (that are available) for these states, has Obama at 366,764 and Clinton at 156,563. When we multiply these numbers by 10, it puts Obama at 3,667,640 and Clinton at 1,565,630, a margin of roughly 2 million votes.

When this math is applied to the final tally, it puts Obama ahead of Clinton by 2,300,000 votes, a far cry from the 800,000 most DNC insiders think is the estimate.

Obviously, there is no way to truly estimate how many people these county and city delegates represent. But the fact remains, these caucus tallies are not accurate depictions of the popular vote, nor are they representative of any singular person or voter. Multiplying these figures by 10 gives a far more telling story towards the truth. And when the Clinton Campaign makes blind claims that they may somehow trump Obama on the popular vote, they may not clearly realize how far behind they actually are in the count.

There are many people who estimate that a state pledged delegate represents roughly 10,000 voters. So, in August, the DNC members need to ask themselves this one question: If a state pledged delegate does not represent a single voter... then why should a county delegate?

Monique Davis Apologizes

Lawmaker Apologizes For Comments Against Atheist

CHICAGO (WBBM) -- State Representative Monique Davis is apologizing a week after she blasted an atheist activist during a hearing over a million dollar grant for a South Side church.

Because of Davis' rant, she was named Tuesday night as the "worst person in the world" --a dubious award doled out daily by news commentator Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" program.

Rep. Davis told atheist Rob Sherman that, "What you have to spew and spread is dangerous" and that "This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God."

But, after being on the receiving end of a week’s worth of public criticism, Davis called Sherman yesterday to apologize.

Sherman says Davis told him she "took out her frustrations and emotions on me and that she shouldn’t have done that." Sherman says Davis' explanation was "reasonable" and that he forgives her.

According to Sherman and State Rep. Jack Franks….Davis claims her outburst was triggered by learning shortly beforehand…that there’d been another Chicago Public School student killed.

State Rep. Jack Franks was chairing the hearing that day and says Davis’ outburst was uncharacteristic, adding "she was having a bad day."

Contents of this site are Copyright 2008 by WBBM.

Yay! Thank you, internet, for smacking Davis when the media wouldn't. Eventually it got Olbermann's attention, and Davis apologized.

Monique Davis: Bigoted Nutter Extraordinaire

Representative tries to put the fear of God in atheist

Tribune staff report

April 6, 2008

Did you hear about the state legislator who last week blasted a Lutheran minister during a committee hearing for spewing dangerous religious superstitions, and then attempted to order the minister out of the witness chair on the grounds that his Christian beliefs are "destroying what this state was built upon"?

Of course you didn't, because it didn't happen and would never happen. Not to a Christian, not to a Jew, not to a Muslim or to anyone who subscribes to any faith.

Such an attack would rightly be considered scandalously out of bounds in contemporary society.

But you probably also didn't hear about what actually did happen:

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Apparently it's still open season on some views of God.

Outside of Change of Subject, where I posted a transcript and the audio, Davis' repellent, un-American outburst received no attention whatsoever.

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

For more information, check out Rob Sherman's website.

Still don't believe it? You've got to listen to the audio recording for yourself. It's not that long, so it shouldn't take long to download. Here it is from the Chicago Tribune, courtesy of the Illinois Information Service.

Seriously. Any of you who live in Illinois? You need to contact her and let her know that this shit isn't acceptable because like it or not, she was not alone in this. She had people clapping and giving her "that's right" through this tirade, and that means she's not as much of an anomaly as you think.

Here is her contact info page. Her email address isn't listed there, but you can reach her at mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us

Edit: Well, I emailed her. This is what I sent:

Representative Davis,

I wanted to express to you just how saddened I am by the statements you made to Rob Sherman, by your unhesitating and unapologetic denunciation of atheism as inherently destructive and essentially un-American. I have always respected and valued the contributions of Christians to our history, and in the name of that history I am asking you to seriously rethink the impression you are sending of what it means to live in Christ.

As was written by the apostle Paul: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" Romans 2:12

This means that you are a subject of Christ, and subject to the judgement of God. You know this. What you may not know is that Paul never asserted that gentiles (read: non-Jews, since Christianity wasn't its own sect yet) were not capable of pleasing God. In fact, if you read Romans carefully, you can see reflected in it Paul's deep commitment to embracing those of different ways and beliefs. He would never have tried so hard to initiate dialogue with gentiles if he did not believe they had nothing to offer Christ's church. That's why his contribution to the Bible is not in the form of a formalized written book. They're letters. One part of the conversation. Paul engaged in respectful dialogue with those of other faiths.

Are you wiser than Paul? Are you more able than an apostle of God to judge who is and is not pleasing God in America?

