Congratulations, America.

Obama wins.
Congratulations, America. You made the right choice.
After 8 years of utter incompetence, you are on the cusp of 4 years of sanity.
Perhaps now your country will rise above it's reputation as laughing stock of the international stage.
Congratulations.

Need I give more proof?

In my last post I showed a video, which I claimed depicted the average McCain supporter. It was a video of one, and only one, woman and her beliefs. Perhaps I need more proof that the average McCain supporter is an ignorant waste of organic matter. Well, here it is (video below):



There are more slurs, insults, lies, and incomprehensible ignorance spewing from the mouths of that crowd than I can count. The scene reminds me of a KKK rally sans the white sheets - they expel the same hatred and filth. These people compose a large portion of McCain's support, and both McCain and Palin do little but pander to their interests. The whole ACORN voting fraud and Ayers connection smear campaigns are proof of that; indeed, the McCain campaign is guilty of starting many of the nasty, ignorant, uninformed rumors and misconceptions that his fervorous, mindless proponents howl.

And what was the crowd in that clip getting so worked up over? That footage was taken at a Palin rally, but you'd think it was an angry mob that showed up outside Obama's house. Perhaps they should consider yelling out reasons why McCain will make the country a better place if they wish to win over undecided voters or Obama supporters, but no, they have to be loud bigots because Obama's a "got-dang baby killing commie Muzzie terr'rist".

It's people like these that make me think that voting should only be a right for those who prove themselves to be informed voters who understand the issues at hand and the platforms of the candidate, and will vote based on who they think will do a better job at making the country worth living in. I would love to see a voter competence exam introduced, but that would never fly because people have the right to vote, no matter how ignorant they are....but that's a topic for some other post.

The sad truth: this is the average McCain supporter

A significant proportion of supporters of McCain are not supporters based on his political platform; rather, the refer to themselves as "values voters". What does that mean, exactly? The video below does a pretty good job of explaining:

Tracy here feels that the most important issue in the upcoming election is "the one who has the most faith in the Lord". Not their foreign policy, not their stance on the current economic crisis, not their thoughts on the war in Iraq, but who believes in God more.

But Tracy's ignorance truly shines when explains why she won't be voting for Obama:

"I can't imagine a President of the United States being named President Obama. I really have a problem with that and I'm not the only one."

If you wont vote for someone based on their name, then you should probably rethink voting at all. And what's really sad is that she's right that she's not the only one who has a problem with Obama's name: the "Obama's a Muslim, just look at his name" thing is common among the fundies, despite the fact that he is a Christian.

And she follows up that gem with the following dumbosity:

"His background. A mother that was atheist. Huh, that really gets to me. A father that was a Muslim. That should get to everyone."

So what if his mother was an atheist (is there even any evidence to support that? I've never heard of this)? What does his father's religion matter (there is actually evidence that points to his father being an atheist, actually)? None of these have any bearing on Obama's faith, and Obama's faith has no bearing on how well he could run the country. Again, if this is the reason you're voting against someone, then you should rethink voting at all.

Oh, if only the world could vote...

I stumbled across and interesting website today that showed an even more interesting statistic.
The website is called If The World Could Vote, and it simply contains a single online poll, open to everyone worldwide, that asks "If you could vote on the American election right now, who would you vote for?".
The results so far look like this (my apologies for the incredibly poor picture quality, check out the results page on the site if you want to save your eyes):
Almost unanimously, the entire would would vote in Obama.

Now, I know there are a lot of problems with internet polls; people can sometimes cast multiple votes, only people with internet connections and computers are included so they only test a select demographic, etc etc, so take this with a grain of salt.

But I thought there were a few interesting things to point out.

First, there are a few countries in which support for McCain is the majority or close to it. Burkina Faso is one such country, with 100% support for the Republicans, but this is with a meager 2 votes so it's hardly accurate. It does seem, however, that many of the former Soviet republics have a higher than average number voting Red: Belarus is a prime example. Countries in and around the Balkans (Macedonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia) also are a bit higher on the McCain scale. What could account for such a trend in these regions? Perhaps a disdain for the Democrat's handling of the Balkan conflict could account for it in the Balkan regions (though this is unlikely, since Bill Clinton seems to be popular in the region...at least in Kosovo, where his likeness has been engraved into the city's tallest building and a statue of the former president has been erected) but what about Belarus? I admit I know very little about Belarusian history so I cannot even begin to guess.

