Why are curses inherently bad?

I was listening to one of my favorite singers - Bonnie 'Prince' Billy - when I heard something that made me think. Billy (real name Will Oldham) is a truly crazy man with a Nietzsche beard who creates cavernous and terrifying pseudo-folk music.

He lulls you into complacency with sparse instrumentals and pretty but obvious lyrics about mountains and women and valleys. Then all of a sudden he hits you with the following:

If I could fuck a mountain
I would fuck a mountain
And I'd do it with a woman in the valley

Why is this so jarring? Two reasons: the image of a man copulating with a mountain is strange, and the use of a curse is totally unexpected. It's crazy and startling.

I asked myself why I was startled. The answer is that I was startled because he cursed. Why does cursing startle me? Because I've been taught (by parents, school and general society) that it should. But should it? Taboo words are part of basically every language. Since I'll be talking linguistically now, there will be quite a few curses. You have been forewarned.

I have seen some people - generally conservative Christians - who argue that words like 'damn' are affronts to God, and should not be said for that reason. Yet in common speech, the harshest curse is ususally 'fuck,' which has no blasphemous quality to it. Neither does 'shit' - the other harsh curse. The religiously-derived curses - 'hell' and 'damn' - are actually quite moderate.

Despite what some people may argue, no word inherently means anything at all. All the meaning comes from how people use a word. The situations in which people use words also determine when they are acceptable. A word is only a package of sounds; without society to inform it, the word is useless.

People object to words like 'fuck' because they're sexually explicit. Yet there are now so many ways of using 'fuck' that groups that guard 'decency standards' must grade whether the word was used in reference to sex or just as an exclamation. The former is heavily punished; the latter is punished more lightly. The fact is that almost any word could be sexually explicit in context. A censorious obsession with euphemism is, in my opinion, misplaced.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to go around cursing in front of little kids all the time. It won't change my habits at all to know that the taboo around 'fuck' is just invented. But it should give pause to those who would argue that there are universal laws of correct and incorrect in language.

P.S. Two fun facts about 'fuck':

1) Fuck comes from a German word meaning 'to strike.' It does not come from an acronym for "Fornication Under Consent of the King". It's been in the English language for longer than words like 'fornication' or 'consent'. I have been told this totally false story so often that whenever someone tries it on me now, I start shouting at them: "WRONG WRONG WRONG!"

2) Many languages have a third affix, in addition to prefixes and suffixes. The 'interfix' does not exist in English - except with the word 'fuck,' which is the only word that can use that form. When added, it emphasizes the meaning with a certain enthusiastic edge: in-fuckin'-credible!

Pfleger!

I have not looked into this new preacher very heavily. Because it seems people will be talking about him, I thought I would weigh in anyway. I've only seen about a minute and a half of his sermon. In fact, I have only seen this:

Rev. Michael Pfleger on Hillary Clinton

Before you say that I don't have context to judge Pfleger one way or the other, I'll say this: I agree. You don't have context. But this clip is all that most people are going to see of him. And you know what?

It's not what people are claiming. It's a comedy routine. The way the he enunciates, overdoes his gestures, makes everything into a world-ending shout. This isn't a hardcore political speech. It's a stand-up routine.

If you're not convinced, go to 1:00 in the above video. Pfleger says "Hey, I'm Barack Obama!" in such an over-the-top way - possibly the worst impression I have ever seen in my life - that I laughed. His following Hillary-inspired shriek of "Damn! Where did you come from?" is a pretty good encapsulation of the way many Clinton fans feel.

Is he racist? I don't know. Is he self-hating? It doesn't seem like he's critiquing white people, just white priviledge. It's obviously not politic for something like this to happen right now to Obama, but honestly Pfleger is further away and his routine isn't angry. It's funny. In fact, it kind of reminds me of a Lewis Black routine. If you think I'm going soft on Pfleger, watch the video again and ask yourself: does this man want to destroy America or does he just want to wring some comdey out of the primary season?

McCain should be saying "Oh shit!"

The Republican primary in Idaho was held yesterday. Now I've written before about how a staggering number of primary voters won't throw their support in with McCain. I assumed that the protest effect would get weaker and weaker as time wore on, since people who protest like this aren't going to vote Democrat in the fall. They would inevitably reconcile themselves to McCain, or they would stay home and not care to vote. Either way, there would be fewer 'dissenters' from the party's nominee.

I was horribly wrong in Idaho. McCain made the state his worst showing since winning the nomination. He got 70% of the vote. And this time, the protest vote wasn't split between "none of the above," Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Idaho voted 24% for Ron Paul.

In no way does this mean Paul's candidacy has a chance. But it does mean Bob Barr does. Barr only aims for 2-5% of the vote in November. Votes for Paul are votes of longing for a small-government GOP, which McCain does not represent. With the Republicans scattered and their candidate offering very little to right-libertarians, Barr could spoil the race for McCain.

No third party is even capable of hurting Obama this much - Cynthia Mckinney for the Green Party is a joke. She's a 9/11 Truther and is publicly disdained. [However, a quick google images search shows that much of that disdain is poured out in creepily racist ways]

Back to Idaho, I am not predicting a larger group of dissenters from now on. I think Idaho was an exception and that the remaining states will fall in line. It does point out the ways that voters desire a small-government conservative. Unfortunately, McCain has to choose his VP from either the small-government or religious right constituencies. I think he cannot win without the RR, and that, for practical reasons, his VP should be from that group. This means that he won't be able to pacify libertarian dissenters.

