Archive for

Republicans Content to Remain a Whites-Only Opposition Party

How else do you explain this?

A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship [Chip Saltman] said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas — which included a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — was clearly intended as a joke.

Saltman, Huckabee’s former campaign manager, distributed the song on a “satire” CD, the overriding theme of which was that all Democrats hate America, which he gave as a Christmas present to his Capitol Hill colleagues. The song in question has its origins on Rush Limbaugh’s show – surprise! – but the title comes from a Los Angeles Times article, which explained the folklore character of the “magic negro.” Why is it offensive when Saltman says it, or Limbaugh plays it, but not when the LA Times talks about it, you might ask?

What we have here is an issue of context: when phrases like “the magic negro” are tossed about by newspaper columnists, in largely academic & respectful articles, it means something far different than when a national politician, and a member of a party generally hostile to minority rights, uses the phrase satirically or as a pejorative to mock a black man.

Saltman should know better, but he doesn’t, and that’s the modern Republican party, whose members are more content to defend the offensive things they do, than to avoid them in the first place.

Warren a Young-Earth Creationist

Warren's world

Per La Figa, the official position of the Saddleback Church, and the personal beliefs of its controversial pastor Rick Warren, are best described as that modern mix of young earth creationism and Behe-style pseudoscience that defines modern creationist “thought” in the post-Expelled era. In a PDF of his site as it appeared a few weeks ago, Warren urges his followers to read Behe-style intelligent design tracts, while explaining that “[t]he Bible’s picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.” This is good news: it proves that intelligent design has completely merged with creationism in the mind of most fundamentalists, thus utterly terminating any hope it ever had it of being constitutionally taught in public schools. But it also proves that the only difference between Warren’s brand of Christianity and mainstream fundamentalism is in the delivery of his message, not the message itself. Disappointing.

Although Obama can be justly chastised for giving Warren even a hint of legitimacy, I would balk at imputing Warren’s beliefs to Obama. Obama’s choice of science adviser – John Holdren – has shown backbone in standing up for verifiable-but-unpopular science (i.e., global warming), and Obama’s pick for the Department of Energy, Stephen Chu, is a card-carrying evilutionist and signatory to the NCSE’s “Project Steve.” Warren may glean some legitimacy from this inauguration stunt, but in the “war on science,” Obama has long-since chosen sides. Rest easy.

Back to Warren. In the aforementioned PDF, he explains what won him over to creationism:

When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer.

As I’ve said before, a shallow reading of the Biblical text should, to the faithful man, be no bar to understanding Genesis as an allegory describing man’s relationship to God, and the wages of sin. Warren’s arguments otherwise are unconvincing: that an allegory is repeated and vital to the central meaning of a work of literature does not somehow force the reader to take the allegory as literal truth. If Warren’s faith requires him to identify to a man the individual who brought sin into the world, his faith isn’t so deep in the first place.

Religion, Morality, and External Limits

Every atheist, agnostic, or defender of the same will know this argument by heart: “without religion, there can be no morality.” This argument, of course, presumes that Santa’s request – that we “be good, for goodness’ sake” – is futile: absent religion, one cannot define, let alone enforce, morality. For theists, this premise rests as much on concepts of “original sin” as it does on logic – thus, religions like Christianity necessitate themselves – but for those of us who either don’t believe, or don’t take religious texts literally, the idea that religion is needed to control humanity is a troubling proposition indeed.

The trouble is compounded by the observation that not all religions or acts done in God’s name square with our innate sense of morality: in 2001, Osama Bin Laden organized the fiery murder of 3,000 because his God told him to do so, and ever now and then, a religious “lone wolf” claims the life of an abortion doctor because his God told him the same. More disturbing still, not all the co-religionists of these murderers will condemn them: some otherwise ordinary Christians who would certainly not orchestrate abortion clinic bombings nonetheless praise them. If man cannot be moral without religion, it seems equally true that religion unlocks the depths of immorality in some. How can God have a monopoly on good, be synonymous with morality, and yet inspire such evil?

This quandary admits of two possible solutions: either there is one true religion, which exists in precise one-to-one correspondence with any abstractly discernable notion of morality, and all others are wrong; or there is an objective morality that acts as a constraint not only on man’s religiosity, but upon any god that may exist. The latter conclusion must be presumed in the legal operation of a free state (otherwise, anyone could subvert the rule of law in the name of God). At the philosophical level, though, both potential conclusions are troubling. In the first case, anyone not belonging to the one True religion is a liability, incapable of moral action; in the second, mankind is on his own in the quest for good, and God is potentially a liability (ask Abraham about that one). Which answer you choose, I submit, will define your faith and your politics.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Many More

It is a rare thing in human history for so many different peoples to be able to celebrate their traditions together, without fear of internal persecution, or external threat of war. May we always be so fortunate. Enjoy your time with family and friends!

