Category: Uncategorized

I had an argument with a Christian last night in which I was told that my reference to Hell, which I regard to be one of the worst features of Christianity, was an “interpretation,” and, moreover, that I can’t know what Christians think. Let me take up the second claim first, a claims sometimes rendered, “You don’t know what’s in my heart.” This is a favorite argument of racists, as if being a racist is determined by what one thinks of himself and not what he believes and how he acts. The same applies to being a Christian but in reverse: with racism, you don’t get to deny you’re a racist while embracing racist beliefs and practices; with Christianity, you don’t get to say, “I’m a Christian” and then deny the core elements of your faith. I’m not giving anybody the wriggle room to escape their responsibility in these matters.

The fact is that the New Testament is full of references to Hell. In 2 Thessalonians 1:9, which has historically been considered to be one of Paul’s epistles, in which case it was written some three generations after the alleged birth of Jesus and therefore represents the earliest Christian writings (Paul’s epistles), putting the notion of everlasting destruction and eternal alienation from God at the beginning of Christian thinking. The verse: “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” It has been supposed more recently that 2 Thessalonians was probably written four to six generations after the alleged birth of the Christian messiah. If you are among those who put distance and authors between 2 Thessalonians from 1 Thessalonians, then Mark, widely believed to be the earliest gospel (probably written four to five generations after the alleged birth of the Christian messiah, and forming, along with perhaps a second common source, the basis of the gospels of Matthew and Luke), gives us chapter and verse 9:43: “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.”

Hell is discussed elsewhere in the New Testament, as well. For example, in Revelations 21:8, the author writes, “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.” (This book was probably written approximately four to five generations after the alleged birth of the Christian messiah.) Then there’s Matthew, who seems particularly keen on scaring the crap out of people with the idea of Hell. Matthew 10:28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 13:42: “They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:50: “and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” Matthew 25:46: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew was probably written four to six generations after the alleged birth of the Christian messiah.)

One does not get to say that Hell is a product of my interpretation of the Christian scriptures. Hell is a central construct in Christian theology and appears in the earliest Christian literature, the very text deemed canonical and divinely inspired. If you believe the authors of the gospels had access to Jesus’s words, or were inspired to accurately reflect his views, then the fact that Matthew 10:28 is directly attributed to Jesus himself gives you no room for interpretation. If you believe you can be a Christian simply by saying you are, well, then have fun with your own self-satisfaction. But it doesn’t impress me at all.

Sure, you can rationalize Hell. You can say that it is not there to scare us into loving God, but that salvation is a gift from loving God to provide a way to escape Hell. There’s a downside to this view. It means that Hell is a place that exists independently of God – not a place created by him to scare you – and that, while God does not have the power to make Hell go away, he does have the power to save you from going there if an only if you sign your life over to him. God says, “I will save you from eternal torment if you love me.,” God says “If you don’t love me, sorry, there’s nothing I can do. You will burn.” Some all-powerful deity you got there. So full of love for his creatures. And if you object to me quoting God, remember, I have as much authority to do so as anybody else.

UW-River Falls is pursuing a “Check Yourself” campaign. Its purpose is to teach faculty and students proper etiquette surrounding talk about sex, race, immigration, and so on. It’s a speech code designed to impose terms of political correctness by those who have appointed themselves bearers of truth on the matter. 

One of the things its audience is warned about is the claim that all human beings are bisexual. The reason for this prohibition is because the claim denies bisexuality’s unique identity, as well as undermines the identity of those who do not believe they are bisexual. Everybody has a right, the campaign tells us, to their own identity. (Right, tell that to Rachel Dolezal.)

There are many problems with etiquette campaigns. But I find this item about bisexuality particularly troubling and representative of the problem of wide-ranging speech codes. There is a position, articulated for example by Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey, albeit in different ways, that homo sapiens are, as are many other species of mammal, innately bisexual. We are born without a sexual orientation (or a race, religion, gender, etc.) but experience socialization in heterosexuality as an social and cultural imposition, albeit a process that is never completely effective – nor should it be. However much our homosexual tendencies are repressed, our bisexuality is not erased, but lies in a latent, or unconscious state in our psyche. We remain, somewhere in the layers of our mind, sexually attracted to members of our designated and acquired gender.

