Election

Grammar

So, was it “an historic”, or “a historic” election? A quick search of the internet yields that “a historic” is correct, but that, for unknown reasons, “an historic” is preferred by many orators and is therefore acceptable.

I’m not sure why the commonness of the phrase’s usage would impact its technical acceptability, but almost universally during and after this election, “an historic” was used in description, even by Barack himself. At any rate, the phrase is much less annoying than the multitude of linguistic abominations committed by Bush, so I’ll not complain.

Voting

The true gravity of this event did escape me until I actually marked the box next to “Barack Obama”. Unexpectedly, in the time it took me to fill in, very precisely, the entirety of the box, a powerful feeling came over me. It took me some moments to realize that this was the sensation of my pride in my country being restored, not because of Barack, per se, but because of what he represents, racially, symbolically, and politically.

In the past 2 elections, I was honestly voting against George Bush, more than for the democratic candidate. This time, there was a candidate I could believe in, and it felt great.

So was I caught up in the “celebrity” of Barack Obama? Perhaps. But that’s what makes him great: his capacity to inspire people to shed their cynicism and apathy and believe that the world can be better, that it matters what we do and how we treat each other, and that we are part of an international community of people to whom we bear a responsibility as the world’s most powerful nation.

Last night, I was watching coverage of reaction from around the world to this election. It would certainly be fair to say that, on the whole, the entire world was desperate for an Obama victory. In the span of a singular spectacular moment, America was completely transformed from being an object of suspicion, fear, and anger, to a symbol of hope for a better future.

That means something. I mean, that means a lot. And if that is due, at least in part, to some superficial ability of Obama to inspire the hope and confidence of people around the world, so be it. Restoring the image of America and repairing our international relations is perhaps singularly enough justification for his election.

The past eight years is a period for which Americans must feel some degree of shame, even if all of them don’t know it. It is time for America to atone, and this is a start.

So maybe (as Bush indicated in 2000) God did want Bush to be President. One thinks that surely there was a better way, but who am I to question?

Voting cont.

It is crazy and inexcusable that people stood in line for over 6 hours to vote. Such a wait constitutes an unreasonable impediment to voting and should not be tolerated by the voting population and must be remedied by the next election. Such a wait affects different voting demographics in a disparate way and therefore represents a failure of the system.

Voting fun facts

White voters slanted toward McCain, but white voters making over $250,000 went significantly for Obama. Obviously, these are the very people whose taxes he wants to raise. Spectacular.

White voters who are college educated went for Obama. In other words, the higher the education level of white voters, the more likely they were to vote for Obama.

In a national ranking of the best educated state populations, nine of the top ten states went for Obama. Seven of the ten lowest ranked states went for McCain.

Aardvarks slanted to McCain, while sloths went overwhelmingly for Obama.

Why did McCain loose?

The short answer is because he betrayed everything that any reasonable person ever liked about him. Even if you ignore the fact that McCain is shadowed by one of the most unpopular Presidents in history, and that his opponent is an unparalleled orator and inspirer, I think his campaign could have done much better.

What people have always liked about McCain is that he has an image of being an independent thinker, a “straight talker”, and someone who stood up for principle even when doing so went against his party or wasn’t popular. That he has legitimately earned this image is a dubious matter, but again, those are his historical strengths. Why then did he run such a typically sleazy and dishonest Republican campaign?

I mean, what were the most notable and memorable facets of his bid? Off the top of my head; Bill Ayers, Acorn, abortion, socialism nonsense, Sarah Palin, lowering taxes for rich people… uh, what else? Oh yeah, Joe the plumber, who wasn’t a licensed plumber, owed back taxes, and would receive a larger tax cut under Obama’s plan. All of those issues were fundamentally dishonest, and McCain knew it, and a big part of the electorate knew it. There perhaps has never been a better example of a person shooting himself in the foot (although there have probably been those who have literally shot themselves in the foot, like, with a gun, in which case, yeah, they might be a better example).

Far from being a “maverick”, he teamed up with elements whom he designated “agents of intolerance” in the 04 election, and signified his unbridled willingness to do so when he appeared in 2006 at Liberty University with Jerry Falwell. The apex of his alliance with these trolls was the tapping of Palin as his running-mate. This moment destroyed any credibility McCain had of being a reasonable guy, and sealed his fate.

Other Winners

California Proposition 2 passed, freeing millions of food animals from the worst kinds of treatment. This, of course, is wonderful news. But it is something of a hollow victory for two reasons: 1) The initiative does very little for most food animals who will still endure unconscionable conditions. Pardon the analogy, but it's kinda like passing a measure that would ban torturing some slaves, but does nothing about the condition of slaves in general; and 2) it’s a bit like the Presidential election popular vote: 52% Obama, 47% McCain. I mean, 47% of people still want to vote republican? How depressing. Prop 2 passed 63% to 37%. So 37% of Californians, given the choice, don’t want to improve conditions for the animals they eat? That is breath taking.

The Republican Party. Maybe this is the wake-up call they need. Maybe 2004 was the last time they can win Presidential elections by fear mongering and pandering to religious wing nuts. I’d love to see a legitimate party emerge from these ashes.

Anti-abortion initiatives were defeated in Colorado and South Dakota, due in part to the fact that they were both completely stupid. The SD provision would ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Insane. The Colorado initiative, the so-called “personhood amendment”, would define a fertilized egg as a legal human being, raising such questions as what to do with the millions of fertilized eggs in labs and fertility clinics, if one can sue a fetus, and various census complications. Absurd.

The US Supreme Court may see as many as three open slots during the next 4-8 years. Souter, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, all considered liberal justices, may soon vacate their positions. Were McCain to fill these positions, it would precipitate a dramatic and dangerous change on the most fundamental level of the way the Constitution is interpreted. Again, even if there is a bumbling buffoon under Obama’s slick exterior, the fact that he will at least nominate reasonable Justices is sufficient to warrant his election.

Loosers

Provisions banning gay marriage were passed in Florida, Arizona, and California. There is no shortage of bigots in America, but I think that the marginal vote that passed these measures has more to do with confusion on the part of voters than pure bigotry. Exhibit A: Same sex civil unions are still legal in California and carry with them virtually the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages. There doesn’t seem to be much traction behind efforts to revoke that right. So the controversy, at least in California, boils down to semantics, doesn’t it? In effect, voters said that same sex couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but you can’t call it a “marriage”, because “marriage” is between heterosexuals. I think that some people worry that the state is redefining a religious institution, when in fact, there is nothing religious, in the eyes of the state, about a “marriage”. The easiest solution to all this confusion is for the state to stop granting “marriages” altogether, and instead, grant everyone civil unions. On what grounds could religious conservatives possibly oppose that? “Marriages” would then be recognized, or not recognized, by churches, rotary clubs, or football teams, for example. There, everybody happy?

That being said, failing to endorse equal rights for gay couples is not an excusable offense in my eyes. That gay people enjoy something less than full equality under the law is a travesty that must be erased from the national palette.

I would absolutely love to see Al Franken in the Senate, but I think that chances are slim. There is a recount underway in Minnesota that currently has Franken around 200 votes, or .011%, behind Norm Coleman.

I'm gonna miss him...