The Limits of Tolerance

The Catholic Church and I have an understanding. I let them continue to minister to their estimated 1.131 billion adherents and in exchange I expect them to keep their God-bothering to themselves. It’s like religious Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Admittedly, this has always been a tenuous relationship – they don’t care for atheists, and I’m not a fan of unabashed, arbitrarily administered social oppression. Still, we try. Unfortunately, His Holiness Joseph Ratzinger has been pushing the friendship lately, with a slate of proclamations and deeds that extend the limits of my considerable tolerance. I’m of a mind to put the Vatican On Notice, and here’s why:

1. Out loud Holocaust Denial

Look, I know that there are a percentage of nut-bags out there that insist that the Holocaust was manufactured by historians to increase sympathy for Jews. It’s not a new argument (though it never gets any more logical). Usually though, there’s an agenda: President Ahmadinejad needs to feed on anti-Semitic sentiment to distract his subjects from his ineptitude, while terror groups like Hamas and The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood espouse it as a matter of course in their fight against the Zionists. Still, one expects the Vatican (who stayed ‘neutral’ during the actual event) to have the sense be keep inflammatory rhetoric to a minimum on the subject. Reinstating excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson – who popped up on Swedish TV claiming “that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished… but none of them by gas chambers” didn’t seem like a super smart play. The Pope described the reinstatement of a Holocaust Denier as "an unforeseen mishap”.

2. An Unnecessarily Rigid Pro-life Agenda

I also know that being a staunch Catholic (or even Christian) is often synonymous with a zero tolerance pro-life stance. I’ve never been one for issuing decrees on personal issues such as these – but in any case, it’s nice to think that in exceptional circumstances even one’s most deeply held views can be flexible enough to allow reason to prevail. Let’s say, if a 9-year old girl was impregnated after her step-father raped her – she would be at least be entitled to avoid giving birth to her own siblings? Right? Well, when it happened in Brazil this month, the Catholic Church excommunicated the girl, her family and the doctors who performed her abortion. As told by Time Magazine: "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. Evidently, an open and shut case.

3. Treating Abstinence-Only Sex Education Like a Real Policy

Abstinence-Only Sex-Education is not effective at reducing anything, except the levels of Government funding going to Actual Sex Education. According to the British Medical Journal there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" – a small detail that did not prevent the Bush White House from spending exhaustively on it. Now, while Bristol Palin and I agree that it’s a failed ‘policy’ – Pope Ratzinger disagrees, arguing that it has a primary role in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. He claims that “[AIDS] cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”. Indeed.

Such as it is then, I’m at the end of my tether with dear Ratzinger. I’m of course not a fan of organised religion at the best of times – but the Vatican seems to be going the extra yard lately to alienate friend and foe alike. In the wake of hundreds of years of corruption and greed, decades of child abuse scandals and an ongoing refusal to join us in the 21^st century -  it makes a President wonder what it will take to bring the whole sham down.     

Too Big To Fail

As the United States government extended its bailout of massive insurance company AIG to USD$150 billion, President Barrack Obama and many others are declaring the company "too big to fail". This company did not materialise from thin air into a 200 billion dollar behemoth, nor was it operating under the radar prior to the financial crisis. It was merrily making enormous profits guaranteeing debts which in the climate of a booming economy is like fishing with dynamite. Much back slapping ensued and the regulators had a busy time congratulating themselves on creating such fine economic times to allow this prosperity. Then, wouldn't you know it, cracks started to appear in the aquarium and the AIG suddenly was reminded that the insurance business involves the risk that you'll occasionally have to pay claims. Further - if you're insuring copious sums of highly obscure engineered financial products like the CDOs that became worthless when the housing bubble burst, there's a very good chance that you'll find yourself having to pay lots of claims at once! Now of course as a business you would plan for such occurrences and spread your risk and keep sufficient capital reserves to survive such a scenario - wouldn't you...