Acknowledging the possibility of this basic reality provides important insights into human attitudes and behaviors. For example, because a heterosexual man finds other men sexually attractive, even if he is not directly conscious of this attraction, he escapes into rituals that sublimate his sexual desire as higher-order asexual relations and activities. The structure of masculinity can be explained in part as a bulwark against culturally disapproved sexual feelings towards other men. Compulsory heterosexuality thus comes with a complex symbolic system of ritual self-denial, which, without being able to posit innate bisexuality, is mysterious. In other words, homophobia exists in part because heterosexuality is an imposition – we fear ourselves. Repressive sexuality is a source of self-loathing.

If we are told that we cannot argue that all human beings are bisexual, then what we are being told is that Freud and his ilk are wrong. An official, or at least official sounding position, has thus been taken on a contested matter. UW-River Falls is telling faculty and students that this is a settled matter. Why else would there be a speech code?

But it is not a settled matter. Indeed, we should be encouraging students to consider whether human beings are innately bisexual. It is an open question. Being able to make this claim is not only important for scientific reasons. It is also part of a political argument that faculty and students should be allowed to make. If we are all innately bisexual, then the justifications for compulsory heterosexuality, for example the notion that we are born with a sexual orientation, becomes problematic. The ideology of heterosexuality loses its naturalist appeal. The deconstruction of the normalcy of compulsory heterosexuality is accomplished, not with revised etiquette pamphlets, but rather through dialectal engagement.

At its core, liberalism upholds two contradictory rights. The first is the right of private property, most importantly exclusive control over the means of profit making. This is the essence of liberalism: an ideology justifying class society based on property rights with an emphasis on markets. If a person does not believe in private property and capitalism, then he is not a liberal in an important sense.

The second right liberalism upholds is free speech and free thought. Opposition to free speech and free thought makes the supporter of private property and capitalism something other than a liberal. A fascist advocates capitalist arrangements, but does not preserve the right to free speech. Thus we say that fascism is illiberal, an authoritarian form of capitalism. On the other hand, free speech and other civil liberties can be present without a right to private property. 

Modern conservatives share with liberals the core principle of private property and the justness of capitalism as a social system. However, conservatives and liberals disagree on the importance of the rights of speech and expression, including religious liberty. Thus capitalism slides along a continuum of liberal to authoritarian. At the extreme conservative end is fascism. But authoritarian capitalism does not necessarily present as fascism. Neoliberalism is authoritarian capitalism with a liberal façade.

While liberals and democrats share a commitment to the rights of speech and expression, democrats do not share with liberals their commitment to private property and capitalism. Democrats (and I do not mean here the Democratic Party) recognize and seek to resolve the contradiction between free speech and private control over the means of communication. The economic system democrats seek is socialism; only by guaranteeing public access to the means of communication can everybody be assured venues in which opinions and information are maximally freely expressed and received by the population.

Democratic socialism is therefore the realization of the free speech ideals of liberalism. Liberalism cannot make fully substantive the free speech right because of its commitment to capitalism, an exploitative system resting on exclusive control over economic activity, thus restricting access to the means of communication. Liberalism will always be compromised by its commitment to property and the perpetuation of social class. This is why I reject liberalism in its totality as an adequate political and moral philosophy.

From the beginning, I have opposed Western military involvement in the Syrian conflict. I have argued against providing any material support to Islamist fighters in Syria. Liberals and conservatives alike who support the goal of toppling Assad do not grasp the threat Islamism poses to humanity. As we saw with al Qaeda, moral men do not use these people as a means of achieving ideological ends. They are not to be played with. The Islamists represent an existential threat to human freedom, and feeding this monster only makes the likelihood of their success greater. I also opposed military action in Iraq and all of the other countries the US has invaded, occupied, and bombed, as well as military and material support to insurgents in every situation. I am anti-imperialist. If you know me and read my work this should come as no surprise.

