For those of you who don’t know, I’m the youngest of ten siblings. I have nineteen nieces and nephews, two grand-nephews, and a brand new grand-niece. That being the case, it probably doesn’t surprise you much that we have dramatically different ideals, faiths, and political beliefs. We pretty much cover a large swathe of the spectrum of ideology: we have liberals, conservatives, and libertarians; Democrats and Republicans; Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics — and some of those don’t match up the way you’d expect. Anyway: big group, lots of diversity. No surprise there.

What is surprising is the fact that, on the whole, we all maintain civility and respect for one another. Sure, we’ve pretty much learned that there are times that certain topics must be avoided, but we’ve also learned how to interact when those topics do come up in a gratifyingly adult manner…and to extend love and respect in spite of our disagreements. 

So I was very pleased when my oldest sister, Caroline, responded via e-mail to my previous post. She’s a Christian who holds very different beliefs from mine, and also a very smart lady, so we ended up getting deep into discussion about the validity of evolution and the interplay of science and religion. And though we ended up agreeing to disagree—as so often must be the case—I enjoyed the conversation so much that I asked her permission to share it with you.

So here it is, unedited. Let it never be said that adults cannot disagree civilly about fundamental matters.

I read your blog post this morning, and though I don’t expect to change your mind about anything, I do feel I need to respond.

Firstly…MRSA, peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, are all examples of microevolution, which no rational adult will argue against because, yes, this kind of change HAS been observed. What IS still a theory, and not fact, is large-scale evolution…macroevolution…and this is, of course, where the controversy is and what virtually everyone expressing an opinion on it is referring to.

The “evolution” of one species to another has not been observed, nor are there fossil records to support the claim. It is a theory, and though I believe it should certainly be taught in our schools, it is disingenuous and unscientific to teach it as fact, refusing to include its many problems.

Secondly, please ask me your “questions about Genesis 1:27 vis-a-vis Genesis 2:22, among others.” Do you see some kind of discrepancy between the two? And I don’t see any problem with believing that an almighty God could have created the world in 6 literal 24-hour days, in a form that makes them appear billions of years old. But many wise Christian scientists and other thinkers have different interpretations of the creation story timeline. The time it took to create the physical world is not an issue for me.

But I don’t believe that the idea that God guided the mutation process supposed in the theory can be reconciled with what is revealed in the Bible. The whole thing, from start to finish, is the story of God reconciling humanity to Himself after the first humans sinned and were sentenced to die. All the problems with the theory of evolution notwithstanding, I find the conjecture that God’s chosen method for creating a species “in His own image” was a process that took millions of years and countless “random” but (incredibly highly unlikely) advantageous mutations, an idea hardly “elegant”.

Regarding the issue of global warming and the scientific community, just as for scientists who question or disbelieve in Darwinism, it’s tough to swim against the mainstream. And those who do can expect their careers to suffer. Scientists are human like the rest of us…with biases, desires for admiration and recognition, and the propensity to be less than honest if the truth will hurt. Here’s a link for you if you’re interested in more information about Richard Muller’s “conversion.” www.andrebernier.com/?p=329

Just a little more food for thought, dear brother.

Agreeing to disagree, with love,

Caroline

———

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Caroline.

I do think we probably will end up sticking with “agree to disagree” but I did want to respond to some of your comments.

Regarding micro- vs. macroevolution. I think you might be mistaken about whether there’s a fossil record to support macroevolution. Here’s just one example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

But even if one disputes such evidence, I don’t see any logical rationale to support the idea that evolution only occurs on a small scale. Consider bacteria. As I mentioned in my post, we’ve observed bacterial evolution firsthand. In the case of MRSA, it’s human medicine influencing the development of the bacteria. But bacteria don’t exist in a vacuum; they live on and in plants and animals.

So we agree that Staph “evolves” on a small scale. Now consider what might happen if it developed into a much more virulent strain, one that proved deadly to, say, house cats. Logic tells us that the cats that survived its infection would be the ones that are somehow immune. And maybe they have some other trait in common that’s caused by whatever genetic idiosyncrasy makes them immune to superMRSA — big heads, an extra toe, bright-red fur, whatever. Over a long enough period of time, you end up with a new species of cat with big heads, extra toes, or red fur, because the ones without those characteristics have been killed off by the bug.

Of course this doesn’t happen all the time; usually you’d end up with a cat that’s physically almost identical to its predecessors, just with the built-in immunity. But given the number of species on the planet and the number of potential external influences on mortality, there’s a basically limitless number of opportunities for this kind of selection — which means even if the physical changes happen once in a million times, there are still plenty of opportunities for large-scale physical development.

My overall point is, we’ve observed in pretty much every area of life how small changes cause big changes. So to propose that evolution happens only on a small scale just doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of our understanding of, well, pretty much everything.

