Four More Years!

Aaaaahhhh, the schadenfreude.  For once, I actually enjoy watching Fox News, and this Tumblr, White People Mourning Romney, has given me nothing but a steady stream of Me gusta.  The best part is that Obama's margin of victory was almost exactly what Nate Silver and the other scientifically-grounded statisticians had predicted, unlike the "unskewed" polls coming from nearly every conservative outlet.  It's always fun to watch reality force itself upon the willfully ignorant. 

I'm also thankful Obama won the popular vote.  If he had received fewer actual votes than Romney, I can imagine that would have been a huge source of contention in the months ahead.  Of course, it seems one of the Republicans' current coping mechanisms is to to insist that the popular vote was really close--which it was--but...so?  A win's a win, and the only thing that matters anyway is the electoral college, so there you go.

Looking to the future, check out this chart from Slate that breaks down the races of each candidates' supporters:

Clearly Republicans have a problem.  The only group they dominate is the only one that isn't growing as an overall share.  Furthermore, in both 2008 and 2012, Obama has garnered overwhelming support from all age groups below the age of 40.  So Republicans, you've spent the past thirty-plus accusing minorities and young people of being lazy grifters, bashing gays, and forcing Conservative Christianity on everyone else.  Sure, it allowed you to dominate the old white people demographic, which worked out pretty well for a while.  But guess what?  You've successfully painted yourself into a corner.  Have fun with that shrinking constituency.  And oh my science, it's been great watching the blowhards on Fox News shed tears of infinite sadness over the death of "traditional" America.

It'll be interesting to see what happens from here.  Because of the demographics above, Democrats look to have a structual lock on the electoral college, and it will become tougher and tougher for Republicans to break through in future presidential contests.  Already, Ohio's Republican Secretary of State, Jon Husted, wants to find a way to award Ohio's electoral college votes in the next election based on the outcome of each congressional district rather than as a winner takes all system.  This would almost guarantee a Repulbican candidate 12 of Ohio's 16 electoral votes due to gerrymandering after the 2010 census.  Indeed, such a system across the country would result in a Republican landslide unless the Democratic candidate achieved a massive margin of victory in the popular vote.  So yeah, expect that to be a fight in the near future. 

Personally, I think we need to do away with the electoral college all together and use a straight popular vote.  It would give everyone incentive to vote and not just the voters in a handful of swing states.  But who knows if that will ever happen.

Looking beyond the Presidential contest, I also get the sense that this election will mark a tipping point in the ongoing demographic and generational shift.  I already mentioned the structural challenges for the Republican Party to win the presidency, but we also saw equality for gays win out this year in every state where it was on the ballot, and marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington.  I'm thrilled to see gay rights finally succeeding at the ballot box.  I never expected opinions to turn this fast, and hopefully this will be the year that everything changed.  And with marijuana, perhaps the end of it's prohibition is in sight, and we can stop incarcerating so many of our fellow citizens for partaking in a substance that is no more harmful than alcohol.  Not only would it free millions from jail, but it would save billions of taxpayer dollars too.

Anyway, I hope this election marks the point when my fellow Millenials finally take control of the national conversation and steer the country towards a more inclusive future.  I'm sur ethere will be setback along the way, but things feel pretty good this week.
 

Election 2012

Today I'd like to talk about the election.  Not that anyone really cares about my opinion, but this is my blog and if you're here, you get to read my rants...you're welcome.

But seriously, as it stands today, things are looking promising for Obama.  Nate Silver's model currently gives Obama a 79.7% chance of victory, and Romney's campaign is quickly turning into a joke (albeit a disturbingly frightening and callous one if you're a little light in the bank account).  I think that's what happens when you run for president after holding only one prior elected position and are the least bad choice in a primary filled with incompetent hacks.  Romney's just not ready for the big leagues, and it shows.  Maybe I should be thankful this election is showing that being rich can't buy you the presidency...or at least not yet.

I'd be lying if I said I was feeling this confident back in January.  With the slow economy and the promise of unlimited Super PAC money supporting the Republican party, it seemed Obama faced an insurmountable hurdle.  As it turns out, lots of Americans seem to disagree with the Republican fantasy that cutting all assistance to the poor and lowering taxes on millionaires will magically fix the economy because job creators will suddenly have "confidence".  As I see it, if business people need to feel confident all the time in order to run a business, then maybe they shouldn't be in business, but maybe that's just me.

