“As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth’s final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”

– Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri, video game from 1999

Yes! Yes! YES!!

As if that wasn’t enough, he said what I believe will be the most often quoted bit in Planet Atheism for the next couple of days:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus… and non-believers."

Hell yeah! Just a couple of years after Bush Sr.’s “atheists can’t be considered citizens or patriots” quote. The tide is turning…

Full version (starting with the Democratic primaries) here.

Instead of pointing you to his victory speech, I’ll celebrate with a previous one, which still brings a tear to my eye when I watch it. Especially the second half. You’ve probably heard it before, but…

Now, if we’re thinking about not voting because “none of the candidates really represent my positions” or “they’re both the same”, I leave you with two quotes for you to consider. Please do so.

Let’s say you’ve decided to sit out every election until you finally encounter the candidate who’s a left-handed green-eyed atheist libertarian who will institute the flat tax and can sing classical opera. I can guarantee you that you, my friend, will be sitting out every election of your entire life.

But let’s say a candidate finally comes along who’s a right-handed green-eyed agnostic libertarian who will institute some kinds of tax reforms (not the exact ones you want) and plays the tuba. And let’s say the other guy in the race is, hmmm, Fred Phelps. Are you really telling me that you’re going to sit out on principle because you only like southpaws?

– Kazim, The Atheist Experience

and, of course:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

– David Sedaris, The New Yorker

Does that mean that they are voting for McCain only because they and McCain are white? The racist bastards!

In fact, if we take this absurdity to its logical limit, the only non-racists out there are the whites who’re voting for Obama, and the blacks who’re voting for McCain. Everyone else is just voting according to skin color, nothing more. Racists!

And to think these creeps have millions hanging on to their every word…

Some gems:

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

And, naturally:

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman’s right to give birth."

"Soon, with John Ashcroft’s help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."

Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

The Onion: prophecies 10,000 times more accurate than any book written by Bronze Age desert nomads.

To me, this is impossible to even begin to understand, unless I lower my appreciation of the human race even more. How can anyone who’s not a major partner of an oil or weapons company approve of Bush’s presidency? Think he’s doing an acceptable job? From fighting the wrong war to ruining the economy, from supporting Creationism to vetoing stem cell research – twice –… how can anyone with half a brain support him?

The only – scary – explanation is that about 25% of Americans – or about 76.363.250 people – would support Bush (or any other Republican) even if they saw him, with their own eyes, eating babies – because, no matter what he’s done, at least he’s not a lib’ral, doggone it!

If this is not something to keep one awake at night, I don’t know what is.

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer’s "No, that’s not America." Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Kudos to Powell for having the guts to say that (remember McCain’s (paraphrased) “no, he’s not an Arab,” (meaning “Muslim”, really), “he’s a decent family man”, thus implying that a Muslim can’t be one?). The implication, which probably shocks and offends the Religious Right like few other things in recent memory, is that being a Muslim is somehow not inferior to being a Christian, that being a Muslim (or a non-Christian in general) doesn’t disqualify someone for the presidency.

What next, they may be asking? “Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country?”

I’m betting, of course, that the media will focus on “Powell endorses Obama”, and ignore this small bit of what he said, but, to me, that was the most important part. I can easily imagine Powell saying the same thing about any other religion, or about the lack of one, and these things need to be said, to combat the Religious Right’s dream of religious tests for high office (which, of course, you’d only pass by adhering strictly to their exact branch of fundamentalist Christianity).

Incidentally, it’s strange that I haven’t seen mass conservative cries of “Obama is an atheist”, since atheists are even more demonized than Muslims in the U.S.. I guess it’s the old “there are really no atheists, as deep inside everyone knows God exists” thing.

I won’t quote from that article here; if you’re interested in the subject matter, you’ve probably saw a dozen of them this week. The gist of them is always: no matter how bad things are, an Obama presidency / Democratic Congress will be even worse. No, really. Trust us. Things may be pretty screwed up these days, but Obama is a socialist! A liberal! He will destroy Capitalism, destroy the economy (as if it needs help, after the Bush administration), lead the United States into the dark ages, and so on.