I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s wrong to pretend that evolution is a scientific law. I’m not entirely sure that anyone actually does that; if they do, that’s bad teaching, and bad science. But either way, I am hugely in favor of teaching students to look critically at any widely held idea; that’s what science should teach.

Regarding Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: My general question has to do with the order of Creation laid out in Genesis 1 as opposed to that in Genesis 2. I chose 1:27 and 2:22 as examples because they highlight the discrepancy in order. 1:27 implies that God made man and woman simultaneously; 2:22 is the more familiar story of God creating Adam first, then later creating Eve from his rib.

But in a more general sense, the order is different in the two chapters. Genesis 1 has the order of creation (divided into days) as: 1. Night and day; 2. Heaven; 3. Earth, sea, plants; 4. Stars, sun, moon, seasons; 5. Fish and fowl; 6. Land creatures, then man and woman.

Genesis 2 (starting at verse 4) seems to tell a very different story: Earth and heavens (specifically in one day); then plants; then rain, then Man; then Eden; then animals; and only then Woman.

If the Bible is true and accurate in every word, it cannot contradict itself. (The concepts of truth, accuracy, and contradiction make this impossible.) But it seems to do so quite clearly in the first two chapters. This leads me to wonder how one can believe that the Bible is true and accurate in every word. Reconciling this seems like it must require special interpretation — but again, a necessity for interpretation is incompatible with the idea of the Bible being word-for-word accurate. So there’s my confusion.

If one takes the Creation story as metaphorical or poetic, though, I do think that at least the six-day model can be reconciled with the idea of evolution. I find it particularly interesting that the progression goes earth, sea, plants — and only later fish and fowl, and land animals later still. That fits with the scientific understanding that life began as tiny organisms in the sea — neither plant nor animal, really — which led to vegetation, and then later to sea creatures, and then later to land, and then later to us. :)

I don’t see any theological problem with the idea that a divine Actor could be responsible for the genetic mutations that improve a species’ fitness for survival, and thus drive evolution. The reason I find it more elegant is that it does not diminish the role of a Creator — implying that God is a being powerful enough to oversee countless, minute manipulations while foreseeing and understanding the literally limitless changes that would result — and yet also does not contradict the detailed understanding of our world that our highly evolved and/or God-given minds have developed. (To be clear, I’m not saying this is God’s only role.)

To me, the alternative seems to imply that God gave us rational thought and powers of observation so well developed that we can formulate consistent, logical, and time-tested theories about the history of Earth — but He’ll punish us for using them. As though the entire geological and paleontological record of the Earth is a huge test, and as soon as we believe what our God-given brains, and the God-created physical evidence, have helped us to understand, we fail. That seems to me like a pretty mean way to run a railroad.

So…I hope this incredibly long e-mail helps illustrate a little better where I’m coming from. It probably goes without saying, but please understand I’m not trying to sway your opinions at all — just make mine more clearer.

I’m so pleased we can have conversations like this, Caroline.

With much love,
-joe

———

Ah, yes…Archaeopteryx. I’ve run across him (her?) before. Archaeopteryx looks like a bird but has some features that modern birds do not, so evolutionists see it as an intermediary form. But it doesn’t have “transitional” features like part scales, part feathers, which we should expect to see if new life forms evolved from existing ones. It’s probably just a bird that is now extinct. Scientists (evolutionists) disagree on what it is; it only “supports” macroevolution if you’re already a believer.

If macroevolution has occurred, you’re talking about the method of emergence of every life form that exists and there should be multiple fossils of intermediary creatures. Darwin himself knew his theory would collapse if there weren’t.

Your “overall point” about small changes causing big changes and so large scale evolution must be a reality is still a theory that does not have nearly enough evidence to proclaim as fact…which is a view that you were ridiculing Republican candidates for having. And which you now hold also? “I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s wrong to pretend that evolution is a scientific law.”

Your question about Genesis is an easy one. Genesis 1 is giving an account of what God created. Genesis 2 goes into detail about His creation of man and woman. There is no contradiction at all. We do this all the time today. We begin a thesis or a book with a general overview, and then develop it with detail.

Regarding our God-given brains and rational thought (which alone should give anyone pause in explaining the existence of by evolution), it’s interesting that you should mention that. Because many, if not most, of our greatest scientists in previous centuries have believed that it glorified God to use the intellect He gave them to approach science as a means of discovering more about Him by examining His creation, and gave God praise. Some still do.

But I believe the reason the theory of evolution has so many proponents today is because ours is a culture that is increasingly seeking to throw off the yoke of being in subjection to God. It’s much easier to do my own thing if I was created not by a God with a plan for my life and certain expectations, but through mindless, random mutations and “chance.” Sadly, we are seeing the consequences of a “meaningless” existence with all the teen (and adult) suicides today.