With the Super PAC spending, it seems to have discovered the point of diminishing returns.  There are only so many commercial slots one can buy, and after a while people just tune it all out.  In some way this has been the silver lining of the Citizens United ruling.  Let the billionaires waste their money.  It wouldn't make it into the economy otherwise.  But I am glad I live in Germany at the moment so I don't have to suffer through the barrage every time I turn on the TV.

As for Obama, I will gladly vote for him again even though being a Texas resident will render my vote mostly harmless.  Still, I've been generally pleased with Obama's first term.  Sure, he hasn't done everything the liberal in me would like, and he has done little to relax the police state atmosphere that arose after 9/11, but from the beginning Obama has presented himself as a centrist candidate so it shouldn't be a surprise.  Moreover, he's accomplished far more than any Democrat since LBJ.  He managed to get health care reform through Congress.  No, it wasn't perfect and was more of a give-away to the insurance industry than I would have liked.  Still, it's a start, and it finally allows the US to join the rest of the world in providing some degree of socialized healthcare for its citizens.  That alone is a monumental achievement, but then the stimulus was the greatest investment in alternative energy in US history, gay and lesbian service members can finally serve their country without having to hide who they are, and Obama was the first president to publicly support gay marriage, which finally pushed the Democratic Party to make the issue a plank of its platform.

Of course, the Tea Party came along halfway through and put the breaks on everything.  I know the media tries to claim that both parties are responsible for the gridlock, but when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, says his number one goal is "to make Obama a one term president" even when there's a severe recession and two ongoing wars (at the time), you know there's something seriously wrong with a party's priorities.  My greatest concern at this point is that Democrats will not be able to retake the House, and we'll have two more years where the only thing to make it out of the lower chamber will be Ayn Rand fantasies masquerading as "serious" ideas.

Back to Obama, I have been deeply disappointed with his growing use of drones to assassinate individuals, even US citizens, without due process.  While the world might be better off without those killed (especially Bin Laden), it is a disturbing milestone in our nation's long slide away from the ideals of justice and fairness for all.  Still, the Republican Party's opinion on the matter is even more ruthless, so I guess I can thank the President for showing a degree of restraint.

Sorry about the long post.  I know I'm jumping into the race at the home stretch, but I felt like airing my thoughts before moving forward.  For what it's worth, I endorse Obama for reelection, and I wil be voting for him in November.  Please go out and vote, and let's run up the score to get Obama some help from Congress.  And if you're a Republican, I still want to encourage you to go out and vote for your preferred candidates.  It's your right as an American and the best chance you get to have a say in what happens in this country.
  

Hello Again!

So a friend of mine Tweeted me tonight (yeah, I know...I resisted for so long) asking about the lack of posts on this blog, and I must admit I have felt the urge of late.  Last week I was reading through some of my old posts, and in some ways it feels like a lifetime ago.

Looking back, I see the original incarnation of this blog was a means of self discovery for me.  I suppose I was looking for a way to reject the overwhelmingly Conservative Christian atmosphere at my school, and I was frankly horrified at the creeping theocratic urges of the Republican party during the Bush era (if only college me could see Republicans now...).  I also discovered my atheism at that time.  It was the beginning of the atheist blogosphere and the books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins had just been published.  It was an exciting time to be nonreligious because I no longer felt like I was alone in my beliefs or lack thereof, and the atheist blogging community seemed like a window into a wider world.

Once I graduated from college, my first job's responsibilities set in, and I felt like I had less time for blogging.  Now it feels like it was just more of an excuse.  Regardless, it felt like things had taken a turn for the better in the country.  Obama had won the presidency, and the Democrats were in charge.  I blogged a little bit during the rise of the Tea Party, but it just felt like more of the same.

What about now?  I'm just as atheist as ever, although I think I have a more nuanced position on it (I call myself an Agnostic Atheist to anyone who asks, but I'll save that for a future post).  I'm still a registered Democrat, and, though I am often disappointed in what they produce in Washington, they're far better than the alternative.  Plus, I feel Obama has been a good president who's done the best he can under the circumstances.