Evidence? No need for that; Obama is a Democrat! What else do you need? Don’t you know that Democrats hate capitalism, freedom, America, and all that? If they win, they will raise taxes for everyone, spend money they don’t have (unlike the Bush administration, of course, which would never do such a thing), and, of course, promote the gay agenda, ban religion, force people to have abortions, surrender to Al Qaeda, move to the metric system (gasp!), and so on. Because that’s exactly what happened when Clinton was president, right?

What really makes me angry is this: Bush has been the worst president in recent memory, and the troubles are all his administration’s fault. Yet, without any data, without evidence, they claim that a change of administration would make things even worse. Bush sucks, but Obama is a liberal, and nothing is worse than that, to these people. And many believe them. Even though the last Democratic administration was actually much more fiscally conservative than the “oh, let’s spend a few billions each month in Iraq each month; it’s not as if they come out of our pockets” Bushites.

I’ve always believed – whether talking about U.S. elections, or Portuguese elections, or any others – that, if the group in power screws up, they must be punished, and that only a complete idiot will believe any “devil you know” arguments about the possibility of an even worse alternative. This is not a “devil you know” versus a “devil you don’t”: only the former has actually shown himself to be a “devil”. Suppositions and guesses about Obama’s future government (especially when they contradict all his stated policies) shouldn’t ever be comparable to real, actual, recent-past facts about Bush and I-voted-with-him-90%-of-times McCain.

From the article:

Pastor Byrd says the sign is not meant to be racial or political but rather to make people think.  “His name is so close to Osama I have a feeling he might be Islamic therefore he doesn’t recognize Christ,” Pastor Byrd said.

and:

Pastor Byrd told News Channel 7 he would ask his congregation to vote on whether to keep the sign.  They voted unanimously to keep the sign up Sunday night.

Jonesville Church of God does not have any African American members.

You know what really infuriates me about this? Not that these assholes do this, but that it works. A good percentage of Americans probably “have a feeling” that Obama might be a Muslim, simply because of his name. How stupid can you get?

(via Friendly Atheist)

Apparently it’s from Fark. Funny, especially if you know the Pokémon games.

It begins with “You encountered McCain!”. If you catch it in the middle, just force a refresh of the page to see it from the beginning.

Just as reports of thousands of Republicans switching to the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania came streaming in this week, Gallup says Democrats are equally intent on crossing over to the GOP and voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if a candidate they do not support wins the Democratic party nomination.

The pollster said 28 percent of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY)supporters and 19 percent of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) supporters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost the party nomination.

I have one little question for these 28% of Clinton supporters and 19% of Obama supporters:

Are you retarded or something!?!?

Do you have any idea of what the consequences of such petulance, such stubbornness, such “I’m taking him/her down with me” sore losing, such stupidity are? Do you hate your candidate’s Democratic rival so much, so irrationally, that you’re prepared to condemn your country to 4 more years of neoconservatism? Do you have any idea what the party of war, torture, tax cuts to the rich, wiretapping, and the Religious Right, emboldened by a third victory in a row, can do to your country and even to the rest of the world?

Do you honestly think — that is, assuming you think at all, which I find doubtful — that the Democratic candidate other than your favorite is as bad, or even worse, as McCain, even though he or she has positions on the issues much closer to your candidate’s than McCain?

Have you even considered the fact that, regardless of whether Obama or Clinton wins, the administration will be filled with Democrats, while McCain will keep the Republican thugs who have done so much damage?

I don’t like Hillary myself. I think she just cares about power, about getting elected, and that she should have conceded already. But I’d never, in a million years, say I’d rather have McCain, or that they’re as bad as each other. And anyone who claims that much, who supports McCain out of childish, unthinking spite, is a complete imbecile, and shouldn’t even be considered mature enough to vote.

I completely agree. I think this has been going on far too long. Democrats — and this includes the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and company — seem to be deathly afraid of sounding “rude”. They never call things what they are, never really criticize the Republicans or the Bush administration, never even tell their opponents “you’re wrong” because, well, they might be offended. Even hurt! And we don’t want that, do we?

