Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today, Thomas Jefferson announced the Americans’ future right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  But people often forget the next part of the Declaration of Independence, where he states “that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.

The term “consent of the governed,” unfortunately, was never defined.  Does it mean that everybody has to agree to the government?  Or that more than half of the people have to agree?  Or just that the people have the right to get rid of a government if we want?  Jefferson, of course, was insinuating a majority-rule democracy… but is that the only way to make it work?

As many of you already know, we don’t live in a truly democratic society.  In a true democracy, there would be no President or Congress… every decision would be made by majority rule.  There’s no way for us to make that work in such a big country, so we go for the closest thing we can: a representative democracy where we spend half of our time worrying about elections and the other half complaining about how our favorite candidate didn’t get elected.  So, I thought about it… is there any other way?

Well, I couldn’t think of anything good.  But I did think of an option that might work:

What if we just had official monthly approval ratings for our leaders?  Instead of doing the usual elections, we could require everybody to take an hour every six months to decide whether or not they approve of the current President or congressman or mayor or governor.  When the approval ratings drop below a given number (say, 40%), then it’s time for an election.  If the people are happy with their leader, then we don’t need to waste time replacing him.  That way, he won’t have to waste all of this time campaigning as long as he’s doing a good job.

Of course, it would have to be more complicated than that.  And it probably wouldn’t work… but why?

The Pew Research Center, which always seems to come up with great surveys and statistics, recently asked people if they think that Barack Obama is Muslim.  10% of people said “yes”, which is obviously wrong.  Do people think that Islam is an ethnicity and not a religion?  Or do they think that anybody who lived in Indonesia is a Muslim?  Well, it’s probably not the latter… because most Americans don’t even know that Indonesia is a Muslim country.  So they must be basing their conclusions on faulty assumptions or random rumors… and if you look at the actual data, it’s even more convincing:

• —The opinions are divided across party lines.  16% of conservative Republicans were skeptical of Obama’s beliefs, while only 5% of liberal Democrats felt the same way.
• —16% of evangelical Protestants thought that Obama was Muslim, while only 7% of mainline Protestants agreed.  However, neither group was much more likely than the other (50% vs. 59%, respectively) to believe that he’s Christian.
• —More educated people are less likely to have the misconception.  Among college graduates, 73% think he’s Christian and 5% think he’s Muslim; among people who didn’t go to college, half as many people think he’s Christian (37%) and three times as many believe he’s Muslim (15%).
• —People are very divided based on their region.  19% of rural residents believe that Obama is Muslim, probably because they’re not as well-exposed to different cultures.  In cities and suburbs, the number is less than half as much.  The same sort of trend is evident if you compare the Northeast (7%), the West (6%), the Midwest (13%), and the South (13%).

I’m almost ashamed to live in a non-urban Midwestern area.  It’s obvious that among people who have more experience with world cultures and religions (college graduates, urban residents, people on the East Coast), Obama’s religion is much less of a controversy.  Personally, I don’t even understand how people can make a controversy out of an unquestionable fact… I guess we’ll have to wait until November to see how big of an effect this has on the election.

Welcome to the 68th edition of Carnival of the Liberals! It was very difficult to choose a reasonable number of articles from the many submissions that I received, but I think I managed to cut it down to the point where it’s not overcrowded.

I also included some comments about each article. I’ll have to say that I was very happy with the quality of the posts, and I expect that you’ll find each of the next 15 articles to be a very interesting read.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the CotL people for letting me host this edition. Also, thanks to all of the bloggers who submitted articles; I hope to see more of your quality work in the future.

current events

Timothy Martin presents Habeas What? posted at Mouthful of Politics, saying, “This article examines the recent Supreme Court decision returning habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees.”

Shan’s comments It’s nice to see that the right-leaning Supreme Court still occasionally considers the spirit of the Constitution instead of always being politically charged.

Shan’s comments I can’t say that I’m surprised. Bigots know that they’re bigots… and they don’t want everybody else to know about it

liberalism

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Is Olbermann Turning Into O’Reilly? posted at Mad Kane’s Political Madness.

