| 16:40 07 November 2008 UTC-7 |
For years, speculative fiction writers have used the device of a black US president to indicate a setting in a future or near future time period that has overcome the racial divides of the past. In my mind, the most impactful use of this archetype will always be The Fifth Element's President Lindberg who in the year 2263 bravely orchestrated the retrieval of the four elemental stones by a retired soldier to defeat the Great Evil. Others will think of President Beck from Deep Impact, President Palmer from 24, or even President Camacho from Idiocracy.
But on 20 January 2009, this literary device will become a reality when Barack Hussein Obama II will be inaugurated as the United States' first non-white president, marking a huge step in overcoming our nation's disgusting history of slavery, lynchings, racism, and segregation, and ushering in a golden era of futuristic technology, over-the-top terrorism scenarios, rogue asteroids and scantily clad Milla Jovovich's ("thermal bandages").
But does this mean that casting a black man as president is an obsolete film-making technique, now that society has joyfully experienced the real deal? What minority demographics remain for the imaginative writer to utilize in order to indicate a futuristic time period? And how long will these devices last until they too are made obsolete by the swift progression of the societal zeitgeist which will one day see not race nor gender nor orientation nor religion, nor perhaps even species, but only the content of one's character?
To find out, it's time for yet another MATH ORGY!
Looking over the results from Gallup polls conducted over the last eighty years concerning candidate electability, one notices a clearly increasing trend toward universal acceptance of previously ostracized members of society. For instance, in 1958, a whopping 63% of respondents said they would NOT vote for a well-qualified presidential candidate if that candidate was black. By 1983, that number had dropped to 23% and as of three days ago, we finally did it.
Graphing the data from each year the poll was conducted and calculating the linear regression curve gives us the following best fit line for the national willingness to vote for black candidates:
where y is the percentage of respondents who said they would vote for a black candidate, and x is the corresponding year in the Gregorian calendar. Using these numbers, y reaches 100% precisely in the year 2006.0276212186944391507375777207 (or more clearly, 11 January 2006 at 2:07:39 AM). How amazing that in the first presidential election immediately following that date, the very first black president was elected! Does this mean that when acceptance of candidates from certain demographics reaches 100%, we soon after find a person from that demographic in the White House?
Assuming this is the case, let's apply the numbers from the rest of the polls to see what the next century of presidents will look like. Respondents weren't just asked about black presidential candidates, they were asked about candidates who were female, gay, or atheist. Finding the best fit curve for all of these data and working in the same way as the above example on black candidates, I derived the following conclusions:
- Acceptance of a woman candidate reaches 100% on 29 September 2011. First woman president inaugurated in 2013?
- Acceptance of a homosexual candidate reaches 100% on 15 April 2040. First openly gay president inaugurated in 2041?
- Acceptance of an atheist candidate reaches 100% on 14 July 2086. First openly atheist president inaugurated in 2089?
Of course, this is all a simplification of the data. Even though the calculations imply that after 2006, absolutely no American would withhold a vote for a person because they were black, this is just not the reality. According to the poll, just a year ago 6% of people still said they would not vote for a black candidate even if that candidate was otherwise well qualified. I imagine that every single person in this 6% managed to make their way to a McCain/Palin rally and be seen by cameras.
Speaking of which, nothing made me feel better after learning about Obama's success on Election Night than imagining the faces of the fundie trailer trash racists at the aforementioned McCain rallies who decried the possibility of a president who was simultaneously a rightist Islamic fundamentalist, a leftist socialist, an illegal alien, an Arabic terrorist, a Black Nationalist and the Antichrist, all at once, whose named sounded like "Iraq Hussein Osama," and who would give this country "to the blacks." Shortly after the news a surprising amount of young conservatives even set their status to "is going to move to Canada," unaware that this phrase is often used by LIBERALS when a Republican wins because of the fact that Canada is MORE progressive then the US. Their use of the phrase reflects a hilarious lack of understanding.
How are you guys? I fear you're all dead. Alex? David? Paul?
| 12:40 05 November 2008 UTC-7 |
President-Elect Obama. I was so excited when I first heard the news that I shed a few tears. His inclusion of "gays" in his acceptance speech plucked at my heart strings also. I was so proud of America at that moment, for the first time in my life, probably. I was so proud.