Even more disgusting is the way Democrats are afraid of looking “liberal”, as if that is a dirty word, and do everything they can to distance themselves from that, and sound “republican”. And, like I said before (though I think Ebonmuse said it first), even a foreigner like me can see the obvious: between a Republican and a Republican-wannabe, Republicans will vote for the real thing and Democrats will stay at home.

Republicans are bullies. That’s what they’re all about. Democrats need to stop trying to appease the bullies (which never works anyway), and begin to stand up to them. Call things by their name. Don’t accept their warped definitions, such as “patriotism” (a.k.a. not criticizing the administration, and wearing flag pins), “morality” (saying “God” and “Jesus” every five words), the “war on terror” (curtailing civil liberties and invading unrelated countries), and so on. They’re nothing but bullies, but even a bully may appear to many a better leader than someone cowed by bullies.

My favorite part of the article:

Liberals, still stunned by the way a legitimate combat vet like Kerry was beaten by a combat-dodging spoiled brat like Bush, never understood that for millions of voters, the question wasn’t how well Kerry fought in Vietnam but whether he would fight in 2004.

Would he defend himself when called out by the gang of disgusting bullies Bush had gathered around himself? It would have been so simple, so glorious, if he’d just turned on his accusers and reacted like a human being: “You’re questioning my record on behalf of a skunk like Bush who spent the war with the Alabama National Guard, and then went AWOL from the Guard?”

Millions of American voters were waiting, hoping Kerry would react like any sane person would have. He never did. I don’t know why not; I assume he was in the hands of some Clinton gurus who babbled about “rising above the fray.” Well, that sure worked well.

Excerpt:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The article reveals the conservatives’ hypocrisy by showing videos where Republican politicians / candidates accepted endorsements from much worse, and nobody called for them to distance themselves from the endorsers. We’re talking about people who have made anti-Semitic comments, blamed 9/11 and Katrina on “teh gay”, and so on… and yet endorse candidates and advise presidents. I think this should be widely known — ignorance and obscurity only helps those vermin to thrive.

Don’t know who created this (the place I found it in just linked to it as a remote image), but it is certainly something you don’t see every day. One of the best parts from the first volume of Gaiman’s Sandman, with Obama as Morpheus/Dream and Hillary as Choronzon, a demon. I hadn’t read that comic in years, but after looking at the image for a couple of sentences, it “clicked”, and I remembered where it was from, and the unexpected ending, still beautiful after all these years: “I am hope.”

I don’t think Hillary is pure evil, though. I just think that she doesn’t yet understand a fact of U.S. politics, which even a foreigner like myself has already realized: between a Republican and a Republican wannabe, Republicans will vote for the real thing, and Democrats will stay at home. (John Kerry, anyone?)

Anyway, I thought about posting the entire dialogue here, but I think the effect is better if you read it on the image above. Just try to read it from the beginning (“I am a dire wolf…”).

This was suggested by a comment on Pharyngula. Imagine this nightmarish (but possible… yikes!) scenario:

1. McCain picks Huckabee has his running mate. Possible, because of the next point…
2. Huckabee gets McCain the evangelical / Christian extremist vote McCain probably wouldn’t get on his own (as he isn’t enough of a nutcase for most of the Religious Right — he even accepts evolution, by golly!).
3. Due to 2., McCain / Huckabee win the election (yikes again!).
4. A short time later, McCain dies (possible, as he’s already quite old).
5. President Huckabee… need I say any more? Christian States of America, creationism taught in schools exclusively, the Constitution rewritten to conform to the Bible. Next stop: “causing” the second coming of Jesus (read: Armageddon).

Paranoia? Tell me why any of the above is impossible… if you can.

Which of the following responses by the liberal do you think more likely?

1. “Wait, I’m patriotic too!” <rushes to buy a lapel pin>
2. “A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans’ benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary? That is a debate I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism.”

The first answer is, of course, the more likely one. It’s what Democrats have been doing since 2001. Every time Dems criticized the Bush administration, the latter knew it could stop the former in their tracks and make them scurry back to their holes simply by questioning their “patriotism”. How many times have you heard “Why do you hate America?”… and how many times did you see such a dishonest, disgusting question (much like “when did you stop beating your wife?”) actually work?