I know there are true believers for whom God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. And if there was good, solid evidence for it, I would be one of them. But the evidence weighs on the side of a marvelous, supernatural creation of life in all its complexity and should bring us to our knees in awe.

“I’m so pleased we can have conversations like this, Caroline.” Me too :) You are a gentleman (and a scholar?), Joe.

Love,
Caroline

———

I think a common misconception about fossils is that they are more common than they are. The truth is, an organism only becomes a fossil if the conditions are exactly right. Most often, everything decomposes long before there’s an opportunity for the bones to petrify. And then when fossils do happen, how many more must be lost to general geological activity?

Basically, fossils that last to the modern day are the exception rather than the norm. So it makes sense that there would be gaps in the fossil record, and that we see groupings of species rather than a steady continuum of ever-changing forms. What we’re seeing are the remains of only those animals who died in the right place and the right time to be preserved. So it’s no surprise that there are uneven groupings in the fossil record; any given fossil bed will generally offer up only those creatures that lived in the same general time and place.

That’s why evolution is considered a scientific theory and not a scientific law — because there are these gaps and open questions. That’s the point I was trying to make when I said that it’s wrong for schools to pretend that evolution is a law (as in, the law of gravity or of inertia) rather than a theory. But again, that’s “theory” in the scientific sense: something that still does have a great deal of evidence to support it. The progression goes hypothesis -> theory -> law. Hypotheses are ideas that have not been tested; theories are hypothesis that have been tested, and supported by substantial evidence; laws are theories that are proven and successfully tested in every case. Teaching evolution as though it falls into the last category is simply false, and any teacher or school who does so should be rightly taken to task for it.

Of course our understanding of evolution has progressed beyond Darwin’s initial exploration, just as our understanding of gravity has progressed past Newton’s. Given that we’re talking about things that happened very long ago, it’s likely that evolution will never make the jump to scientific law. (Well, assuming we can’t build a time machine!) But looking at the available information that science does have, combined with the observable data we can witness on a small scale, we can get a very robust picture that provides very strong evidence that our understanding of evolution is fundamentally accurate.

Regarding small changes causing big changes: I wasn’t trying to build a case on evidence; the point I was trying to make is that it seems contrary to logic and to our understanding of pretty much everything to propose that evolution can happen only on a small scale. The position seems to be saying that small things can change, but those changes don’t impact the larger things that they interact with, constantly and intimately. That idea seems incompatible with everything we know and have observed about interactions between pretty much any two things, animate or inanimate. How would a more complex organism somehow avoid being impacted by changes in the millions of smaller organisms it interfaces with constantly? It is, if nothing else, incompatible with our understanding of the most basic biology.

To put it another way: How could microevolution not result in macroevolution, over time? What quality, characteristic, or event makes larger creatures immune?

With love,
-joe

———

Dear Joe,

God created you, and that’s that!! :) Actually, I do believe He wants us to explore and investigate the world, and ourselves, and formulate hypotheses and theories for how things operate in His creation. But ultimately, He wants our observations to lead us to Him. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:20 And…”The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” Psalm 19:1-2

But to address your previous email…I understand that not everything that ever existed leaves evidence. But for a process to have resulted in the incredible diversity and complexity we see in all living things today, there had to have been some intermediary forms preserved in the fossil beds that have been discovered. If the problem is simply that fossils are rare, why would evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould have felt it necessary to propose “punctuated equilibria” – the idea that species evolved faster over a shorter period of time?

Beyond the fossil issue, one of the primary inadequacies of the theory of macroevolution is its inability to satisfactorily show how evolution could have occurred at the molecular level, where everything begins and the complexity of life is most clearly seen. I think if Darwin had been able to see what microbiologists today see in a single cell, he would not have had the confidence to propose his theory.

Add to that the lack of a workable explanation for how transitional life forms could have even survived, i.e. with half scales, half feathers, the issue of irreducible complexity, the fact that the precise instructions found in DNA require intelligence, and the absence of a reasonable hypothesis for how life originated in the first place, much less for how its “building blocks” came to be, to name just a few of the problems…and you have a theory that is based more on faith than on fact.

Though we are surely going to have to continue to agree to disagree on the veracity of the theory of macroevolution, can we at least agree to agree that the scientists and laypeople (and there are many) who do not believe it are not idiots? And, in fact, may be very intelligent people?

Love,
Caroline

———

Hi Caroline,

Sorry for the long delay in response. Have been busy with other writing.

