Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘election’

Talk of change or more of the same?

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

There’s a lot of hope and excitement in the (more progressive) USA right now. Except of course at Pharyngula.

Bitter ol’ PZ Myers (I know the man’s not truly bitter) wrote a couple of posts since the election of Barack Obama, which “pissed in peoples corn flakes.” He’s written (emphasis mine):

Obama is a conservative/centrist Democrat who will at best implement a small shift in American policies — he hasn’t promised any strong change in Iraq, and his health care plans are an incremental improvement over the existing situation.

We’re still afflicted with the curse of religiosity as a political prerequisite, and Obama has strengthened it. That is a poison that will harm us over the long term; we may have made the more rational choice in this one election, but reinforcing the potency of irrationality will come back to bite us over and over again.

I dread the possibility that jubilation will lead to complacency, that moderation will produce stasis, and that what will follow an Obama presidency could be something far, far worse than we can imagine.

I should also add, before everyone condemns this as simply the act of a primitive society, that the same impulse is at work right here in America. Those people who voted yes on Proposition 8 in California were simply performing a slightly more civilized version of casting a stone at those who offend their moral and religious sense of propriety.

Honestly, I can say I fully agree.

When I look at Obama versus McCain (pre-election, not tied to Palin), I didn’t see progressive leftism versus regressive conservatism. I saw a right to center-right candidate and a right-wing candidate.

I would not vote for either candidate if they were running here in Canada.

The problem, as I see it, is that American democracy has been stolen, not just by the Republicans, but by the Democrats and the Republicans.

By some major scam, the two main parties in the USA have convinced nearly everyone in the country (including the third parties) that “a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.” The Democrats blame Nader for costing Gore the election in 2000 (think about the rationality of chastising someone for trying to represent another voice on the stage, and try to reconcile that with the ideals of “rule by the people”) and the Republicans are such a mixed bag of Christian fundamentalists, big businesses, and libertarians that I’m surprised they haven’t killed each other yet.

Yet, despite their disdain for each other, neither party would admit that the American electoral system is deeply flawed.

Why would anyone want more than two choices for government, one might ask? Doesn’t having two parties make it as simple as a governing party and an opposition, and when one doesn’t work, you can vote for the other? (I have actually heard these questions from Conservative Albertans).

This of course makes as much sense as on the Simpsons when Kang and Kodos take control of the US and put each other as the nominees, or Futurama when John Jackson and Jack Johnson run against each other. The essence of the satire is that with only two choices, they tend to become nearly the same politically in order to appeal to the widest demographic. Why do you think American landslides occur when one party gets more than 55% of the popular vote?

So how do you fix this problem?

First, with the Democrats in power, Obama needs to prove his commitment to democracy by capping all election spending, and not at the ridiculous amount he raised and spent, but at something that’s reasonable for a popular (but as of yet unelectable) third party can have an equal chance of getting it’s message out. Election ads can then also be given equal time on the major networks (for all parties, not just the two main ones). This won’t happen, of course, because he’s got power now and won it through raising ridiculous amounts of money. I’d like to be wrong here, but I’m not holding my breath.

Second, strong third party candidates should be included in the televised debates. Canada put Elizabeth May, Green Party leader, on the federal leaders debate (bringing the number of leaders present at the debate to five), and America could follow suit. Having Nader and Barr at the leader’s debate would definitely have rallied their respective supporters and given them realistic chances at least a few college votes.

Third, stop letting partisan companies put electronic voting machines in. Create a federal election overseeing board and ensure some standard. Make sure that this standard can’t be violated by Republicans, Democrats, or anyone. It’s not hard, but it stops things like 2000 in Florida. I think the issue is Americans need to learn that sometimes government isn’t bad.

Finally, although I’m not familiar enough with it, the electoral college system likely needs to be revamped. I’m not sure if this system is still valuable to American democracy, and perhaps change would be for the better.