From here on out I'm going to make this more of a personal blog.  I'll still post plenty on Atheism and politics like before, but I'd like to get into my other passions as well.  Expect to see posts on science, hiking, and scuba diving.  I'm also a huge nerd, so you may see a fair amount about video games, sci-fi, fantasy, and other nerdly pursuits.  I may even post chapters from my nearly completed novel.  Hopefully, this will keep me posting more often, we'll see.

On a final note, I've decided to do away with my pseudonym all together.  From now on, my actual name, Justin Logan, will accompany my posts.  I have nothing to be ashamed of in any of my posts, and I really don't mind who finds this blog.

Anyway, thanks for visiting, and I hope you find whatever I write mildly interesting.

The BS of Bias

If you are ever inclined towards locating humor on the blogo-sphere to brighten your day I do recommend CNN’s iReport. On this site armature reporters and bloggers make submissions or iReports, on events in their local areas or comments on issues of national significance. In reading these iReports or the comments from other iReporters on them you cannot go but fifteen seconds without coming across one of the most fabled words in all the News Industry: BIAS. Yes bias, an iReporter proclaims it to the sky that a certain CNN article or post or reporter is guilty of bias. They do this as if they have discovered the Holy Grail. It’s meant as the ultimate “got ya” moment, as if after announcing the identification of said bias, the opponent is meant to shrivel up like the wicked witch of the west.

“What a blessing to finally discover this bias,” the iReporter might think. “A great service was performed here.” But was it? Let us examine. Is this the first example of bias to be discovered? Certainly not. CNN and its iReporters have been accused of bias multiple times over multiple years by FOX News. Both parties have accosted MSNBC of bias as well. The term gets thrown around constantly as a straw man to discredit a competitive news agency or reporter, as if having bias makes whatever report immediately invalid. The book Bias by Bernard Goldberg has been around since 2001, so certainly, nine years later there is no reason to expect un-biased reporting. Back in the late 19th century, yellow journalism was rampant. Biased reporting fostered the Spanish-American War, incorrectly identifying the destruction of the USS Maine as result of a Spanish sea-mine, rather than the boiler room accident it turned out to be. Additionally any scholar of great American cinema will recall Citizen Cane, and how the protagonists newspaper was built on bias and skewing his view of the news and issues. I cite these historical examples to establish one precise point. The notion of bias in the media should not be considered a new discovery, or in any way remarkable to the “I” or any other reporter circa 2010. So, getting back to the original issue, what to make of the continued assertion that someone is “bias.”

Nothing. Seems simple, elementary even, but nothing should be made of it. Isn’t bias only effective when the reader is unaware of the bias? Isn’t it meant only to influence the ignorant? Doesn’t the identification of bias immediately compel one to look objectively at the reporting, and discern facts from opinion there by circumventing the bias? Rather than crying wolf at the identification of bias one should embrace it as a potential point of few. Read and issue reported by CNN and then read it by Fox (or vice versa if that is your preference). The facts will remain constant through both reports and the biases then can be clearly identified. Further such an exercise by then referencing NPR, or the BBC, or MSNBC, or even the Daily Show (John Stewart is kind enough to not even attempt to hide his bias). Such an exercise should serve the express purpose of bringing the truth to the surface.

It would seem people cannot be bothered though. Thus we come to the status quo, of biased new organizations catering to their biased viewers while trumpeting at the top of their lungs the bias present in their competitors with no regard for the bias in themselves. And the system churns on, further stratifying and segregating our population into biased subgroups, ignorant of the opinions the other subgroups. There was a time when it was a positive quality to understand and appreciate the opinions of others. To do so today is criticized as being listening to biased reporting; only the other side is “fair and balanced.” And we see the result, political parties unified only in their disdain for the other side, refusing to budge in even the slightest way to reconcile. They are soldiers of their own biased ignorance, completely convinced of their own superiority over the others who are always the “biased” ones. It is a path to ruination and sensible discourse in this country. But what do I know, I am clearly biased.

