New Pope, New Name, Same Old Regressive Views

My apologies to my Catholic friends, but this is the 21st century, and having views like, gays are an abomination and insult to God's plan, that abortion & birth control are evil, that women are not equal, etc, is so ..Dark Ages! Now, this guy who was just another red cardinal was elected by other men in red capes, and, voila, with his white costume he has gained papal infallibility on his side!

Speaking of infallibility, this brief period between the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis was indeed a rare moment when no primate claimed to be iinfallible! I enjoyed it. Did you?

Poorly-designed mural?!?

Already we hear stories about his "humble origins and life", like Mr. Obama said, “As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than 2,000 years — that in each other we see the face of God.”  Well, allow me to disagree--and I can do this, because we live in a secular liberal democracy with a godless constitution, where religious authority can only threaten me with "spiritual death" not actual physical death through torture. I can live with that!

 May I ask, what kind of "champion of the poor is he when he tells the poor that family planning should be left to God, while their starving children are the responsibility of those faithful but ignorant parents?  That a woman's place can never be on the same level as a man's. Poverty, lack of education are characteristics of women who have many children and no access to opportunity to better their own lives, thus hitching themselves to the male provider.

It's amazing that so many humans don't see this pageantry and, more importantly, this outdated doctrine as a primitive institution and activities more suited for the dust bins of history.

Did I mention that this new Pope opposed same-sex marriage and adoption as "a war against God"?  I wonder how he feels about the Catholic Church excommunicating the mother of a young girl and the doctor who performed the abortion after the child had been raped in the neighboring country of Brazil while the rapist was not excommunicated....

The huge scandals of child rape by priests and the stance of the previous Pope and the Catholic church in general have left big questions about reforming a system. And, this is the crux of the matter: the problems are systemic! So, replacing a person, including the highest official, won't be enough if the system isn't radically reformed. 

However, this selection of a very conservative cardinal to lead the Vatican and the 1+ billion Catholics isn't a good sign if you expected this crusty institution to enter the 21st century of the common era.

Americans Have No Idea About How Bad Wealth Inequality Is in Our Country!

In my Comparative Politics class, we're discussing political economy these days and it's been an eye-opener for most, because what people think of reality, well, it isn't!

First, let's say that the purpose of civil society is to provide benefits to its members. In order for the political system to work for the benefit of the people--the common people, the majority of whom are in the middle class--it is best to pick a regime that has this foundation principle. In modern societies, this is a liberal-social democracy.

Liberal, because it safeguards and promotes individual rights and freedom. Social, because it provides a social safety net--services people need. Democracy, because it allows for popular participation and a government of-by-for the people.

A system needs legitimacy to be stable and for longevity. The modern state--a creation of the 18th-19th centuries--provided benefits but also a new narrative, myths, practices, and activities that turned people into citizens. Citizens who had obligations to the state but also benefits. Notions of patriotism and nationalism were forged out of this new reality. This has helped cohesion, elevated pride in one's country, and motivation.

If the system and the government are to work for the people, then we have to ask what, does this mean?  Well, I'm sure there are many views on this, but let me suggest a few items: happiness (yes, individually defined), good health, leisure, education, long life, less stress, stability, peace, clean environment, decent shelter, affluence, access to opportunity, economic mobility, justice, etc, etc.  This is the mission statement of a modern, advanced country. Obviously, this was not the mission of older systems, like the Old Regime.

In order to achieve the mission statement, societies/governments/rulers engaged in redistribution of resources and wealth.  Usually it was from the bottom up. This was not good unless you were a member of the elite. These members made all sorts of arguments (including might makes right) in favor of keeping their privileges. And, their appetite was insatiable. Louis the 14th needed more gold for his lavish palaces. Our modern super wealthy and their shills, most of the Republicans, have drawn the line that no tax increases, no matter how modest, should be applied to the upper classes.