The New Mexico Republican primary is on June 3. I predict McCain gets 78% - better than his previous 75% scores or his painfully low 70% in Idaho. This doesn't mean McCain's out of trouble. By now he should be getting 85-90%. It just demonstrates how badly the GOP is limping right now.

From whence does the perfect VP hail?

Answer:
For McCain, from the religious right.
For Obama, from Virginia.

For the first time in decades, the Democrat seems capable of taking Virginia. Most polls put Obama within 2 points of McCain with a number of undecideds. Obama looks like he'll lose West Virginia now, but 'real' Virginia is much more important for gaining electoral votes. He has three choices: Sentor Webb, current Governor Kaine and former Governor Mark Warner.

Obama should choose one of these Virginians, and he should choose Mark Warner. Warner is a centrist, working-man's Democrat who won and governed much more solidly than Webb or Kaine. He is well-liked in VA and helps compensate from Obama's deficiencies with certain constituencies. Plus Warner comes with two further advantages: he's not currently in government (and didn't have to take positions on divisive economic or war issues as a governor) and could legitimately run for President himself in 2012 (if Obama loses) or 2016 (if he wins). Hillary Clinton doesn't make sense as VP; it's a small job she wouldn't be happy with. The only other VP who brings the heft that Warner brings is Bill Richardson - a generally small-government Democrat, he brings with him New Mexico and and experience as a governor. He also gives Obama an edge with Hispanics, where McCain is much stronger than your average Republican.

McCain isn't thinking in income or geographic terms. He needs to quell rumors that he's not a true Republican by nominating a VP who gives the religious voter a reason to come out in November. The thing that might kill McCain is if the religious right doesn't turn out as heavily since McCain doesn't excite them into voting. McCain is old: his VP will be, much more than Obama's, the successor to lead the Republican party. Several names have been floated: Huckabee, Romney and Bobby Jindal. Jindal is too young and too new, plus he's more about Reaganomics than religious conservatism. Romney's Mormonism still alarms some RR voters and some fear he's a liberal sneak attack.

Huckabee is the highest-profile, the most palatable and the most obvious. But he's got one fault: polls showed him losing by at least 10 points to Hillary or Obama in a head-to-head. Sure, VP isn't President but whoever it is will be important - they've got to be able to win in a legit election. On top of that, Huckabee balances his social conservatism with a few nanny state moves in health policy that scare small town and small government Republicans - who are already wary of McCain's candidacy. McCain's best bet is a southern governor who combines free market economics with religious conservatism, with an emphasis on the latter. This gives him a few choices.

I think that an Obama/Warner ticket would be the best move, as would a McCain/governor ticket. If these candidates make other choices, I'll have to talk about them. Meanwhile, we should dismiss ridiculous ideas like Obama/Edwards and McCain/Rice, since these pairings just exacerbate the candidate's major faults without giving them enough new support.

Hagee and Wright

McCain Endorser Hagee: God Sent Hitler, Jews Have Dead Souls

Barack Obama's Pastor his Christianity Jeremiah Wright


The captions on these videos are the names given to them by whoever put them on youtube, not by me. If you disregard the obvious partisanship of both sides, it becomes apparent that something interesting is happening religiously this election cycle.

I'm pretty sure there were a big chunk of Americans who go to thoroughly boring churches and thought that most everyone else did too. The thing is that people like Hagee and Wright have been shown on TV and the internet so much, the public consciousness about controversial pastors has been raised quite a bit. These standard Middle Americans are now questioning just how typical their boring church really is.

For a long time, there has been a misconception that America is mostly Christian (true) and that while they belonged to different sects, most Christians cared about the same things and talked the same way. This is a massive misconception; America may be mostly one faith, but it is still amazingly diverse.

If either of these guys had been preaching about how God loves everyone, even gays, or how gay marriage would undo the fabric of society people wouldn't have noticed. That's pretty much expected by now. The fact is that both these men are saying something many Americans haven't heard before, at least not in a religious context.

During this cycle people also learned a lot about Mormonism, and would have learned even more if Romney had won the Republican nomination. The fact is that the official LDS Church is more mainstream than Hagee or Wright. The mess in Texas with the FLDS has served to remind America unknown denominations aren't unified either.

Maybe later I'll write something about the word "cult," which has been horribly overused in discussing these issues and isn't really a helpful word at all.

Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma

Right now a large number of commentators are being hostile to Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa for not doing enough to solve various problems. He is perceived as not having done enough to prevent the mess in Zimbabwe. His term hasn't reduced crime that much, and land is still mostly (some 85%) owned by whites in a country where nonwhites are one in eight of the population.

I truly do understand his lack of 'movement' on these issues. South Africa has a history of being over-involved in the affairs of its neighbors; it controlled Namibia until about 1990. Meanwhile, making a serious effort to fix wealth disparities might either trigger a backlash from rich whites or from foreign investors. Better to let the economy alone, growing slowly, than to try to jolt it and maybe fail miserably.