Closed Mindedness and Intellectual Laziness

Today, PZ Myers posted a point by point rebuttal to a recent piece on Ken Ham's blog. If you don't know who he is, Ken Ham is the fundamental Christian who founded Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Kentucky, both of which insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Anyway, Ham's original post decried the meaninglessness of the upcoming Atheist Convention in Australia this year. I might as well reprint the bulk of the post:

Imagine—listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe! Now, that would be an uplifting conference!

From their worldview, wouldn’t atheists see this meeting as a meaningless waste of time? Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning—but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations! All because they shake their fist at God—but why?

The Scripture tells us they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1). Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t want to have to answer to anyone—they want to set their own rules. They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be (or reject it altogether). They want to do what is “right” in their own eyes! Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!

It baffles the mind as to why these atheists even bother to try to aggressively convert people to their meaningless religion—after all, what’s the point? The only reason they would even bother is if they are engaged in a spiritual battle. Otherwise they wouldn’t care. They know in their hearts there is a God, and they are deliberately suppressing that, as the Scripture so clearly tells us.

Yeah, pretty much the standard demonization one can expect from fundamental Christians. There's little reason to go after the strawmen presented here because it's already been done so many times (PZ did a fine job in his post, if you do want to read a response to this). However, I do want to comment on this particular line: "They know in their hearts there is a God, and they are deliberately suppressing that, as the Scripture so clearly tells us."

I for one cannot fathom Ken Ham's worldview. He thinks everything he needs to know or should need to know comes from the Bible. Instead of actually listening to why atheists actually believe the things they do, he just goes with what an ancient scribe thought thousands of years ago. It's sad, really. He has blocked himself off from having an original thought that doesn't fall within his narrowly defined beliefs. What's worse is the fact that his beliefs are completely arbitrary. There are plenty of other religious texts he could believe in absolutely. He just happened to be born into a Christian culture, so that's the one he went with.

Furthermore, the world has changed radically since the various books of the Bible were put to paper. Some of it does not apply or shouldn't apply to the modern world. On the other hand, I'll gladly point out that some of its ideas are timeless. The Golden Rule, for instance, is an excellent idea everyone should live by. That's why it pays to be open minded. I'm more than happy to take the best parts of multiple philosophies, so long as they make sense. Ken Ham doesn't have that luxury. He's closed his mind into a small box, terrified that any step outside of it will result in an eternity of torture.

In Ham's post, we see the result of his closed mindedness. He assumes that atheists are simply lying when they explain where they find meaning. Why does he assume this? Because the Bible says so...and God wrote it..so it's true. This kind of thinking encourages intellectual laziness of the worst sort. Instead of doing actual research, Ham just goes with his assumptions, based on his interpretation of the Bible. Even worse, he ignores the wealth of Biblical scholarship--written mostly by Christians, I might add--concerning the Bible, including its likely authorship, its sources, and its inspiration drawn from earlier cultures. As any historian will tell you (myself included), the history behind a historical document is just as important as the document itself.

Regardless, Ham will continue being intellectually lazy because he feels the Bible's words are all he really needs. Or maybe he's just scared to step outside of the box. Whoever came up with the idea of Hell is a genius. It's a prefect enforcement mechanism to keep minds closed and followers in line. The dictators of the world, past and present, only wish they could pull off something like that.

In the end, Ham's post just reminds me of why I completely reject faith. Religion closes people off from their minds, and prevents them from finding their full intellectual potential. Imagine the possibilities if we could only throw off its debilitating effects.

The Soviets' Revenge

Even though I was on an extended blogging hiatus, I’ve kept an eye on the news as closely as ever. Out of everything that’s happened over the past year, what bothers me most is America’s complete inability to fix its growing problems. On issues as wide-ranging as healthcare reform, energy independence, sustainability, and financial reform, we have frighteningly huge problems staring us in the face. I don’t blame Obama, and I’ve been generally pleased with his performance. He’s curtailed the power of his office from the severe overreach of his predecessor, focusing on his constitutionally mandated task of enforcing laws and being generally constructive on foreign policy. All in all, it’s what I voted for. Unfortunately, this retraction of executive power means the legislative branch has the burden of reform. But even with 60 Democrats, the Senate has struggled to pass any substantial legislation this year beyond the economic stimulus and the Senate version of the healthcare bill—and even that had to be severely watered down with tax cuts just to garner enough votes. In many ways, it seems clear the United States federal government has fast become ungovernable.