This is why Obama’s reply (which number 2, above, is) is so impressive. Not because it was genius, or because it took a lot of guts, but simply because it was virtually unprecedented in this decade. When have Democrats last stood up to Republican bullies? I don’t even remember. When did a Democrat last refuse to accept such warped definitions? What is “patriotism”, anyway: defending the Constitution and the American ideals… or wearing a flag and calling those who don’t “unpatriotic” and “un-American”?

Republicans — especially the neocon thugs — love to redefine the meanings of words to their advantage, and, sadly, Democrats tend to fall for it. Oppose the Patriot Act? You’re unpatriotic — never mind that it’s them who’re violating the Constitution of the United States. Oppose the so-called “War on Terror”? You’re a terrorist-supporter. Disagree with the Iraq war? You hate the military and America. Oppose taking away liberties in the name of “freedom”? You hate freedom.

And nobody ever calls them on it. Until now, apparently.

I’m betting every other Democrat politician is in shock right now… “you mean we don’t have to accept their definitions and their rules?!? I’ve never thought of that before…”

Thanks to: Dangerous Intersection, Salon.com

[...] given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.

But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham.

Source: ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address, 2006

More than good enough for me. Pity I’m not American, or I would, for the first time in my life, vote for a guy and be proud of it. (I’m assuming he’ll beat Hillary, by the way, which seems increasingly likely, according to the latest results.)

Contrast this with Mike “rewrite the Constitution so it conforms to the Bible” Huckabee, Mitt “secularism is a religion” Romney (yes, I realize he’s out), or John “Roe v. Wade should be overturned” McCain.

(To be fair, McCain seems to be by far the lesser evil amongst Republicans (which admittedly isn’t saying much, given who his current main opponent is), and would certainly be an improvement over Bush… but, then again, who wouldn’t? Unless an oddly convenient “terrorist” attack allows Bush to institute martial law and remain in power, things are sure to improve — not just for the U.S., but for the entire world — after November, regardless who wins the election.)

EDIT: removed the bold font emphasis on the original text. Sorry about that.

… I have, naturally, to invoke Monty Python.

Now, some people — even non-creationists (a.k.a. people who don’t ignore evidence just because it contradicts a book written by Bronze Age desert nomads who could only imagine supernatural explanations for anything they didn’t know, and who thought the world was just a few generations old) are saying that people will be electing a president, not a biologist, so the candidates’ stance on evolution doesn’t really matter.

In other words, they’re free to believe in something really absurd, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, but “otherwise, they’re perfectly all right”.

Remember the classic mattress sketch?

Groom: Er yes. We’d like to buy a bed…a double bed…about fifty pounds?
Verity: Oh no, I’m afraid not, sir. Our cheapest bed is eight hundred pounds, sir.
Groom: Eight hundred pounds!
Lambert: Or, er, perhaps I should have explained. Mr Verity does tend to exaggerate, so every figure he gives you will be ten times too high. Otherwise he’s perfectly all right, perfectly ha, ha, ha.

and, later,

Verity: Lambert! Will you show these twenty good people the, er, dog kennels, please?
Lambert: Mm? Certainly.
Groom: Dog kennel? No, no, no, mattresses, mattresses!
Verity: Oh no, no you have to say dog kennel to Mr Lambert because if you say mattress he puts a bag over his head. I should have explained. Apart from that he’s really all right.

See what I mean? It’s not “really all right”. In at least one thing, they’re showing that they’re either a) completely nuts, or b) cowardly pandering to those who are. They’re unwilling to think critically, to consider the available evidence, and to ask the experts on the subject… or they’re dishonest, cowardly, and devoid of any integrity.

And you want those guys to run your country?

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by “our” side.

– George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism”, 1945

Ring any bells?