But my high is beginning to wind down. Progressive naysayers are spinning the victory negatively. While I see this as a repudiation of three decades of regression into conservatism, liberal bloggers are warning that there is still a lot of work to do, that Obama isn't as far left as he should be, etc., etc., etc. To them I just have to say:
For one god damn minute us liberals have to stop whining! I know it's what we're good at, but we need to work together here. America's not gonna be perfect over night! Everyone knows that there is a lot of work to do, but last night I saw what looks like the pendulum beginning to swing, it looks like a new chapter in US history. The American people didn't put that warmongerer in office, or his moose-hunting, evolution-denying, zygote-rights activist queen. That should say something!
Yes, the victory was also marred by the fact that bigoted and homophobic measures were passed in several states, including proposition 102 in my home state and proposition 8 in California. While it shows soberingly that bigotry is still alive and well, it won't even matter in the long run--Just look at the history books. How many states passed laws forbidding marriage between races? All it took was one Supreme Court case to change all that. How many states passed laws protecting the practice of segregation? The Supreme Court shot that down as well! I predict that within ten years, these hateful laws will be overturned by an Obama-selected Supreme Court and we can all get on with moving the capital to Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have to believe that Obama is more liberal than he has been letting on; his private comments and his secularist upbrining speak more about him than his campaign rhetoric. Everyone has to pretend to be a Republican to win the presidency, that's just the way our country thinks presidents should act, for some reason. But if the twenty-five year pattern of cyclical liberalism followed by a backlash of conservatism is any indication, we're long overdue for the next 1960's, the next Summer of Love, and the next Republican in the White House will be more liberal than his predecessors. In 25 years even the Republican candidate will have to take green energy seriously in order to be considered a modern candidate, in 50 years even the Republican candidate will have to support gay marriage so that he is not seen as a bigot, and in 150 years even the Republican candidate will have to express doubts about the veracity of religion in order to be considered mentally healthy.
So all you liberals out there saying it's not as good as it could be... well, you're right. So let's stop whining and do something about that!
| 16:11 23 October 2008 UTC-7 |
Amy got me this awesome necklace for my birthday, which is still not for a few weeks. It's a necklace with the Richard Dawkins "A" on it, for atheism. She found it on the Internet after we talked about how Christians and people of other religions usually have necklaces and pendants adorning themselves but there isn't such a thing for nonbelievers. Well, she found it for sale from some random girl in Norway!
Anybody have any idea how to install Unix applications on Mac OS X? The problem with all these open source programs is that they give you the code, but not the fucking installer--YOU have to install it yourself! What the shit! For someone raised on Windoze, I will be damned if I have to do anything other than pressing "next" a couple times, after agreeing to a 50 page end user license agreement which no one except my dad ever looks at.
So there's this program which looks awesome--called Audacious Music Player. It's got the look and feel of Winamp but has native support for Nintendo sound files! Beep! I downloaded the files and everything but it turns out I have to go into Terminal and type "make" and "makefile" commands just to install it. So, I did this, but it complained about not having the necessary information on how to compile. It turns out I need some kind of GNU environment, which itself relies on several things I need to download and install and WHAT THE FUCK, I just want to listen to my beeps and blorps!
So anybody out there with any experience installing Unix apps on Mac OS?
I'm sure you're all familiar with those assfaces on Conservapedia, right? Recently on their "article" for evolution science, they changed the front picture to an image of Adolf Hitler. 'Cause, y'know, teaching evolution just turns people into RACISTS. I mean, just look at the Southern United States--notorious for its racism and its embracing of Darwin's theories. The South had slavery, Jim Crowe laws, and segregation, all of which were OF COURSE caused by the high amount of evolution acceptance in that region of the country (well over 150% with no margin of error). In fact literally NO ONE who supported slavery or segregation believed in Creationism. OH WAIT. EVERYBODY WHO IS RACIST IS USUALLY ALSO A CREATIONIST. I don't want to be too hasty here, but I am willing to bet that there is a high correlation between openly-professed racism and creationist acceptance. After all, backward thinking usually infects all areas of the mind. Now, I'm not saying all creationists are racists, I'm just saying I am willing to bet there is a high correlation. Of course, this alone is not why creationism is wrong, but that is another story.