Also interesting is the support for Obama in the US: this poll shows 82% of the votes in his favour. It is my understanding that Obama is currently ahead in the polls, but I don't believe that the numbers are this high.

I have to wonder, though, if this poll is somewhat biased towards Obama. The poll exclusively polls internet users, and I would go so far to say that it includes "core" internet users rather than casual internet users. In general (and, as any visit to an internet forum would confirm *cough*4chan*cough*, I am being very general), the core internet population is more "intellectually based" than the rest of the general population: after all, it does take a degree of technical knowhow to use the internet and it is usually more intellectually minded people who enjoy learning such technical skills. And, I do not think it would be a stretch to claim that support for Obama and the Democrats is high among intellectuals. If this is the case then the high support for Obama is not unexpected.

But then again, who knows? The overall message from this poll (however unfair or inaccurate it may be) is that pretty much the entire world is rooting for Obama. Will America do the same?

America isnt the only place with crazies running for office.

It seems our great nation of Canada also has its kooks wanting to be in the government.

According to this article from the Edmonton Sun, the district of Sudbury, Ontario is home to one such individual, running for a seat in the upcoming federal election. David Popescu is running as an independent in the Sudbury riding. Yesterday, at the Sudbury Secondary School auditorium, Popescu attended a discussion forum along with his fellow candidates from the NDP, Liberal and First People's National parties. The discussion was a great opportunity for highschool kids to pose questions to the candidates and to get involved in the political scene, even though they're not old enough to vote yet. It was at this forum where Popescu's crazy was on display in its entirety.

First he introduced himself with a public prayer, which is a bit unusual, but isn't something entirely crazy. He proceeded to tell the kids how climate change and economic woes are due to the wickedness of society - a bit loopy. But it wasn't until he was asked his opinion on gay marriage that Popescu was shown to be a total wackjob. His response?

That all homosexuals should be executed.

Someone running for government, here in Canada, said that. I'm absolutely dumbstruck.
And if you think that maybe he was misquoted or that his response was taken out of context, he was later asked to clarify his response. He only reasserted his view saying,

"A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed...[m]y whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn't be more clear on that point."

Popescu also told a student who asked about stem cell research that "God would hurt" any woman who had an abortion.

I am, however, somewhat glad to see the highschool kid's reactions to Popescu's comments:

"The crowd jeered and many rose to their feet in protest after Popescu answered another teenager's question on gay marriage."

It's nice to see that the kids know enough to disagree with Popescu's vile ideas.

Nonetheless, I dont really like the police response to the situation:

Police are investigating whether [Popescu] committed a hate crime by telling high school students homosexuals should be executed..."We are actively conducting a criminal investigation in this matter," deputy police chief Frank Elsner said."

I do think that what Popescu was wrong, and I do think that what he said was hateful; but I don't think that he should be thrown in jail for saying it, especially if he was invited to a forum to give his views and was specifically asked about them.

Either way, I'm shocked that such a person could be running for election in our country. I'd really like to say that his remarks have cost him the seat, but frankly, I'm not that sure that it will.

Nobel Laureates for Obama!

Perhaps it's Obama's science-friendly stance, or perhaps it's the McCain campaign's blatant anti-science (particularly Palin's creationist and anti-global warming sentiments), but a large group of Nobel laureates have gotten together and drafted a letter endorsing Obama for president. A total of 61 laureates have signed the letter, which is more than any other candidate in history (apparently John Kerry got 48 endorsements from prize winners).

As some people have pointed out, though, the 61 laureates are those from the science categories. No laureates from the economics category were represented. Does this say something about Obama and his platform (Nay-sayers would say yes)? Or did those in the sciences simply get together and write up an endorsement letter, and not tell the economists about it (more likely, in my opinion)? Does it even matter (the Nobel Prize in Economics isn't even a real Nobel Prize ;) )

I'm familiar with a good number of names on the list. Some interesting things I noticed though:

• The list includes H. Robert Horvitz, but neither Sydney Brenner nor John Sulston (the three of them won the 2002 prize in Medicine for their work on genetic regulation of apoptosis and organ development). Brenner is by far the most well known of the trio and his signature would carry more weight than Horvitz' or Sulston's. Brenner is also a liberal guy so his absence from the list is a bit surprising.
• The ever infamous James Watson gave his John Hancock. Many commentors seem surprised to see his name on the list, given his recent comments regarding race and intelligence. However, anyone familiar with Watson and has read any of his biographical works knows that he's far from the conservative side of the spectrum. Watson would endorse Obama on his stance on science alone.
• There are very few female laureates on the list - only one by my count: Linda Buck, who won the prize in Medicine for her work on the olfactory system. True, there are very few female laureates ( and even fewer that are still alive to sign the letter!) but I would have expected at least to see Christiane Nusslein-Volhard on the list.