So in conlcusion, I’m not saying that Canada has a great electoral system (we don’t), but I feel sorry for American voters who had to choose between two candidates who are forced to pander to get as many votes as possible. Take the momentum you have, America, and push for some electoral reform.

But then again, I’m not American, so you don’t have to take my advice.

Religion in political cartoons

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

I have to appreciate Christianity Today’s post on religion in political cartoons. Here’s a sample (click through for a few more).

Real things to fear in an Obama presidency

Monday, September 15th, 2008

Inspired by this delicious list of lies about Obama, and what (some Republicans) to fear in his presidency, I present a revised list of potentially real things to fear from an Obama presidency.

(Note: I am merely taking the author’s, Roland G. Ley, article and adjusting it to mesh with reality. The original text will be emphasized).

  1. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate in his first two years and in Illinois he was a very liberal state legislator. This is an issue since in eight years many Americans may have forgotten what it’s like to not have a deficit, to have an increase in available jobs and to generally see good things happen to the economy.
  2. He will grow the federal government by putting it in charge, directly or indirectly, of everything he perceives has something wrong and ignore remedies that are limited to just fixing the problems created by the previous administration.
  3. He will increase taxes for just about everyone and everything, especially business, who have for far too long gotten a much easier break at the expense of the average American. Or better yet he will increase taxes while increasing welfare, resulting in an increased standard of living, as opposed to the steady decline.
  4. He has a very liberal voting record on abortion and is against all pro-life issues, however, he is only human and may not be able to permanently end the abortion debate while standing up for women’s rights.
  5. He is against just about everything that we need to strengthen our national security. He would remove troops from Iraq prematurely, resort to talking to the leader of Iran, leave our borders porous to illegal immigration, join our European “friends” in just talking tough to Russia, etc. essentially, he make actually improve the US’s image internationally. (Then who will us Canadian’s make fun of?)
  6. He will make it easier for the trial lawyers to sue corporate America and others and raise the cost of just about everything we buy to pay a very few, mostly lawyers. Imagine how bad life will be when your boss is pissed because he’s being sued for making 7 digits while you can’t afford health care. I mean, it’s just not fair for your boss to have to suffer like that right?
  7. He will lead the federal government in taking over the nation’s health care industry with his version of universal health care. And this still might not be enough.
  8. He will favor unions leaders getting “open balloting” for union elections and other pro-union issues that do not help the rank and file. Well, that’s not technically true, he may actually be favouring unions in general, helping them form, which is naturally evil.
  9. He will put liberal judges on the supreme and other courts and they will continue to legislate from the bench instead of opining on existing laws and the constitution.
  10. He will favor the movement toward secularization and even atheism, but likely won’t do enough.
  11. His main counsellors over the years have included the likes of Rev. Jeremy Wright, William Ayers, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, etc. and he may have actually listened to them instead of just having to be there for the sake of participating in American Religio-Politics.
  12. He lacks experience in either running anything or serving long enough to understand how things work, and we really don’t want people with no experience in the White House.
  13. He is a very good speaker, but avoids substance because he tries to either be on both sides of, or appear to be leaning toward the conservative side, of many issues, and really, he still reaches out to the religious far too often, and may not actually be as liberal as the rest of the world thinks.

What’s good about Sarah Palin?

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

Editor’s Note: A shorter version of this post would just say “Nothing.”

So there’s been a lot of flack to Republican running-mate Sarah Palin since John McCain announced her this past week. But can she really be that bad? I bet I can think of some good reasons for Sarah Palin to be on the ballot with McCain.