Remember also that it is not for you to judge Rob Sherman, publicly or in private, or even in your own heart. The right of discernment does not belong to you or to any mortal. You have heard the law, and you have heard the message of Christ. But those who are declared righteous are those who OBEY the law. You are a mortal, an individual human. Let Rob Sherman's conscience bear witness for him. Do not presume judgement, which belongs only to God. That is the foulest sort of idolatry, the worship of one's own self.

I sincerely hope that you think long and hard about what this means for you, and for the people who applauded you in that room. I sincerely hope for the sake of your continued participation in Christ's church that you ask yourself what is really expected of you, and what is forbidden to you. May these considerations temper your public rantings in the future.

Respectfully yours,
Ashley Holmes

Special thanks to James McGrath for lending me some insight into Paul's letters with which I can chide this woman to my heart's content.

10 Things to Know About McCain

Hi,

There are some things I never seem to hear about John McCain from the media. I thought you should see this list from MoveOn.org. Please check it out and pass it on!

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps makes him out to be. So forward this email to your personal network! And if you want stay in the loop on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/

Thanks!

SOURCES:

1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3519

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Superdelegates!

Obama cuts into Clinton's superdelegate lead

In December, according to an Associated Press tally, Clinton led Obama by 106 superdelegates. In February, her lead had been cut to 87. As of Thursday, it was 30.

On Wednesday, when Carter hinted strongly of his intentions, Obama won support from Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who had been appointed the state's U.S. attorney by Clinton's husband.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania in recent days abandoned plans to stay neutral in the competition between their Senate colleagues. Both are opting for Obama.

And in an embarrassment for Clinton, one of the superdelegates supporting her, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), predicted in an interview with a Canadian radio station over the weekend that Obama would win both the nomination and the presidency.

"I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States," Cleaver said.

Obama's gains among superdelegates have come even though he trails Clinton in public opinion surveys in the next state to vote -- Pennsylvania, on April 22 -- and has faced an uproar over incendiary remarks by his former pastor.

A new New York Times/CBS News poll also shows that Obama's support among Democratic voters nationally has softened over the last month, though he was supported by 46% of those surveyed, versus 43% for Clinton.

Obama is winning over superdelegates because "his arguments are more persuasive," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who is unaffiliated in the presidential race. "She obviously hopes that's going to change with Pennsylvania and races down the road. But for now, his arguments are being more persuasive with those superdelegates."

A major objective of Clinton's superdelegate operation is keeping supporters from defecting. Working from her campaign headquarters, a team of aides stays in seemingly constant touch with superdelegates committed to Clinton, sending them poll numbers and news articles meant to keep them from bolting.

"It's a slow drip, drip, drip -- but it's dripping the wrong way," said Joe Trippi, who was an advisor to former Democratic candidate John Edwards. "Psychologically, they're playing defense with superdelegates, not offense."

Some superdelegates in Clinton's camp are suggesting they might reconsider if she cannot meet certain goals, such as overcoming Obama's lead in the popular vote total. With 10 contests remaining, Obama has won about 700,000 more votes than Clinton. That tally excludes the votes in Florida and Michigan, which are not being recognized by the national Democratic Party.

Clinton aides would prefer that superdelegates consider a broader set of criteria, such as which candidate is likely to be more electable, or who ran more strongly in pivotal states such as Florida and Ohio.

Hoping that message will sink in, top aides hold regular conference calls with reporters in which a recurring theme is that superdelegates should see Clinton as the most formidable general-election candidate.

"The states she has taken have considerably more electoral votes," said Mark Penn, the campaign's chief strategist.

It is not clear that argument is resonating.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leader of the influential House Out of Iraq Caucus, endorsed Clinton after hearing the New York senator explain her commitment to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

But last month, Woolsey began to adjust her position, committing herself to back the candidate with the bigger share of the popular vote.

"No one wants our party's nominee to be chosen by the votes of a handful of superdelegates," Woolsey said in a statement. "That's why, while I remain a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I will cast my vote at the convention for the candidate that is chosen not through back-room deals, but by the votes of the American public."

Happy Sexual Assault Awareness Month!

Thanks to _jeremiad for posting about this and calling my attention.

Al Sharpton and the NAACP Support Dunbar Village Rapists

Do you remember the Dunbar Village rape case? I’m not sure how you could forget; this is the case where a woman was gang raped by 10 men in her own home for over three hours, forced to have sex with her own 12-year-old son and survived an attempt to light both of them on fire. In an update that is a couple of weeks old but I’m just hearing from now via Document the Silence, Al Sharpton and the NAACP are taking to the streets to defend the four arrested rapists. This is despite conclusive DNA evidence and apparent photographic evidence that the rapists took on their cell phones during the attack.

