After 30 years, something on which I can agree with Margaret Thatcher.

She won’t meet with Caribou Barbie on her upcoming trip to England because, in the words of a Thatcher spokesperson, “she’s nuts.”

My dear baroness, I couldn’t agree more.

Annoyed, but not worried.

Well, the good news is that over the next two years, people are going to see what teabaggers in power are like. That should get Obama safely re-elected in ’12.

Anyway, midterms are always bad for the party holding the White House — the two exceptions being when Gingrich was stupid enough to make ’98 a referendum on Clinton, the other being in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And looking at the numbers, the swings were not so monumental. Many of the districts that switched did so only barely, and can easily switch back. The swing may have been a mile wide, but it was only an inch deep. And Boehner coming out and demanding the total capitulation of the White House and the still-Democratic Senate to the GOP platform is a) extremely bad form and b) only compelling to the party core, not to the Independents they will need to remain in power.

So I’m not worrying overmuch, and I’m definitely looking forward to the GOP flameout. The teabaggers will crucify the main body of the party in the name of ideological purity, and will probably end up splitting the party in two over the next four to six years and driving them from power for the next ten, fifteen years thereafter.

Why I (still) won’t vote Republican, and why you shouldn’t either.

Actually, the reasons are many and varied, but I’ll stick with the big ones for right now.

1. This current economic mess was caused by Republican deregulation. This is a Bush recession and has been since it started in the fall of 2008. Furthermore, had McCain been elected that year, unemployment extensions passed over the last couple years would not have been offered, or perhaps only the first would have been. I would be homeless right now without those extensions.
2. ‘Fiscal responsibility’. The Republicans don’t have it. Of the national debt since 1977, Republican spending has added twice what Democratic spending has: $7.5 trillion under Reagan and the Bushes (and $4.3 trillion of that was Bush II all by himself) versus $3.7 trillion under Carter, Clinton and Obama. Yes, that’s right. Of the debt and spending that the Republicans are whining about, their own man is personally responsible for more of it than the last three Democratic presidents combined.
3. The party has mistaken their own religious beliefs for Constitutional government, as worst typified by their near-absolute opposition to equal marriage rights. Are there a few Republicans who support equal marriage rights? Yes. Are they doing anything within their party about that? Absolutely not, as far as I’ve seen. And absent a Constitutional objection to gay marriage, they continue to push their religious objections.
   Wanna know how many churches have been forced to perform a same-sex marriage in violation of their internal canon law? None. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not a damned one. Which is as it should be. The churches get to make their own rules, so long as they don’t contravene certain basic health and safety rules. Even the health rules are weakened—Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment, for example (although refusing medical care for their minor children is another matter entirely).
   The tradeoff in a civil society for non-interference by the government is that they do not get to impose their canon law on non-believers. You wouldn’t impose Jewish marriage rules on a couple Baptists getting married. Why would you impose Christian rules on Atheists?
   Or, to put it more bluntly, why would I consider voting for a party that considers legalized discrimination against me to be a good and desirable thing? For that matter, why would anyone support a group that favors institutionalized discrimination of any sort?
4. The Tea Party. How is it that a few common sense and mild reforms of the health insurance system is the end of the Republic, but these people were nowhere to be seen when Dubya’s administration was authorizing torture and suspending habeas corpus.
   As far as I’m concerned, the whole teabagger movement is just a figleaf for an inner cadre of leaders who simply can’t accept that a black man is president. Sure, they claim that the incredibly racist signs that keep showing up at their rallies are “not our people”… but funny how they keep turning up, and how we never see those sign-carriers ejected from the rallies or from the organization.
   With regard to “Obamacare”: I’m all for it, and it needs to go farther. I haven’t had medical coverage in ten years. I thought this was a first-world civilized nation. Silly me.
5. The GOP’s lapdog attitude toward business is appalling, and their solution to the problems we have is to apply more of what caused the problem in the first place: deregulation. There is nothing wrong with some basic, common-sense regulation of business. We’ve seen what happens when they don’t have oversight—you get Enron, you get the housing market crash, you get the near-depression we have right now.

I want to spend some more time on that financial thing.

The fact, supported by all the historical data, is that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans are, and always have been.

Under Obama, we’ve already erased the losses on the Dow incurred under Dubya—the Dow stood at 10,581.90 the day Dubya took office and at 7949.09 on the morning of Inauguration Day, 2009 — a loss of 25%. As of 10/27/2010, it’s at 11126.28, gaining back everything Dubya lost and even topping the mark at the end of Clinton’s term. The other markets are all close to their pre-Bush levels —and all well above Bush’s closing levels.

Only three presidents have posted market losses between their first day of office and their last — and all three are Republicans: Hoover (lost 83.54%), Nixon (lost 16.10%) and Bush II (lost 24.88%). Nixon and Bush II extended their losses across all four major markets: the Dow, the NYSE, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ.

The president under whom all four markets posted their largest gains? Bill Clinton. All four markets.

President under whom they performed worst? For the Dow, Herbert Hoover. For the NYSE, Richard Nixon. For both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq? Dubya.

The answer is clear. If you vote Republican, you are voting to worsen our economy.

“These go to eleven.”

The volume control on videos on the BBC News website di, in fact, go to eleven.

Colo(u)r me amused. :D

And watching tonight’s returns. Should be interesting, especially if Labour polls third nationally and still remains official opposition. If that happens — still a possibility but it’s so hard to say with all the new and undecided voters — one hopes they’ll have the decency to offer a coalition with the LibDems, and specifically with the LD leader Clegg as PM.