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (78%)
3. Barack Obama (75%)
4. Al Gore (71%)
5. Wesley Clark (69%)
6. Joseph Biden (68%)
7. Hillary Clinton (67%)
8. Christopher Dodd (65%)
9. John Edwards (62%)
10. Kent McManigal (61%)
11. Ron Paul (59%)
12. Bill Richardson (59%)
13. Mike Gravel (53%)
14. John McCain (46%)
15. Rudolph Giuliani (46%)
16. Chuck Hagel (35%)
17. Mitt Romney (35%)
18. Newt Gingrich (32%)
19. Elaine Brown (30%)
20. Tommy Thompson (26%)
21. Fred Thompson (24%)
22. Sam Brownback (22%)
23. Mike Huckabee (22%)
24. Tom Tancredo (19%)
25. Jim Gilmore (14%)
26. Duncan Hunter (12%)

Source: 2008 Presidential Candidate Selector

Pity that none of the questions are about their position on the separation of church and state… to me, that’s more important than many of the ones available.

While way too many people were too self-centered (“this doesn’t concern me, so I won’t move my ass”) to do anything at all (only about 40% of the population actually voted), still, the results were positive: the “don’t send women to prison anymore” side won. It shows that the Portuguese people are slowly, but surely, leaving the Middle Ages.

Today’s referendum, no matter what the fundies said, wasn’t about “saving lives” (anyone who really needs to have an abortion, will almost surely get one — even if it involves falling down a flight of stairs –, and who is concerned about their lives?). It was, instead, a choice between those who believe people should be free to decide things for themselves, and those who feel they have the “right” to control other people’s lives, to impose their own morality upon the rest.

Fortunately, and while the result isn’t “binding” (the turnout was too low), the former group won, and the prime minister has promised to use their parliament majority to change the law. It’s great to feel proud of my country, for a change.

Is it just me, or does this remind you as well of “pointy-haired bosses” putting more and more money into a project that everyone already knows is doomed to failure, and will bring no profit at all, just because “well, if we pull back now, it will mean that whatever was already spent is lost”? Which is, if you think about it for 5 seconds, a fallacy – what was spent is already lost, the choice is between losing even more, or not.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the main goal of the war — and, in that, it’s been an absolute success — was always to make it so that criticizing the president in any way is “unpatriotic”, I’d think that the only reason that the U.S. is still there is due to the above – better to bury more money (and, in this case, human lives) than to admit a mistake.

Peter David has some nice comments on Bush’s speech as well, plus a newer post, where he writes:

The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

We’ve been sending troops into Iraq. The result? Civil War, fighting, and young people dying.

Bush’s solution? Send troops into Iraq.

Different result?

No reason to believe so.

Someone should do a dictionary entry for “Insanity” with Bush’s picture next to it.

Now, since the Iraq war never had anything to do with “terrorism”, but only with a) oil, and b) being permanently “at war”, so it’s “unpatriotic” to criticize the president / government, couldn’t we look at it this way: that the Bush administration is at least guilty of as much terrorism against America as Al Qaeda?

Sure, they’ve been slower at killing Americans – took them several years, instead of just one morning. But doing it for greed and for unchecked power isn’t a more noble motive than “72 dark-eyed virgins”. The fact that Americans still let Bush get away with this, that millions still believe he’s doing a good job… is absolutely beyond me.

(even if simply by playing Wing Commander IV )

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

From time to time, we hear it in speeches, read it quoted in newspapers, and so on. But… one thing I’ve noticed is that many people use it in reverse, to justify the abridging of actual freedoms.

How can a phrase like “A is B” be reversed? Doesn’t “B is A” mean the same thing?

In mathematics, perhaps. But here it’s a different context.

The original meaning of the sentence is that freedom is precious and fragile, and therefore people should watch for threats to it, which, oddly enough, rarely come from invading armies, or from rebel guerrillas in the hills. They come, most often, from the leaders we elected. And they’re subtle; they know perfectly well how to take away freedoms “temporarily”, as part of an “emergency”… only, they almost never come back. “Emergencies” (“War on Terror”, anyone?) have a way to extend themselves, to become “temporarily permanent”. So, the phrase tells us to watch against those. To stay vigilant.