Shan’s comments: I liked this idea; although I agree with most of Olbermann’s ideas, I think he’s become just another angry ranter who always only presents one side of a debate. As long as you’re ignoring your opponents’ arguments, how do you expect to make any difference? It seems that Olbermann is just there to sell his show to fellow liberals… I wish he’s use his position of power to actually persuade some swing voters instead of (literally) yelling at his opponents

APH presents Urbanism Legend: Zoning Creates Density posted at Market Urbanism, saying, “In many different contexts, I have heard people argue that liberalizing zoning restrictions will cause “overdevelopment” or high density development filled with low income people. Even in relatively low density areas, people make the sensationalist argument that if zoning restrictions were lifted, high rises would be built in their community, creating congestion and overburdening infrastructure.”

Shan’s comments This article, unlike the last one, fits perfectly with the Globally Rational spirit. I wish more people actually looked at the real economic analysis behind their political decisions… but instead, politicians just try to appeal to people’s emotions

Greta Christina presents The Messed-Up Teachings of Jesus posted at Greta Christina’s Blog, saying, “A critique of the liberal Christian idea that the teachings of Jesus support progressive ideals, such as peace and tolerance. It provides an extensive list of Jesus’s teachings from the New Testament that run completely counter to some of the most treasured principles of most modern progressives… such as free speech, independent thought, sexual and marital privacy, resisting oppression, and respecting people with different beliefs.”

Shan’s comments I like this article, but you should be sure to take it for what it’s worth. I’m not Christian, but I do like many of Jesus’s original teachings… what this article reminds us is that many of those “original teachings” have evolved and been bastardized by some modern Christian sects

opinion

Educatorblog presents Do Teachers Influence Blackness? posted at An (aspiring) Educator’s Blog, saying, “A post about race in the classroom.”

Shan’s comments A great idea and a well-developed post. I think many people underestimate the value of teachers in a person’s life… I can definitely say that some of my teachers had a huge impact on the way that I look at the world today. This is one of my favorite articles in this carnival

Mike Haubrich, FCD presents Detainees Deserve Trials posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, “So, what is the deal with Habeas Corpus and the Supreme Court?”

Shan’s comments I couldn’t decide which Guantanamo Habeas Corpus post was better (this one or Timothy Martin’s post earlier in this carnival), so I included them both

Matthew presents Justice posted at Conservatives and Normals . Com - The Blog, saying, “What is justice and is it individual or social?”

Shan’s comments This post explores one of my favorites topics: the use (and distortion) of semantics to justify people’s pointless ideas. Before we go around throwing around powerful buzzwords like “justice”, we should realize exactly what we’re trying to say

vjack presents Atheist Revolution: Strengthening American Infrastructure is a Matter of National Security posted at Atheist Revolution.

Shan’s comments People often forget that there’s much more to national security than just killing all of the bad guys. This post is a nice reminder that there are plenty of important ideas within the broader field.

Doctor Biobrain presents What I Learned From Rush Limbaugh posted at And Doctor Biobrain’s Response Is…

Shan’s comments Quality piece about what Limbaugh (and others like him) seem to be trying to accomplish

politics

Jeffrey Stingerstein presents » Oh No! John McCain Is Trying to Lose My Vote! Disillusioned Words: atheism, art and politics posted at Disillusioned Words.

Shan’s comments Apparently, John McCain hasn’t read the Constitution. I’m not surprised… he graduated at the bottom of his class, so I doubt that he got an ‘A’ in Political Science 101

Mike Haubrich, FCD presents Bush is Not the Decider posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, “Bush doesn’t want to open an e-mail. Leadership FAIL”

Shan’s comments When I first heard about this, I was astonished. I guess that, after almost 8 years of Bush, I shouldn’t be surprised

Mike Haubrich, FCD also presents I Would Rather Be Anywhere Else posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, “Power in the hands of an imperialist, even if the intentions are initially good, leads to abuse of power. The rule of law should supercede the rule of man.”

Shan’s comments This is another article referring to the Guantanamo Habeas Corpus issue, but this one draws an important parallel between the present and the past. It’s always depressing to see us repeating the past

opinion

larryniven presents What’s that first step, again? posted at Rust Belt Philosophy, saying, “My blog examines arguments in mass media for argumentative fallacies. In this post, I deconstruct yet another conservative op/ed piece designed to downplay global warming.”

