Wednesday, January 19, 2011

God Isn't / 1-19-11

The practice of negative definitions has been my little spiritual friend for a while now.

God is not bound by time and space; God is not corporeal; God is neither male nor female; God is not like us. I take great solace in these "beliefs."

As a result, I recoil from declarations that begin with "God likes ____," "God's very nature is to ____," or "God will most certainly ____," especially when these become downright laughable.

Like on Monday, when a friend of a friend said, and not jokingly, "God has a twisted sense of humor." This was, mind you, in response to yet another chapter in an unemployed friend's fruitless job search. A search that has now lasted months and is taking its expected toll on all parties.

In essence, this person's super-duper helpful point was "God is cruel." Or "God likes to mess with your psyche. For fun. Come on, get in on the funny, funny joke already."

Yeah, instances like that are why it's easy to see why for so many centuries, the Catholic Church discouraged regular folk from reading the actual text of the Bible.

Got time for a casual glance at Job? You'll conclude, like our buddy from earlier, that God is indeed a sadist. A little reading of Hosea at bedtime? Well, what do you know, God's a masochist. Skim through a few Pauline epistles and God's a sexist; swim a shallow lap around Leviticus and God's a bloodthirsty legalist. (Saunter on over to Revelation and God's a drug trip. Far out.)

I don't know about you, but this God is starting to sound, like, not all there, you know?

Who wants a God like that -- or even a friend like that? Not me. I start with the belief that God possesses none of those attributes listed two paragraphs earlier. The effect is that the Bible gains a freedom it otherwise wouldn't have -- the freedom to be a collection of mankind's evolving view of a deity. Rather than revelation, it becomes insight, wisdom, poetry, guidance, philosophy, allegory.

Liberated from the need to synthesize 66 books into a Great Unifying Theory Of God's Celestial Nature, I'm able to read Job and Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy and Philippians and take them for what their author meant them to be -- musings on how God is and is not. (With special personal gravitation toward the "is not" portion.)

And as such, the Bible continues to retain power in my life. Because I'm not looking to it for all the right answers, but instead, for the right questions to ask, it shines a light for me. Not a light of "God is exactly like this." A light of "Look at this wisdom. Read these stories. Learn. Be illuminated."

Plus, then I don't have to explain away a friend's suffering as God's twisted joke.

Observacations, Vol. II / 1-18-11

Second in my back-to-work three-part series.

Part Un: Politix. Soo yesterday.
Part Deux: Sports. I would link to it, but you're reading it, and that would be 11 percent too silly for even me.
Part Trois: Musings on God and god.

Then we (I) will be all caught up after our (my) five (five) weeks off.

FIRST AND TEN, EIGHT AND TEN

After the NFL switches from a 16-game to an 18-game schedule (and the move is inevitablish, given that the owners would make more money and the players' union would negotiate for more roster spots), a team will finish its season 8-10. Obviously. And yet, that team -- the future Cleveland Browns -- will not be the first-ever pro football team to do so. The Seahawks already pulled it off. Poor Cleveland. Can't even lose with distinction.

Scenarios by which a team arrives at 8-10, given that it takes a winning record to make the playoffs every year except 2010: Zero. A team that qualifies at 8-8 can't lose twice in the playoffs -- it takes a team with nine regular-season losses to finish 8-10. And only once in a full NFL season has a losing team won a division. That was 16 days ago. Yay Hawks! History! Notoriety!

Not only that, but a 7-9 division winner would have to win its first playoff game (against an actual good team) for it to reach 8-9 before losing its next one to complete the uncharted course to 8-10.

Fun fact: Had the Seahawks lost the Super Bowl -- stifle your laugh! They could have won that stinkin' Bears game, which would have set up a Packers-Seahawks NFC Championship game in Seattle. Are you going to bet against them at Qwest? So. As I was saying, had they reached, and gotten properly annihilated in, the Super Bowl, they would have ended the season 10-10.