 When Reality Escapes the American People

The Occupy Wall Street with its signs, "We're the 99%", brought needed attention to the upper 1% of the economic elites. Yet, the real magnitude of the problem is still unknown to the American people. The power of the myth, the cultural and political forces have managed to create a strong illusion. 

This illusion includes a good dose of patriotism and nationalism, but in a perverted way. "We're # one!"  Others are risking life and limb to get here. Look at the great things we've achieved, and still do. The American dream is alive! You can make it, like Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and so many others. With hard work and a bit of luck anyone (most?) will make it ..big!  

It's hard to argue against the tendency to compare ourselves to societies far worse than ours. Somehow comparisons to other societies that have better outcomes aren't being made. Yes, there are several societies that have a better distribution of the economic pie, where people live longer, are healthier, more educated, have more leisure, live is safer environments, and report greater levels of happiness. Their political economies are, however, adjusted differently than the US.

As I speak with many students, I hear that they expect to be rich someday. Likewise, many ordinary Americans think they'll be rich one day, or at least part of the upper middle class. But, statistically speaking, this won't happen. 

Unfortunately, the reality isn't very rosy. The Economist, the Wall Street Journal--to name a couple pro-capitalist publications--have pointed out that economic mobility in the US has fallen behind western Europe! 

In a democracy where public opinion is important, where decisions are made based on people's perceptions, it matters greatly whether the public really knows the facts. 

For decades, studies have been consistent as to this public perception about economic reality in the US. People are asked what a fair society would be like. Then they're asked what they think the US is like in wealth distribution. Their guess is terrifyingly wrong!

Watch this video and forward it to everyone you know. 

 Wealth Inequality in the US

 

Who could have guessed it, that the top 1% control 40% of the wealth. That the bottom 80% of Americans have only 7% of the wealth, while the other top 19% own 53% of the wealth. Mind bungling.

Obama's SOTU Address: A Progressive View

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....

The Narrative and Practice of Progress

There is a lot of conservatism in this country, especially by the standards of advanced democracies, but many more Americans are liberals, even if they don't know it. Liberalism was the radical ideology that placed the individual at the center; it has evolved in the last 100 years, but even its modern version of progressivism--freedoms, rights, access to opportunity, social safety net, consumer protection, etc--is shared by a majority of Americans.

People are products of culture--some of us do question or ponder the given norms--so it's important to have a good narrative. Of course many internalize something that's oft-repeated. Controlling the narrative has been an effective way to spread a belief system, ideas, and justify policy. 

What I liked about president Obama's rhetoric on the day of his second inauguration: 

• Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.  But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.
• Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.
• Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
• The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
•  But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.  For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.  We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.
• We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall... Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. 
• Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

The progressives expected more from this president--and the author of this blog has often heavily criticized Mr. Obama. However, we do live in a world where the normative isn't always available. I also think of the alternative, given our political landscape. This week it could have been Mitt Romney taking the presidential oath. I shudder. Because, he would bring along a cadre of henchmen who have a negative view of government; who want to destroy repeal the New Deal, The Great Society, and the "big fucking deal" (as VP Biden said upon the health care act was signed into law. [here's Paul Crugman's op-ed, "The Big Deal" that's worth a read]

Today, this administration lifted the combat ban on women. Earlier, Obama also lifted the ban on gays in the military (the ill-conceived, Don't Ask Don't Tell). We've just marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The conservatives have opposed all these progressive changes, and if when they control government, they push our country back towards the Dark Ages. 

On to filibuster reform now, so a tiny minority in the Senate will not be able to stop most sensible legislation from moving on through Congress.  

"God, Why?" .... Maureen Dowd Ponders. I've Got Some Thoughts on This...

“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.        Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.        Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” 

(David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; 1779).

*

Maureen Dowd in her NYT op-ed [link] today, 12/26/12, ponders about God's role, and she demonstrates how reasonable, intelligent persons surrender the tools they use every day--the logical, rational approach to reality--and surrender to ignorance. With God, yes, everything is possible, accept anything, and I mean anything, without evidence or reason!