The Tories will be hard pressed to claim a mandate when nearly some 60% of the nation is voting for the left and center-left parties (well, okay, center and center left — Blair dragged Labour far right of their historical roots). If it’s hung, Cameron and the Tories can’t even claim a victory without threatening the Queen’s impartiality; Brown as standing PM has first dibs on forming a government.

Well, the price of that is electoral reform, if they want Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. He certainly can’t form a Grand Coalition with the Conservatives without surrendering the premiership. And it doesn’t look like they’ll be close enough to cobble something together with SNP or Plaid Cymry or any of the other minor parties.

So the question Labour has to face is what is more important: Gordon Brown remaining PM, or Labour having a seat at the table?

On the nature of charity

Washington, DC is on the verge of passing a law permitting gay marriage, with all the usual exemptions stating that churches are not required to perform them in contravention of their doctrine, or even rent event space for them.

Sadly, this isn’t enough for the local archdiocese, which is threatening to shut down their charity services in the city if it passes.

So, if the city extends civil rights to their citizens, the diocese’s response will be to punish needy people who have nothing to do with the dispute.

A statement from the chancellor of the archdiocese says that this has to be seen in the context of balancing “the interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely.”

I fail to see any way in which the simple right to marry impacts anyone else’s right to the freedom of their own conscience. Nothing in the pending legislation requires a church, Catholic or otherwise, to officiate over same-sex marriages, and even exempts them from renting space for hosting the reception for a same-sex wedding. The church remains free to make their own determination as to whether or not they will sanctify such unions. The practice of one’s religion is not impacted one whit.

However, the church is attempting to force exactly the opposite. I am not a Catholic. Why should I be bound by the church’s rules on marriage, then? One would not apply the rules by which Jewish or Islamic marriages are made to a Catholic couple. It is therefore inappropriate for the church to expect the right to apply its rules to non-adherents.

As for myself, the only ‘rules’ I can think of for a couple to get married are: they are both of the age of majority and legally able to enter into contracts for themselves, and they love each other.

That the Catholic Church has additional requirements for a church service is entirely their business and emphatically not mine. But the any church’s rules for a wedding by necessity stop at the church door. That’s the fundamental basis of a civil society that honors freedom of conscience. One church may not tell another church what rules they must operate under, and neither may one dictate rules to non-adherents.

Fortunately, the city is not going to allow themselves to be bullied, but I can’t help but think of the thousands who will be directly hurt by the diocese’s action.

A better place to ask WWJD? I cannot think of.

In regards to Obama-Biden

Color me satisfied. Biden adds foreign policy experience to balance the newness factor, gravitas to balance the ‘rock star’ factor, and a nice healthy streak of moderate-left attack dog politics to balance the ‘nice guy’ factor.

Clinton supporters: yes, you’re disappointed. Now get over yourselves. McCain is NOT preferable to Obama, and you know it.

Edit: In the interests of full disclosure, my first pick in the Veepstakes was Bill Richardson.

It also occurs to me that the choice of Biden says something about the depth at which Obama looks — he’s not letting Biden’s infamous ‘clean’ remark from early in the campaign be an obstacle (which the press made way too much of anyway).

Let’s go to the tote board, Bob.

o/` ‘Tis the season to be wonky… o/`

I can’t say I’ve done the work of the five hardcore political junkies represented herein, but I have taken a moment to combine all their assorted prognostications into one, and I think I’ll try to keep it up until the election.

There are a handful of sites that run weekly (and even daily) electoral map predictions. I don’t rely on any one of them. Rather, I like the ‘average of averages’, which moderates wild claims and clearly highlights trends.

I’ve averaged out five prognosticators I like: the self-described ‘libertarian leaning Democrat’ at Electoral Vote to the ‘non-partisan who usuallty votes Democrat’ at Five Thirty Eight, and the right-wingers at Blogging Caesar, Election Junkie, and Federal Review (sorry, showing links to both sides doesn’t make you balanced when all the commentary is pro-McCain/pro-GOP/anti-Obama/anti-Democrat).

And what do we find when we average the predictors?

Don’t let the coffin door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Jesse Helms, known as “Senator No”, is dead.

Bye bye, bigot. I won’t miss you. We’re going to be another generation cleaning up the toxic swill you left behind in the body politic.

Probably my least favorite holiday.

Yeah, nothin’ says you love your country quite like waiting until midnight to both illegally blow up small chunks of it and annoy the bejeezus out of your neighborhood.

Fourth of July really does nothing for me. I believe in my country, but her official behavior over the last several years has been nothing but reprehensible. I survive by believing in the ideal of America, in what we can be.

Patriotism’s been reduced to its lowest common denominator. Several years ago, and I were at Red White and Boom. He and I remembered to remove our hats and stand when the national anthem played. The trailer trash a little ways in front of us who was singing along with that odious Lee Greenwood jingoistic jingle couldn’t be bothered to get off his cell phone, much less take his hat off.

Patriotism, public patriotism, has come to mean who can shout “U!S!A!” the loudest, preferably while waving a beer around. It’s come to mean not questioning your government, and questioning those who do.

That’s not patriotism. That’s chauvinism, jingoism, even self-delusion. It does not help the country move forward to keep cheering it on while it moves backward.

If you really want to celebrate Independence Day in true Jeffersonian style… raise hell.

I need this on a bumpersticker.