I do feel like this might be the point where we have to agree to disagree. I recognize that the idea of evolution on a large and long scale is just plain incompatible with the belief that the world was created in six days, six thousand-ish years ago. And that’s OK! :) I think the important thing is that we’re able to discuss things of serious meaning civilly and rationally!

On that note, I did want to clarify that I absolutely do not think that those who don’t believe in evolution are idiots! And I apologize if I gave that impression. The point I was trying to make is that there is a very specific definition of the word “theory” in a scientific sense — and as a result, when politicians try to dismiss a scientific theory by implying that it’s as valid (or more to the point, untested) as the colloquial definition of “theory,” they appear ignorant of a very basic element of the scientific method. (And I don’t think one’s opinion about the veracity of those theories matters in this instance; I’m talking about the definitions of the word, not whether the theories are defensible or not.) I know that “ignorant” can be a loaded term, and of course I do disagree with those who don’t believe in evolution. But my larger point was intended to be about politicians who appear ignorant about some pretty fundamental issues — either due to genuine ignorance or a calculated attempt to misrepresent the issues.

And to be clearer, I certainly don’t think YOU are an idiot! :) We disagree about plenty, but I have great respect for your obvious intelligence. I particularly appreciate your willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion.

On that topic, would you mind if I posted this e-mail thread as a follow-up post on my blog? I think it would serve as a good example of how it really is possible to have a civil debate about very fundamental issues, and also help educate folks about the deficiencies that some see in evolution. I would leave everything as-is, except for reversing the order of course, and posting a short introduction.

Let me know! And thanks again for a very thought-provoking conversation. :)

Much love,
-joe

———

Dear Joe,

I was just sitting here wondering if I should find out if you received my last message when I received your email. I figured this was probably going to be the point where we leave things.

Thank you for your respectful and loving attitude. My love for you and Kim goes beyond our disagreements too, and yet it motivates my argument because I want you both to know the God who created and loves you….the one who “knit you together in your mothers’ wombs”. He is real, and He can be known. Any other questions/problems you have with the Bible…please ask me.

None of us knows how much time we have on this earth. It behooves us to consider what, if anything, lies beyond and if you even allow the possibility that Christianity is true, you would be wise to consider its claims.

Yes, you may post our discussion on your blog.

Hope your Thanksgiving holiday is truly memorable!

Love,
Caroline

In talking about global warming and evolution (and in some cases, both at once!) the Republican candidates tend to fall back on some variant of this phrase:

“It’s just a theory.”

Evolution? Just a theory. Global warming? Just a theory.

Let me back up for a second and lay out some disclosure: I believe that — no, wait a minute; strike “believe.” Evolution is real. We know evolution is real because we see it in action. Ever hear of MRSA? Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus has become a serious problem in hospitals and nursing homes over the past few years. S. aureus is a bacteria that usually lives pretty harmlessly on the human skin. Occasionally, though, it can flare up into relatively serious infections. Historically, these infections have been pretty easily treated with penicillin or other antibiotics. Then came MRSA. This nasty little critter dodges most of what we would normally throw at it, forcing doctors to bring out the big guns. Where did it come from?

Evolution. Wide use of traditional antibiotics killed off, by definition, only those strains of staph susceptible to traditional antibiotics. What was left were the ones that had mutated in such a way that traditional antibiotics didn’t wipe them out. New drugs, hardier bugs. Survival of the fittest. Sound familiar?

(As an aside: I happen to agree with Newt Gingrich that recognizing the truth of evolution doesn’t mean you can’t also believe in a divine Creator. Unless you take the Bible as word-for-word accurate, and believe that the world was created in six twenty-four-hour days — in which case, I’d like to ask you some questions about Genesis 1:27 vis-a-vis Genesis 2:22, among others — there’s nothing in evolution that precludes the idea of a Creator guiding the mutations that result in evolution. In fact, I tend to find that idea more elegant.)

So, that’s evolution. Global warming? I’ll say I’m not nearly as up on the science here, but I’m willing to take the word of ninety-seven percent of the people whose job it is to know about this stuff. Because the alternative is a laughable global conspiracy with basically no upside for the alleged conspirators. (But you know what? Even if global warming is a complete fabrication, what the hell is wrong with working to reduce waste? That’s the fundamental goal of proponents of global warming, you know: to reduce waste. Fossil fuels are absurdly inefficient, and thus expensive far out of proportion to the benefits they provide. If we can come up with more efficient, less wasteful, less expensive ways of doing things, why wouldn’t we? I don’t know about you, but my parents taught me that waste was bad. But anyway.)

My point of these disclosures is that I recognize that having these views dismissed predisposes me to not take the dismisser seriously. But you know, it’s a big world, it’s a free country, you can feel free to believe what you want to believe, you know?