If we behaved with depraved indifference we wouldn't consider it moral, especially if we had the power to save innocents from harm. Yet, the supreme being gets a pass on this. Ah, maybe He knows something we don't, is often the reply. Really? But we are rendering judgment and praise for him when something goes well. 

Millions of children die every year before the reach the age of five. They're not old enough to understand sin or to do anything that deserves the death penalty. That God knows how they'll turn out in the future precludes free will. If we're made defective by the designer, then we have to prove ourselves to him through free choice, it doesn't make sense why children should die before they actually exercise their free will. Even babies die every day. No need to go farther than the nearest children's hospital to witness little ones dying of cancer and other horrible afflictions. Is this the morality of a God?

Most humans practice religion because they were born into it and it's a way to belong, be part of the community's norms and culture. But, to have faith it means abdication, surrender, ignorance, and fear. Fear has a paralyzing effect and can distort reality. The more fearful a person is the less likely to act calmly and to exercise reason.  Being nice to a bully in hopes that he won't hurt you. Be in terror and do it often, you may end up loving him! He beats me, but he loves me, that's why I stick around....

What's even more incredible is that societies have organized themselves on unproven, incredible stories, and they have gone to great lengths to enforce conformity by uncountable violent ways. It's Xmas as I'm writing this. By the way, the "X" is from the original Greek and it's not another attack on Xmas as some super-sensitive ignoramuses suggest. [link]   I enjoy the holidays and I don't need religion to do so. Actually, the celebrations around the winter solstice go back before Christianity, while Xmas wasn't really celebrated by the Church until it decided to co-opt this holiday from the pagans! Obviously, Jesus was not born on December 25th.


Speaking of Jesus--the light, as in the first light of the solstice--how do you explain the triadic notion? That the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are all manifestation of the same God. Well, then God sacrificed himself [in a very gruesome way, and whose death device we hang around our necks] to himself to save humans from the sin a couple defectively-designed humans (Adam & Eve) committed long time ago! In other words, we're told that we're born with original sin, a curse really, and we have to pay for the sins of others; so in order for this curse to be lifted we have to accept God Jesus as our Savior.  Sounds like a scam to me.


Humans have been reacting to the darkness, the harsh life, the threats to the species' survival by making up stories, that there's a force who protects us, and if we pay the high price of servility, there are heavenly rewards! Any rudimentary application of logic destroys these stories but most people refuse to do it. Smart, educated, affluent people that have excelled in many endeavors choose willful ignorance when it comes to the question of God. It's fear that prevents them.  

It's fear of punishment, it's fear of missing on the afterlife, it's fear that the "designer" put in us. Yet, like when Prometheus stole the fire from the Gods, some of us have discovered another seed in us: to ask questions, to use logic, to seek the truth even if it's sometimes painful. Maybe God put in us the seed of his own destruction! 

I do not need to prove that I exist, because this would require evidence and thus will destroy faith. Without faith, I'm nothing!   God (allegedly)

Obama: "This Must End!" But, he Speaks More Like a Preacher than a Secular Leader Who Must Pass Federal Laws on Gun Ownership

Yes, it's time to politicize the Newtown massacre and change our politics and gun laws

I don't know if the president has a plan other than to reassert his Xtian credentials, because he sounded more like a preacher tonight than a leader who has to change the gun laws of this country as the public by overwhelming majority now demands. Will he, or will he ..lead from the rear as in many other issues (immigration, DOMA, DADT, etc)?

I reserve my judgment until I see what he does in the next few days regarding federal legislation to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines, require strict controls on handguns, etc. Maybe it's his strategy to grieve his the families and through the emotional path try to bring the necessary change.

Obama: "God called those children home."

Sadly, perpetuating stupidity and superstition still the norm in the US!