So today as AynRand0, AynRand1, and AynRand2 (and from three different public computers at school), I three times placed an image of the Confederate Flag on their foolishly unprotected page for Young Earth Creationism, only to have it be removed so that I could, as the next Ayn Rand, post it yet again. I had to do it from different accounts and IPs because they blocked each one. I was prepared to go all the way up to AynRand9 but it didn't get that far. Click below for a screenshot of my handiwork:
After the third and final time, they finally protected the page. I know this kind of slacktivism is immature and really doesn't do anything to combat these ignoramuses, but it sure lets me let off some steam... Besides, if at least one user of Conservapedia thinks about the relationship between creationism and the Confederacy, I will have won.
| 01:15 14 October 2008 UTC-7 |
We went to see Religulous about a week ago--Bill Maher's documentary about religion and believers. While waiting outside, some protesters came out with giant neon signs with inscriptions like "I AM NOT A STEREOTYPE" and "BLINDNESS, NOT MINDLESS." Someone asked them, facetiously, if they were protesting "Eagle Eye." In fact, it turned out, they were protesting "Blindness." Many of them were, in fact, blind. "It portrays blind people as stupid," one of them said. This was a total surprise to us. They quickly and kindly left after a security officer told them they couldn't protest there. It was very strange.
The movie itself was excellent. Bill Maher was spot on most of the time, and many of the interactions were priceless. As we were leaving though, Amy and I both remarked to one another that we weren't expecting him to be so respectful. We both thought he was just going to mock and criticize people yet he was very polite and only asked questions to get them to critically examine their beliefs. "He wasn't as much of an asshole as I thought he would be," Amy said. Suddenly this old woman and her mother--who had sat in front of us both the entire time--turned around and said "Excuse your language." What the hell. You just watched a movie in which they must have said "fuck" like fifty fucking times and you are offended by "asshole"? That was hilarious in itself.
I think McCain is ashamed of himself. I'm actually beginning to feel kind of bad for him, really. My impression of him up until his presidential ambitions was that he was a moderate Republican with bipartisan tendencies, definitely a lot better to have in the White House than Bush. Even my arch-liberal grandma had a fairly positive view of him in 2004. He had rightly gained a reputation as a straight talker and a maverick who didn't fit in with the rest of Washington. But then he won the 2008 primaries, and had to start making sacrifices that I'm sure he is not really happy about. For instance, many of his positions have changed in the last year or so--that is, they have moved considerably toward the right wing. For a guy who always talks about transparency and being a "maverick," I'm sure this issue-pandering disturbs him when he lies down to sleep at night.
Then came his Vice Presidential pick. Sources have confirmed that he had originally planned to pick Lieberman (a guy who eight years ago ran with Al Gore, for Christ's sake), which really would have shown his willingness to compromise between party lines and bring this country back together. But as I have slowly come to suspect, McCain's advisers and not McCain himself are actually running the campaign, and he was advised to pick someone who would fire up the "values voter" extremists, those "family"-defending evolution-denying evangelicals who often make or break a candidate. So, against his best wishes I'm sure, he announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin. I'm sure by this point McCain had already felt defeated... By choosing Palin, he wouldn't be running the campaign in the bipartisan way he had been hoping to... But it got worse for him.
The election has begun to take a turn for the outright racist. With McCain's poll numbers dropping, his campaign (and Palin especially) returned to the character-bashing we had seen earlier in the primaries. Charges were made that Obama was a terrorist, that he "palled around" with terrorists, that he is possibly Arabic or Islamic, or something, and all of this really ignited the ignorant. But McCain himself is not racist. He fucking adopted a daughter from Bangladesh. McCain himself doesn't actually believe any of this Obama terrorist crap, he's just using it for political leverage, and I know he hates that it has come to this. Just look at this clip. Look at the flinch of concern and shame on McCain's face at about 14 or 15 seconds, after some idiot yells that Obama is a "terrorist!"
He doesn't like this, he doesn't like that his supporters are behaving this way, and it shows in his recent call for decency. When a woman at a town hall meeting expressed concern over Obama because he is an "Arab" (not sure if that is from Obama's African side or his Kansas side), McCain took the mike out of her hands and simply said "No, ma'am, he is a decent family man." Later he told his rabid supporters that we do not have to be "scared" of Obama, that he is simply a candidate with a difference of opinion. And what happened? People fucking BOOED him. They booed their own damn candidate because they have been made to be so racist and hateful.