The problem is when you try to support your beliefs by saying these things are “just theories.” And that’s the point I want to make here. (I know, it took me long enough.) When you say that global warming or evolution is “just a theory,” you’re either displaying 1.) a dismaying level of ignorance about the way science works, or 2.) a cynical willingness to pretend to such ignorance if you think it makes you more electable.

Here’s why I say that: “Theory” in common parlance and “theory” in the context of science are two very different things. Anyone who took a single high school-level science class ought to know this. Outside of science, we use the word “theory” to indicate an untested idea. It’s the start of the process. If you say “I’ve got a theory: It could be bunnies,”  you’re essentially announcing your intention to explore the idea that bunnies could be at the root of your problems.

But in science, that’s called a hypothesis. A theory is what happens when a hypothesis has been rigorously explored. In other words, a hypothesis becomes a theory only after evidence has been gathered.

Now, this isn’t the end of the process by any means. Scientists are always re-evaluating theories to ensure they still hold up. That’s the great thing about science: You have all these really freakin’ smart people constantly checking to make sure everything works the way we think it does, so we don’t have to. And yes, sometimes new evidence arises that disproves a theory, even a long-held one. But that doesn’t change the fact that theories are based on evidence, not just wild speculation.

So dismissing a scientific theory — especially one as well-tested as evolution — as  ”just a theory” is simply absurd. It’s like saying Earth is “just a planet.” The Grand Canyon is “just a big hole.” America is “just a country.” (U-S-A! U-S-A!) What I’m saying is that it makes you look ignorant. And then we all laugh at you. Because we’re mean.

If you want to fall back on scientific skepticism, we call all discuss things rationally, like adults. Point out holes in theories and sic the scientists on each other. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of things that well-meaning adults disagree on, and there’s just so much we don’t know. But if you try to pretend that you know more than science does — but use words to do so that betray a fundamental misunderstanding about one of the basic precepts of science — well, it makes it hard for folks who know better to take you seriously. You might as well debate the existence of gravity.

You do believe in gravity, right?

Sponge the dryness from these lips.
Sour disinfectant burns
the rips and cracks and tears,
the gnawing fears,
the hollow absolutions.

For they do know what they do,
and no pious platitude
can save the unrepentant thief,
or shake belief in unbelief.

See: the needle-dicks of rich men
prick the temple-cloth
of civilization,
and rend us all.
Three hours of night?
A day? A year? A century?

(Their camels balk
and sweat holier waters.)

And history repeats
again,
again,
again,
raised from the dead
to shamble down fear-shrouded streets
in deathless search of spongy treats.

Who bears a spear with edge enough
to pierce those bullshit-swollen guts
and spill that reeking discharge?

(We will know the unfit candidates:
they’ll be the ones raising their hands.)

Behold the science of our time,
a secular faith whose communion wine
is spiked with Rohypnol:
Its apostles spread the call
to put faith only in one creed:

Misology.
Misology.
Misology.

• How comfortable the talking heads on Fox News seem to be with expressing hope that our new president actively hurts the country.

• That anyone is still taking Rush Limbaugh seriously.

How about you?

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.  On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.  We remain a young nation.  But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”

Yes. And,

“…we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

Yes. Begone, you foul children. Begone, you petty scoffers, you small-minded squinters, take away your grasping claws and sour wheezing laughter. We are a better people than what we have been.

We are better than you.

Goodbye, you back-door dealers, you double-talkers, you new-speakers. May you live long, long lives of peace and health. May your minds stay sharp to the ends of your days, so that you may hear what is said, read what is written, learn what is taught about you.

So sorry you can’t stick around, but the grownups have important things to discuss, and it’s long past your bedtime.

–

When thinking about this post I was planning to go on and talk about how our optimism at this point has to be tempered by caution, because we still don’t know how serious this president will be about actually getting things done.

Then he started getting things done.

But make no mistake: This president will disappoint. There’s no avoiding it. Yes, he’s a great speaker and a noble man and he’s got a lot of great ideas and seems to know how to get them done. But though he may make your heart want to burst from a surfeit of rainbows, he’s, ya know, human.

That said, getting all pissy with the guy you voted for for doing exactly what he was promising to do throughout his campaign, well, that’s just a little bit silly. Too bad Pastor Warren’s prayer was only adequate (okay, bordering on creepy, with his odd enthusiasm in naming the Obama girls), or else this might have proved a more interesting point about the importance of listening to people with different opinions. As it is, it just served as a reminder that reaching across ideological divides means offering respect to folks you may find disagreeable.

But then, that’s a pretty good lesson in its own right.

–

By the way, the post title comes from here:

The traditional electoral results maps look like this (or, at least, are likely to once NC and MO are finally called):

But when you look at it county-by-county, using a continuum of red to blue to reflect the proportions of votes for each candidate, it’s a very different picture:

Purple is good. It means we have people of differing political opinions living right next door to each other. When President-elect Obama takes office in January, he should have a mural of this exact map hung in the Oval Office — a constant reminder that he’s not working for one group or another, but for everyone.