However, enough with superstition and ignorance. What the hell is this supposed to mean, "God called back those children"??!!! Really, Mr. president? Then if God wanted to call those children in such horrible way--and you assume you know that--why should we blame the gunman or demand any change? If God is able and willing, he'll do whatever is necessary. Or, he won't... Why should we bother with anything really if this is the motto?

Someone has to speak up against this primitive superstitious and ignorant approach/reaction to tragedies. This should end. I'd like those who have access to megaphones and want a more critical thinking public would not bring out the voodoo dolls during times of crisis. It's the 21st century, we should be mature enough to handle reality, so references to the supernatural is a disservice and an action that further perpetuates wishful thinking, prejudice, servility, and superstition.

Federal laws must be passed as to what kind of firearms are allowed. It's a political choice of a secular regime! No hunter should get guided missiles, bombs, or machine guns to enjoy their sport. No one should get clips that hold dozens of bullets, and of course no assault weapons. The Second Amendment--written by people over 2 centuries ago whose idea of "arms" was much different than ours--has already been modified by reality: "the right to bear arms" doesn't mean today the right to have tanks, F16s, and nukes. Oh, and the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is so 18th century too. Out duty as engaged and informed citizens is to never reach that point of having to violently resist our own government, because if we do it'll be too late! The government will always have more, bigger, and powerful weapons.

There are more gun shops than grocery stores (or McDonalds, or Walmarts or gas stations) in the US!

It's absolutely ridiculous that in order to get a car you need to be tested for ability, obtain insurance, while the vehicle is registered and inspected, but getting a gun is simple matter of going to a gun show and buy one with no background check! This is totally insane. I'm fed up with going through the same motions of sadness, anger, grieving, promises of "never again", every time such a bloody event happens, but we don't do anything about it!

Children under 14 are 13 time more likely to be killed in the US (in advanced countries). Guns kill 30,000 Americans every year. The murder rate in other advanced countries is in the dozens whereas in the US is in the tens of thousands. Yes, there are complex reasons for having such a violent society--and we should start a national dialogue on this--but we certainly can do something about the means of violence.

Obama has done this kind of consoling after massacres 4 times during his tenure. Has he learned that the mass murderers used legally-obtained assault weapons? But, this is the president who signed 2 gun bills into law. One, to allow firearms into national parks and one to allow them on Amtrak! How's this for a radical president who'd confiscate all guns as the conservative nuts argued in 2008?...

Time is now for serious action and the president to lead. I understand the script, I understand that Obama has to speak a certain language, but no amount of comfort can bring back the innocent dead. However, if we change our attitudes and public policies we can prevent tragedies in the future. We'll all gain from this. We should come together when we face adversity and pain, but we should stop being masochists and fatalists now!

PS>Yes, more readily available guns lead to more violence and homicides. Here's a study among advanced countries. Yes, it's also the culture that plays a role, but even formerly violent countries (Japan, Germany) have changed due to gun control and other sensible laws! The US can too.

The Senseless Murder of Schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary Reflect on All of Us. It's Time to Seriously Think About Reducing Violence in the US

If this is not a good time to pass serious gun control--after the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school--I don't know when it'll be a better time. The gun lobby has lots of power, but it can't have more than the outraged people who say enough with gun violence in our country! 

Along with mourning for the 20 schoolchildren and half a dozen adults who got sensibly murdered today, I'm angry that those who perpetrate a culture of violence and make it easy for anyone--yes, anyone--to obtain weapons.

Mike Hucκabee reached a new low today when he said, “We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools.  Should we be surprised that schools would become places of carnage?” […] “Maybe we ought to let (God) in on the front end, and we wouldn’t have to call Him up when it’s all said and done at the back end.”

In times of crisis, idiots like Huckabee [just watch how many others like him will make similar statements] who point out how bad God must be to allow children to be murdered, because the liberals (who else?) removed the deity from schools! But, this is the kind of thinking that's preventing our country from progressing into a more peaceful, rational, and happier society. 