Holiday Fun: Who Are YOU in the Obama Administration?

Overloaded with the commercial, sectarian, and familial demands of the holiday season? Well, chill out to some silliness and find your alter-ego in Obama’s Administration.

David Axelrod. Pisces. You’re like Greg Maddox. You look like an accountant, but you’re a first-ballot hall-of-famer with a wicked skill at strategizing and delivering results. No one could pick you out of a lineup, and no one suspects the crazy power you wield, having Obama’s ear. You must suck at basketball, though, because the press never mentions fun times with Obama, playing H-O-R-S-E.

Rahm Emanuel. Sagittarius. You remain firmly convinced you will one day build a sentence where every part of speech is a form of the “F” word, and we don’t mean “Farm.” Your best work happens behind-the-scenes, and you don’t mind playing rough as long as the show goes off without a hitch. You are loyal and ferocious, not like a silly pitbull with lipstick, more like a quasi terrorist in tights.

David Plouffe. You have no astrological sign because no one knows your birthday. Not even you. That is how tight a ship you like to operate. Rumors, leaks, and innuendo run on your schedule. By the way, since you didn’t like the ships that were out there, you built your own.

Hillary Clinton. Scorpio. You’ve been through the wringer. When you agree the sun is shining, you are accused of crazed partisanship. You have made Rush Limbaugh rich. Your husband is one helluva handful, but you are no martyr. You put the smack down, and he is finally leashing it so you can do your job. You have a strange fan base that idolized you and then began spreading every cockamamie conspiracy theory that has come up since loonies decided the moon landing was staged. You are considering taking out 14 million (or at least a few) restraining orders.

Susan Rice. Scorpio. You don’t mince words, and you aren’t afraid to call out your own when you think they are being lame. You are critical of bureaucratic inaction, but to survive in your career, you have had to be a part of that inaction at times. You are competitive, and you are smarter than a whip. Basketball player bonus point.

Tim Geithner. Leo. You are the kinda-cute geek the girls all secretly like, but your aloofness and passive affect are tiresome and have led you into a real mess. You ran around with the other members of the chess and business clubs, and the clubs’ annual fund-raising programs have been found out as high-tech pyramid schemes. You are set to meet with your parents in the principal’s office. You better get your story straight before then. Basketball player bonus point.

Eric Holder. Aquarius cusp. Sheesh! You do your job, and one crazy event that happens on your watch, like, a million years ago still comes and bites you on the ass. Where’s the forgiveness? Britney didn’t have this much trouble coming back. You might be the circle member that doesn’t make it to the two-hour season finale. It would be a shame, but politics always demands a pound of flesh. Basketball player bonus point.

Janet Napolitano. Sagittarius. You are constantly being confused with that singer from that band. Although you don’t look like you could be, you are quite a successful tightrope walker and can make sensible, reasoned decisions, even though you are a politician. It’s a good thing you are single and don’t have kids, otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to add two numbers or speak in complete sentences. Basketball (fan) bonus (half) point.

Bill Richardson. Scorprio. You look good in a beard. You make an excellent big spoke (governor) in a little wheel (New Mexico). You are affable, and with the exception of a poorly managed spying incident, no one has anything bad to say about you. You run the risk of developing a “could’ve been a contender” complex, but we hope fixing a terribly neglected department will give you new focus and energy.

The Others. From Opie-like Arne Duncan to inconsequential Ray LaHood, you could be corny Tom Vilsack, cowboy Ken Salazar, careful Mary Schapiro, or connected Hilda Solis. (And there are others still; suprise us with your pick!)

Oops! Clean Coal’s Got a Problem.

Besides not existing, that is.

The photo (from NY Times) shows a house in Tennessee that is buried by fly ash, a sludgy waste byproduct of coal incineration. Approximately 500 million gallons or 1.7 million cubic yards broke out and covered a big chunk of eastern Tennessee on Monday.

Clean-coal lobbyists are going to have to use all of their superpowers to spin this one. The reality is whenever coal is incinerated, no matter what the bells and whistles, there is waste, and there has to be a mechanism to store this waste. The lobby can’t wish away the laws of physics.

Now let’s take a moment to consider what it must feel like to lose one’s home and neighborhood three days before Christmas, in the middle of the worst economic crisis in decades …

The lobby can chant “clean, clean, clean” ad infinitum. The image I am left with is of a house buried to its eaves in heavy-metal waste and a family left homeless.