So to recap: When you're asked, as the final question of a rousing game of Trivial Pursuit (non-holographic version) in your retirement home in the year 2059, which pro football team was the first-ever to post an 8-10 record, you'll remember (ha!) to answer Seattle. You're welcome. Pass the Jello.

26 DAYS LATER

Pitchers and catchers report in 26 days. For the Mariners, the stench of last season can't dissipate too soon. Picked by many to win a weak-looking division, they finished dead last instead, and along the way, managed to score fewer runs than any other DH-carrying team, ever. For a brief look at how rotten the year was, click here.

So, to address the blood-gushing head wound that was 2010, they made this litany of significant moves:

...

That's it. No new starting pitchers, no big bats -- one stud part-time defender and one medium-sized bat and one serviceable catcher is the extent of the renovation.

No, the M's didn't technically go for the big upgrade; instead, they opted to pinch a giant loaf containing the worthless Casey Kotchman, Jose Lopez, Milton Bradley (will be cut within days), Josh Wilson (back to AAA) and Rob Johnson, who led the league in passed balls by a wide margin despite playing only half the time.

Instead, they'll count on the young guys and the nondescript new guys -- 1B Justin Smoak, LF Michael Saunders, IF Brendan Ryan, 2011 3B Chone Figgins and not 2010 2B Chone Figgins, C Miguel Olivo, DH Jack Cust, plus eventual 2B Dustin Ackley -- to make us forget last season's unwatchability.

And to a certain extent, it'll work. They'll win far more than 61 games, because the pitching will be as good as 2010, the defense will be better, probably by a wide margin, and finally, the offense will necessarily improve. You can't get worse than the worst ever. Probability won't allow it; the power of regression is too strong, almost all of the time.

The 2011 squad will win at least 78 games. And with money to spend in 2012 when a couple big contracts come off the books, the future is bright. Don't buy any shades just yet. But these guys are better than they look at first glance. I promise.

VIOLENCE, SILENCE, SALIENCE

So now, I find myself wondering if I have a moral compass at all when it comes to sports figures in trouble.

I've been in homes where parents abuse their kids verbally and physically. Traveling to 30 homes each week, with a clientele constantly in flux, lets me see a broad range of middle- and upper-class families in action, and sometimes their best behavior deserts them. So I've discovered I'm content to charge abusive parents a fee to teach their children, because their money is just as good as the next family's.

Yet I'm inclined to disapprove of my team hiring an assistant with a history of violent behavior. Yet I want a guy who pled no contest to some ugly charges to get a chance to work in his field, for now, at least for now. Even yetter, I agree with people who want their favorite club to release a prominent baseball player arrested for assault just earlier today. And yettest of all, when this guy did this in a playoff game, I and 67,000 of my closest friends celebrate so raucously we cause an earthquake.

Sometimes this fairness-justice-punishment-redemption-second-chance thing we call "life" is hard to sort out, especially when rooting interests and mercy and employment rights and even humility get in the way. Darn you, nuance! Darn you, forgiveness! Darn you, blind spots! Darn you all to gosh-darn heck already. Gosh.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Observacations / 1-17-11

Been out of the office for a while. But now, break time's over, ladies and laddies.

So, did anything happen since we last spoke?

Oh. Uh-huh. Mm. 'K.

Well then, I'll touch on three topics, but not at once, because my attention span isn't what it used...

Yeah. Three rounds of politics today. A sports trifecta tomorrow. Spirituality season starts Wednesday. Then we'll be all caught up, you and me.

HOLY BEDFELLOWS, BATMAN

Well, in smack-myself-across-the-forehead news, I found myself, this holiday season, agreeing with -- wait for it -- Pat -- wait for it some more, juuust a little tiny bit more -- Robertson. Not once, but twice.

The first time was no shocker: When P-Rob declared that 2011 would not mark the end of the world, I co-nodded graciously. (No matter how many times a public figure says God likes to kill people for other people's behavior [here's your link, you're welcome], there comes a time when something resembling reason is bound to exit his speaking organs.) And after all, the man has probably read his Mayan Calendar 2012 (365 apocalyptic thoughts for every situation, $399.95 on Amazon.con), so best check back in with him for all your Armageddon needs in a year.

But the second time he and I linked minds... that was stupefying. Said Robertson: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it's just costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people." Even after his spokesman managed to float a near-lie to backtrack, claiming Pat "unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," I find myself aghast at my tattered and shredded view of the religio-conservative icon. He even went on to suggest that treatment, not incarceration, could be a better reaction to weed possession.

For twenty years, I've denounced the man. (Get it? 420 years?) And now he does this? Jerk.

That one took me a while to recover from.

RAINBOW WARRIORS

Speaking of things that failed to cause the end of civilization, discrimination against gay soldiers is officially on its way out. And none too soon. Turns out that the judicial, legislative and executive branches all have struck it down; thus, the DoD is phasing it out over the next few months. Let's be real: polling shows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Discriminate" (not the policy's actual name) had fallen seriously out of favor with a vast majority of the population. As such, the policy's demise was inevitable, but nonetheless, I'd like to advance a theory that casts Democrats in a favorable light here.

I submit:

House Democrats, late in the lame-duck session, cleverly fooled congressional Republicans into believing they would block the extension of the Baby Bush tax cuts for another two years. This after the Senate had declined to consider lifting DADT. AND after President Obama had come out supporting a tax cut extension, however tepidly. But what did the outgoing House D's have to lose? They were already about to lose their majority -- at least they could go down swinging while satisfying the far left. (Me!) While pissing off incoming Weeper of the House John "Boo-Hoo" Boehner (R-Ocryo).

Well, when negotiators discussed how to break the impasse, Democrats said that another vote in the Senate on DADT would probably pacify. Republicans, knowing popular opinion would only continue to cut against them, and wishing to fry other fish in the upcoming session, acquiesced, and framed the issue to cast moderate Republicans (in blue states) as the driving force.

And DADT dies.

It's a pretty theory. One that allows my wing to look good, and astute, too, while much, much, much more importantly, concluding another contemptible chapter in Amalgamated American Institutional Discrimination Against Gays, Inc.

CIVILITEA PARTY

In the wake of yet another mass shooting (yes, I'm gingerly approaching the Tucson mess), the usual voices have made / will make themselves heard.

"We need more gun control!" (True, but get real.)
"We need more guns!" (Seriously?)
"Give him the death penalty!" (Iron. E.)
"It's her fault!" (Not the time or place, idjits.)
"It's not my fault!" (Shut up.)
"He's a right-wing terrorist!" (5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)
"He's a left-wing terrorist!" (Toldja.)
"What we need is more civility." (Pshaw--wait, what?)

We'll get more civility in our political discourse, actually. Just like we did after 9/11. Then with the distance of time, we'll revert to our hyper-partisan ways, present company included, and it'll be as if Tucson never happened. Then, fatalistically, the process will restart with another tragedy. You can hope that it doesn't take place in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

Happy New Year.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Eight Comebacks Is Enough / 12-10-10

I'm kind of not up for a full post, with research and flow and a three-point outline and all, so here are ochoremarks directed at news headlines from today.

(It's possible I may briefly stray from this blog's holy trinity of politics, spirituality and sports.)

House Democrats "Just Say No" to Tax Deal: Good for them. Someone needs to step in front of the Senate Republicans' Bus To Bankruptcy and remind us that more tax cuts for the rich is a stupidiotic and dumtarded idea. (Yes, I have a second installment of this type of headline later in the post.)

New Clothing Line Reminds TSA of the Fourth Amendment: Brilliant, I say. Check out these T-shirts that have the Bill of Rights' prohibition of unreasonable searches printed in metallic type, so they show up on the scanners. Brilliant.