(snip)

Some further notes about the NAACP and Sharpton’s actions: the excuse they’re giving is that a group of white teens who committed the “same crime” were freed on bond. Let me be entirely clear in stating that the white teens should also be in jail. Equal justice is an important goal which I fully support, but the answer isn’t to call for more leniency for black people who commit extremely violent crimes, it’s to call for all violent crime to be taken seriously, regardless of who commits it. Furthermore, though the crime by the white teens is utterly despicable in every sense of decency — five boys sexually assaulted two very drunk, young teenage girls — it is not the same crime. Because do you know the only thing you could possibly do to make a gang rape worse? Gang rape a woman in front of her child, force her to engage in a sexual act with that child, douse them in household cleaners and attempt to burn them alive.

There are resources posted elsewhere on the blog, but my only reaction to this (after the initial stunned staggering away from my computer) is "WTF Al Sharpton. Stop... doing anything. Please."

The shitstorm did reach him, though. There's some serious backpedaling to do, by the NAACP and Sharpton's NAN. They can point fingers at each other all they want. I'm still left with WTFery.

"I brought this on myself; I knew at the start how He gets..."

James McGrath posted in his blog about a comment I made in class one day. Now, I'm starting from the common metaphor that the relationship between God and Israel (or Christ and his Church, take your pick) is analogous to the relationship between a man and his wife. Men and their wives are close, have bonds of loyalty and mutual respect and various obligations they owe one another. They even cause each other pain, as men and wives can. As cited on that page:

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says: “The Assembly of Israel said to the Holy One: Even though He embitters me and causes me to suffer, He shall lie between my breasts” (Yalkut Shimoni, Song of Songs, 984).

This gets me to my next point. McGrath links 1 Corinthians 10:6-12.

We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!

This goes beyond the acceptance that spouses may occasionally inadvertently hurt each other. Every time Israel displeases God, a great and terrible wrath is unleashed, to human eyes seeming way out of proportion to the crimes committed. And yet Israel is still to blame for these outbursts. No matter what God does, if it was something Israel did to set Him off... Israel is required to repent. Israel must not test the Lord, and Israel must not complain. Otherwise God is left doing something terrible and asking, "Baby, why do you make me hit you? You know how I get."

I could easily end here and say that Christianity is essentially patriarchal, both based in misogyny and perpetuating it by elevating it to God-like behavior. But that's a boring place to end, and reserved for really lazy scholars. The big question is, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Did ideas about God's right to abuse Israel give the Israelites fuel to abuse their wives? Or did the norms of Israelite marriage color their portrayal of God's relationship with Israel? One thing seems certain: the normative relationship between married people in America does not include one party using corporeal punishment to discipline the other, and then blaming the violence on the disciplined party. In this our cultural context is very different from what the Israelites were taking for granted.

Now, does this mean we have to throw out the spousal metaphor because our spousal relationships have changed? Or can we keep the spousal metaphor and change our relationship with God to suit it? Now that women are encouraged to take onto themselves more autonomy and agency, even at the expense of their husbands' power, does that recast the roles of God and Israel, or of Christ and the Church? Just as women are demanding more respect and consideration from men, are Christians free to demand more respect and consideration from God?

It seems to me that we either have to throw out the spousal metaphor now that men aren't allowed to abuse women the way God abuses Israel, or we have to demand that God keep up with modern ideals. I personally find this latter option much more interesting. If men and women are rightly treated as equals in a marriage, does that mean that God and Israel should be rightly treated as equals?

This implication totally turns the mainstream Christian hierarchy on its head. While Judaism allows for much more dispute with God (Israel itself means "struggle with God"), Christianity tends to adopt a much more submission-oriented approach. The assumption that humans must submit to God no matter what seems at odds with the "equality resolution." The only option then is to decide we're wrong to treat men and women as equals. Instead of changing our relationship with God to fit our modern social context, we must reverse our modern social context to match an earlier relationship with God.

It seems in the interest of Biblical orthodoxy one would have to choose the latter. It's the neatest way to seal up this nasty friction resulting from a metaphor that no longer seems to apply. Return everyone to the conditions under which the metaphor worked.

Still. As a woman who doesn't particularly want to go that route, I'll suggest a new relationship with God. What happens when humans demand the equality and respect from God that wives demand of husbands? It might require a re-imagining of God's place in our lives, and that re-imagining may essentially change a religion whose core is "submit yourselves to God; He knows best." If we essentially change Christianity to fit God into new ideas of mutual spousal respect, is it still Christianity anymore? If no... what is it?

"The Hidden -ism?"

Identity Politics

Steinem’s argument that we should elect the candidate from the more disadvantaged demographic pulls us back into the race and gender wars.