By the way, if you’re interested, those maps came from here.

I figured now might be a good time to put out a few suggestions for the days ahead:

1. To those of you whose favorite candidate wins, be gracious to those who supported The Other Guy. No matter who wins, lots of people are going to be disappointed. No need to make them feel any worse by rubbing it in. (This goes double for those of you who, like me, support Obama: Practice the unity that you preach. Walk the walk. If this election is, like Senator Obama says, about ending “politics as usual,” then let’s make sure we help with that.)

2. To those of you whose favorite candidate loses, be gracious to those who supported The Other Guy. (Sound familiar?) People support presidential candidates for many different reasons, and most of them — even those who support a candidate you can’t stand! — do so for honest reasons, believing in their hearts they are making the right choice. This does not make them idiots, or evil, or any of the things many of us (myself included, I confess) have said about those who picked the winner of the 2004 election. Everyone has different priorities, and you know what? That’s okay. That’s America.

3. To everyone: Remember that there are more important things in life than politics — and remember that the president neither solves nor ruins everything. This is an astounding, historic election, but whoever assumes office on January 20 is still going to have to contend with two other branches of government, not to mention the will of the American people. If the results come in and you find yourself getting a little crazy, might I suggest a quick walk, a few deep breaths, and some meditation on the number of roadblocks any president has between himself and getting anything done.

4. To those of you who voted: Thank you. Thank you for fulfilling part of your duties as a citizen. It felt good to be involved in this, didn’t it?

5. To those of you too young to vote: Remember this. Not every election will likely be this sensational, but every election is important. Don’t let your interest slip just because the next time around the choices aren’t as charismatic, or as clear-cut. It’s important every time.

6. To those of you who are unable to vote for citizenship or other reasons out of your control: Here’s hoping things turn out in a way you’ll like, too.

7. And finally, to those of you who are eligible to vote, who didn’t: For the vast majority of you in most parts of the country, THERE IS STILL TIME. If you’re in line by the time the polls close, they cannot turn you away. Here’s a map of the poll closing times across the country. Get out there and be a part of this.

Now let’s do this thing!

So, I’m in Ohio, which means our primaries aren’t for another month. But Ohio has sort of an interesting primary system. From what I understand — and this will be my first time voting in Ohio since 1992, so I could easily be wrong — anyone can vote in the primaries of either party. It’s just that when you walk into the polling place, you have to pick which party’s primary you want to vote in. And that choice means that you become a registered member of that party until such time as you vote in the primary for a different party.

Now, I’m a registered Independent, because I’m really not much of a joiner. I’ll vote for who seems likely to do the most good, no matter which letter appears in parentheses after their names (e.g., previous posts on the matter).

But you can be damn sure that, come March 4, I’ll be considered a (shudder) registered Democrat. (At least until I can figure out how to unregister and return to my natural (I) state.) Why, you ask? The answer is simple:

Barack Obama.

I’m not going to go into too much detail about why, because the fact of the matter is, if you’re supporting him you already know why, and if you’re not there’s probably little that’s going to change your mind. But let me offer a few general thoughts on the matter.

There is a school of political thought that believes that politics is black and white, that Our Side is benevolent and merciful and Their Side eats decapitated puppy heads for dinner. This ideology is complete bullshit. Without people of differing perspectives working together, nothing gets done. That’s the whole point of our checks and balances system.

Hillary Clinton appears to subscribe to this us-versus-them philosophy with a terrifying zeal. When she stares into the camera with her dead eyes and Joker grin and talks about who or what is right or wrong, you can see that somewhere in her head there’s a tiny, wizened old man feverishly replacing the word “right” with “Democrat” and “wrong” with “Republican.” She strikes me as a fanatic in exactly the same way George Bush is a fanatic: blind to opposing viewpoints, absolutely convinced of her moral high ground, and willing to do whatever it takes to bring herself into power and keep herself there because she believes, deep down in her metallic heart, that Mother always knows best. (See her position on videogames for just one example.)

And then there’s Obama. Standing in sharp contrast to this uncomfortable zealot, he speaks of the power of working together to make things happen. And the damnedest thing is, the guy has such charisma and such intelligence that in spite of my profound political cynicism I actually believe the guy. I actually believe that he can be a leader that a majority of the U.S. population can get behind. I actually believe that he can deal with both enemies and allies (on both a personal and a national scale) fairly and sensibly, and at least make some progress toward making America less of a global laughingstock (or object of zealous hatred).