Two to Tango: the Central Fallacy of the “War on Christmas”

Bill O'Reilly (c. 3001)

Several years back, Bill O’Reilly unfortunately discovered that, for certain subsets of the population, conflict and persecution sell better than love and inclusion. In a sad attempt to pander to this demographic, O’Reilly invented the “war on Christmas,” the central theory of which is that the religious pluralism inflicted upon America by (God help us) “different” people impermissibly generalizes the holiday season, tragically displacing mentions of Jesus in retail outlets and common conversation in favor of abstracted benedictions like “happy holidays.” To the Culture Warrior, this replacement, by failing to mention Him specifically, is a sin against God.

O’Reilly never makes the allegation that this diminishment of public Christianity somehow interferes with private worship, or that it dilutes the simple beauty of the season – family, friends, love, togetherness, “peace on Earth, goodwill to men.” Nor could he. If there is a casualty in the “War on Christmas,” it is neither peace on earth, nor goodwill to men, but only Christianity’s perceived right to be the exclusive bringer of these emotions. The “War on Christmas” isn’t about values, Christian or otherwise: it’s just a new way to couch simpering whines about the loss of Christian hegemony in the rhetoric of discrimination.

Seemingly lost on O’Reilly, too, is the ridiculous irony of fighting a “War on Christmas” to defend holiday cheer. To dispense anger, scorn, and ill-will in defense of Christian primacy is like valuing the messenger above the message, or putting the sleigh before the magically-illuminated reindeer. What matters in the holiday season isn’t how it’s celebrated, but that it’s celebrated. By turning Christmas into another venue for asserting Christian complaints about their lost spotlight, O’Reilly forgets the real “reason for the season,” which is neither the Republican Party, nor conservatism, nor Christianity, nor even Jesus Christ, but rather the peace, happiness, and exhortations to human brotherhood that together amount to Jesus’ enduring message. By effectively weaponizing the holiday season, O’Reilly ends up working a far greater subversion of the holiday season than any blasé Jesus-less Walmart benediction ever could.

Before partisans like O’Reilly clamor for all of America to celebrate Jesus in their words, they would do well to first remember his words in their hearts. Expanding the Culture War is no way to celebrate the season of peace. Only rarely does someone miss the point so spectacularly.

Warren’s Not Doing Himself Any Favors

Apparently, Rick Warren posts regular video diaries on his church’s website, updating congregants of goings on and whatnot. His post yesterday isn’t what I would call well advised. In it he says the media get it wrong (00:43); bloggers need to get lives (01:52), and marriage has been universally recognized as between a man and a woman “since the beginning of man” (03:53). The beginning of man … Really?!

His delivery is somewhat halting, and he steps on his own words in several spots, but it looks like Ricky is trying to orchestrate an image makeover. I might be a needs-a-life blogger, but I think he might want to hire some of those pesky media types to help him.

Oh, and Saddleback Church recently removed from its site its explicit message the church does not accept unrepentant homosexuals into its congregation.

More lame maneuvers like these, and Obama is going to have to pull the plug on Warren simply on the principle of not wanting stupidity at the podium.

Homeschooling Fail: a Case of Educational Malpractice

At Conservapedia, the un-thinking man’s answer to Wikipedia, you’ll recall that founder Andy Schlafly doubles as a teacher for homeschooled children, whose homework is submitted to and graded on the wiki. Setting aside the student’s privacy interests, which Schlafly apparently considers waivable, we’ve once before taken the opportunity to analyze Schlafly’s objective efficacy as a teacher. Results were not encouraging.

But, now that the “semester” is over, perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate. What did the students learn in their course? Are they prepared for the SAT II American History test, as Schlafly promised them they would be? Judge for yourself (Schlafly’s comments in bold):

Homework 13, Question #2: “Contrast President Ronald Reagan with President Bill Clinton.”

• Reagan was a republican, Clinton was a democrat. (“Good.”)
• Clinton took away our guns and Reagan gave us SDI. (“Model answer!”)
• Reagen possessed some semblance of moral characters and had decent politics, while Clinton let everything go wrong. (“Superb.”)
• Ronald Regan failed at almost everything he did, while Bill Clinton succeeded at most things. (“Interesting summary!”)
• Ronald Reagan had morals and did not have sex with an intern; President Bill Clinton did not have such great morals and had sex with an intern. (“Superb contrast.”)

Homework 13, Question #4: “What is the most important threat to the future of America?”