I have expressed support for refugees and argued that the nations of the world that can should take them and provide for them, especially those countries whose actions created the refugee crisis. The United States has taken refugees from Iraq, Syria, and many other places and I have supported this. I have also expressed the opinion that it is appropriate for countries to set limits on the number of persons coming across their borders, but if no evidence can be presented indicating that the person is a danger to others (criminal background, involvement in terrorism, carrier of a communicable and deadly disease), they should not be prevented from entering merely on the basis of point of origin. There are exceptions to many of these cases obviously. I am working from principle.

I remind people of these points because there should be no confusion concerning the intent of my argument about the legality of Donald Trump’s executive order. My observation that the administration devised the order to avoid the charge of religious discrimination is based on my interpretation of the text and analysis of the context and represents my thinking about how this order will fair in the courts. It is no way an expression of support for Trump or his order.

Some might be confused because I pushed back on the claim that it was a “Muslim ban.” I strive to make judgments independent of partisanship or ideology. Opposition to Donald Trump should not cause anyone to ignore or misrepresent facts. If distortion in pursuit of political goals is what makes the political right so contemptible, then the left needs to take special care to avoid distorted communication. We need to speak truthfully, and when I see people marching out with a particular (mis)characterization in tow, one that the other side can easily push back on, I thought something needed to be said.

Nothing I am saying here is meant to suggest that anybody be apolitical. I highly recommend you study the difference between neutrality and objectivity. They are not synonyms. What I argue for is objectivity. Reluctantly go beyond the facts you have. And when you have more facts, and your assumptions and interpretation appear wrong, be sure to correct them.

I followed the Quebec shooting in real. The initial sense was that it was a hate crime. I was unsure. When the first police reports came out claiming that the gun man suggesting the gun man was an Islamist, I finally posted about it and noted the troubling fact that victims of Islamic terrorism are often Muslims themselves. When later facts showed that it was a right-wing white nationalist, I made sure to correct the record. This is how one works in an objective fashion.

The Hebrew Bible does not have a notion of resurrection. When people die their souls survive and enter a shadow world, Sheol, from which they can communicate with the living. Sheol is the Jewish state of the dead. It could mean the grave or another dimension. Later, Jewish mythology evolved to include the notion that there will come a future time when the righteous will be resurrected, but this is not original to the ancient religion (but it explains all the bone collections – those unique stone boxes full of bones). The notion of Hell as understood in Christianity, Gehenna or Hades, where the soul and body suffer everlasting torment and destruction, albeit sometimes also denoting the concept of Sheol or Hades as the abode of the dead, is not of ancient Jewish origin. Moreover, in the Old Testament, Satan was one of God’s archangels (of which there were many and many other lesser angels). Satan resided in the celestial dimension with God and was deployed by God to test the faith of his followers, sort of a celestial prosecutor.

In the late Old Testament and intertestamental period, between late sixth century BC and the first century AD, Jews came under the influence of Persian culture (when Persia conquered the Babylonians in 536 BC) and were influenced by Zoroastrianism, which conceived of the universe – and the soul – as containing opposing forces of good and evil, or cosmic / moral dualism. The evil force opposed God’s creative force, polluting / corrupting God’s pure creative work, hence aging, sickness, etc. There are two paths you can go by: the righteous path, which is the stairway to Heaven and happiness everlasting, and the wicked path, which leads to wretchedness and eternal torment in Hell. Zoroastrians are optimistic that evil will finally be vanquished and humanity will realize Paradise on Earth (they became more optimistic as the religion evolved, but I digress).

Under this influence, Jewish cults emerged that re-conceptualized Satan as the personification of evil. Satan is no longer tempting man as God’s prosecutor to test for loyalty (as we see in Job), but enticing man to sin for his own sake. He becomes the corrupter of men’s souls. In the emerging cultish version of Jewish cosmology, God (and his angels) and Satan (and his demons) become independent forces, locked in a struggle for power.