Lots of people I know have come to support Obama through lots of different paths. I liked the guy since the 2004 DNC (and wished he could have taken over for Kerry right then and there), but I didn’t really know all that much about him. So I started doing as much research as I could, deliberately trying to find things I didn’t like. And dammit, I just couldn’t find anything fundamental that I disagreed with him on.

So I started to get more and more excited about the idea of him actually getting the chance to run for president. But when I read his speech on the role of faith in politics it was a done deal.

Some of you may know that I was a Philosophy major in college. With 12 years of Catholic school behind me, I tended to focus on writings about the underpinnings of faith — Kierkegaard, Hume, Kant, those guys. My education wasn’t as good as it should have been, but it was enough to allow me to say the following with at least some degree of experience:

Obama knows what the hell he’s talking about. If that speech is any indication of how he really is (and I haven’t encountered any reason to believe that it’s not), he’s the real deal.

Now, I don’t expect Obama to be elected and suddenly the sun comes out and angels start singing and all is right with the world. Presidents aren’t miracle workers; I don’t even blame George Bush for the repeated transgressions against foreign nations, our own constitution, and ethical behavior. It’s the people the president surrounds himself with — and his ability to work with everyone else — that makes things happen.

I do think Obama can make things happen. And I think he’s an honorable, ethical man who will want to make good things happen. For such a person to have a fighting chance to become the president of the United States is so unusual it’s almost absurd. How often have you heard about elections being between choosing among the lesser of two evils? To have someone I can genuinely support is…well, I almost don’t know what to do with myself.

If you’re in a Super Tuesday state and you weren’t already planning on voting for Obama tomorrow, I urge you to take another look. His website has very detailed explanations of his stances on most significant issues facing our country (even if the font is almost unreadable in Firefox). Read some of his speeches, check out his positions. But don’t stop there. Check out sites like On the Issues to get an idea of the differences between him and Hillary Clinton.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who cares more about the welfare of the country than about political gain, party lines, or a tiny club of the disproportionately wealthy?

I sure think so.

Dear anyone who attacked my original post because Stewart and Colbert aren’t “real journalists”: that was EXACTLY MY POINT. See: “Comedians. Jesus.” The fact of the matter is that our national newsmedia is, as a whole, a bunch of quivering, empty suits jumping onto the latest ratings spike. For anyone in the newsmedia — and I say ANYone, on either side of this fake political dichotomy we’ve convinced ourselves we’re in — to actually stand up and make a well-reasoned, challenging argument is so novel as to be almost shocking. This instance was Olbermann, but had it been someone on Fox News making a similarly strong, well-defended argument, I’d be all over that too. (Please, please don’t say O’Reilly. He’s an excellent entertainer — much like Limbaugh, Stewart, Colbert — but much like the vast majority of the talking heads in the newsmedia, there’s not an ounce of honesty there.)

Dear anyone who interpreted my post as saying “My only heroes are Olbermann, Stewart, and Colbert”: Read again. If you still believe this after a second reading, please go away. For those who remain, allow me to elaborate a bit: What impresses me the most these days with regard to the newsmedia are the few talented people who step beyond the rhetoric and the platitudes and the dogma and the talking points to ask real, legitimate questions. To raise honest issues. This is why I enjoy John Stewart — if you didn’t see his appearance on CNN’s Crossfire, go watch it. Here’s a guy who can walk into an interview and say, “I don’t agree with what you’re doing, and here’s why,” and not let things devolve into the content-free shouting matches that drive the ratings on the news channels. The irony, of course, is that he’s a comedian, which says an awful lot about the state of the newsmedia in our country. To see politicians getting their toughest grilling on a freakin’ satirical news show? I mean, what the fuck?

Dear anyone who says “But Clinton…!”: Go die. I didn’t have a blog when Clinton was running things, and I don’t recall mentioning him here, ever, so you have absolutely no freaking idea what I think about Bill Clinton. For the record, though, I think Clinton the man was a slightly creepy, slightly sleazy type. But Clinton the president? Seems to me he did a fairly good job. He seemed to have a legitimate majority of the country behind him for most of his term. And that, I think, was his biggest strength as a president: He understood that the job of the president is to represent everyone in the country. People accused him of being too “moderate,” and I’m like, “Uh, yeah. He’s not president of half the country, he’s president of the whole country. Seems like a no-brainer to me.”

Having said that, allow me to say that the idea of his wife actually attempting to run for president in ’08 scares the living bejeezus out of me. She seems to be everything Clinton wasn’t, and Bush is: Fanatical, divisive, dogmatic, and hungry for power. And if she ends up on the ballot I fear that there will be so many who will vote Democrat just to get away from Bush that they’ve vote his mirror image right into office. If you put a ballot in front of me today, and it had HR Clinton vs. John McCain — I’m voting McCain without a second thought. That chick scares me nearly as much as Bush does.