(snip)

But if Steinem is right that the electorate is not beyond identity politics, she’s wrong about who is the most disadvantaged. These exit poll results make it appear that when voters choose a candidate based on their race or gender, they’re voting against the black and not the woman. It looks as if racism lives on, even as sexism is disappearing.

I had to repost this here, because I have been really disturbed by the number of assertions I've seen that women have it harder in America than racial minorities, and that this means when we have to choose between working against sexism and working against racism, sexism is more pressing.

Basically? When in conflict, help women first because we haven't made as much progress for them, and the blacks can wait.

This is an indication to the contrary. Among voters who cared about the sex of their candidate, they cared because they wanted a woman. Among voters who cared about the race of their candidate, they cared because they didn't want a black person.

I agree with Gifford on this one. While we shouldn't be making decisions at all based on the sex or race of the candidate, the fact that the decisions are happening in this particular way suggests that the feminists who are claiming sexism is more pressing an issue than racism aren't just being divisive. They're wrong.

"Maverick" my ass.

Why McCain should worry women

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
Published March 9, 2008

Sen. John McCain wants people to know that he is a true conservative. The right flank of his party, particularly blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, want to paint McCain as a closet pinko because he only has an 82 percent rating with the American Conservative Union. But McCain insists that his conservative credentials speak for themselves.

Believe him. They do.

What scares me most about McCain, beyond our 100-year presence in Iraq, his itchy trigger finger relative to other foes, and his enthusiasm for tax cuts for the rich, is his fiercely conservative record on women's reproductive freedom. Here, there is no moderate McCain or reach-across-the-aisle McCain. On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.

You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.

The next president will be the decider on whether women's emancipation from the slavery of the womb will continue in this country. We are on the cusp of losing the right to control our bodies and determine our family size. McCain promises as much.

Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.

But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn."

In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given half a chance."

McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective groups.

An intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly antiabortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again.

McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

McCain is much more comfortable with President Bush's wasteful and utterly ineffective abstinence-only approach.

The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007:

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Do you really have to say such idiotic things to win the Republican nomination? It is an incontrovertible fact that the use of a condom will help interfere with HIV transmission. But I guess McCain sees it as a fact too liberal to acknowledge. Jeesh.

Now that the senator from Arizona has locked up the Republican nomination, he may be spending less time asserting his conservative bona fides and more time focusing on his occasional bipartisanship. This appeal will help to blur his record. Yet any voter who worries about government dictating to women what they can do with their bodies needs to understand the danger that McCain poses. Roe can't survive another president like Bush, and McCain is promising to be just like him.

Annotated Linkfest

One Year Ago: Obama proposed the summit Clinton is offering today

Almost one year ago to the day, Barack Obama sent a letter (below) to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging them to convene a homeownership preservation summit. Today, Clinton is proposing essentially the same thing.

One key difference, however, is the diversity and representation that Obama called for – not just some of the same people who helped to create these problems or have a direct financial industry stake in the outcome: “I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.”

Fear, Loathing & Delegate Poaching in Texas

Well, it’s legal to lobby delegates to the county and senate district conventions (they’ll be held on Saturday to select delegates to a later statewide convention, from which 67 Democratic National Convention delegates will be chosen), even if they signed up for a different candidate.

The question, however, isn’t a legalistic one, but, rather, a political one: when similar tactics came up in Nevada and elsewhere, the Clinton campaign denied it was trying to “poach” delegates committed to Obama.

When Politico’s Roger Simon reported on the Clinton campaign’s efforts to poach Obama delegates last month, Clinton spokesbot Phil Singer emphatically denied they would do any such thing:

“We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama.”

I’m sure the robo-call machine was acting on its own, without any authorization from the campaign.

Generation Squeeb: Barack Obama’s Reverend Wright controversy, and America’s squid-heart

This Wright business is a perfect example of the American electorate at its squeeby worst — panicky, gutless, acting more on reflex than thought, incapable of retaining information for more than a few minutes at a time. It's also a great example of how the presidential election process has become more about enforcing the attitudes of a cultural orthodoxy than a system for choosing leaders.

(snip)

But whether or not any of Wright's "controversial" statements have any validity at all is beside the point. The point is that a country that had any balls at all — that was secure enough in its patriotic self-image to stare vicious criticism right in the face and collectively decide for itself, in a state of sober reflection, what part of it was bullshit and what wasn't — such a country wouldn't do what it did in the case of the Wright flap, which is to panic instantly, collectively leap off the ground in terror like a bunch of silly bitches, and chase the criticism away in a torch-bearing mob with its eyes averted without even bothering to talk about what was actually said.