Christian mythology takes this further: Satan, an archangel is depicted as rebelling against god in the celestial realm. God casts Satan out of Heaven. Satan falls towards Earth (although it’s unclear whether all the way). Jesus, another of God’s archangels, is sent from Heaven, eventually depicted as God incarnate, representing along the way the fulfillment of a revised Jewish prophecy, repurposed to wash away the stain of sin with his purifying magic blood. The idea of choice, central to Zoroastrianism, where one chooses to be good, is incorporated into Christian doctrine, producing a more agency-driven religious feel (and an early source of the coming fascination with individualism); a person accepts Jesus as his personal savior, honoring the sacrifice Jesus made, in order to be welcomed into Paradise, now removed from Earth to Heaven. Jesus, one of many savior deities, thus represents a composite myth, and is subsequently historicized via the Gospels, which are written in the second century AD.

This is confirmed by the epistles of Paul, which are the earliest references to Jesus in history, penned well after Jesus is supposed to have lived. Paul insists that he has no personal knowledge of Jesus, that scripture and revelations are the only ways to knows Jesus. It came to him in a vision (although he consorted with other wizards of his sort). Jesus is not connected to human history in any of Paul’s writings. All of the elements in the Gospels, written many decades after Paul, are not in Paul’s epistles: Mary and Joseph, the immaculate conception, the virgin birth, the time and place of the birth, the manger and three three kings, Jesus’ childhood, John the Baptist, Jesus’ baptism, the temptation, sermons, parables, and moral pronouncements, exorcisms, healings, and miracles, the last supper, Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial, Jesus’ arrest and trial, the witnesses at the tomb, the transfiguration – none of these things are known to Paul (for they had not yet been invented). Paul only knows about crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and some vague notion of the sperm of David (which translates much like God’s manufacture of Adam) and it is not clear that any of these things even happened on Earth. They seem to have happened in the celestial space between the Earth and the Moon where God and Satan do battle.

In Paul’s story, Jesus is an archangel, a salvation deity, sent from Heaven for the sake of people. Decades later there is a dispute among Christians as to whether that’s for Jews and Jewish converts, i.e. Torah observant Christians (TOCs), specifically, which ties in with the entirely speculative historical case of Jesus as a rebel seeking salvation from Roman occupation, or for Gentiles, too, for a we-are-the-world go at things. That latter bit really caught on, as you can see. Or, more accurately, with elaborated and forced on populations by law and by sword, thanks to the Romans. However, the only recipients of Jesus’ message, according to Paul, are apostles like Paul, that is, recipients of revelations from celestial quarters (albeit not in the detailed ways Muhammad and Joseph Smith were informed by Gabriel and Moroni). The ritual of the Eucharist is transmitted to Paul in the same way God transmits to Moses the building of altars (that “Don’t let me see your testicles” bit). It is not conveyed to him or by him as symbolic of an actual historical moment (which had yet to be invented).

The Gospels, written much later, attempt to situate Jesus in history, but even here the stories take the form of the Greek myths that purport to report events happening on earth. Indeed, when people read the Gospels as history they are missing the fact that they are myths telling parables about spiritual matters (such as the story of Jesus and the fig tree in Mark 11:13). Thus the Gospels are instances of contemporary myth-making in the same way that Joseph Smith manufactured the Book of Mormon. And very much in the spirit with the Jewish tribes and all, which either Smith accidentally picked up or he was smarter that we think). And just as the Book of Mormon is a plagiarism of the Biblical text, so the New Testament is a plagiarism of the Old Testament, and the Quran is a plagiarism of both the Old and the New Testament – as they were known at that time.

So, the New Testament is a mix of Paul’s epistles, second century AD myth-making and plagiarism, and forgeries (such as 2 Peter). Moreover, the extra-biblical sources claim knowledge of Jesus either only have knowledge of the cult or are themselves forgeries. Jesus is not actual historical figure. He is myth through and through.