And I know it's breaking his heart, I know it's probably giving him stomach ulcers to have to deal with this shit. Apparently he has even had a little bit of a "disagreement" with Palin over the hateful rabble rousing their campaign is responsible for. And rightly so. It's just funny that McCain is surprised by the way people are acting. I feel bad for him because I know he's trying to run a respectful campaign, it's just that he forgot that at the base of his party are a bunch of racists, homophobes and other assorted bigots, and the advisers can always be sure to get their vote if they can make the other candidate seem too multicultural or too progressive, or in this case, too god damned colored.
Which explains the mindset behind this chain email which Amy's Republican family forwarded to her, who then forwarded it to me for some lulz:
| Subject: Fwd: FW: RE: Read.. > Dear Friends, > > As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama > made the statement with pride. .'we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a > nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . . . As with so many other statements > I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd hear > something like that from a presidential candidate in this nation. To think our > forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and > to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has > come from what our founding fathers intended it to be. > > I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns, written simply > and sincerely, to the Christians on your email list. With God's help, and He is still > in control of this nation and all else, we can show this man and the world in November > that we are, indeed, still a Christian nation! > > Please pray for our nation! > Dr. John Tisdale > > > ---------- > |
It's as if they are OFFENDED that there is more than one type of person living in this country. If they really want to live somewhere where everyone is the exact same fucking person, they should move to Squidville for God's sakes. Anyway, finding this completely unacceptable and feeling the need to point out to the fundies their own bigotry, I forwarded the following email to every single one of the above chain letter's several dozen hapless recipients:
| Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: RE: Read.. Quoting Dr John Tisdale, my own words emphasized in bold and italics: '' Dear Friends, As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. .'we are no longer a white nation; we are now a nation of whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, . . . As with so many other statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a white nation--and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has come from what our founding fathers intended it to be. I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to the white people on your email list. With God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed, still a white nation! Please pray for our nation! '' Is it really much different when I replace the word "Christian" with "white people?" In the America that I love, everybody's opinion matters, not just that of the Christians. Please stop the bigotry. Forward this to everyone you know who still believes that "this land is my land, this land is your land." E Plurbus Unum ("From Many, We Are One.") |
| 16:53 09 October 2008 UTC-7 |
So yesterday I finally received my mail-in ballot, after almost a week of nail-biting suspense wondering whether or not my voter registration stuff got successfully processed. After choosing president and AZ District 7's US representative, I then proceeded to spend several hours agonizing over my selection for lesser offices--such as County Superintendent of Schools--so YOU don't have to! That's right, it's time for another installment of:
| Presidential Candidate | OBAMA. |
| While Obama is considerably too moderate for me on many issues, he is the best choice among the only two viable candidates. Essentially I will be voting against the increasingly regressive John McCain and his practically theocratic running mate. John McCain was closer to the middle before he realized that in order to win the Republican vote he had to appeal to feudalists, racists, sexists, assorted bigots, opponents of science and knowledge, and other individuals well-suited for mainstream politics circa 1953 or possibly earlier. While I'd much rather vote McKinney or Nader, it's better not to fool myself that third party votes have any impact at all. Besides, Obama's not so bad... He seems like a nice guy, and a pretty smart guy. And anybody who Republicans think is somehow both an Islamic fundamentalist and a Marxist must be an okay guy, right? Besides, if we don't elect Obama, we will essentially vote into the second highest office in the land a woman who thinks that she can speak in tongues, that menses inseminated by rapists is sacred, that the Rapture is real, that she is now protected from witchcraft because she had a level 60 white mage cast a spell of protection over her, that every book except for the Bible should be banned from the public library, that her supposed "gay friends" respect her position on gay rights, that global warming is totally normal, and that children should be taught the "alternatives" to the science, such as that children are delivered by storks. As a person living in the 21st century, I really can't have any of that. That is why I have pledged my vote for Obama. Well, actually, I pledged my vote for a dozen or so electors to vote for Obama for me, and it won't really matter anyway because I live in McCain's home state, which also happens to be a red state. Essentially any Arizona vote for Obama, Barr, McKinney or Nader will be counted nationally as a McCain vote because of the electoral college. But whatever. | |