(snip)

Now, no one is suggesting that there shouldn't be some reaction to genuinely toxic ideas, or that all criticism of racist or unpatriotic comments is unfounded. But what we're getting with all of these scandals isn't a sober exchange of ideas but more of an ongoing attempt to instill in the public a sort of permanent fear of uncomfortable ideas, and to reduce public discourse to a kind of primitive biological mechanism, like the nervous system of a squid or a shellfish, one that recoils reflexively from any stimuli.

This latter article mentioned something I really got a kick out of:

That's just the way we are, and maybe it's time to wonder why that is. In Russia they have a word, sovok, which described the craven, chickenshit mindset that over the course of decades became hard-wired into the increasingly silly brains of Soviet subjects. It's a hard word to define, but once you get it — and all Russians get it — it's like riding a bicycle, you've got it. Sovok is the word that described a society where for decades silence and a thoughtful demeanor might be construed as evidence of a dangerous dissidence lurking underneath; the sovok therefore protected himself from suspicion by babbling meaningless nonsense at all times, so that no one would accuse him of harboring smart ideas.

(snip)

It's hard to explain, but over there, they know what the word means. More than anything, sovok described a society that spent seventy years in mortal terror of new ideas, and tended to drape itself in a paper-thin patriotism whenever it felt threatened, and worshipped mediocrities as a matter of course, elevating to positions of responsibility only those who showed an utter absence not only of objectionable qualities, but any qualities at all.

I say "got a kick out of" to express that sense of horror and disquiet so profound there's no response appropriate except to laugh. I can't well deny the claim of this last article. It's just that I didn't expect to read an article that stated it so bluntly. Oh, well. I guess this is why we have Rolling Stone.

my experience let me show u it

Papers show Clinton's days as first lady
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

Her Democratic presidential campaign released a statement Wednesday saying the schedules spanning her two terms as first lady "illustrate the array of substantive issues she worked on" and her travel to more than 80 countries "in pursuit of the administration's domestic and foreign policy goals."

Clinton says her years as first lady would help equip her to handle foreign policy and national security as president.

But the schedules show trips packed with plainly traditional activities for a first lady as well as some substance.

For example, in her January 1994 visit to Russia with her husband, her schedule is focused on events with political wives. She sat in on a birthing class at a hospital, toured a cathedral and joined prominent women in a lunch of blinis with caviar and salmon.

The Clinton campaign said the schedules are merely a guide and don't reflect all of her activities.

Yeah.... that looks like Serious Diplomatic Training to me!

Seriously, though. Can we really really drop this "experience" discussion yet?

WHAT

Woman sits on boyfriend's toilet for 2 years: Girlfriend was physically stuck to the seat — her skin had grown around it

NESS CITY, Kan. - Deputies said a woman in western Kansas sat on her boyfriend's toilet for two years, and they're investigating whether she was mistreated.

Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple said a man called his office last month to report that something was wrong with his girlfriend.

Whipple said it appeared the 35-year-old Ness City woman’s skin had grown around the seat. She initially refused emergency medical services but was finally convinced by responders and her boyfriend that she needed to be checked out at a hospital.

“We pried the toilet seat off with a pry bar and the seat went with her to the hospital,” Whipple said. “The hospital removed it.”

Whipple said investigators planned to present their report Wednesday to the county attorney, who will determine whether any charges should be filed against the woman's 36-year-old boyfriend.

“She was not glued. She was not tied. She was just physically stuck by her body,” Whipple said. “It is hard to imagine. ... I still have a hard time imagining it myself.”

He told investigators he brought his girlfriend food and water, and asked her every day to come out of the bathroom.

“And her reply would be, ‘Maybe tomorrow,”’ Whipple said. “According to him, she did not want to leave the bathroom.”

The boyfriend called police on Feb. 27 to report that “there was something wrong with his girlfriend,” Whipple said, adding that he never explained why it took him two years to call.

Police found the clothed woman sitting on the toilet, her sweat pants down to her mid-thigh. She was “somewhat disoriented,” and her legs looked like they had atrophied, Whipple said.

“She said that she didn’t need any help, that she was OK and did not want to leave,” he said.

She was taken to a hospital in Wichita, about 150 miles southeast of Ness City. Whipple said she has refused to cooperate with medical providers or law enforcement investigators.

Authorities said they did not know if she was mentally or physically disabled.

Police have declined to release the couple’s names, but the house where authorities say the incident happened is listed in public records as the residence of Kory McFarren. No one answered his home phone number.

The case has been the buzz in Ness City, said James Ellis, a neighbor.

Obama: Military Endorsements

Senator Barack Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force

For one, check out the list of guys. Those are some ranks. Like any military brat I know that being high-rank doesn't necessarily make you as awesome as it should, but still. Those are some ranks.

As as a candidate for the presidency, I know that I am running to be Commander-in-Chief – to safeguard this nation's security, and to keep our sacred trust with the men and women who serve. There is no responsibility that I take more seriously.