Pundits are right to excoriate Mbeki for his stance on HIV - that it doesn't cause AIDS - and for appointing likeminded people to the health boards. Except that Mbeki's government doesn't officially make Mbeki's beliefs into policy; the emphasis has been on natural cures that don't seem to do much, but it has not cut off or banned or otherwise majorly interfered with those who want to distribute anti-retrovirals. Compare this to other countries that won't iodize salt to cure goiters because it's supposedly a sterilizer placed there by whites. Mbeki's government may think wrong, but on this issue they mostly act right.

Mbeki has one year left. When he leaves, current ANC president Jacob Zuma will most likely take over. Hearing about his rape trial and accusations about his financial dealings I grew to dislike, then heavily dislike, then hate Zuma. But strangely enough, nearly everything I've heard from Zuma in the last few months I liked. I liked it a lot.

He got tough when talking about Zimbabwe - obviously ready to take a more active role in resolving the mess. When China attempted to ship weapons to Zimbabwe through South Africa, Mbeki was silent. Zuma was fiery and angry, denouncing China in one of the most clear-cut cases of post-election violence in history. And I'll be damned, but Zuma has won me back. I'm now neutral with regard to him and his upcoming presidency.

Strange enough that a man I hoped would be crushed by scandals is now steadily winning back my respect. Both Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki have combined a small, less active government with restrained personalities. Zuma doesn't strike me as an abuser of power, but he would be more energetic. If South Africa wants to debut on the world stage in a new freshman class of countries that include Brazil, Argentina, South Korea and more, Zuma might be the man for the job.

A thought on atheism

I've mentioned before how many people at FSTDT assert, in insulting atheism and blaming it for basically everything, that atheism is a religion. My answer last time was, "So what if it is?"

I'm pretty well convinced that atheism is a religion, to the same extent that Confucianism - another non-theistic set of practices - is considered religion. In fact there are quite a few 'godless' religions, some of which don't even have a transcendent force involved. You could even argue that the hardcore fans of Classical Greek philosophies which rejected the gods and laid out the order of the world via logic were religions. I think all of these are religions.

Now it's obvious that the people at FSTDT hate atheists. They see atheism as a contagious and dangerous religion, which it is to them and their worldview. Since this is so, they might want to stop calling it a religion before someone in government notices.

Why? Because atheism is assumed to be non-religion, the government doesn't have to worry about calls for religious freedom when it interferes with atheist business. For example, at government functions that start with an invocation, the speaker will often make reference to 'god.' Now the point is that if atheism is recognized as a religion, then basically any invocation of God in a pledge, on US currency, in any speech, etcetera etcetera is the very obvious preferencing of one religion (probably Christianity) over another (atheism). This is not acceptable, and not allowed under the constitution any more than a public proclamation about the correct method of baptizing a new convert.

However, I'm willing to let this issue alone. Most atheists don't think their belief is a religion, and wouldn't dream of pushing for religious freedom on that basis. In fact, the only ones agitating for atheism to be called a religion are highly Christian christianists (they want the state to promote their faith more). What they don't realize is that if they succeed, atheists will have more rights and the references to God and faith in every single area that they've worked for will come under intense scrutiny to make sure it doesn't preference other faiths over atheism. If they succeed, it might be the greatest failure of the christianist movement since the Scopes trial.

Hillary knows she has lost, and now I have proof.

She lost a long time ago, really, when Obama started to pull ahead in delegates again and again. Yes, something unforeseen could have killed him, but those revelations (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, 57 states) didn't kill or even injure Obama - they just slowed him down and made him limp for a second.

Now Hillary Clinton has figured it out as well. I can prove this in a few easy steps:

1) She is not negatively attacking Obama anymore. This one was good for her even before she lost, since I don't consider the "he's inexperienced" jab a slimy assertion. Obama does not have experience at being President; no one does except incumbent Presidents. As for attacking Obama's character, that never served her well - it hurt Obama, but Clinton as well. By halting the negatives, she can not only go out well but also keep face by staying in the race until June/the convention.

2) Her base within the Democratic party - the people who gave her a MASSIVE victory in West Virginia - is about to have really good reasons to defect. Clinton won them by positioning herself as the 'average worker' candidate during the second half of primary season. During the first half, this was Edwards's thing. Now he's going to endorse Obama. More than that, there's some real chatter about Jim Webb for Obama's VP. Webb is a moderate Democrat, former Republican, won't stand for any hyper-liberal social agenda, from Virginia (a well-liked governor), experienced at something or other, and actually has cross-party appeal like Obama. If people wanted a reason to like Obama but stuck with Clinton because she was more 'down to earth,' then this group will soon begin to split for Obama after a possible Edwards/Webb double whammy.

3) This is most important: Hillary Clinton has begun the transition towards Obama. She's not stupid; she knows that if she dropped out suddenly right now, her partisans might not vote, or would vote McCain. She's going to ease out of it.

She said, just today:

Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in
common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the
world with the other than they do with John McCain.
I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously,
I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I
can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a
grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.

Who knows? This actually sounds quite classy to me. Maybe Hillary will leave looking like a statesman after all. She probably can't run for President again, no matter what, but she could try governor or some cabinet position.