But “hawks” in government, the ones who, ironically, say it most often, mean just the opposite.

Their “vigilance” becomes media censorship, wiretaps, imprisonment without trial, torture against so-called “enemies of freedom”, “preemptive wars”, and so on. Why? “To guard our freedom”, they answer. “We must stay vigilant,” they say; “the threats against our freedom are everywhere.”

And so, freedom goes away, because of the “vigilance” needed to guard “freedom”. The original intent is reversed.

Sneaky, aren’t they?

(reminds me of Bête Noire, in Peter David’s “Fallen Angel” )

Therefore, I don’t want to write a lot about this, since virtually every blogger has done so , but let me say that I’m quite happy about the results. The Democrats got both the House of Representatives and the Senate back. Bush and the religious right got what they deserved, and maybe the rest of the Republican party will get rid of them (one can dream). And, well, the Dems simply can’t do a worse job than their predecessors have been doing.

I don’t believe in sticking to “the devil you know”. When things are bad, change. If they stay bad, change again. Repeat as necessary.

Anyway, maybe the Democrats will finally grow some balls, and begin to notice that going to war based on lies, killing thousands, ruining the economy and increasingly destroying civil rights may — just may — be as much reason for impeachment as lying about a blowjob. (if you tell me that the problem wasn’t the blowjob, but the lying, then, well, Bush lied about WMDs and 9/11 connections as well)

I’m only disappointed (though it was predictable) about one thing: Joe Lieberman got re-elected. I despise that guy. He’s as pro-censorship as they come (like Hillary), and also believes that, in times of war, the president becomes uncriticizable and above the law (actual quote: “in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”), which is, in a word, repugnant.

It’s not that simple, though. As Winston Churchill said,

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

But what’s the problem with democracy? Well, first, a definition is in order. What we have in most western countries isn’t true democracy, it’s a republic. We elect rulers, and they make policies. True democracy would mean that people would actually vote on issues. Of course, that might mean almost daily elections, which would certainly be too cumbersome.

Still, whether we’re talking about a democratic republic or about true democracy, one thing is common: most people associate it with freedom. Vox populi, vox Dei. The majority rules, and what the majority wants is best.

Maybe you’re already spotting the problem. What if the majority wants something evil? What if they want to oppress a minority? Should they be allowed to?

According to Sam Harris in The End of Faith, while most Muslim countries are dictatorships, the people there actually want them to be worse. They want to treat their women even worse than they do, to be even stricter (meaning, stoning and such) with anyone they see as “insulting Allah”, they really want to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. Not all Muslim countries are theocracies, but, if it came to a vote, they would be.

In other words, if those countries aren’t even more hellish (especially, but not only, for women) than they already are, it’s because of brutal, but comparatively secular, dictators. If the people were given the right to vote, they’d vote all their freedoms away.

What about the United States, 100 or 150 years ago? If it came to a vote, the white majority would probably not vote for emancipation. Much the opposite.

Or even now. If there was a referendum in the United States, the teaching of evolution would be out. Replaced with “intelligent design”. Because many more Americans, unfortunately, believe in creationism than in evolution. If there was a vote, Americans would vote science away, put the Ten Commandments everywhere, and possibly even try to outlaw atheism. All of this, in the 21th century.

And what stops it from happening? Something called a constitution.

A constitution – at least, a good one – has several goals, but one of the most important is this: to ensure that individual rights can’t be ignored because the majority wants them to be. What if the majority wants to kill you? Or just take your money, or your house? Are they “right” just because they’re the majority? Or are your individual rights – indeed, anyone’s individual rights – inalienable?

I believe they are.

A thing isn’t good or legitimate just because the majority wants it. Democracy and freedom aren’t synonyms.

Unfortunately, no constitution is perfect, and they are sometimes ignored, anyway. For instance, the banning of gay marriage is an obvious example of a majority opinion trampling over individual rights. Or abortion. Or assisted suicide. Even though an action doesn’t harm anyone, the majority is ignorant and bigoted, and wants to forbid it… and the minority’s rights – indeed, the individual’s rights – aren’t respected. There are many other such examples.