This is something that I’ve talked about throughout this campaign. Because I believe that any candidate for President must present the American people with a clear vision of how we will lead. There are real differences between the candidates, and important issues to debate – from ending the war in Iraq, to combating terrorism, to devising new strategies and new capabilities to confront 21st century threats.

But recently, we’ve seen a different kind of approach. Instead of a serious, substantive debate, we’ve heard vague allusions to a “Commander-in-Chief threshold” that seems to be about nothing more than the number of years you’ve spent in Washington.

This is exactly what’s wrong with the national security debate in Washington.

After years of a divisive politics that uses national security as a wedge to drive us apart, how much longer do we have to wait to bring this country together to confront our common enemies?

After years of being told that Democrats have to talk, act and vote like John McCain to pass some Commander-in-Chief test, how many times do we have to learn that tough talk is not a substitute for sound judgment?

Ow.

Obama in Plainfield

So! Belated entry.

Went to see Obama speak in Plainfield. We were in an elementary school gym, and I had floor seats probably eighty to a hundred feet from Obama. I could've chucked a shoe at him, he was so close. I'll spare you the fangirl bit (like the fact that I was standing in a room with Barack Obama omg), and just mention some more relevant stuff. First off, he did say a lot of what I'd already read and heard. However, a couple of things stood out.

One, I didn't realize that one problem with Social Security is that Bush has been drawing from it to fund the Iraq war. WTFery number one. Still more pressing is WTFery number two: turns out that only people who make under about 97k a year are paying for Social Security.

The second issue is just an integrity thing that caught my eye. Indiana's a big corn state. We know this. We don't do much else except race cars around in circles. So when someone asked Obama about biofuels and what we should do about these South American countries who're growing crops for biofuel. I expected, him being in Indiana and all, that he'd be all about corn ethanol. To do otherwise could get ya run out on a rail in this state.

But no, he said that biofuel research is important, and while corn ethanol is a good short-term solution, it is not optimal as a fuel source. It's better than not having any alternatives to oil at all... but really... we need to be looking into the same crops that the South Americans are growing and not rely on corn.

That struck me, minor as it may seem. That could be a really unpopular thing to say in Indiana, but he didn't screw around on the issue. In fact, watching him answer questions I saw that he didn't dance around on ANY of it. He just plain didn't screw around at all, and I'm wondering where these accusations come from that he's not a straight speaker. I've seldom seen anyone so articulate and clear and concrete about his plans.

Speaking of his plans! One thing that amused me, and that he evidently has not said elsewhere!

I guess if he ends up in the White House the first thing he does is sit down with his cabinet, mainly his Attorney General, and review every single executive decision made during the Bush Administration. Everything that the president did will be reviewed to see if it's Constitutional and if not... instant repeal.

Way to rip off your predecessor's balls like a fucking paper towel, dude. I will be looking forward to THAT.

Frustration!

Been away for a while! I've got entries backed up elsewhere, so while I'm still trying to stay up on schoolwork stuff I'll reproduce some of what I've got up there. It's all stuff from the last couple of weeks, but I just haven't had the time or motivation to keep up on two journals.

Now to ponder the queue of blog-essays I owe a fellow blogger. Topics include domestic violence in the marriage of God and Israel and probably some stuff about God's mercy and justice (if I can find a way to say it that isn't regurgitating what Important People have said.)

While I'm on that topic, I'm really tired of this whole business of writing Biblical commentary. There's so little to say that's new or interesting, because every time I find an new and promising topic I learn that it's only interesting because of a translation error. There's nothing interesting for me to do, and if I'm not interested I'm bored. If I'm bored I'm unmotivated to spend hours writing, and in that case the writing doesn't get done.

Then there's the tendency of Biblical commentators to sit counting the angels on the head of a damn pin because there's nothing interesting left to discuss but darn it, they still wanna write about the Bible. Screw that.

Obamarama!

Barack Obama is Not Jesus

Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of "coming to Obama" in the same way born-again Christians talk about "coming to Jesus."

But he's not Jesus! He's not going to magically enable us to transcend the bitter partisanship that is tearing this country apart. And even if he is elected, in no way will that show that somehow we have "gotten beyond" race.

The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. How can we truly bring about real political change if the movement the Obama people are building is devoid of ideological content, content merely to mouth gauzy generalities about "coming together" and "yes we can"? Such a movement becomes a cult or personality rather than engine for social justice and political transformation. And personality cults can be a huge turnoff to those who are not already drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is part of an effort on my part to figure out why people are against Obama because he's just too damned charismatic. I think I have a better idea now, though I honestly still find myself agreeing with one of the comments on this entry.