The reason the quotes are proof positive that she's done is that in the past she has done everything possible to highlight distinctions between herself and Obama. In fact, they're not so different policy-wise. She's easing her supporters into it before she ends it. This might even make her some new Democratic friends to replace the ones she lost over the campaign. Plus it's a smart move if she somehow pulls out a win, since her recent comments have skirted issues of race-based divisiveness.

I will say it now with confidence: even though she has lost the nomination, Hillary Clinton is still very smart and knows how to politic.

Some people REALLY like Ron Paul

This is nowhere near the end of it.

I IMPLORE you to visit this link to view the most glorious celebration of freedom, bad editing and anachronism in all of political art. It is called "Liberty Spears the Enemy". In it, Benjamin Franklin is smoking a joint.

Aliens and religion!

Yes it's a ridiculous subject. Yes I'm going to write about it. What if, tomorrow, aliens of some kind were discovered. How would this change people's religious views?

I don't think alien existence is impossible, but the chances of any smart species somehow reaching us within our lifetimes are very low. Most people agree that if life is found off-Earth, it will be simple, proto-animals or proto-plants. It might just be bacteria. I'm not going to deal with the question of sentient aliens or alien religion because they're too speculative.

A horribly sidetracked discussion on ReasonOnline finds one James Anderson Merritt saying the following:

I think it is important that the assertion was that a belief in aliens
would not contradict a "belief in God." Belief in the truth of the
scriptures, however, is quite another thing. Genesis, Chapter 5, says
quite clearly, "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God
made he him..." We styled ourselves "God's favorites," because we were made in "the
likeness of God," and were given dominion over all of "God's
creatures." I think it is interesting that the vatican assertion was
that aliens would also be among "God's creatures." So would aliens simply be animals? If they didn't look or think much
like us, which species would more accurately reflect "God's likeness"? While belief in aliens would not necessarily preclude belief in "God,"
it would be hard to believe in a God who made us in "his likeness" --
i.e., the God of catholicism -- if we were to encounter sentient
aliens, Unless, of course, they seemed exactly like us. Not being especially religious, I nevertheless hope that I live to see the answer to these questions.

This comment is basically on-track. Meeting aliens doesn't mean everyone will magically become atheists, despite the fears of some. Since the life would probably be simple, I'm not even sure that the problem of "In the image of God" would come up. How worked up would you be about bacteria infringing on your status as God's image? Besides, the quote above sees the word 'image' very narrowly - it could be a spiritual, symbolic image. Even a literalist reading of the phrase must give it some symbolic quality, since humans can't be strictly 'God's Image' since we don't all look alike.

However, life on other planets would be a blow to hardcore creationists since the Bible seems to make it clear that no other planets were mentioned. Obviously there are ways to reconcile this: God could have placed simple forms all around the universe. Or there could be denial that the life is actually extraterrestrial - it could be blamed on contamination from whatever probes detected it.

In Islam, a group of beings called the Djinns were created prior to humans. They are more powerful, but they are not angels, since those cannot sin in most interpretations. Djinns have free will like humans, and can convert to Islam - something Muslims were actually tasked with doing if they encountered one. I bring this up because alien life wouldn't shake up Muslims as much as Christians, since Islam has a looser creation story that has a bunch of ways to reconcile a new kind of life.

Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and friends don't often deal with creation issues right now, and something like alien life wouldn't do much to disturb believers. One thing I would predict is that certain New Religious Movements - the things that derisive media usually call 'cults' - would rack up a few more followers. There have been a number of prominent NRMs that openly predict and discuss alien life and especially aliens as technological salvation. A discovery that these groups had been a least partly right in their predictions would drum up interest and some conversions at the very least.

As for me, I think that as long as alien bacteria don't kill all life on Earth, I'm perfectly fine with any alien discovery.

Do you know Bob Barr? You should.

Bob Barr is the frontrunner for the Libertarian Party nomination. Yes. Libertarian Party. The one that doesn't break 1% nationally. The one that does worse than the Greens, the Reforms, the hardline Constitution Party. It basically beats only the Prohibition Party, which does still exist.

But here's a little something to note: between 15-20% of Americans have basic libertarian sympathies. This doesn't mean they even know it, or that they'll vote lib in the election. But self-identified libs are a generally Republican group. They're willing to vote this way because most Republicans throw them something about deregulation or lower taxes.

This year, two things combine to make the LP an important feature. First, McCain doesn't offer much to libs who would normally vote Republican. Obama may offer these voters something, since some of his rhetoric about judges and the executive is very lib-friendly.

The second factor, which is more important than a small lib swing towards Obama, is the now Libertarians know who they are. Ron Paul, never truly viable, has had a huge cultural effect. People know what the word means now, and might begin identifying themselves with it. If Ron Paul endorsed Bob Barr, I could easily see him taking 2-5% nationally. And most of that vote would be either 'new' votes - people who came out specifically for Barr and wouldn't have voted for either candidate anyway - or votes from McCain's pocket, since that's where most libs currently dwell.