  1. She’s a woman, and this means that women can be politicians too.
  2. She’s from Alaska, that’s pretty cool.
  3. She reminds us that the Republicans are still hypocritically behind anti-abortion legislation, and anti-contraception.
  4. She makes Joe Biden look a lot more intelligent (not that he didn’t before, but this helps).
  5. She gives the atheist blogs something to talk about for weeks.
  6. She reminds the American public that if they don’t vote for Obama it’s going to be four more years closer to an all out Christian theocracy.
  7. If McCain dies during his presidency (he is old), she’ll be president and that just has to bring Armageddon that much closer, and come on, who here doesn’t want to see the Armageddon?
  8. Also, if she became president than Kim Cambell (only female prime minister of Canada) will look better by comparison.
  9. She’ll keep global warming on track, so Canada will get nice and temperate.
  10. Finally, a McCain-Palin candidate is ripe for comedic value (old man with a younger woman touring across the US).

(Note: I hope the satire is taken in this post, and if you’re offended, too freaking bad.)

Political Untouchables

Friday, August 29th, 2008

I’ll admit it. I had caught Obama fever.

It started when my girlfriend’s mother gave me a copy of Dreams from my Father, Obama’s bestselling 1996 biography. Reading it got me very excited about Obama’s candidacy, and once it became clear that it was going to be a contest between Obama and McCain I enthusiastically threw my support behind Obama. A McCain presidency promises a fresh social conservative in the Supreme Court following Justice Stevens’ imminent departure, something that, as a freethought activist, I felt I had to oppose. Meanwhile, Obama has been explicit in several speeches about his staunch support of church-state separation. To me, the choice was obvious.

Then my wake-up call came, in the form of Obama promising to promote and enhance faith-based initiatives across the country. I was shaken; was there any candidate who could help us progress as a society, who would not actively promote conformity to mainstream religious modes?

The answer is simply no. This election is noteworthy, among many other things, for the fact that the Evangelical Christian bloc is up for grabs for the first time in recent memory. They carried Bush II to victory in the 2000 and 2004 elections, swinging states like Ohio into the Red and helping him capture the White House. However, the evangelicals are not as excited about McCain as they were Bush II, and both camps know that they have to mobilize to target this very motivated group of voters. The first real appearance of the two candidates together was the recent Saddleback Church forum, hosted by celebrity evangelist pastor Rick Warren. Before they debated on real issues, they instead got on-stage in front of the nation and tried to out-Christian each other, jumping through the Judeo-Christian hoops to prove that they are Christian leaders who will lead a Christian nation with Christian values towards a Christian world.

As an non-believer and a secular freethought activist, this sickens me. Many who decry the role of religion in Middle Eastern politics passionately advocate a Christian stranglehold on our own government, the worst of which we have seen since Bush II came into office. Christianity disproportionately dominates our government, unreflective of the true nature of the American religious demographic: anywhere from 4%-14% of Americans(depending on who you ask) consider themselves to be non-believers, not including many who keep their mouths shut about their disbelief. Despite this fact, one has to ask: where are the non-religious politicians? Well, here’s one, and he’s not the first; California Gov. Culbert Olson, a Democrat who served from 1939 to 1943, declared his atheism as well. But these men “came out” close to or after the end of their political careers, when they had little left to lose by such an admission. It would seem as though the non-believer is among the last of the political outcasts; the Democratic Party has a black man running for president with a Catholic as his running mate, and it came narrowly close to nominating a woman. A Jewish man was a Vice Presidential candidate in the 2000 election. The Democratic party openly supports civil unions for homosexuals. Yet, for all of its talk, the “party of inclusiveness” shuns those whose worldview tends toward the skeptical.

Given the current socio-political landscape, this makes bitter sense. To formally recognize non-believers as a political entity would be instant suicide for any political party. The best that we can hope to do is to vote for someone who would hurt our cause less, and in this case, the choice is clearly Obama. However, it is a regrettable choice, one that hurts more and more with each election cycle as we grow as a subset of the population while facing the same political disenfranchisement year after year. Perhaps someday the non-believers will know the joy of having a real say in politics, like women, minorities and soon homosexuals. Until then, we’ll fight the good fight until the world considers our voice a legitimate one.