I can appreciate the concerns expressed, but feel that you're making some hasty conclusions based on a very small sample. There will be passionate supporters on both sides. That you have not seen the same kind of reactions from HRC supporters doesn't mean they're not out there (and judging from the more vituperative tone coming out of the blogosphere from HRC supporters, I can see why euphoria over her candidacy is not coming through). Second, consider the age factor. Obama has attracted a veritable army of young supporters whose tendencies to emote or place their support in a messianic context is far more likely than older supporters. But don't discount the existence of a large number of older supporters for Obama as well, who I suspect are a bit more calculated in their support.

With respect to discussing the issues, I think asking young supporters with little life or political experience to represent to the democratic electorate the nuances between Clinton's and Obama's positions is asking for trouble. I have to believe the same is true in Clinton's campaign. Overall votes will win the election, but the candidates' most articulate supporters will be the core of the grass roots information campaign to attract voters.

At an Obama rally in Nevada last month I had to chuckle at the number of teen volunteers on hand who were fairly clueless about the event itself. Billed as a town hall, I wanted to find out the format for submitting questions. None of the teens I spoke with could say. I don't see that as a blot on the Obama campaign, but a function of accepting help whereever on can get it and not asking more of the youngsters than they can take on.

As to whether Obama supporters will rally to the democratic nomineee, I guess that's a genuine concern, but is a bit moot at this stage. If Clinton gets the nomination it will be her job to unify the party and motivate the base. It's not a fair criticism of Obama's campaign to suggest that his supporters won't back HRC down the road.

Thanks for voting today!

Dems in '08!!! -GMan08

So my general opinion is this: There are people in all political parties who'll support a candidate without really knowing what they're doing. However, no Obama supporter I've spoken to (and this means basically all of my classmates) are supporting him just because he's pretty and speaks well. I for one checked out what he's done in his Senate terms and previous employment, etc. before I even watched him speak. I can't even watch television in my house; I had to go out of my way to find youtube videos of him speaking after I'd already decided I preferred him.

So quit painting all Obama supporters as the same kind of plodding lazy sheep every other campaign has within its supporter-base. Check Huckabee's folk, HRC's folk, Ron Paul's folk, Romney's folk, McCain's folk. There are always people who haven't done their homework.

But honest to fuck, people, do you really think that none of us knows any better? Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to check eBay for fragments of Obama's clothing to use as medicinal cures.

Ethnocentrism and Homeopathy

Irresponsibility to the nth power: Homeopaths treating HIV in Africa

I don't even know what to say yet. Read the article.

Anyone who reads this blog knows my opinion of homeopathy. Just type "homeopathy" in the little search box on the left side of this blog, and you'll be greeted with many, many posts dating back to the very beginnings of Orac's presence on ScienceBlogs. Of course, science is with me on this one, as it does not support the primary claims of homeopathy, including:

• Like cures like


• Dilution with succussion makes a remedy stronger


• Water has "memory" of remedies that it has come in contact with, which is how homeopathic remedies can "work," even though they've been diluted to the point where, even homeopaths admit, there is unlikely to be even a single molecule of active substance left.

Dr. Kimball Atwood has also discussed the utter implausibility and lack of scientific support for homeopathy in a five part series: "Homeopathy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Back to the Future" (Part I, II, III, IV, V), as well as why homeopaths can cite clinical trials that appear "positive" despite this extreme scientific implausibility in "Prior probability: The dirty little secret of 'evidence-based' medicine" (parts I and II). So what am I to think of this story about homeopaths treating HIV patients in Africa?

It's long, but Orac breaks it up all friendly-like into paragraphs and quoted sections, so don't give me that tl;dr silliness.

Some of the comments, though, are great.

In response to this quoted section from the article:

She believes part of the appeal of homeopathy in Botswana is because it has elements of both traditional and western medicine. "It comes in a pill, but the approach - taking into account mind, body and spirit - is more Batswana. People are very comfortable with it," she said.

Meraydia said, "And of course the woman falls into the racist fallacy of according sprirituality to "native" populations."

Thank you, Meraydia. I was hoping someone would point out that Fairclough doesn't seem to think Africans care as much about being healthy as having spiritually-correct water. Effective health care is clearly some kind of Euro-American value that Those Damned Allopaths are imposing on Botswana.

I just... I'm glad someone else noticed this. It pisses me off every time I see it, because Fairclough's statement feeds into a belief that has kept many people from supporting AIDS treatments in Africa. You see, AIDS is a problem in Africa because they're dirty superstitious half-naked heathen negroes, not because colonial powers have utterly destroyed the economic viability of most of the continent.

We can't fix the fact that they're dirty superstitious half-naked heathen negroes with medicine, since it's obviously coded into their DNA. So why bother? Just give them some magic water and wait for them to die.