Barr is against the Iraq War, a popular position and also a doctrinaire Libertarian one. He likes civil liberties and low taxes. Agree or not, these are pretty popular positions. If any 3rd Party gets a noticeable chunk of the vote this election, it won't be a 'spoiler' like Nader, whose candidacy brings up more issues about campaign finance and debate rules than actual issues. It will be the LP, probably with Barr at the head. Since the LP is friendly with both Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel, both candidates with hugely devoted fan bases, it is possible for the LP in 2008 to be the biggest 3rd Party since Ross Perot.

No, they won't win anything. But libertarians are getting more popular, and there's not a whiff of small-government conservatism from the Republican party right now. If Huckabee is the Vice Presidential nominee, then another group of secular libs may jump off the Straight Talk Express. Chalk up another thing against John McCain for November.

Hussein

For those about to use Barack Obama's middle name in referring to him, I ask this question: Do you really think that people don't know what you mean when you say it?

Sure, some people are called by their full names. However these people are rare, usually just use an initial and choose to present themselves that way. For example, we don't talk about John Sidney McCain. It is not conventional to use the middle name. Using it means something, and those about to use it know what it means.

It's coded language. It carries baggage - the Obama is a secret Muslim, or that he has been tainted by his Muslim heritage. Yes, it is his name. It is not automatically illegitimate to use it. But it is no more normal to say it with emphasis than it is for someone to call McCain "Sidney" exclusively. So when you shrug your shoulders and say, "What am I doing wrong by saying Obama's name?" I must ask, do you really think people don't know. The people you're speaking to know what it means, and so do I. You know. You're not saying it because you like middle names. You want to character-assassinate Obama.

I think that politicians should be judged on their policies and character. Obama's name is not part of that. Maybe his friendship with Rev. Wright is. But then again, so is McCain's personal life. I'm tired of politics motivated by anger. I'm tired of win-at-all costs races where party affiliation matters more than policies. Most of America is tired too.

Thus ends my rant. If you want to feign ignorance about what 'Hussein' means, then I expect you to actually be that stupid in real life. If you're not, I will not allow you to get away with it.

PS: the name 'Barack' is an Arabized version of the Hebrew 'Baruch' - which means 'blessed'. Baruch is a common biblical name, and there is a non-canonical Old Testament Book of Baruch. Buraq (pronounced similarly) is a creepy flying horse with a human head that carries Muhammad to heaven during the Night Journey. When I say creepy, I mean it.

This is how Buraq is depicted:

Primaries, even though I said I wouldn't

So I peeked. I promised myself I wouldn't look until tomorrow, which I then reinterpreted as starting at 12:01, not when I wake up.

At this point, Obama has kicked Clinton up and down North Carolina. Hillary may win Indiana, but it won't be by more than two points. She has no way to spin this whatsoever. It is, once again, over for her.

Since I must find something interesting to report:
Republicans have primaries too! Sure, McCain already has the delegates, but Indiana and North Carolina get to vote too. Here's the interesting nugget: McCain, who has won the nomination, gained 77% and 73% in those states. This means that something like 25% of Republican primary voters want to register protest votes against McCain.

And who got the big numbers that were taken from McCain? Wistful bloggers at Reason, a libertarian organization, had hoped Ron Paul (a quasi-libertarian if anything) would pick up about 12-18% of the vote, as protests against McCain's unsuitability. Paul is still in the race, but he has about a dozen delegates to McCain's hoards.

Paul got 8% in both states. This makes sense; this is his normal level of support, and his fans wouldn't prop up McCain since they're not loyally Republican, just jumping into the party to help out their impossible candidate.

But Paul came in third. Behind Mike Huckabee. A candidate who's not even in the race anymore got more votes in protest than Ron Paul, who's still viable as an issues-exposer. I think I know who those 10% are. They're the hardcore social conservatives who are afraid McCain (and Romney, and Guiliani) is a 'secret liberal' with agendas. SocialCons got used to being the big powerful bloc under Bush. But they failed this election, and they'll never hold the same power again. They just don't know it yet. So while they may come out in November and vote for McCain, it will be out of necessity, since no Democrat will follow their policies. Huckabee was their last chance, and he almost made it.

Here's an indication of how far the SocialCons have fallen off: head-to-heads showed Obama beating Huckabee by an average of 10-20 points. Some had Obama up by 25 points on Huckabee. His nomination would have been a concession from the start.

What might this mean for McCain in the fall? SocialCons will still turn out to vote for him, but noting beats enthusiasm. If Obama's supporters truly like him, and McCain's supporters just dislike the opposition, he will lose. John Kerry lost because his supporters didn't like him so much as they disliked Bush. The fact that one in four primary voters won't openly support McCain is a bad sign for him.

The Baha'i faith, an anecdote

A friend of mine recently converted to the Baha'i faith. If you've never heard of it, it's a unitarian faith the comes most directly out of Islam. It affirms that all the founders of each religion came from God, and that God progressively revealed more of his faith. Baha'u'llah, the Baha'i founder, was supposed to be the last prophet of this age who would draw all the religions of the world into one with his teachings. Baha'is see other religions as valid and correct, but theirs is the most correct and pure.

Such a poorly-known religion, with such tolerant principles and modern sympathies doesn't alarm the religious watchmen in the US. They would see it as either a useless outpouring of Unitarianism in disguise, or a secret way of injecting Islam into the culture. Baha'is are unlike Muslims, unlike Christians, unlike the rest. Their practice is distinct. It's a religion of its own.