The foundation of a concrete form of gender categorization could be challenged in such a way that the basis for a particular gender identity could seem problematic and the legitimacy of the associated political project threatened. Complaints about the critique could be framed as bias and hate. For example, questions raised recently by a feminist concerning the character of the gender construct led to her being labeled “transphobic.” Imagine using her article in a classroom on gender issues to provoke discussion. Transgender students could bring a complaint that transphobic ideas were being taught in the classroom, that they felt intimidated or threatened by the feminist’s critique, and the administration could, instead of educating the students about the rights and importance of academic freedom, flip the complaint switch and set the disciplinary machinery in motion. Even the possibility that this could happen could lead to the teacher not including that article and thus depriving the class of an important discussion.

A critique could be made of the claim that essentialist notions of race form the basis of expression of racial identity. Such a critique could be said to be offensive because it suggests the possibility of plausibly denying the reality of constitutional differences and thus the power of interpretation to efface a concrete and politically-useful meaning of race. Consider an argument positing that race is a sociohistorical construction and that, even when used as the basis of a politics by historically-disadvantaged group, it’s function is to reify race and maintain an artificial separation of people that harms the groups who are using it in struggle, calling into question the efficacy and thus the legitimacy of their politics. Students could claim that this critique felt harassing and threatening in that it had direct bearing on their racial identity and practice. They felt called out by the reading and lecture. They felt intimidated by the materials and were afraid to speak to them. But why shouldn’t this frank and searching critique be pursued in a classroom?

A criticism of a religious ideology that compels parents to cut the genitalia of their male offspring in a way that reduces their experience of sexual pleasure and marks them as a member of a group expressing beliefs to which they did not voluntarily subscribe and will suffer consequences for rejecting (which won’t bring back their foreskin in any case) could be perceived as an attack on the identity and deeply-held beliefs of more than a billion people. Or suppose a critique made of modesty rules, such as the wearing of restrictive clothing. The complaint would be that these beliefs and practices are fundamental to an identity and that criticism of those beliefs and practices defame an entire group. However, the criticism proceeds on the basis of facts and appeals to understandings of liberty that bear directly on the problem of religious oppression and control, whereas the objection to the criticism seeks to excuse these understandings by advancing a self-serving and irrational interpretation of religious freedom. Imagine being brought up on charges of academic misconduct for criticizing religious belief and practices in a classroom. Imagine being brought up on charges of academic misconduct for offending Christians by criticizing religious arguments against marriage equality. Imagine being subject to the blasphemy rules of a religion to which you do not subscribe – in a public institution in a country that separates church and state.

This is why academic freedom must be boldly defended by the institution where the relentless interrogation of ideas and practices is supposed to take place – the university. Allowing students and others to shut down speech on the basis of offense taking is an attack on the principles of the enlightenment and the human right to express controversial opinions without fear of punishment. Every time the university fails to stand up for faculty and students over against demands to stifle the discussion of controversial topics, it contributes to a culture of trepidation that leads to de facto suppression of important lines of discourse. Such a culture is contrary to the purposes of the academy. Students should be told to expect upon entering the university that their most cherished beliefs may be subject to critical examination and that, while they have the right to disagree with their professors and their peers, and even the right to complain, they shouldn’t be surprised when they are told that this is what freedom feels like.

Being able to tolerate criticism of opinions, even the most deeply-held ones, is part of being an adult in a democratic society.

We should disagree with disagreeable ideas. We should challenge expressions of prejudice and address actions that discriminate against persons based on the race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Disagreement and protest are speech acts we must defend. Even civil disobedience has its place in moving opinion. However, the efficacy of any action needs to be considered in terms of all its possible consequences and must take care not to undermine the democratic principles of a free and open society. What is more, while it is one thing to disagree with a point of view, it is quite another to regulate it.

The disruption of events sponsored by conservative students (for example, events that bring to campus professional provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos), especially when these actions result in fewer of these events (for example, because of security costs and safety concerns) or administrators or student organizations acting to make it more difficult for conservatives to put on programming that reflects their political and cultural opinions provides conservative politicians with the ammunition they need to justify reductions in state appropriations to university and colleges. A conservative politician will take an accounting of left-wing versus right-wing speakers and events and show that the ratio tilts left, confirming what is perceived, namely that the university has a left-wing bias. It follows that citizens should be concerned that they’re paying for a range of opinion that does not reflect the range of opinion in their community.