• Atheism is more destructive than almost any political ideology or foreign threat. (“Terrific analysis.”)
• Barack Obama. First of all, we don’t even know if he was actually born in America. (“Don’t lose heart.”)
• With the theory of evolution, many people are reduced to believing that they are “accidental” creations that have no moral values. (“Excellent.“)
• Sin. (“Superb.”)
• 9/11. (“Concise and persuasive.”)

Totals: 26 students, only 2 got below 98%, nobody lost any credit for misspelling “Reagan.” (Hat tip: anonymous RationalWiki editor).

Let me be perfectly clear: I have nothing against the concept of homeschooling, or even the idea of educating one’s children with an eye towards ensuring the propogation of one’s own ideology. But where the latter goal reaches a complete, objective subversion of the student’s intellectual development, both processes have gone too far. Andy Schlafly is doing nothing more than ensuring that his students bomb their first year of college in an ideologically appropriate way. Parents: pay attention to what your kids are learning in school, wherever they’re educated. But especially if you live within walking distance of Andy Schlafly.

The Rest of the Cabinet: Gut Reactions to Obama’s Picks

Obama delivered a slew of nominee announcements over the last week, so many it is impossible for me to give my usual attention to each, researching and weighing the nominees’ records on salient issues. Instead, armed with the New York Times, my gut, and a willingness to speculate wildly, I am offering a brief synopsis and opinion of each nominee.

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: ARNE DUNCAN

A long-time personal friend to Obama, Duncan might actually be an education secretary who has the president’s ear. He has a great deal of elementary-education experience, but he is lacking in secondary and tertiary education experience. I don’t particularly mind this point: Almost all education research indicates it’s early education that makes the difference for educational attainment. He is not a politician, which might enable him to have a fresh, untainted approach; conversely, it might hinder his attempts to make connections with everyone from state governments to local districts to congress to teachers unions. Obama’s education platform understood the issue cannot be solved with standardized tests or vouchers alone. Obama also isn’t afraid to go up against the unions and their protectionist tenure policies. Duncan’s personal relationship with the president likely ensures he understands Obama’s aims. Didionsmommy verdict: O.K.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR: KEN SALAZAR

If Salazar, a current Colorado senator, can stop Interior Department employees from snorting meth off of office toaster ovens, his battle is half won. The other half of his charge isn’t so cut-and-dried. The Department of the Interior is the agency that administers oil and mineral leases, and for the last eight years has offered a smorgasbord of treats to oil- and energy-industry lobbyists (in exchange for a few hookers and the aforementioned meth, of course). Environmentalists are wary of Salazar; industry spokespeople are pleased with Obama’s pick. Being from Colorado, Salazar has had to work with oil and mining interests. He has put the kibbosh on oil shale exploration, but he has also supported reopening abandoned mines. Considering Obama won Colorado with the help of campaigning by seated democrats, his pick of Salazar appears, at least partially, to be a thank-you appointment. Didionsmommy verdict: Not thrilled

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: TOM VILSACK

Obama’s selection of Iowa’s former governor further cements corn-based biofuels as the center of Obama’s alternative-fuel plans. The selection also indicates agriculture subsidies aren’t going away any time soon. I knew it was a long shot to see major reform or even removal of farm subsidies from the federal budget, and for a split second I was hoping the Vilsack pick might be an inspired surprise effort to grease the skids with Iowa agriculture interests to move toward a no-subsidy farming industry. But then I came to my senses. Didionsmommy verdict: Unamused

SECRETARY OF LABOR: HILDA SOLIS

Obama lived up to labor’s expectation by selecting Solis, who sports a very pro-labor voting record in Congress. I would like to see a Labor Department that goads unions to modernize and adapt and streamline so that they remain relevant to workers and flexible in a changing economy. I don’t know much about Solis. I like the fact she is from California and that she represents a district dominated by working-class Asians and Latinos: the new faces of U.S. labor. I hope she isn’t going to be a blank-check for unions, though. Didionsmommy verdict: Unsure

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: RAY LA HOOD

The NYT article announcing LaHood’s nomination didn’t have much detail about the man. Wiki confirms my suspicions: LaHood doesn’t have much experience in transportation. If we go by Wiki, Jim Oberstar will be the force guiding the Department of Transportation. Didionsmommy verdict (LaHood): Inconsequential; (Oberstar): O.K.

CHAIRWOMAN OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: MARY SCHAPIRO

Well, after Chris Cox’s tenure at the SEC, things really couldn’t get any worse. This isn’t a fair lead-in to Schapiro’s nomination. Apparently, she has been a long-time advocate for oversight and regulation, and she has served high-level positions in both the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. There is discussion of eventually merging the two groups, which is something Schapiro’s experience would facilitate. Didionsmommy verdict: O.K.