It is clear to me that something must be above the “will of the people”, or there is no true freedom, because “the people” can then take it away on a whim.

As Larry Flynt put it,

The majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

I didn’t find one single person – even among those who usually disagree with me in everything – who believed in the Bush administration’s lies about WMDs, terrorist camps, connections to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, or simply that Saddam was a threat to anyone outside Iraq.

No one.

I talked to young people and old people. To men and women. To more educated and less educated people. To Christians and atheists / agnostics. To right-wingers and left-wingers. To people who opposed the war and people who supported it.

And no one believed Bush’s lies.

Bush’s “reasons”, at the time, were so obviously fabrications that I don’t think almost anyone in Europe – except maybe in the UK – believed in them. Even those who actually thought that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a good idea.

Now, the fact that we all lived in Portugal may have had something to do with it. We tend to distrust our politicians; even when they actually improve things, we always realize that they’re doing it to be re-elected, not out of the “goodness of their hearts”. Not because they’re honest or have any principles. Hell, they’re politicians, after all!

Americans, from what I see, are a different bunch. They idealize and idolize their politicians, almost worshipping them. They believe they’re honest, ethical, and are sincerely trying to do a good job, even when they mess things up.

Yet, from everything I see, they aren’t. Bush has said so much crap, has lied so much, and has insulted the intelligence of the public so thoroughly, that I can’t see how anyone could ever believe in him. Yet, Americans did. They believed his lies.

So, a question to the American readers - and please, don’t feel insulted or take this the wrong way -: did you believe Bush’s lies back in 2003? That Saddam had WMDs, that he had anything to do with 9/11, that he was a threat to the US, that invading Iraq would make the world “safer”?

And, if so, why?

I’m not calling you guys “gullible” or anything. I simply want to understand what is, to me, a strange phenomenon.

Even though I’m not American, I remember feeling shocked and horrified that day. Things like that simply didn’t happen in a civilized world… or did they? And all those deaths. It was something dreadful, and anyone who says that America “deserved it” – whether it’s other terrorists, fundamentalist Muslim leaders, or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – is a moronic, disgusting human being.

Yet, to a group of people, it was the best thing that could have happened.

What’s changed since 2001?

People remain paranoid about terrorist attacks. People believe that terrorists may strike at any moment – much like the climate of nuclear fear in the 1950s.

America is more nationalist than ever, up to a “my country, right or wrong” point; anyone who says the United States may have acted wrongly is a “pinko commie liberal traitor”, or something like that.

The world economy is worse than it was in many decades. In the 90s everything grew, in the 2000s everything shrank. Things are still so bad that many people believe that employers do employees a favor by employing them, instead of it being a fair trade which benefits both sides, as any employment should be.

America is more religious and fundamentalist than ever. Many attempts against science have been made by religious groups, for religious purposes. Stem cell research and abortions are fundamentally “evil”, but a brain dead woman must be kept alive at all costs. Separation between church and state is increasingly becoming a myth, and the Constitution is constantly spat on by lying politicians who insist that “America was founded on Christian principles”. And no, it wasn’t.

By assuming a state of “perpetual war” against a concept such as “terror”, instead of a tangible enemy, a war which has already lasted longer than the US’s involvement in WWII, the government has successfully obtained “carte blanche” to do just about anything it wants. After all, in times of war, it’s “traitorous” and “unpatriotic” to criticize the government or the president. They say so, and people believe it. The president actually becomes above the law. Gee, why not be at war at all times, then? Which, of course, is exactly the case today.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. Illegal wiretapping. Arrests and imprisonment without trial. Secret prisons. Torture. Need I go on about the huge loss of freedom? And yet they say they’re fighting for it…

A couple of wars have been started, and at least one of them was based on lies, greed for oil, and the “be in a permanent state of war” absolute power that I mentioned above. A lot of people were fooled by those lies, and whoever wasn’t was, again, branded “a traitor” and “unpatriotic”. Or “a liberal”, or “an appeaser”, or…

Before, he was an unpopular president who had “won” an election in uncertain terms, and had his “victory” handed out to him by a court. But George W. Bush, in a couple of hours, became a “hero” and a “savior”, the “defender of the land of the free”. And won the next election, which would never have happened if Americans were judging him for the state of the economy, the conditions of living, and so on. Hmm, I bet he was really sad when 9/11 happened…

The rest of the world isn’t much better. By not standing up to the United States’ policies, both the EU and the UN lost most of their credibility. Almost everyone outside the US knew that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were obvious lies, and yet nobody had the courage to do a thing about it.