Whenever conservative students – and liberal students who have a robust understanding of free speech – are disciplined for political incorrectness, violating speech codes, engaging in cultural appropriation, causing offense, and so on, i.e. when administrators and faculty discipline those with opinions judged to violate official norms of civility and tolerance, this is more evidence reinforcing conservative claims about how narrowly defined acceptable discourse has become at the very institution that should be the space par excellence where ideas and opinions are most freely expressed and interrogated.

Suppression of offensive opinions is the evidence conservatives and free speech activists use to show that universities have become places of indoctrination and thought control – and not the places of education and enlightenment they claim to be. Suppression of offensive speech undermines the institution’s claims to stand for tolerance and inclusivity. For an institution proclaiming enlightenment ideals represent its core values, inclusivity must include tolerance of opinions with which members of various groups disagree and even find offensive. A right to utter opinions with which the majority – or the authority – agrees is superfluous, an empty self-congratulatory gesture.

This is not merely a public relations problem. When universities give into left-wing suppression of speech and expression, when administrators restrict opinion on the basis of rigid doctrines of multiculturalism and restrictive regimes of inclusivity, they are creating an environment in which a segment of the population, composed of individuals who could benefit from the dialectic (defined here in its traditional meaning as the art of interrogating the truth of opinions), are marginalized and frustrated. Norms of acceptability reflecting particular sets of politics that one not only does not accept but has not role in developing is alienating and contrary to education.

The suppression of disagreeable opinions serves to push them underground, to cause their recoding into less ascertainable expressions of sentiment that still need challenging. Restriction breeds resentment; acceptable and allowed opinions are uttered freely and remain inadequately challenged. The campus community loses out on countless moments to have a productive debate about the opinions that others find so disagreeable. Those – on all sides – who hold disagreeable opinions miss out on an opportunity to grow and develop in their beliefs and values. Modes of power and control that signal their defensiveness through the taking of offense go unchallenged.

For example, criticism of Islam is often felt as speech that offends the listener’s deeply held religious belief. It is often characterized as a form of prejudice called “Islamophobia,” which makes it appear as if it is analogous to racially derogatory speech. In a class in which systems of patriarchy and misogyny are being interrogated, Islam, with its penchant for strict standards of modesty, subordinating women in law and culture, and demanding expectations of heteronormativity, will, if the instructor is determined to meet her obligations to the course objectives, come into view. But her criticism, recast as “Islamophobia,” could fall under a university’s civility, tolerance, and inclusivity doctrine on the grounds that a student or students in the class found the lecture and discussion offensive. The offensive taken is a manifestation to the enlightenment process in which a gendered system of power is being threatened. But without a robust policy defending free speech, the opportunity becomes negated by the desire to keep the ideology immune from challenge.

The academy has to permit the maximum degree of freedom of opinion in order to deliver on its promise to enlighten the students and help them become full citizens in a democratic society. For a crucial component of citizenship development involves cultivating the ability to express disagreeable opinions and interrogate them in a common search for the truth. The university that guarantees to its students free and open spaces in which ideas can be challenged and opinions interrogated, and prepares them to be offended by the ideas and opinions and others, is the university that is meeting its obligations in a democracy.

National vote totals find that Clinton won the popular vote. But, as we know, the electoral college is what counts. Three states Clinton was expected to win–Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin–went to Trump (technically, Michigan isn’t certified, but there would need to be a treasure trove of uncounted votes to change the outcome). I reviewed the past two elections in those three states. Here’s what I found:

Michigan

2012 (D) 2,564,569 (R) 2,115,256

2016 (D) 2,267,373 (R) 2,279,210

Pennsylvania

2012 (D) 2,990,274 (R) 2,680,434

2016 (D) 2,844,705 (R) 2,912,941

Wisconsin

2012 (D) 1,620,985 (R) 1,407,966

2016 (D) 1,382,210 (R) 1,409,467

In 2012, Obama won a total of 7,175,828 for these three states. Romney won 6,203,656. In 2016, Clinton won a total of 6,494,288 votes. Trump won a total of 6,601,618. So, in these three crucial states, Clinton won 681,540 fewer votes than Obama, whereas Trump won 397,972 more votes than Romney. The 2016 figures will change, but not by much, and it is unlikely that the percentage difference will change much at all.