The NRA is coming out as an equal asshole by blaming gun control advocates for the massacre, arguing that if everybody else had guns there wouldn't be so many victims. We had those days when almost everyone packed heat, but advanced societies decided to change that and gun violence, including gun accidents went down. I work on a university campus and I don't want to see everyone carrying any weapon, because not only it wouldn't be safer for all of us, but it would create a tense atmosphere--not nice!

As our thoughts are with the families of the victims and the little children who experienced this trauma, I hope that Obama indeed politicizes this event. When events unfold while public policy has something to do with them, then political decisions must be examined. We should allow a well-organized and financed minority to dictate bad policies to the rest of us. It's time to seriously restrict access to firearms and control who gets what. It's also time to revisit the 2nd Amendment...


------------------
Update 12/15/12
I had an interesting debate last night on the topic of violence and ..creationism. Are we created faulty, say, with a bad seed in us, as conservative philosophers think of human nature? If you assume that God created us in our present form, then the designer should be blamed for a defective unit. Ah, free will, is the retort. But, then, what would that prove that free will results in the suffering of innocents? Take a look at the 20 little children in elementary school who have been murdered. They couldn't be that bad that deserved the death penalty. Therefore, why does God allow for such? Take a look at any cancer ward in a children's hospital also....This doesn't look the work or the care of a loving God, does it?

It's the small-mindedness of humans that results in most of the violence we've inflicted on each other and on our environment. A couple centuries after the Enlightenment, much of humanity is still in the dark in many more ways than lacking electricity....

The Conservative Disposition Hurts Progress and Helps the Very Wealthy at the Expense of the Rest. Plus, a Word on "Traditional America!"

Traditional America: When women and blacks knew their place, 
homosexuals were locked in the closet, and the Government could ask, 
"do you know, or have you ever known a ...."

By looking at some states you'd think the country is certainly moving in the right direction regarding civil liberties and into a progressive way of life. Yet, there's still polarization and it's growing, though the regressives are losing ground overall. Some states are becoming decisively more liberal/progressive whereas others more conservative. 

Many of the modern conservatives [in the sense of post-American & French revolutions], especially the "economic conservatives" have accepted many of the basic principles of liberalism but they don't seem to get over the pace of social, economic, political change.

Since Edmund Burke, one of the early philosophers who talked about a conservative disposition, conservatives are concerned about the pace of change, human nature (we're all governed by "original sin"), and preservation of traditional culture, morality, and the status quo. This is the ..bargain conservative parties have offered the lower classes in exchange for their support. Maybe there's a conservative disposition in most humans, because the familiar can be more comforting than the unknown, the abstract, the experimental. Most people aren't exactly looking for anything that would challenge their preconceived biases. 

Click on it if you're a woman

In the US, there was rapid change after WW II. Blacks came back from fighting against Hitler's evil (and his notions of racial purity) to a racist country. The civil rights movement gathered steam. Women in the workplace were now common. The middle class was upwardly mobile [sadly, it hasn't since the 70s today], there was Rock & Roll, sexual revolution and women's choice, drugs, Hollywood, wars and political crises. Even the face of immigration changed from white Europeans to Latinos and Asians. All of this was very unnerving to the conservatives as "traditional America" was dissolving.

In the 1970s, there's a reaction and the religious conservatives begin to organize to "take back America"... Restore the moral fitness of the country, it was their aim, they said. Still is. This big pool of activists (not just voters), lobbyists, fundraisers, changed our politics beginning with Reagan's presidency. By 1990s, the transformation of the Republican party had been evident in its very conservative leaders and policies. The tea party of late added to this extremism.

The bargain's basic premises are still being used by the GOP. As Irving Kistol said, the fight shouldn't be about (or between) the haves and have-nots, but about morality and traditional values. Focus on economic growth, not as a class warfare, but as a ..rising tide that lifts all boats, and trickle-down economics. That's why we see the Republicans not wanting to increase taxes on the top rich, and keep saying more affluence at the very top creates jobs. 