You probably would unless you were too big to fail. Then you might be forgiven for thinking that since the government is certain to bail you out if you find yourself with hundreds of billions in liabilities, you may as well enjoy the benefit of that taxpayer funded insurance policy and go on taking enormous risks to rake in the profits. It's a pretty sweet deal to be sure - keep all the profits and pay nothing for the guarantee you'll be protected if it ever does go bad. That's why you wont hear one word of complaint from me about the behavior of AIG. They behaved as any rational company would under the circumstances.

My complaint is with the policies of market self-regulation and minimalistic government that created this mess. The abject failure of the regulators to manage the growth of AIG and others like it into giants too big to fail has ironically expanded the governmental realm far beyond where even the left-leaning major parties would have it. The US government now officially owns 80% of AIG courtesy of these loans and cash injections. It has been nationalised. The fact of the matter is it actually owns the losses of the entire company as it has made it perfectly clear that if the company needs further help it will be forced to step in. It just doesn't own all the potential profits, only 80%. Worse, it has owned the entire company ever since it allowed it to become so large it's failure would catastrophically destabilise the financial markets - it just didn't collect any of the profits back in those prime days either. Now the taxpayers are finally entitled 80% of their rightful profits but they find themselves proud owners of a steaming financial heap still hemorrhaging money courtesy of the financial collapse brought on by the risk-taking behavior the regulators implicitly sponsored.

Think on that some, dear voters. Next time you hear someone touting the evils of government interference, the infallibility of financial markets self-regulation and other such talk I hope you will consider the consequences carefully. You are paying a premium for your car or home insurance and you rightly don't expect it for free. Learn from our mistakes and don't allow this situation to arise again where the tables turn and you are the one writing insurance policies.

Presidential Medal of Freedom

Still President Bush has another 11 days in office – and then we can start the clean up. It’s going to make Chernobyl look like a summer holiday. He’s been like a really bad tenant, cooking indoors on an open fire, raising chickens in the pantry and shitting in the sink. Unfortunately, the stakes were a lot higher than the upkeep of an investment. In the rudderless days of the transition between Presidents, Bush is focusing on crafting a legacy – while Gaza burns, economists despair and Afghanistan becomes the new Iraq (or Vietnam). Talk about bad timing.

In general, the long transition is a horrible idea. The outgoing President has idle hands and the knowledge that his position and privilege will soon be gone. In their final days in the White House, lame duckers often re-discover their power to pardon criminals (at random), dramatically modify legislation and tea-leaf that lamp that they’ve always liked so much. Bush so far has pushed through a few late night anti-environment bills and been sparring with his pardons (with the notable exception of Scooter Libby) – however, he is giving out Medals of Freedom like they’re candy canes at Santa’s Workshop.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest honour the US bestows on a civilian. It is awarded at the discretion of the President – I guess in a similar way to which the Queen hands out knighthoods. Past recipients include Mother Teresa, Muhammad Ali, Neil Armstrong (and Buzz), Jesse Jackson and Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf. All worthwhile  nominees, given  it is designed to recognize individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavours."

What I take particular issue with here is that Bush is blatantly using the medal to reward cronies and collaborators past and present. In 2004, he hung the medal around the neck of former CIA head George Tenet. The same George Tenet that presided over the colossal intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and who called invading Iraq a “slam dunk”. Worse however, this month will see the honour bestowed on three particularly dubious suspects: Tony Blair, Columbian President Alvaro Uribe and our own John Howard. Apparently, “all three leaders have been staunch allies of the United States, particularly in combating terrorism”. More accurately, these three leaders have blindly stuck with the US during their failed two front war and offered carte blanche praise for the unpopular Bush.

The whole affair has just added a final sour taste to the shit sandwich that has been the Bush years. The ceremony, no doubt hailing the success of the ‘coalition of the willing, will be one of Dubya’s final acts as commander-in-chief (hopefully) and an integral part of spinning a positive legacy. In the years ahead, I hope the medals bring cold comfort to Howard and Blair particularly, as they lay awake and wonder of their complicity in the worst US Presidency the world has seen. 

