Globally Rational

You are browsing the archives of politics.

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.

Popularity: 15% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 15% [?]

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

Popularity: 29% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 29% [?]

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?

Popularity: 65% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 65% [?]

Ralph Nader just publicly accused Barack Obama of trying to “talk white” and not making a big deal out of issues such as “payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, [and] lead”. He went on to say that Obama “wants to show that he is not … another politically threatening African-American”. My favorite is the following statement:

“He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

I can have a field day with this, but I promise not to be too harsh:

—-Since when is it possible to talk in colors? Do I “talk brown” because my skin is brown? Obama was raised by his white mother (and her white parents) after his parents’ divorce… so if he was raised in a white household, why would he not “talk white”?

—-I agree that Obama wants to show that he’s not politically threatening. Since when does a politician want to appear to be a threat? I can’t remember the last time I saw somebody make a serious run for President without making it obvious that he/she was not a threat.

—-Nader seems to think that Obama is “appealing to white guilt” by saying that he is “not going to threaten the white power structure”. I’d go as far as to call this comment “racist”… does Nader seriously believe that Obama is a threat to the white power structure? I didn’t even realize that white people had their own power structure. Is it whites-only? Can I join? How does somebody apply to become a member? And why would Obama want to threaten it?

—-When was the last time that payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, and lead were major election issues? Nader seems to think that just because Obama is black, he should be focusing on “black” issues. He clearly said the following:
“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos.”
So, apparently, Obama should be thinking about ghetto issues just because he’s black. Ignore the fact that he was born in Honolulu, grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and went to school at Harvard. Obama should stay true to his “roots” by focusing on the “ghetto”.

Nader seems to think that Obama should be acting blacker. Apparently, he’s only acting white so that he can get votes (because, as Nader’s track record will show, he doesn’t think that votes are important in a Presidential race). It seems that despite the fact that Obama was raised by a white person in Hawaii and Indonesia, Nader believes that he should act “black” just because of the color of his skin.

I usually try to be more balanced in my articles… but I just can’t tolerate blatant racism from a major Presidential candidate.

Popularity: 61% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 61% [?]

Back in February 2007, USA Today/Gallup asked Americans the following question:

“Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be 72 years old, would you vote for that person?“

42% of people said “no” and 15% were undecided.  That means that if their party nominated a 72 year-old, 3 out of 7 people would vote for somebody else.  In the same poll, 48-50% of people supported Obama or Hillary in a November election against McCain.  That would lead a person to believe that, since 42% of people should technically vote against McCain solely because of his age, only 6-8% of people actually supported Obama or Hillary.  In fact, I think it’s much easier to vote for McCain when you attach a name to his age… people were averse to voting for a 72 year-old, but plenty of people were willing to vote for McCain.

Are we serious?  In a perfect world, I think we’d remove all of the faces from political elections.  If we only knew a candidate’s political stances and credentials (and we never saw their faces until after they get elected), I think more people would dismiss McCain just because they don’t want to vote for a guy who’d be 80 years old by the time he finishes his second term.  What do you think?

I like looking at data and studies… they cast a lot of light on reality.  I’ve noticed plenty of people say things like “I don’t care about the numbers, this is what my experience says”… but I don’t think that any single person’s experience is as valuable as the experience of the thousands of people involved in the study.  If we weren’t willing to vote for a 72 year-old, then why were we willing to vote for McCain?

I like McCain… I won’t vote for him (not because of his age, but because of his stance on the issues), but I do like him.  I think that he’s better than Hillary and that he’s not as good as Obama… but that’s irrelevant.  The question here is about numbers; if we weren’t willing to vote for a 72 year-old, then why were we willing to vote for McCain?

Popularity: 68% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 68% [?]

As I’ve mentioned before, I really don’t mind sacrificing my privacy if it means that the government can keep better tabs on what everybody is doing (and use that information to catch criminals and terrorists).  It seems to me that people can get away with a lot of questionable acts with the excuse that it’s a part of their private life.

Recently, a public court ruled that the White House doesn’t have to reveal internal correspondence.  It seems that a significant chunk of emails, which may have contained information about the Iraq War, were permanently deleted before they were released to the public (in defiance of previously accepted regulations).  Apparently, the President can cite his own privacy as a good reason to not justify his own actions.

I can’t put it any better than the article itself… click here to check it out.

Popularity: 65% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 65% [?]

Today’s LA Times has already started to speculate as to Tim Russert’s replacement after his tragic death yesterday. Their selections are all the obvious ones… it’s mostly just NBC’s top political men, like Chris Matthews and David Gregory.