Leadership matters. Elections have consequences. Obama does have a mandate so he should use it to bring the US more in line with the advanced liberal-social democracies, where:

• higher social and economic mobility exists
• more equitable wealth distribution
• more educated public
• more scientific and secular
• longer life expectancy
• healthier population
• more leisure time
• more productive workers (per hour)
• less crime and violence
• less stressed people

 .....

(Update)
In case you're unhappy with his sudden departure and wondering what  Senator Jim DeMint's (R-SC) has been leading the Republicans into for many years, here as some of his ..lowlights:

• Led the opposition to "Obama care". OK, no surprise. Supported Tom Akin (remember the "legitimate rape"?), even when the GOP distanced itself from this moron for a moment.
• In 2010, DeMint “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.”
•  Pushed a bill outlawing the discussion of abortion over the Internet. Last year, DeMint proposed an amendment to an unrelated bill that would have barred a woman and her doctor from discussing abortion over the internet, even if her health was at risk and tele-conferencing was the most feasible option to receive care.
• He promised to use his new position at the Heritage Foundation to take back America from the throes of progress and into the Dark Ages. [well, he didn't quite put it this way, but this isn't far from the truth if he dared speak it!]

With the Election of 2012 Over, Obama Should Take the Initiative and Push for Common Sense Policies

Well, we should be happy that the retarded conservative party and its designee didn't win the presidential election. My biggest surprise was that the Republicans expressed shock that not only Romney would win but win in a landslide! Apparently "bullshit mountain" [Jon Stewart's description of Faux News] and the conservative pundits--who've been wrong about everything--sold the gullible snake oil.

Not to brag, but I wrote here Obama would win very comfortably the electoral law plus the popular one. Also, that the Senate would remain Democratic. I hoped the Dems would win more seats than what they actually won, though I thought it would still be under Repub control. Interestingly, the Dem vote was higher, but redistricting and other quirks give the Repubs the majority.

These maps below show the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

State by state, winner-take-all, view.

Population matters.

State by state, WTA, but adjusted for population. The blue states have a lot more people.

Looks may be deceiving:

Outcome by counties, regardless of population.

How Americans voted by county:

County by county adjusted for population.

This country still remains very divided and I don't know if the gap is shrinking. The leadership of the GOP doesn't seem to want to move its political base closer to the center, and modernity. By divided, I don't just mean the Dem-Repub division, but also a whole host of issues, from the economy to social matters. For example, use of marijuana, same-sex marriage, homosexuals in the military, notions of social safety net (including health care), role of US in the world, science (including climate change), etc. 

In the first few days after his reelection, Obama came out swinging. This is good, very good. He has to use his political capital right away otherwise it will evaporate. In addition, a more forceful president can set the tone for the next four years. Let's get some reform in the US Senate so a handful of obstructionist can't stop the country from doing its business. 

Post-Hurricane Blues But With High Hopes for the Blue Team on Election Day!

I'm writing this a week after losing power at home and within a brief window of semi-normalcy that a generator can provide. It's also two days before the election; at least on this end, things look good. One of the most duplicitous, fake, and dishonest presidential candidates ever will go down in defeat, though not by a landslide--which says something about our electorate.

FEMA and other governmental agencies are absolutely necessary in times of emergency; why Romney and the Republicans argue differently it's a reflection of their crusty ideology. By keep demonizing the role of government, they have been doing a disservice to our country. I'd say, if you don't have a positive proposal for government, then you shouldn't be elected to any important position!

The northeastern US has been hit hard by Sandy and this will have some impact on the election, hopefully not too serious that too many Dems won't be able (or care) to vote. We must turn back this GOP to the Dark Ages where it belongs.

I'm surprised that the Repubs don't complain that Obama should have fixed this by now! Or, that Romney was able to prevent all superstorms as governor and as president he could fix the weather too! Oyvey...

Again, the Dems will hold the Senate, unknown is the fate of the House, but Obama will get over 300 EVs and win the popular vote! 

See you on the other side of the election.