Not a Dry Eye

An astute summary of last night's mood, from Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (that guy is slowly clawing his way back up my ladder). Obama's victory was based almost exclusively on his inclusiveness. Powell's weren't the only eyes with tears in them during Obama's speech, that's for sure.

(By the way, the Daily Beast is a cool place to get your news if you don't have a better source - and it's good to see Hugh has graduated from Nine to CNN, well played)

Yes He Can

My over-riding emotion yesterday was relief - pure and simple relief. After such a long campaign, with some many hopes riding on a single day, the weight of expectation was crippling. A few commentators were still entertaining thought of an upset, waxing lyrical about The Bradley Effect – but most of all the Republican fear factory had left more than a few voters with Obama related doubts. So, when Ohio was called for Obama early on, and the 2004 map shattered, all I felt was relief. President-elect Obama. It’s got a hell of a ring to it.

In the end, it was an Obama whitewash, like few of us dared to hope for (though one which 538 astutely predicted). The Dems won in Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and crucially Virginia and Florida (all states that went for Bush in 2004). North Carolina and Missouri are yet to be called, but Obama could squeak home there too (not that it matters: his 349 electoral votes far exceed the 270 he required). The Dems have also extended their hold on the Senate (was 49-49 and 2 independents, now its 56-40 with 4 undecided) and House of Reps (won about 20 extra seats and hold their clear majority). Reaching the magical 60 senate seats (which stops Republican stalling tactics) would, for the first time in a long time, give the Dems complete control of all three branches of government.

The bad news from Election Day, to temper my celebrations came from the ballot initiatives in several states. California’s Prop 8 seems to have been passed (52-48%), banning gay marriage in that state (Florida and Arizona did the same). The benevolent people of Arkansas also saw fit to enact a ban on gay couples adopting, while Nebraska agreed to end affirmative action. All very, very disappointing. It was some consolation to see the passing of some more liberal initiatives in Michigan (medical marijuana and stem cell research) and Washington (euthanasia) – but still a bittersweet day.

Overall though, I’m glad that Obama (and Biden) will be given his chance to enact some of his vision. The doubters failed to deny him the highest office and he can now let his actions speak for him. The reality that he’s not a secret Muslim, or a communist, or just a fancy speaker will be plain for all to see. I have great faith that the much (if not all) of his agenda will be hotly pursued: battling climate change, ending the war, mending health care and turning the economy back from the brink. Already the world is more receptive to the US following the change of leadership – and me, like many others have a really good feeling about the next 4 years. Congratulations, Mr. President (elect).

No on 8

The relationship between the individual states of the US and the Federal Union is a complex one. The courts are kept busy delineating a zigzagging line between the autonomy (and law making ability) of the states – and their subservience to Washington. The result is a patchwork of laws and regulations unique to each state, covering such weighty topics as the death penalty, the age of consent, gun ownership and of course abortion. Topical this week though, is again same-sex marriage currently only allowed in three US states (and 6 countries, none of which are Australia): Massachusetts, Connecticut – and up until today, California – but I’m getting to that.

Another peculiarity of the state law making process is the ballot initiative. Proposed amendments to the state constitution or laws are offered up for a referendum and decided by the people. I’m familiar with its work from Episode 23 of Simpsons Season 7 – Much Apu About Nothing. Aside from Homer’s hilarious “I would like to buy your rock” gear at the front end (introducing me to spurious reasoning), the episode parodies California Proposition 187 – which in a nutshell blames ‘immigants’ for rising costs, and voted to exclude them from social services. The episode showcases the ignorance and fear-mongering that often drives ballots of this sort.

Anyway, I could go on about the Simpsons all day, but the parallel is that today California votes on a range of initiatives, including the banning of gay marriage – by editing their constitution to read: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Arizona, Arkansas and Florida have similar homophobic votes today – while other states are seeking to make abortion more difficult to access, voting on medical marijuana, assisted suicide and ending affirmative action. Emotions, clearly are running high. The partisans from both sides have spent big, especially on Prop 8, seeing it (as always) as a leverage point to widen the ‘fight against gays’ (much of the ‘Yes’ funding has come from the Mormons and a crackpot millionaire named Howard F. Ahmanson).