Well, if the White Pride kiddies say it's so......

One of my latest referrals to this journal was a google search for "nicolae carpathia barack obama" which turned up such gems as "Does Barack Hussein Obama remind you of Nicolae Carpathia?" along with "The Cult of Barack Obama:" courtesy of the Stormfront White Nationalist Community.

Oh, America. Sometimes I wonder why I even try.

First off, Nicolae Carpathia's big rousing speech was him reciting alphabetically the names of UN member countries, so charisma? I doubt it. Second, wtf. Third, why are people so determined to treat charisma like it's something presidential candidates shouldn't have? Does that make any damned sense at all?

Blah.

Ethnographic Authority (random ramblings)

There's a debate in anthropology about where authority comes from, and there are two schools that feature most prominently in the discussion. One school (Geertz comes to mind, if my memory serves) claims that an outsider is not going to understand the perspective of the insider, and will consequently no really "get it." The best the ethnographer can hope for is to look over her informants' shoulders.

There are other assertions that a fresh perspective is of prime importance. Was it Mead who said "a fish doesn't know it's wet?" From this view it is the informant/insider who is biased, not the culturally-transplanted ethnographer.

As I became more involved with the communities I studied, TGC in particular, I faced a tough dilemma. Could I continue studying a community after becoming established within it myself? Was I an insider yet, and if so what did that mean?

On TGC I had been made staff in a couple of places, a gesture of trust and esteem that most members do not receive. As a member I was flattered and eager to contribute my perspective. As an ethnographer I was both thrilled and troubled. On the one hand this was undeniable proof that I understood the values of the community well enough to be entrusted with their preservation. I would be privy to the discussions and explanations behind staff decisions, able to read the staff boards and potentially gain insight into how the staff justified decisions and to what degree they were accountable to each other. What a prize!

There were also reservations in my mind. If I were to be acting as a staffer, was this an indication that I'd become too involved? Was I too deeply embedded in the community to study it in its "natural" form? To use the term with full intended irony, I felt like I could no longer study "pre-contact" TGC. Perhaps I'd changed TGC too much.

At this point (or shortly thereafter) I decided to abandon the pose of the invisible God's-eye, freeing myself from the imperative "look but don't touch." I could just be a member and a staffer, free to act as I pleased in the community because now the community was mine.

I was almost immediately after this caught up in a dispute that exploded into a power struggle that divided the community into factions: rebels, royalists, bystanders, and even the odd secret agent (and you know who you are if you're reading this). Despite the fact that I orchestrated much of it, the cleavage of power and accountability revealed irresistible machinery operating beneath the surface of the community. For nearly a week I was consumed in this little rebellion almost to the exclusion of all else (including my proximal affairs). Constantly recording, responding, recruiting, much of my time was spent in a propaganda war that ended in the splintering off of a dozen or more people. They formed a new board and I assisted however I could with its establishment.

I learned a great deal about the flow and power of information during this "separatist" movement. These observations will color my analysis of my earlier days at TGC, and therefore they're important to note. Dear reader, these events mattered to my study, and therefore we cannot ignore them simply because I saw them from the inside and helped determine the course that they would take.

And so I find myself faced with a question I must answer. Can an anthropologist ethically be an activist as well? To situate the question in the context of my study, was it ethical for me to use my knowledge of the community to change the community?

Whatever the answer to that, the community was changed (if only for a time). Whoever did it, it occurred. The fact that I played such a prominent role is a further challenge to the "invisible observer" paradigm, and a test of your willingness to accept that all ethnographers change the communities that they study. It is only a matter of degree and intent. The degree was great, but my intent was supported by many members, and my relative success would not have been possible without them. Keep that in mind before levelling accusations or judgments on my ethicality or objectivity. I did not pull TGC further from its own values or change the way things worked. I lent my insight to the members and they did the rest.

So yes, I participated in a power struggle, but in the end it was the members who carried the burden of assuring success or failure. If it were not also their cause, they wouldn't have fought it. Because they cared, because they fought, I am including this period in my study (and in so doing, including more of myself).

Establish my credibility through study, through theoretical education and its application and practice. Or, establish my credibility on the trust of my informants, people who agreed with my perspective and defended it within the community. Establish it however you must to answer the question of where ethnographic authority comes from.

So the Apostle Paul.

Corinthians 4:5. "...you are to deliver this man to Satan 4 for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."

Paul suggests giving people over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, so that their spirit can be saved. I was struck by this. Satan is surprisingly helpful here; you can count on him to do you favors.

"We've got this guy, and he's kind of corrupt. Ah.... if you could take him and give him back when he's better... yeah. That'd be great. Right, also, if you could come in on Saturday to take away our incestuous pagans? Greeaaat."