With all due respect to Matthews and Gregory, I don’t think that either of them will ever be able to fill Russert’s shoes. Although they are great correspondents and each maintains his own high-quality show, neither can match Russert’s ability to think on his feet and win a debate with a high-class politician. I have only seen one other person who can talk to a top Washington official and pose follow-up questions with confidence and purpose.

The problem? Well, he’s a comedian.

The only person who can even dream of rivaling Russert’s quick-thinking interview skills is Jon Stewart. He is the closest thing that I’ve ever seen, but he’ll never be taken seriously because… well, he doesn’t really take himself seriously. Instead of being thought of as a potential replacement for Tim Russert, NBC might be signing him as a replacement for Conan O’Brien. Just watch Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire during the 2004 election (especially the 3-minute mark of the following video)… I think he singlehandedly brought the demise of that show:

Now try to tell me that he’s not amazing.

Popularity: 79% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 79% [?]

Tim Russert, one of my favorite rational political inquisitors, died today at the age of 58. In his memory, I would like to devote today’s post only to his remembrance. I can’t say it any better than his colleagues at NBC, so I’ll just leave it up to them:

Popularity: 60% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 60% [?]

I saw an article today in USA Today suggesting that the legacy of Sandra Day O’Connor, America’s first female Supreme Court justice, has been fading since she retired in January 2006 (after a tenure of over two decades).  The article mentions that the new Court has “undercut several of her most important rulings on issues such as abortion rights, campaign finance law and government policies intended to help racial minorities.”  Among other things, the article mentions the following changes in the Court’s policies since O’Connor retired and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died:

• Shifted course on abortion rights: The court upheld a federal ban on the abortion procedure opponents call “partial birth” and backed away from a 2000 O’Connor opinion that required an exception in such laws to protect the health of the mother.

• Retreated on integration: The court made it harder for public school districts to assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods to achieve racial diversity. In 2003, O’Connor had cast the swing vote to allow affirmative action in higher education and stressed the importance of racial diversity.

• Altered its approach to campaign-finance law: The court opened the door to corporate and union financing of broadcast ads right before an election. It moved away from a standard O’Connor had crafted to regulate campaign financing and made it harder for Congress to limit donations in elections. In doing so, the justices said campaign finance regulation could undermine free speech.

What interests me the most about this article is the fact that the Supreme Court’s political leanings have obviously changed thanks to the justices appointed by President Bush II.  While Rehnquist and O’Connor were known to make apolitical decisions on a case-by-case basis, their replacements (John Roberts and Samuel Alito, respectively) are generally considered as members of the Court’s “conservative wing”.  Since when is a legal system, particularly the Supreme Court, allowed to have a “conservative wing?”

It’s about time that we start appointing justices based upon their accomplishments rather than their political leanings.  Aside from the Presidents Bush, all US Presidents have appointed justices who make highly rational, apolitical decisions.  Why do we let it fly when an active member of either political party is allowed to join the Court?  Alito, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by Bush Sr.) are the only current justices who weren’t approved by at least 85% of Senators (Alto had 58%, Roberts had 78%, and Thomas had a mere 52%).  The other six justices made it in almost unanimously… why is it that the Bushes couldn’t do the same thing that Ford, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton were able to do?

The purpose of the Judicial Branch of the US government is to interpret and enforce the laws.  As long as the members of the highest court are affiliated with a political party, how can we possibly guarantee neutrality?

Popularity: 61% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 61% [?]

I saw a YouTube video today regarding the war in Iraq (created by a Ron Paul supporter):

The Jed Report correctly describes this video as potentially “brutal” and “devastating” to John McCain.  What I think is interesting is that, despite the fact that this information has all been in the public domain for months, it doesn’t become “brutal” until after somebody puts it on YouTube.  Did people not realize beforehand that McCain apparently believes that Baghdad is a safe place where anybody can walk around without any fear?  Did they think that he intends to withdraw troops from Iraq?

I think it’s about time that people start noticing these trends on their own instead of relying on a random YouTube user to tell us.  If you support the war and you think that it’s safe to walk around a ravaged city like Baghdad, then I understand why you wouldn’t care about his statements… but the vast majority of people (including intelligent and educated people) don’t even know about this.  I’ve met plenty of people who judge McCain based on the promises he made during the 2000 campaign, when the war and the economy were nonfactors.  It’s time for people to actually think before they vote.

Popularity: 63% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 63% [?]