| US Representative in Congress, District 7. | GRIJALVA. |
 Next we have the House representative for Arizona's 7th district, which includes Tucson and much of southwest Arizona. I will be voting for incumbent representative Raul Grijalva. Grijalva has proven himself to be pretty liberal for an elected official, consistently favoring progressive solutions to issues like environment, guns, illegal immigration, and even animal rights. So Grijalva has my vote not only for these reasons, but also by virtue of the fact that his Republican opponent in this race, Joe Sweeney, is a fucking Nazi. And I mean that he is literally a Nazi, I am not just throwing that term around lightly right now. His pseudo-fascist signs plastered around town inform us that he will put "God, Country, and Duty" before the "Judaicus atheistic ambitions" which have, apparently, long plagued Tucson and the United States. He has openly justified the actions of Nazi Germany, stating that Hitler's actions were necessary to protect Europe from the "atheist Jews" of the Soviet Union. He even goes so far as to advocate deporting Jewish people from the United States. Why? Because they are treasonous traitors, they caused both World Wars, and they killed Jesus. I'm not even joking here. These are the guy's positions. The scary part is, other than a Libertarian candidate, Sweeney is Grijalva's only opposition in this race. This means that uninformed Republicans who are simply voting with their party will unknowingly elect a racist and a far right conspiracy theorist. So if the idea of a Nazi representing Tucson in the House of Representatives doesn't appeal to you, vote Grijalva. | |
| State Representative, District 27. | SOLBERG, LOPES. |
| In every contest besides the presidential election, I support the Green over the Democrat and/or the Democrat over the Republican. In the election for district 27's state representative I will of course be pledging my support behind Green candidate Kent Solberg. Having personally met Ket, I can say that he has the intelligence, the tenacity, and the eccentricity to bring a progressive change to the district. I am proud to call myself one of "Kent's Tools." Because voters can choose two candidates for this race, I then tasked myself with picking between the two seemingly identical Democratic candidates for this position--Phil Lopes and Olivia Cajero Bedford. Their positions appear to be the same on almost everything, so I had to resort to more superficial means to determine who was the better candidate. After quickly looking them both up online, I found that Lopes has openly stated that he is a fan of Christopher Hitchens, ardent supporter of secularism. Wow! What a bold statement from a mainstream candidate! Besides, he has an awesome boe tie. I pledge my support behind both Kent Solberg and Phil Lopes for Distrcict 27's state representative. | |
| Governing Board, Tucson Unified School District 1. | STEGEMAN. |
| I really don't know anything about the remaining candidates. It's a lot harder to turn off my brain for these remaining races because no one's party affiliation is listed. These are the nonpartisan races. There are three people running in this race and three positions to fill, so probably all three of them are fine. I couldn't really find any information online about the candidates, except that Miguel Cuevas is a student here at the University and that Mark Stegeman has the support of the labor unions. I would support Cuevas but I have found that he supports McCain. Without knowing too much about the other candidates, the only person I can really endorse here is Stegeman. | |
| Board of Directors, Central Arizona Water Conservation District. | MEGDAL, TENNEY, ZIMMERMAN, GALBADON. |
| In the next nonpartisan position I had to turn again to the Intertubes to discover what I could about the candidates, four of which (out of six) will be selected. I discovered the party affiliations of each individual, as well as some of their personal statements, on which I base my recomendations. I am supporting Independent Sharon B Megdal in this contest because of her reluctance to tell anyone what her religion is. Sweet! Things like that shouldn't even be an issue in politics! She has my vote now! I also support Democrat Warren Tenney because he has stated that he enjoys hanging out at Loft Cinema. Democrat Carol E Zimmerman has my support because of her appreciation for left-leaning cartoonist Gary Trudeau. Lastly, in my only endorsement of a Republican candidate, I support Arturo Galbadon because he stated that his favorite writer is the same guy that wrote Brokeback Mountain. WOW! I vote on the real issues that really matter! | |
| Arizona Supreme Court | BALES. |
| I am behind retaining Scott Bales for the Arizona Supreme Court because of his position on Roe v. Wade. | |
| Proposition 403. | YES. |
| This bill, as far as I can tell, will provide the school district with an increased budget so schools don't have to shut down, additional art programs, and to fill positions for math and science teachers. Say yes to education! I supports 403! | |
Okay, that's all. GO VOTE!
| <-- | --> |