On such an historic day – Obama’s landslide win – I’m hoping that many of these conservative ballot proposals are defeated. I feel particularly strongly about Prop 8 in California. I see California as a liberal, cosmopolitan state, and it makes good sense that they have equality for same-sex couples. The ‘Yes’ campaign has peddled blatant lies about the erosion of the institution of marriage – and the fall of the US… spreading the kind of baseless fears that have perpetuated racism for so long. Let me say this once more for the dummies – your loving marriage cannot be attacked by anyone, let alone by the loving marriage of a same-sex couple. Chisel it into your forehead. I’d clearly be voting ‘No’– and I hope the majority of Californians do likewise. 

President Obama

As an Australian, you could be forgiven for thinking that tomorrow’s US elections don’t affect you. Well you could have, back in the day when ineptitude wasn’t such a premium, and few believed that one man could destroy a whole country. Eight Bush years later and we know better: the country is heavily divided along ideological divides, the once powerful US (and world) economy is disintegrating and peace is a distant memory. So many of the assumptions of world order have been shattered, by the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, by the naming of an axis of evil and a spurning of diplomacy as a sign of weakness. Bush will long be remembered as the worst President they’ve ever had.

Having watched this disaster slowly unfold, it’s clear that the influence of the American President is far reaching. The limits of his power were assumed to be far smaller than Bush showed them to be. He unilaterally invaded Iraq, has held over 700 detainees in Gitmo without charge (270 remain) brought state sanctioned torture to the West and spied on his own citizens (not only is he stupid, he’s mean too). In this light, I hope you’d agree that this election is worth paying attention to and that the outcome has tangible consequences.

Without overstating my oft repeated pro-Obama position, the only logical winner tomorrow is Barack. Ideologically, it’s time to turn this car around, on its way to the extreme right – and head back to the centre. The Palin stereotype is the last type of governance the US (or the world) needs. The Republicans have run a fearful campaign, threatening everything from a Muslim Terrorist President – to married gay doctors performing abortions in the streets (Barack will take your money, your guns, and your freedom!!) The reality is, Obama will end the war in Iraq, wage a better one in Afghanistan, favour the middle class over the rich and take a shot at some real problems: healthcare and energy.

I’m as fearful as the next Obama supporter about an upset – but logic tells me that he will win in a landslide. His ground game is better, he has more money, and his positions are stronger. Long Red states could be swept aside, awash in Obama-blue. Despite that, I will sit here, madly refreshing 538 and CNN, watching every vote come in – waiting for the announcement that Obama is President elect. Don’t let me down America.

Raise the Alarm

I’ve always been a fan of the Living End. They’re a great Aussie band. For a few years there I couldn’t get enough of them and will always remember their set at the Falls Festival back in 2003. Lead singer and guitarist Chris Cheney is a genius (and for the record, my preferred Cheney) and that night, he played like he’d made a deal with the devil. Back in July, the lads released their latest offering: a catchy album called White Noise.

It’s a good album, plenty to get into if you have the patience to listen. Track 9, 21st Century sounds like an updated version of We Didn’t Start the Fire, but a little darker (“Hefner is the devil incarnate”). In particular though, I was most pleased to hear track 2: Raise the Alarm. It’s the Atheist’s Anthem that I’ve longed for. My previous preferred band, Bad Religion, hint at the issue, with lines like “maybe god is just a chemical fiction” – but, The Living End have really nailed it here:

I may not believe in God
That doesn't mean I'm a lesser person
I still have a heart
And I know what it feels like to be broken

I may not believe in Jesus
But I believe in sacrifice
Life doesn’t always stand reason
No one ever gets a chance
To live it twice

The song articulates many of societies prejudices against atheists. We still have morals. We are still capable of virtuous actions. Organised religion does not have the monopoly on goodness (to say the very least). Watch the clip, listen to the song and re-think your position on atheists.