The original PDF of the letter can be found here.

Sarah Palin: Certifiably Insane

It's been fairly well known for some time now that Sarah Palin is a little loopy. She wants creationism taught in schools (in science class!) and is rumored* to be a Young Earth Creationist. She allowed Wasilla municipal police to force rape victims to pay for the kits used in investigating rapes while she was mayor. She believes that the war in Iraq is part of "God's Plan". Her former church seriously believes that Alaska is going to be a refuge where people will flock during Armageddon and that the president is a representative of God. She thinks that global warming is entirely a natural process. And she lies through her teeth.

But now she's doing something that makes her eligible for a straight jacket and padded walls. She's suing the federal government because the polar bear is an endangered species. Video below (for those of you who can stomach Glenn Beck - I can't), Palin starts spouting inanity at 4:30:



Polar bears are in a lot of danger. Habitat loss due to climate change is a reality for polar bears and it's having a direct impact on polar bear populations. Here in Canada, they are listed as a "species of concern" and listed as "vulnerable" by the International Union of Conservation of Nature. While they are not listed as "endangered", the status they are given means they will become endangered soon if we don't take the steps necessary to protect them. Unfortunately, "vulnerable" and "species of concern" mean nothing to the bigwigs in Washington or to the oil industry: people only listen if something is "endangered".

The US federal government is now trying to have polar bears listed as threatened/endangered, so they are covered under the Endangered Species Act, the first step in making sure polar bears get the protection they need. This is a simple matter of protecting the diversity of nature on the planet. As governor of Alaska, a state ripe with natural beauty and majestic wildlife, Sarah Palin should be the first name on the list to support such a chance in the polar bear's status. However, the draconian Republican cluster in the deep recesses of her mind has kicked in and the paranoia juices are flowing; this isn't a matter of conservation, she says, it's the "extreme environmentalists" trying to use the polar bear as a means of stopping us from drilling our "God given" oil reserves! They must hate our country and want us to depend on foreign oil! And, in typical republican fashion, she's suing the government over it.

If this doesn't qualify her for shock therapy, then I don't know what will.

Hey, Palin. Can't you see we're trying to save the planet? What's the point in drilling for oil when we're not going to have a planet left on which to use it if things keep going the way they are?

But really, what else do you expect from someone who doesn't know what the job she's running for is all about?
-------------------------------------------------------
*I say rumored because I cannot find a credible source that cites her views on Y.E.C. If anyone knows of one, let me know.

Someone explain to these people what "foreign policy" means.

Via Ed Brayton:

Steve Doocy of Fox News, ever the bastion of non-facts and sleazy pseudojournalism, has declared that Sarah Palin is a great pick for VP because of her ample foreign policy experience. Just wait until you hear why:

You heard him right. She has tons of experience with foreign policy because she's from Alaska, which is close to Russia.

I'm dumbfounded. This might be the most idiotic argument I've heard in a long while.

But wait! Fox News isn't alone; here's John McCain's wife, Cindy, offering the same argument:


I'm baffled how people can be so stupid.

These things just write themselves!

Via Ed Brayton:

Who needs to criticize Republicans? They do a pretty good job at doing it themselves (emphasis mine).

In an alley behind a non-descript row of brick buildings on North Speer Boulevard, and on the other side of a large metal gate with armed guards standing in front, Republicans have set up a "war room" in Denver... Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said the team of nearly two dozen staffers at the opposition headquarters will be "fact-checking" statements made by the Obama campaign and by speakers during the convention.

"Just consider this the Ministry of Truth," quipped Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party.

Maybe it's been a long time since Wadhams has read 1984, if he's read it at all, but anyone who is familiar with Orwell's classic knows what the Ministry of Truth is. It was the Ministry in charge of "rewriting history"; in other words, fabrication of outright lies to support the government.

A fitting title for a Republican "fact-checking" "war room".