In short, the world is now much worse than it was.

Blame the terrorists first? Sure. Note that I haven’t mentioned any of the theories that say that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 and let it happen, or actually did it. It’s certainly possible – they’re the ones who benefitted by it the most – but I don’t know enough to make any accusations about it. So I won’t.

What I know is that they’re responsible for what happened afterwards. The climate of terror, the loss of civil liberties, the wars, the religious fundamentalism, the international bullying, the “either you’re with us or against us – and therefore a traitor” attitude… I blame Bush and everyone around him for that.

I don’t know about you, but if I had lost someone in 9/11, I’d despise anyone who used my pain for his own gains. Even if he was the president.

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

Is the only goal in politics to win elections? Must politicians base their campaigns on opinion polls, instead of actually having principles of their own? Do they just say anything they have to say to get elected? Anyone with half a brain knows that the war in Iraq is wrong, but because so many people don’t have half a brain, our candidate must support the war? Is that it?

Or am I too naïve by being surprised?

I’m glad Lamont won. It’s time politicians – and everyone – stop being afraid of standing up to the Bush administration, because they don’t want to be seen as “liberal extremists”.

Let’s hope this is but the beginning of a wave of people finding out where their balls are.

Because America influences the rest of the world, like it or not. And Lieberman’s loss may finally mean that things are changing for the better over there.

Funnily enough, I’ve long disagreed with Lieberman, before the Iraq war, before even the Bush administration. Because I remember: Joe Lieberman is an advocate of censorship.

He’s the kind of sleazy politician who promotes censorship and other controls of media like video games, without really knowing anything about them, just to show soccer moms and conservatives how much “a guardian of moral values” he is. In other words, he despises the first amendment, individual choice, and freedom.

People, censorship is wrong. Always. And in this particular case it’s even worse, because it’s not censorship based on something that is actually there, but on a lie repeated so often that people accept it as true without even checking. The lie that “there are video games where you are rewarded for raping and beating up women”. I’m a gamer, and I tell you, there is no such thing in mainstream video games, no matter what Lieberman, or Hillary Clinton, or one of the most disgusting creeps in the world, say.

Video games are just like comic books in the 50s, or rock music in the 60s: they’re unknown to older, scared people, and dishonest politicians take advantage of that, promoting such entertainment as “deviant” and “dangerous”, and attempting to appear as guardians of morality. And people keep falling for it.

But Joe Lieberman is even worse. Let’s take one of his more recent comments, about the war in Iraq:

“In matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

(source)

Excuse me?!? Isn’t that the same as saying “if we’re at war, the president is our supreme leader and cannot be questioned”? What kind of absurdity is that? Isn’t he, in effect, saying that any president can start a war, and is then allowed to do whatever he wants, that he actually becomes above the law? Clever, then: start a generic “war on terror”, without a defined end.

And that man had the nerve to call himself a “democrat”. Last time I looked, “democracy” didn’t exactly go for supreme leaders…

Good thing he lost. I hope he loses again, when he runs as an independent.

You see, I’m far from a socialist – I’d say I’m something akin to a libertarian, although there’s no libertarian-like party around here. However, I do consider myself a liberal – because, around here, “liberal” means someone who cherishes individual freedom (real freedom, not just “freedom to agree with me”), and who opposes any kind of authoritarism. It has nothing to do with socialism or collectivism or “big government” or social security or the “welfare state” or all those meanings they ascribe to the term; instead, its meaning comes from the origin of the word “liberal”: liberty.

But Americans, as I said, use it like a dirty word.

Strange country.

Among other gems:

According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever — with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006.

And, of course:

Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president’s powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees.