Reddit, a social news site much like Digg, has an interesting posting at the top of its front page.

Whether the redditor seriously means to come out based on the number of votes or not, the suggestion so far is to come out. Despite the many crass comments, they’re overwhelmingly in favor of this person coming out. I think this is a neat way to summarize how the majority of geeks and nerds feel about homosexuality.

The more I learn, the more I realize that most issues are not black and white. They are often complex gradations of gray, with one “fact” leading to a multitude of questions, the answers to which shed new light on the “fact” itself. This has caused me to question the concept of belief. People base their lives on belief: Their religious preferences, moral guidelines and day-to-day actions are a reflection of _things_ they believe in.

A dictionary definition of belief is “something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof“. That last part hints at the temporal relationship between knowledge and time. A belief is a momentary opinion or idea, one subject to change as time progresses and further knowledge is gained.

This has been on my mind a lot as I look at politicians and the level of permanent accountability they are held to regarding their beliefs. We as a society seem to value people with strong beliefs. But we value their unwavering dedication to those beliefs, as well. If a politician, for instance, changes their mind on an issue after learning more about it, we see that as typical politics; a person exploiting a group’s dedication to a belief in order to get elected, then abandoning that belief when convenient. It seems probable that some politicians are in fact opportunists. But should we project a minority bias onto a larger group who may have a change of heart and mind because they have learned something new that sways their opinion?

We elect these officials because they are esteemed citizens, intelligent in the ways and needs of their constituents and capable of navigating the political landscape. Yet we question them immediately once they deviate from the path they set out on. But each one of us lives day to day changing our minds based on new information we encounter. Why is it we hold these people to a higher standard–or more rigid standard–than we hold ourselves?

One argument for it is we elected these people based on a common set of beliefs we have. We elected them with the understanding that they would influence government to meet our needs, which are fed by our beliefs. And when they veer from the course we believed they would take, we are quick to anger: How could they so carelessly abandon the group that elected them? But why see it like that? Isn’t it equally (if not more) probable that they are now privy to information we are not that has influenced their change of heart? How often do we change our minds on a whim without some compelling reason to do so? These elected officials are, after all, supposed to be extensions of our collective minds and opinions. It is not illogical to think they would act just as we would in positions of further knowledge.

Or perhaps our reaction to them exposes something deeper about us; our aversion to change even in the presence of new and convincing information.

Even if the politicians are behaving opportunistically (exploiting a group’s belief in something to become elected, with the intent of doing something different once in office), isn’t it possible they are so educated and aware that they know more about something, or know better what’s good for a group of people, than they themselves do? I can see the danger in that argument as it tends to move toward tyranny if fully embraced. But in a republic, can we not assume that for each bad apple who wishes to exploit the people for power, there are 9 good apples wishing to exploit the people for their own good?

I suppose what influences this train of thought is an inherent optimism about the intentions of humans. Time has shown me that for all the evil that exists, there is unquestionably more good. That is why the Adolf Hitlers, Josef Stalins, Alberto Mussolinis, and Pol Pots of the world are historical rarities. They occur with certainty and will continue to do so, but they represent the potential for evil in all of us, not the certainty of it. And time has proved that humans trend toward good–otherwise our race would be extinct.

Embracing that, it seems we should, as a collective people, embrace belief changes as well-intentioned shifts necessarily made by people who are exposed to more information than most of us. When people’s minds change, it is often for the better.

To risk an interpretation folly, that’s likely why a politician runs on a platform. A platform is a foundation to build upon. It’s an expression of commonality between a politician and their base. It’s a contract that, all things considered, they will do their best–given all constraints–to help change their constituents’ society in a certain way. But once new information flows in and they can see a bigger picture, they must do what’s necessary to build upon that platform in ways that seem correct to them.

And if they fail to satisfy us with their long-term strategy, we simply won’t re-elect them. 

Looks like the auto industry is out for a piece of the bailout pie too. Our government really is becoming a federal soup kitchen for the corporate poor. Who knows what ailing and failing industries will crop up next looking for their fair share of the handouts. This is, of course, the government’s fault as they set a precedent with the Wall Street bailout.

Even the rhetoric used by the auto industry mirrors that used by financial institutions and Paulson, Bernanke & Co. Here’s a quote from an industry source on what would happen if Congress goes on break before money is doled out (I say before because everyone knows it’s just a matter of time):

If Congress ends its autumn lame-duck session without helping the automakers, policymakers are taking a “substantial risk with the economy,” an industry source said. The automakers and their allies warn that failure of the Big Three could cost 3 million to 5 million jobs when the impact on related industries is calculated.

Imminent doom and destruction if nothing is done…when have we heard that before? Hm.

Their claims about the impact on parts manufacturers and car dealers may be legitimate, but they’re nothing new in a capitalistic economy. Competition exists to weed out the weak, and it just so happens that Chrysler, GM, and Ford are weak right now. If they go under it’s because of natural market forces, not neglect. Isn’t it odd how capitalism is great when you’re winning but sucks when you’re losing?