But I noticed this: when my friend converted, her manners of speaking and writing changed. They seemed more mature; she used wonderful, beautiful flourishes when describing her thoughts on the world, humanity and the future. But as I read more of her writing I found these same phrases - like 'identity of all humanity' - used over and over. What had seemed special to me was actually lifted from Baha'i scriptures.

It made me uneasy in a gut reaction. I wanted to know why I reacted this way. It wasn't because I resented her conversion or disliked her religion or its teachings. It was because she constantly used these phrases and did not invent new ways of thinking. Her entire process was voluntary, but she stopped thinking so independently. I checked the books she had read; most of what she wrote was simply Baha'i teachings translated into language for people her age.

I was made uncomfortable because it looked a lot like brainwashing. But the process of acquiring language and ways of speaking is part of growing into a religion. You don't become a born-again Christian, for example, without talking about being born again, or salvation, or about faith.

Of course, there are people who convert or grow deeply religious, use a huge amount of their faith's vocabulary and still don't make me uneasy. It unsettled me the way my friend wrote because she was not one of those people; she'd been subsumed into the religious language and never came back out. Maybe in time she'll emerge a bit. I don't mean she should cool her faith, I mean that she may someday adapt the language she's using to say things with the variety she used to in her writing.

Isn't this better than a boring post about the Democratic Primaries?

I would have been wrong

At Volokh Conspiracy various bloggers are having an argument over Burkean conservatism. I don't in any way think of myself as a Burkean, and I am skeptical of the deference to tradition and status quo that Burkeanism includes. I will never truly understand the idea of preserving tradition for traditions sake in the face of opposition.

But there is a facet of Burke that I do subscribe to: gradualism. I think that huge problems cannot or should not be resolved quickly. I think that quick solutions either fail or simply steamroll the opposition without addressing their concerns.

What gradualism does not mean is opposition to anything happening quickly. It opposes big things happening quickly. Gradualism does not apply to whether we keep troops in Iraq, but it does apply to a general strategy of democratizing the world. In that sense, the idea that quick military impositions could overcome the systematic hurdles is totally against a gradualist approach.

But there are times I would have wanted to be too gradual and if I had been in power, I would have slowed down the progress of freedom. I also know why I would have been wrong.

For example, with regard to Apartheid, I would have favored a slow dismemberment of the system rather than the quick evisceration it got. The system went from the peak of its power in the 1980s to a 'palace coup' in 1990. Within four years, the legal framework of Apartheid was dead and a truly democratic government was elected in 1994.

This example will make me look very bad. However, it is the truth and I write it without animus. At the end of the Civil War, I would have favored a gradual approach to freeing the slaves. I would have argued, in that time and mindset, that a quick changed - and especially a move like the 13th Amendment - would create too much opposition to black freedom. I would have been too pragmatic and not idealistic enough, too willing to compromise with an evil system. Sometimes bad systems need to be shot in the head, not picked apart.

Yet, if I was a powerful person in either scenario I would have favored the side which eventually won, but opposed their methods. I've already talked about graduated emancipation as an alternative, but in a totally different context.

Why would I have been wrong in my gradualist way? Because I could not have seen the popular willingness to make radical changes. There are times when people want a big shift, and some event allows that. I would have thought that wagering so much on a hope like this was too risky, better that it happen slowly and surely. Slowly doesn't mean any specific period of time, but it does mean in stages.

So which way is better? I think more often than not, people aren't ready to make large changes. More often than not, gradual approaches don't force things along. For example, President Bush's advisers must have truly believed that Iraqis would quickly embrace democracy. That would have been a massive shift. Had it worked easily, gradualism would have been wrong again. It turns out that it was right this time; the systematic and cultural networks that would have made democratization quick and popular weren't present.

I will continue to be gradualist. When events prove me wrong, I will say so. But I believe that I will be right more often than not, and that the effect of overreaching is something to be avoided.

Cato on Cuba, as if they read my mind:

Article below is quoted in full from here:

"

Today, Cuba officially lifted its ban on the sale of computers to the general public.
Some other prohibitions have also been scrapped in recent weeks: Cubans
can now buy cell phones, stay in hotels previously reserved for
tourists, and buy appliances like microwaves and TV sets.

Is this a sign of openness from Cuba’s geriatric regime? Not so.

A Cuban dissident I met in Havana last year sent me today an article
he wrote about the real motive behind relaxing these bans. It has been
reported in the state-controlled media that people purchasing these
goods are later being investigated by the authorities who want to know
the real sources of their income. As it’s widely known, the average
Cuban salary is less than $20 a month, while the cost of most of these
goods ranges in the hundreds of dollars. Many Cubans get their extra
money from relatives in the United States, but many others run
independent (and illicit) small businesses.

My friend tells the story of the first person to purchase an
electric bicycle, which cost the equivalent of $1,070. This man had a
small butter factory that apparently was very profitable, since he was
selling the butter at a lower price than the government. After buying
his electric bicycle, the authorities investigated him and discovered
his factory. They proceeded to confiscate everything they found in his
home, including the bike.

Let’s not forget that, after all, there is still a Castro brother
running the show on the island. As my Cuban friend says about the
so-called “reforms,” the fact that something is no longer prohibited
doesn’t mean that you can do it.