There was a substantial enthusiasm gap in this campaign. Trump supporters were motivated. Clinton did not effectively motivate the electorate in the states that mattered (Sanders won two of these three states in the primary). Her lack of support was the greater factor in this election. Part of this was a rejection of her candidacy. The numbers suggest that Obama would have beaten Trump in all three states (we can’t simply transfer the vote counts over, but the gap is huge). On the other hand, part of the vote was popular rejection of the Democrat’s destructive neoliberal policies. Obama is complicit in those policies. 

What Democrats needed was a candidate who would have enthused voters and given them a reason to vote for their candidate. They needed a candidate who rejected the Clintonian policy agenda, the agenda that affected working people in these three states (and other states, as well). They really did need a Bernie Sanders. 

* * *

Update: (from Patrick Barrett), David Bodamer did a similar analysis but backed it up to 2008. Here is the comparison:

Michigan

2008: Obama: 2,872,579; McCain: 2,048,639

2016: Clinton: 2,267,373; Trump: 2,279,210

Pennsylvania

2008: Obama: 3,276,363; McCain: 2,655,885

2016: Clinton: 2,844,705; Trump: 2,912,941

Wisconsin

2008: Obama: 1,677,21; McCain: 1,262,393

2016: Clinton: 1,382,210; Trump: 1,409,4674

From Obama 2008 to Clinton 2016, Democrats lost 1,331,865 votes in these states. Republicans gained 634,701 votes. It is even more clearly the case that Clintonism is driving voters away from the Democratic Party.

Genesis, Chapter 1, God creates light. God separates the light from the darkness and calls the light “day” and the darkness “night.” That is on the first day. Then God creates the sun, the moon, and the stars to give light to the earth. This is on the fourth day. God creates the animals, including people, on the fifth and sixth days. God also creates plants for the animals to eat. Then on the seventh day, God rests because he is tired. 

In the next chapter, the reader is told that there are no plants on the earth because there is no one to work the ground. God fashions people from the ground and breathes life into them. God plants a garden and makes plants grow there. Two of the plants are the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The first tree would be unnecessary but for the second tree, which brings mortality; however, as the reader later discovers, access to the tree of life is barred eternally. 

God tells man not to eat the fruit of the second tree or man will die, but God does not bar the way to the tree.

God makes woman from man’s side. At this time, man and woman are naked and unashamed.

God creates plants for the animals to eat. However, there are no plants because there is no one to work the ground. But God makes a garden for man so man does not have to work the ground. 

In Chapter 3, the reader learns that, among the animals, there is the serpent. The serpent is cleverer than all the other animals – even man and woman!

The serpent talks the woman into eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. His argument is that the fruit will not kill her, as God has said, but that it will open her eyes and allow her to know good and evil. At this point, only divine beings possess this knowledge.

The man, who was with the woman, eats the fruit with her. 

The first consequence of the man and woman knowing good and evil is discovering their nakedness. To cover their shame, they make clothes out of fig leaves.

(Is this all a grand metaphor for sex?)

The man and woman hear God walking in the garden and hide. God asks why they are hiding. The man says because he is naked. God asked how the man knows this. The man says because the woman gave him fruit from the forbidden tree.

God then turns to the woman and questions her. The woman says the serpent tricked her into eating the fruit. God curses the serpent for this deed. God then curses the woman for listening to the serpent. God then curses man for listening to the woman.

After cursing them, God makes clothing of animal skin for them to wear and banishes them from the garden. 

God laments that man has become “like us.”

The man is fated to work the ground from which he was taken. (Now there can be plants.)

In front of the garden, God places a human-headed winged bull and a flashing sword to keep the man and woman from entering the garden and eating fruit from the tree of life. 

Chapter 3 informs the reader that the woman God made, who is named Eve, is the mother of all people. She and the man, who is named Adam, have two children: Cain and Abel. At this time, there are four people in the world.