They have had many opportunities to respond to imminent competitive threats from foreign auto makers and their cheap, more fuel-efficient cars. Yet they haven’t done much of anything. Ford, for instance, recently issued a sizeable press release about their new 2009 and 2010 lineups that doesn’t explicitly mention, even once, the miles-per-gallon capabilities of their cars. And besting Honda and Toyota by 6mpg is not something to brag about. They are already innovating the next leap in efficiency. Give them a year, they’ll beat you by 10 or 20.

Our car companies are failing. There’s no denying that. That’s part of our economy, though. If my industry was failing, I don’t know what tune I’d be whistling. But I hope now that if/when that occurs, someone is smart enough to advocate against wasting billions of tax payer’s dollars (that have no sound financial backing, but I digress) to revive a faction of an industry whose time has past. If Ford, Chrysler, and GM can’t compete within the reality of the global economy, they should be removed from it.

Yes, this means a potentially crushing blow to our economy now. We’re all in recession mode, though. We’ve all cut back or are in the process of doing so. Let’s take the hit now instead of drawing out the deaths of these corporate giants.

Also, if you’re in the mood for a little more “it’s our fault we’re here but we’ll blame you for inaction if you don’t save us” fear mongering, check out GM’s Fact and Fiction site. The video in the corner is laden with interesting facts and figures. My favorite part happens around 3 minutes and 32 seconds in:

We can loan $25 billion now…or lose $156 billion later. What will we do?

The key word being now. How much more will they want in 3 months? 6 months? A year? Not a bone in my body believes their issues will be solved with $25 billion. If that’s all it would take to revive our auto industry, it would already have been done. The we part is great, too. Once again, profits are theirs and losses are all of ours.

I’m still waiting for Ashton Kutcher to jump out and scream “America, you got punked!”

One of my main grievances with the Wall Street bailout is how the banks aren’t being held accountable for their mistakes (and the hallway conversations and murmurings tell me others are bothered by this, too.) To put this in perspective, what if every American said to the government “Pay off my credit card debt, car loan, and mortgage or I’ll kill myself tomorrow.” Would the American government absorb our words and fork over billions to save us all? Not a chance. But that’s essentially what Wall Street did. They held a gun to America’s head and told Congress to fork over the dough. By exploiting the world’s fear of a market collapse, the irresponsible banks strong-armed their way into a deal which has, so far, lived up to little of what it promised. Where’s the liquidity? Where’s the oversight?

These banks were suffering because they took on debt they couldn’t afford. What’s the difference between those banks and the millions of Americans suffering because of similar irresponsible decisions? From a purely situational perspective, not a thing. It’s the level of accountability, however, that most Americans have that draws a distinct line between them and the financial robber barons. It’s true that millions of people in this country live off the welfare system, but those millions are overshadowed by a larger majority who accept their irresponsibility as their own and take personal accountability for their actions. Rather than make others suffer for their mistakes, they choose to cut back on spending and trim down their life styles. Even while wishing the opposite, they understand government won’t be there to bail them out because that isn’t the government’s job.

Yet somehow, in a country for the people, an accountability asymmetry has emerged. We could all stand up tomorrow and, as Wall Street did, threaten to derail the domestic and global economy if our demands aren’t met. But we wouldn’t. We don’t operate as if our government is a soup kitchen, and our corporations shouldn’t either. We do not share their profits and they should not share ours. Our government pitifully acquiesced. They made a mistake. This bailout is a slap to the face of hard-working Americans who struggle each day to climb out of the holes they made for themselves. And you know how they learned to climb? Out of necessity.

Given the bailout, our financial industry will remain unaccountable for its actions. They pulled one over on us. They got us to sacrifice our ideals and our money in the face of a threat that has yet to actualize. What happened in September was the pièce de résistance of eight years of fear mongering and an utter failure of our political system. What an immense disappointment.

Americans have a right to be outraged and dammit we should be.

The argument against gay marriage I hear most often is that our country was founded on Christian principles. The founders, so the argument goes, were religious men who, with pen in hand, inscribed their pious beliefs upon the pages of our Constitution.

This argument is entirely inaccurate.

Though they may have believed in God, they knew the perils of combining organized religion and government. And for that reason they deliberately worked to separate church and state. In that vein, the uprising around Proposition 8 is justified. Let’s argue against tax breaks for churches. Let’s argue for limiting their ability to influence legislation. And if we want to remove marriage as a legal entity, to strip the very word from our laws because it is a religious, not legal, institution, let’s come together and argue for that.

But if what we are arguing for is the right to marry, as ordained by law, this uprising is misguided from the start. We cannot, from the left sides of our mouths, support one constitutional staple (personal liberty) while from the right violate another (separation of church and state). The issue here is not marriage, but the organized religious infiltration of our government. If we want proof of the devastating side effects of the coupling of organized religion and politics, look no further than the current Republican Party. Once champions of liberty and freedom–a party that ended slavery and fought to give women the right to vote–, they are now a castrated political entity. Their mouths may move but the words that come out are seldom their own.

Organized religion and liberty are mutually exclusive. The sentiment of the organized religions is that it’s OK to believe what you want as long as it’s what they want you to believe. Liberty is as they define it. And that, not two men or women spending their lives together, is a complete betrayal of what we stand for. That is a plague that will systematically destroy what we care most about.

If we’re going to fight, let’s attack the root of the problem. The biggest issue we face today, the number one problem preventing progress, is the power that religious organizations wield over this country and its government. They have hampered the progress of science, education, and civil rights for too long. Their beliefs last only as long as the ignorance they are based upon. Liberty endures. And a country based on liberty will endure, as well.

So if this debate is to be about reason over dogma, about prying our country out of the crushing jaws of organized religion, and about fighting for the rights of not just gays but all people who want to be free to make up their minds about what’s right for them, it’s one worth waging.

My mom and I had a political chat tonight that left me feeling enlightened and thinking more about a line from a book I’m reading called American Creation. Near the beginning of chapter five, the author states the following about some of the founders’ difficulty in grasping the feasibility of an overtly partisan government:

“…one of the ultimate implications of the two-party system that was so hard for most of the founders to accept was the realization that different versions of truth could coexist alongside one another and both claim, with considerable plausibility, to be true. Unlike mathematics, in politics there was no agreed-upon solution reached by sheer brainpower and logic, but rather an ongoing and never-ending struggle between contested versions of the truth.”

This statement resonates profoundly in today’s charged political climate. As we get caught up in our debates and inspired opinions, our investment in our candidates, the chosen torch-bearers of our beliefs, we often overlook the effective and resilient principle our government operates on.

Truth vacillates. People whose truths disagree with ours are not enemies, they simply offer different perspectives. The political process does not help us see this fact; political campaigns smear one another, parties lash out and blame the other when mistakes happen, and because of this polarization at the top, we, the people, lose sight of the objectivity that works so well in a system like ours.

Near the middle of our conversation, my mom stopped and asked: “Tell me the top 5 reasons why you want Obama in office.” I, in my typically wordy way, rattled off technology, political adroitness, bipartisanship, rejuvenation of the American image, and analogous personal beliefs–including pro-choice–as my top 5. My mention of abortion led to an, at times emotional, follow-up debate about the benefits and detriments of a woman’s right to choose.

Though the discussion wasn’t novel, it highlighted the fact that parallel truths, as perceived so perplexedly by the founders, can and do exist side-by-side. My mother and I deeply believe in our points of view, living our opinions through our daily actions. And in this country, we are always fairly evenly split by our coexistent truths, which explains the rareness of the ever-elusive “landslide” political victory. We battle competitively, yes, but respectfully, too. That’s what I love, that’s what we all love, about America. We can exist as ourselves even in a world where our truths may not be those of the majority. It’s an amazingly successful experiment in the existence of multiple realities.

I know pictures often misrepresent the moment, exaggerating or downplaying what truly is going on. But this picture of Joe Biden, posing with the #74th most powerful woman in the world, Irish President Mary McAleese, portrays an interesting encounter–one I find myself hard pressed to write off as trick photography. Check it out:

An interesting article on CNN: “Obama and Bush not so far apart.” I think it’s a great premise for an article (juxtaposing Obama’s own actions with his accusations of McCain’s tight alignment with Bush) but I think the majority would agree with Bush on many of those points. Here is a bullet-point summary of the issues mentioned:

• Abstinence: They both agree on contraception plus abstinence education.
• Affirmative action: They both agree it needs to focus more on impoverished people in general as opposed to people of a certain race.
• Budgets: Obama voted for 19 of Bush’s spending bills.
• Capital punishment: They both believe in it.
• Education: They both support charter schools.
• Economics: They both support the $700 billion bailout bill and tax cuts for the middle class.
• Energy: They both back alternative energy investments.
• Faith-based initiatives/fatherhood: They both support expanding these initiatives (hopefully not too far, Senator).
• FISA: They both supported, in very similar language, the purpose of the FISA bill.
• Gay marriage: They both are against it.
• Global AIDS: They both see it as a huge problem (Obama commended Bush on his investment in combating the issue as President).
• Health care: They both think current problems are a result of rising costs.
• Middle-class tax cuts: They both fundamentally support them (though Obama wants to fund them by taxing the richest, smallest class of our nation; a stark difference between him and Bush).
• Minority homeownership: They both believe in increasing the number of minority homeowners to shore up equality and increase lasting wealth among minorities.
• National security: They both supported the PATRIOT Act.
• Offshore drilling: They both support doing this (Obama having switched sides on this one only recently).
• Racial profiling: They are both against it, Bush having mandated his Attorney General to ensure it wasn’t occurring within the U.S. Government.
• Religion: They are both openly men of faith.
• Supreme Court ruling on gun ban: They both support the decision.
• Welfare reform: They both want to refocus the system on children and families.

I don’t think the author accomplished what she wanted to (painting Obama as Bush-like, too). These points, as I mentioned, are ones a majority of Americans would agree with. The disagreements Obama has with Bush–and McCain–are on matters of present consequence, where difference matters.

What the article did accomplish (for me, at least), was to highlight that Bush wasn’t a total failure–only on the issues most pressing to our nation.