"

There are so many Castros, what are we to do with them?

Cuba recently held elections for a national legislature. Fidel Castro stepped down and his brother Raul took over. I thought at the time that this was the first step towards further democratization, as the old guard of Cuba's regime slowly aged or died off.

FP Passport has made me think again.

Castro family members, and those who married into the family, represent a huge chunk of the top government and business leaders. Even if Raul and the current legislature chose to democratize further - which isn't likely at all right now - the other Castros would not want to lose their clout in the transition. Meanwhile, for one reason or another, Cuba isn't as economically wrecked by its semi-communist economics as other countries have been. This is probably due to an effective tourism industry that brings in valuable foreign money.

As for Cuba's health care system, it seems the country trains a number of competent doctors. However, recent reports indicate that there aren't enough, and that while people in major population centers may get free health care, rural people have no access to basic treatments. In a country like Cuba, where private health care is restricted, this is more than irresponsible.

What's more, the American boycott has not brought down the regime. Maybe it made sense in 1959. Maybe it made sense up until 1991. Does it make sense now, seventeen years after the Soviet Union broke apart? You could argue that it punishes and weakens the Cuban regime. Probably it does, but if the American economy was opened to Cuba tomorrow, the massive new selection of goods would demonstrate how superior the American system is. Unlike the lower-tech communist regimes like China and North Korea, Cuba could not stop American books, magazines and movies from finding their way into the country. The internet can also be a great tool for Cubans hoping to move their country towards democracy.

I thought that when the leader of Cuba was no longer named Castro, the US would finally lift the ban. The lure of America did help contribute to the democratization of Easter Europe. However, seeing Passport's never ending list of Castros, I wonder if democracy will come to Cuba in our lifetimes.

The Provocateur is wrong! Someone is wrong on the internet!

[Title explained here]

A blog out there, found through RealClearPolitics, is titled 'The Provocateur.' Today he writes against Mary Mitchell, apparently an inflammatory African-American columnist for the Chicago Sun Times. What did she say that incenses us so?

This is a sad day for Black America.
At a time when African Americans
are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a
divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black
community.Obviously, Wright's timing for a press conference about his sermons couldn't have been worse. Still, when Obama
says he is "offended" by Wright's latest comments -- given in defense
against an orchestrated assault on his character and on his ministry --
he's opening up a can of worms. There is no institution in the
black community more respected than the black church. And the notion
that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in
the black church is repulsive to most black people.

Let me say this: I understand both sides of the issue here. Of course some in the black community see Obama's candidacy as a breakthrough, and the possibility of it being undone when he's gone so far arouses resentment. I also see that others, often outside the black community, would see the kind of rhetoric Mary Mitchell uses as too heavily race-based or divisive. But what our kindly Provocateur does is to make the wrong move about this. Instead he does the old "let's flip the races and see if it sounds like the KKK" gambit.

I could do the easy thing and say "Why doesn't anyone complain about Asian, Jewish, Italian, Irish, German organizations? Why is it black organizations? There are groups advocating the same solidarity within Jewish and Chinese communities today, as well as others I don't know about. If the problem is with self-segregation, which you say it is, then you will now denounce these groups publicly."

Now that I've said the easy thing I'm going to say the hard thing. The reason that any group exerts pressure is that it's a minority. Majority groups make the situation against which pressure groups move. Majority groups have their system and their values normalized by virtue of being the majority.

Black Americans have to contend with a totally different power dynamic. That is why it is acceptable for Mary Mitchell to speak as she does. It matters how both sides see the problem involved. Provocateur sees it as separationist. I am not comfortable with the part that appears too ready to blame deliberate malice on the part of the white community. Yet there is also the other side of Mitchell's statement which comes from a long history of power imbalance between black and white communities. If you think that power imbalance ended with the Civil Rights Act, you are sorely mistaken. Even if every racist law in the country was struck down tomorrow there is the amorphous cultural power where Black America can in no way present a legitimate challenge.

It's not up to me, or the Provocateur, to say "Mary Mitchell is a racist" or "Mary Mitchell is a legitimate spokesperson for the black community". It is important to note that simply swapping the races in her comment cannot prove it is unacceptable because 'caucasians' do not have the history that correctly contextualizes the comment. I reject the 'race-swap' tactic in all its forms because it assumes that race relations develop in a historical vacuum and that any group can be substituted for any other. This is not true, and so the tactic is illegitimate.

Religions based in Fear (FSTDT)

Browsing around Fundies Say The Darndest Things, I found this quote:

For many years, I've been tip-toeing through life, afraid that if I
make the wrong move, God will punish me horribly. Whether or not that
is theologically accurate, I do not know. But it's like everytime I do
something that I think might be bad in some way, no matter how small it
is, I start thinking "Please God, don't hurt me. Just don't hurt me!"
It's just gotten worse in the last year or so, and I don't want to live
my life in utter misery and constant fear of God spiritually hitting me
over the head. Any advice?

The commentators who critiqued this quote were pretty hostile. A sampling:

• You have no idea of theology.
• 
  Get therapy for paranoia and religious indoctrination.
• 
  Yes. stop believing that God will hurt you. God never will.
• 
  A perfect example of how effective religion can be at controlling people through fear.