Cain kills Abel because God tells him not to. To punish Cain, God drives him out of the land Adam, Eve, and Cain inhabit. Cain complains to God that he will be killed if he is forced to wander the earth. God reassures him that this will not happen. 

I have some questions.

If God makes light on the first day, then why does God need to make lights on the fourth day? God makes light before making any light-emitting things; but God has to make light-emitting things to give light. This sounds like a contradiction.

Why does God get tired? Why does he rest? Is he not all powerful? 

If God is the only god, why does God keep referring to “us”? Why is “gods” plural?

Why does God put the knowledge of good and evil inside fruit? Why does God put this fruit in the garden? Does it not seem that God wants the man and woman to eat the fruit? Why does God want the man and woman to become like gods? 

Why does God have to look for the man and woman in the garden? Does God not already know where they are? Why does the man tell God that he is naked when in fact he is clothed in a garment made of fig leaves? Did God not know they were naked before they ate the fruit? 

Why does God allow the serpent to talk the woman into eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why does God punish the serpent, the woman, and the man for actions they take in a situation God created? (Is this not entrapment?)

More generally, why does God punish people for actions that God can prevent? And if God cannot prevent these actions, then how is God powerful enough to create light and light-emitting things in reverse order?

If there are only three people in the world, then why is Cain worried? Why does God not remind Cain of this fact? Why does it seem that even God is not aware of this fact? 

Cain makes love to his wife and has a child. Where does Cain find a wife? Surely it is not Eve.

Cain builds a city and names it after his son. But how can there be a city when there is only Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain’s wife, and Cain’s son? Isn’t that a tent?

Cain’s son has a son. Where does Cain’s son’s wife come from?

Adam and Eve have a third son. They name him Seth. Seth has a son.

Who is Seth’s wife?

Hillary Clinton’s email problem may be much more serious that first thought. The things that come with Clinton should concern us.

The Muslim World League, a mouthpiece for the Saudi government, which has ties to terrorist organizations and whose mission it is to spread Islamic ideas of the Wahhabist variety (they practice Da’wahism, or aggressive proselytizing), shares the same London address as the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), the business run by Huma Abedin’s family, which, among other things, publishes a journal Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs striving to promote a positive image of Islam, while presenting anti-feminist views.

The address for the IMMA is 46 Goodge Street, London, W1T 4LU, U.K., which you can see in the above attached link. To see that this is the same address for The World Muslim League, just plug it into Google and see what comes up.

The Institute for Minority Affairs was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseem, who has ties with the Muslim World League (he served as its secretary-general in the 1980s). Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton right-hand, has direct involvement in the organization.

Abedin sat on the board of directors and currently sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which is edited by her mother Saleha S. Mahmood. Saleha, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief. That group is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The Abedin family are propagandists for the project to spread Da’wahism globally.

These close relations are associated with millions of dollars following into the Clinton family’s foundation and millions of dollars in weaponry flowing out of the US into Saudi hands, authorized by the State Department, which are used, among other things, to make war in Yemen. 

In light of this, it’s troubling that Huma Abedin had access to classified information and that the emails the FBI is currently looking at, emails shared between Huma and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, could very well include classified documents.

But even if the investigation turns up none of this, the very fact of these relations, which are easily provable and should be covered in-depth by the media, is enough to tell the public that Clinton closely associates with Saudi-style Islamists.

Let’s put this in perspective. Imagine a Christian organization, let’s call it the “Christian World League,” pushing a fundamentalist vision of Christianity through aggressive proselytizing, with ties to white nationalist and right-wing groups, advocating an ideology that subordinates women to male rule. Imagine further an “Institute of Christian Minority Affairs,” which published an anti-feminist Christianist journal, propaganda dressed up in academic jargon, whose purpose it is to promote a positive image of this lethal type of Christianity.

Do we really believe that progressives would remain silent about it?

Why is it that progressives aggressively criticize the patriarchal proclivities of the Christian church but do not speak out against Islam, even in its worst varieties?