Shan’s comments A good reminder of how to respond to some of the pointless anti-environment arguments.

People often talk about how they prefer “natural” cures or “natural” foods or other things of a “natural” nature. I’m not one of those people.  I don’t deny the value of preserving the environment… but as far as the difference between eating “organic beef” (I won’t even bring up the fact that all beef is technically “organic”) and regular beef, I don’t see the benefit.  Personally, I’d rather eat a cow that received antibiotics to kill all of the bacteria.

Sure, I understand that you don’t want to be pumped full of drugs every time you eat a hamburger.  But luckily, I also understand that antibiotics are cleared out of the cow’s system before it’s slaughtered… unless you have a mutant cow with no kidneys, in which case the antibiotics would kill the cow before it’s slaughtered.  In the end, you’re effectively choosing between a piece of meat that may be infected and another piece of meat that’s exactly the same except for the fact that it’s not infected.

I realize that people are afraid of ionizing radiation in their food… but what about the fact that all of the radiation decays from the food well before it hits the shelves?  You may not like the idea of genetic engineering… but how does it actually affect anything except for the price of the food?  Yeah, growth hormones sound “unnatural”… but the hormone is denatured when you cook the meat, so why would I care?

If a beaver builds a dam, it’s natural… but if a human even builds a swimming pool, it’s not.  If a bee extracts honey from flowers, it’s natural… but if a human extracts sugar from apples, it’s not.  If a bird builds a nest, it’s natural… but if a human builds a house, it’s not.

But if the heat starts a forest fire, it’s somehow a problem; if we don’t put it out, then Smokey Bear will come and yell at us.  Who says that we have a right to stop the natural life cycles of the forests?  Is it the same person who says that only beavers are allowed to build dams and only birds and bees are allowed to build domiciles?  Where do we draw the line?  Is it “natural” to make spears and hunt animals?  And where do monkeys fall in all of this mess?  Recently, we’ve found chimps using tools… should we be telling them to go back to the natural way of doing things?

Try to get everybody to only eat organic food.  See how long it takes before we experience a Malthusian catastrophe.

I saw an article today suggesting that, for the first time, the average TV viewer is now over 50 years old. I think it’s interesting to note that top TV characters, on the other hand, seem to be getting younger as time progresses. If you look at the progression from “I Love Lucy” to “The Brady Bunch” to “Cheers” to “Friends”, it seems obvious that the most popular comedy-type shows feature younger and younger characters.

Here are some of the top comedy shows of the 20th century, along with the ages of the main characters during the show’s first season. I chose all of the comedy shows that have at some point been the #1 show in America by ratings, not including shows about families or kids (if I didn’t have enough examples for any particular decade, I threw in some shows that may never have been #1 but are still really good):

1950’s: “I Love Lucy” (main actors were in their 40’s)
1960’s: “The Andy Griffith Show” (Andy was 35-45), “Gunsmoke” (main character was 35-40), “Bewitched” (the husband was 35-40)
1970’s: “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” (Mary was mid-30’s), “Laverne and Shirley” (They were both mid-30’s), “Three’s Company” (mid-30’s)
1980’s: “Cheers” (Sam was mid-30’s), “Who’s the Boss” (Tony was mid-30’s)
1990’s: “Seinfeld” (Jerry was mid-30’s), “Friends” (they were all mid/late-20’s)
2000’s: “Scrubs” (JD was mid-20’s), “Chuck” (mid-20’s)… sorry, these are the best two I could come up with for the 2000’s because the rest of the good shows all feature a wide range of ages (marketing people are starting to figure out how to target a broad demographic).

You’ll notice a similar trend if you look at medical shows (Marcus Welby M.D. was over 60, Quincy M.E. was 50something, while House M.D. is 40something and his assistants are mid-20’s), legal shows (i.e. “Matlock” vs. the cast of “Boston Legal”), or any other specific genre. And look at the people who have sold the most music albums by decade:

1950’s: Harry Belafonte, Henry Mancini, some movie soundtracks
1960’s: Mostly soundtracks, the Monkees, Jimi Hendrix, Iron Butterfly
1970’s: Simon and Garfunkel, Neil Young, Elton John, Led Zeppelin, others of similar age
1980’s: AC/DC, Aerosmith, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, others of similar age
1990’s: Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Tupac, others of similar age
2000’s: Linkin Park, Usher, Eminiem, others of similar age

They are all around 25-30 years old at their peaks. So it seems like we like our TV characters to get younger, but our taste for musicians’ ages aren’t really changing. That means that it’s not just the aging population that is being reminiscent of younger days; the real cause is something else…

That “something else”, in my opinion, is the evolution of the field of marketing. Here are the reasons why I think that the marketing applies to TV characters more than to musicians:

–TV networks have a limited number of programs that they can show in any 24-hour period (music labels, meanwhile, can produce as many albums as they want). So, the TV studios have to make sure to appeal to as many people as possible with each show, while record labels can make different albums for each demographic.
–Garage bands can still “come from nothing” by just making good music with no regard to marketing. TV shows, on the other hand, are produced in a boardroom.
–Each TV show has to appeal to a wide demographic in order to look juicier to advertisers.
–People tend to just turn on the TV and watch whatever is most appealing. When they buy music, it’s much more premeditated.

People are getting better at selling things to us. Honestly, I like the product… I love watching many of today’s TV shows. Still, I won’t deny that most of those shows have lost the soul that broadcast television once had. If Andy Griffith (or even Jerry Seinfeld) tried to turn his comedy into a TV show today, the networks would laugh at him.

This is just a reminder that Globally Rational will be hosting the July 2 edition of Carnival of the Liberals, a fortnightly event which showcases the best recent articles by liberal bloggers.  The deadline for submitting an article is midnight CST on July 2, so get your submissions in ASAP!

Here are some relevant links:
Submission page
Carnival home
Previous editions of the carnival

This is another in my set of “Sunday Rewinds”, where I re-post one of my favorite articles that I wrote back when nobody was reading. FYI, the status of North Korea has changed a little bit since I first wrote the article.

Wikipedia defines “terrorism” as “violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.” Here are some examples of accepted terrorist organizations:

• —Al-Qaeda, for obvious reasons.
• —The Irish Republican Army (IRA), which conducts violent attacks in an attempt to promote the independence of Northern Ireland from the UK.
• —Hamas, a political party that is said to sponsor violence against Israel.
• —Khmer Rouge, a violent Communist group that controlled Cambodia for part of the 1970s.
• —The Ku Klux Klan, which is responsible for ethnic/racial violence in the US.

Anyway, you get the point. But what about state-sponsored terrorism? We spent a lot of time, resources, and money fighting many of the small groups: for instance, we fought al-Qaeda and the Khmer Rouge directly (with heavy casualties) and we fought Hamas by supplying money and weapons to their targets. Meanwhile, we ignore state-sponsored issues:

• —China’s atrocities against Tibetans speak for themselves, but China is still hosting the Olympics and is still one of our biggest trading partners. They also don’t let the local media tell their residents about the violence, while the Great Firewall of China prevents any Chinese residents from accessing international news.
• —North Korea is as dangerous as ever and, unlike al-Qaeda and Iraq, they have weapons of mass destruction. We seem to just ignore them.
• —Israel still continues to kill far more Palestinian civilians than vice versa. Why do we continue to pay for them to do it?
• —We ignore state-sponsored terrorism in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia/Eritrea, but we are all over it every time it touches Yugoslavia. My guess is that it’s because it’s much easier for white America to be sympathetic with white Yugoslavia. It’s also interesting that the news never mentions that the terrorism in Yugoslavia was primarily non-Muslims killing Muslims, but they always mention religion when Muslims kill non-Muslims. The same thing happens in Israel… it’s never “Jews killing Muslims”, but you hear a lot about “Muslims killing Jews/Israelis”, even though the former is much more common than the latter.
• —And, of course, there are the allegations of US sponsorship of terrorism, which seem to be irrefutable. Take a look at the link.

It’s hard to make a conclusion with such a small data set… but it’s good food for thought. This tells you a lot about how the US, as a nation, feels about various groups. We tend to ignore all evidence that is contrary to whatever issue it is that we want to support. We want to support China, so the Tibetans are irrelevant and the Olympics will continue. We want to support Yugoslavia, so we make Rwanda less important (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was very efficient and took care of the issues… the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, on the other hand, has accomplished almost nothing). I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t help Israel or Yugoslavia… but I think we should find a way to help Tibet and Rwanda at the same time instead of discriminating heavily in favor of one or the other.

Leave a comment and tell me what you think about this one. There are many possible explanations and conclusions, and I think we’d all like to see different opinions.

“Democracy” is a popular buzzword here in the US.  Everybody assumes that if a country is “democratic”, they are also automatically “free”.  While I don’t oppose the idea of freedom and liberty, I don’t think that they should be naturally associated with the word “democracy”.

In America, democracy and freedom both showed up at the same time.  As far back as I can remember, I’ve been taught that we must agree with the Declaration of Independence’s suggestion that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” just spur automatically from the fact that “to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.”  But in fact, that’s not what Jefferson was saying… he didn’t say that democracy creates freedom, but rather that free societies should be democratic.

So why is it that the US pushes the world to create “democratic” societies instead of creating “free” societies?  That’s what we’ve been advocating in Pakistan, Iraq, Eritrea, and many other countries where the elected government is (or soon will be) unimaginably corrupt and self-serving.  Meanwhile, here in the US, everybody assumes that an elected government must have the interests of the people in mind… after all, they want to get re-elected, right?

Maybe not… case in point: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.  After rigging the first election to make it seem like he didn’t lose clearly, he intimidated the rest of the country to the point where his opponent was forced to withdraw from the run-off election.  Now, Mugabe is declaring victory despite the fact that he obviously distorted the results of the voting to a point where he seemed like a landslide winner when everybody knows that he is highly unpopular.

So why do we try to enforce democracy instead of freedom in countries like Iraq?  Well, I think the reason is obvious… Americans don’t really understand that there is a difference.  Democracy can be enforced by guns, while freedom can only be enforced by schools.  As long as you can convince the American population that you’re doing one or the other, they’ll be happy… so why not just put in a nominal government based on a superficial popular vote?  After all, it’s much easier to buy guns than it is to build schools.

McCain’s top VP prospect, Bobby Jindal, apparently believes that Intelligent Design is “the very best science.” When talking about the subject, he mentioned that “The way we’re going to have smart, intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science and let them not only decide, but also let them contribute to that body of knowledge.”

So apparently, he seems to believe that we not only need to teach Intelligent Design in schools (as he mentioned earlier in the speech), but that kids should be able to “contribute to that body of knowledge.” I’m curious… since when are we allowed to “contribute” to Intelligent Design theories? I was always under the impression that the Bible (and other religious texts) are non-negotiable… how can kids contribute to the body of Christian knowledge?

He also mentioned that he doesn’t want “any facts of theories withheld from [his kids] because of political correctness.” Personally, I was always under the impression that we keep religion out of public schools for reasons much more important than “political correctness.” I thought that we lived in the “Land of the Free” where you could get through school without being subject to a certain mandatory religion.

Sure, we can teach our kids religion… I’m not opposed to religion as a concept. But this is the sort of education that should be restricted to personal homes. If you want to teach your kids to be Hindu or Mormon or Baptist or Muslim, it’s not my problem… but if you want to feed a certain religion to my kids, it’s suddenly a big deal. Kids go to school to learn facts based on empirical evidence, not to learn a certain prophet’s interpretation of the truth.

Are you ready to see Bobby Jindal as the next Dick Cheney?

We all hate child molesters.  Even child molesters hate child molesters.  We can all agree that they deserve whatever sort of punishment we can give them… but where do we draw the line?

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal recently signed a bill allowing chemical castration for convicted sex offenders.  While the law borders the realm of “cruel and unusual punishment”, I can see plenty of positives too…

PROS: Child molesters are sick.  They tend to be repeat offenders, and the reason is because of their natural tendencies.  As much as I’d hate to suppress somebody’s natural tendencies, I think it’s necessary in cases like this one… chemical castration means that these people will never commit these sorts of acts again.  And it means that people are less likely to do it in the first place.

CONS: Where do we draw the line?  Today it’s child molesters and castration… what will it be tomorrow?  There is a reason why the Constitution outlaws “cruel and unusual punishment”… the point is so that we can avoid a scenario where innocent people are castrated.

What do you think?