For all these commentators, fear is not a legitimate aspect of religion. Must are antagonistic, but the third espouses a God that is sympathetic. Is fear just tangential to the process of religion, or is this 'Fundie' onto something?

Some time ago, I watched a documentary on North Korea on the National Geographic channel (which now refers to itself in a too-hip manner as 'NatGeo'). This is solely my opinion, but based on what I have heard and read in books, the internet, television and news reports I believe North Korea is the most oppressive regime and governmental system in the history of humanity. I believe that it has, more than any other organization since time began, come close to actually controlling the thoughts and actions of its citizens as much as is possible.

It is supposedly communist, but not in a way Marx might recognize. The official philosophy is 'Juche' - self reliance - which means North Koreans are doin' it for themselves, mostly. This means that crop failures inevitably lead to famines and that while South Korea has become a truly modern country, the North may actually have declined since the end of the Korean War.

It's also somewhat anti-religious, as many communist regimes are. Yet Juche and deification of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il act almost as a substitute religion. A picture of one of the Kims is found in almost every building. Near-godlike powers are ascribed to the Eternal President and his son. The NatGeo documentary concluded that for North Koreans, fear and worship aren't such different things at all.

So while the governmental system may be unique, is the concept of a religion in which a primary motivating factor is fear also new? Not at all. In fact, fear may be more fundamental in the history of religion that the standard given answers. Many historians, trying to explain the universal religious impulse in humans have said that religion 'explains the natural world' or 'allows people to order their lives with regard to some higher organization'. I think that these reasons are important, but that fear is a fundamental part of primal religion that is often left out.

The fact is that even mainstream Christianity has a vocabulary of fear. Until recently, many people were self-described 'God-fearing' men and women. More apocalyptic versions have emphasized the terrible wrath of God's judgment. The best modern example of Christian fear is found in the last book of the Left Behind series, an evangelical account of the End Times in a trashy action-movie format. This last, The Glorious Appearing, has taken a lot of criticism because the returning Jesus is a judgmental conquerer who physically punishes the enemies of God. I see this not as a new development in Christianity but rather a hearkening back to pre-Christian ideas about deity.

Most religions in the modern world have toned down or muted the fear aspect. There is one historical example of a religion that, like Juche/Kim Worship, was based primarily on fear. That is the polytheism of ancient Sumer. Sumerian religion isn't well known, and most people have only barely heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It does reveal aspects of the religious system, however. Like Greco-Roman gods, the Sumerian gods each had a domain. They were flawed beings who ruled because they were powerful, not because they deserved to rule. They demanded sacrifices, which the people gave. Unlike Roman sacrifices, the Sumerians offered their not out of the hope of favor from a particular god but because the failure to do so would be horribly punished.

Sumerian religion is older as a systematized setup than Greco-Roman faith. It was also practiced in a much harsher climate. While maintaining many structures, all the polytheisms that eventually flowed from Sumer seem to have slowly toned down the role of fear in the relationships between gods and humans. Yet we should not forget that the Old Testament contains a healthy dosage of near-threats from God to his chosen people.

Then again, maybe North Korea's system is unique - it's one of the few religions in modern times to put fear front-and-center. However much certain strains of political Christianity have tried to inject 'fear' back into their theology, that aspect remains one of the more embarrassing for evangelists of this brand of Christianity. For one reason or another, fear-centric worship is rare and rather disliked in today's world.

What the hell is happening?

Barack Obama has been doing rather badly in recent polls. There are a few reason - the resurfacing of Rev. Wright, the larger-than-optimal loss in Pennsylvania, the possible association with certain Weathermen (Weathermans? I'm not entirely sure). But what's interesting is the Hillary Clinton, the obvious beneficiary of all this, isn't getting more popular. It's just that Obama's support is eroding. What this means is that if Clinton manages the nomination, she won't be any stronger against McCain for having defeated Obama.

McCain continues to be relatively quiet, saying some fuzzy things about health care and the current financial crisis. His solutions are disturbing for some Republicans because they tend to be much more comfortable with Big Government mechanisms that are often lambasted as 'Democractic' ideas.

Meanwhile, it seems that even Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe is willing to say that the opposition won. Yet Morgan Tsvangirai claims he won 50.6%, which would mean he does not have to engage Mugabe in a direct run-off. Mugabe's government seems near to releasing results in which Tsvangirai won, but was under the 50% threshold. If Mugabe actually plans to relinquish the Presidency, he is not acting like it. I personally believe he won't give it up willingly and that he plans to intimidate the opposition and rig the vote in the run-off election. China has attempted to ship weapons - suspiciously ordered right after the first round of elections - into the country but South Africa and now Angola - a big Zimbabwe and China supporter - have prevented the goods from reaching Mugabe's men. Mugabe's government is currently recounting votes, possibly stalling for time while they try to obtain weapons.

And you know that food shortage we've been hearing about? Apparently it's struck hardest in repressive regimes like Zimbabwe and Egypt and Haiti. While I am not disregarding the human aspect of the shortage, the political aspect has caused the weakening of a number of vicious and illiberal regimes. Maybe this will make people reexamine their commitment to food aid for foreign countries where American grain may prevent famine at the expense of propping up an authoritarian.