Dear anyone who says I shouldn’t be posting political stuff on my 1UP blog: I’d like to introduce you to the incumbent Senator from the District of I Don’t Give a Fuck. Welcome to the real world, where the convenient lines of black and white your pet pundits try to convince you of don’t exist. Politics permeates life; life permeates videogames; videogames permeate culture; culture permeates politics.

Dear anyone who throws down labels like “liberal” “conservative” “democrat” “republican” (or, much, much worse: “libs,” “neocons,” “dems,” “repubs”) as though they’re racial epithets: Pay attention, now, because this is important. Ready?

YOU DON’T HAVE TO PICK SIDES.

It’s entirely possible — nay, admirable — to decide what you believe and say, “Well, I agree with the Republicans on this, but the Democrats on that.” Here, I’ll show you how easy it is:

I agree with the Republicans — or at least, the Republican ideal — on the role of government. Ideally, government should protect citizens from outside influence, and each other. Government legislating things like sex or smoking or, oh dear god, the amount of trans-fats we’re allowed to have in our food is a waste of time, energy, and taxpayer money. I also agree with the Republicans on the importance of national defense, that we need to be well prepared for situations where other nations or groups may wish to do us harm.

On the other hand, I agree with the Democrats — or at least, the Democrat ideal — that the government also has a responsibility to offer assistance to its disadvantaged citizens. I also agree with the Democrats on the importance of civil rights, and that even the pursuit of national security is not worth sacrificing those civil rights which are an integral part of what is good about America.

These do not encompass my political or social beliefs. These are just examples of how it’s possible to actually think for yourself when it comes to national politics. Because believe me when I say that any time we refuse to enter discourse because the other party is a member of this fictional “other side,” America dies, just a little, inside.

The reason you should know this is because President Bush just kinda, uh, eliminated it. At least for "enemy combatants." Funny thing about enemy combatants, though…an enemy combatant is a person the government claims is an enemy combatant. Neat, that, eh? And the method by which such a claim can be disputed: Habeas corpus.

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (video, pops) has a particularly chilling commentary on this whole deal. It’s worth watching the entire thing.

That guy may be a bit melodramatic, but he’s quickly becoming one of my heroes — one of three people I know of in the media who actually appear to have balls.

The other two are John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Comedians.

Jesus.

For those of you who don’t like clicking links, I’ll summarize: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants to require all ISPs to keep records of ALL of your online activity, for purposes of catching pedophiles and, presumably, tur’rists.

Here’s the problem. Senator Stevens has made it very clear that our government does not understand technology. Now, I’m no hAxx0r but I do seem to recall a technology called “IP spoofing” that makes internet traffic look like it’s coming from someplace other than its actual source. So, what happens when someone trolling online for kiddie porn uses a spoofed IP address that happens to point to the computer grannie uses to e-mail her bridge partners? Or some al-Qaeda sympathizer spoofs the IP address of some random Arabic college student?

This isn’t even touching on the potential for willful misuse of this kind of information. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but considering how much of our day-to-day life is conducted online these days — business, commerce, communication — there’s an enormous potential for abuse. Not to mention simple, ham-fisted, governmental incompetence.

I hate sounding like a foil-hatter, honestly I do, but I’m starting to worry that these tiny nudges on the boundaries of our civil rights are not the random flailings of an incompetent administration, but rather calculated straining at the bumper of the juggernaut of fascism.

I just wrote that and even I think it sounds ridiculous. But that’s precisely part of my worry, that sensible, moderate, thoughtful, intelligent people are dismissing their fears as unrealistic, thinking “It can’t possibly be that bad.” But what if it is?

We as a country have an obligation to protect ourselves from tyranny. We have an obligation to say to our government, “You are overstepping your authority and we are uncomfortable with that.” Are we really going to wait for our leaders to throw their capes over their arms and go “Mwa ha ha” before we say enough is enough? I’m pretty sure it’ll never be that obvious.

The problem is that as long as the current administration equates dissent with treason, our fellow Americans will continue to miss the fact that dissent is the purest and best form of patriotism, the purest and best hope for the continued health of this country.

Do this for me: Read the article linked above. Think about how it might impact you, personally, as a law-abiding, upright citizen. And if you come to the same conclusions I did, tell your congresspeople — tell your friends — tell your neighbors — that this is too much. That this near-ubiquitous surveillance does not meet your standards for a free society. If nothing else, please just let your fellow Americans know that this sort of thing is being talked about.

I have to believe that we do still have the ability to influence public policy. It can’t have gone that far already.

Can it?

UPDATE: If you’re interested in talking to your Congressperson about this issue, here’s a great site for finding contact info.