Miley Cyrus Video: Partying With a Bong: Good for her. She's 18 and the stuff in the bong (salvia, not to be confused with saliva) was legal. If you have a problem with her doing this "because think of all the children who look up to her, omifreakingosh," then I have two semi-rude things to tell you. 1) Those kids aren't Miley's, so she has no responsibility in their upbringing, and 2) If you're not prepared to talk to your kids about things like bongs, then maybe you shouldn't have brought kids into this world, which contains bongs, in the first place. Maybe some other world would suit you instead.

Should You Accept Mom & Dad's facebook Request?: As a facebook-American who has recently accepted a parental friend request, I urge you to read the flow chart at the page to which I linked. Laughing is optional yet inevitable.

Gingrich Calls Assange an "Enemy Combatant": And calls the ongoing Wilileaks leaks an "act of war against the United States." I'm not a fan of Assange's crusade to expose the inner workings of diplomacy. I think his actions are ill-advised and bound to increase the instability of an already unstable world order. Lives may well be lost as a result. But do I think the U.S. should try and stop him, using force? No. I swear, for an intelligent guy, Newt is from another planet sometimes.

Tax-cut plan digs deeper deficit hole: No kidding. Ya think? That's why it was easily Baby Bush's most destructive, anti-American move. (And that's saying something.) Our unrealistically low taxes need to end at some point. And maybe the opening stages of sputtering economic recovery is not the best time for reality to set in, and for us to buck up and begin to pay our share. But the status quo is irresponsible, and practically immoral. Anything is better than our present course.

Newton should accept, then return his Heisman: Right. The Auburn QB should win the highest honor in his field, then pretend he doesn't want it? Ludicrous. (At least the blog's author admits "this won't happen anywhere but in the super-awesome dream lobe of my brain.") The sad truth is, Newton should have been suspended long ago. The NCAA rulebook states a player loses his eligibility if a person even simply *solicits* money on his behalf, let alone accepts it. Not only that, how is anyone supposed to believe that Newton's family turned down $180k from Mississippi State so the dude could play at Auburn... for free? No, sorry, the mind does not stretch that far. Go Ducks. (Blech.)

Halliburton May Pay $500M to Keep Cheney Out of Prison: This is a no-lose situation. The former "vice" president has been charged with 16 counts of bribery by Nigerian investigators. Either he stands trial or his beloved company forks out half a billion. Side note: One of the companies concurrently charged in this case already pleaded guilty to the same bribes last year and paid a hefty fine. Ah. I feel better already.

(Yes, I'll eventually post something about DADT. I'm getting there. But I have to work through some anger first.)

Sunday, November 28, 2010

144 or Less, Vol. VI / 11-28-10

Openly Gay Republican Running For GOP Presidential Nomination! Read All About It!

My confidential sources tell me it's possible to be homosexual AND a functional member of the Republican Party. Besides, in an ironic twist, the Democratic president's Justice Department is currently fighting a conservative group (the Log Cabin Republicans) for the right to keep enforcing the military's homophobic DADT policy. More on that some wordier day.

Which got me thinking: what would disqualify one from capturing the Republican nomination? Badmouthing the NRA, I'd think.

Which got me thinking: if the gun nuts run the R caucus, which interest group owns the D party? My conclusion: the teachers' union.

Which got me thinking: I'd much rather be held hostage by the people trying to educate the country than by the people trying to put bullets in anything that moves.

(Word count: 142)

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Music:Spirit :: Spirit:Music / 11-16-10

When I can't contemplate, worship, or philosophize, I still have a way to reach for God/Spirit/Tao/Meaning. It's by making music.

And in alarmingly increasingly oftenly times, I find myself unable -- or unwilling -- to dedicate the time to accomplish any decent contemplation, worship or philosophery. I can do each of those in a halfway indecent manner all the time. Almost well enough for them to be worthwhile. But not quite.

Fortunately, to rescue me from myself, there's music.

Lots of humans before me have praised music-making for its creative nature. You'll probably have heard someone say, about art, that to make it is to commune with the Creative Force responsible for our very existence. (It's permissible to call that Force "God." Plenty of people do so.) And we can start there, but I have a much more mystical destination I'm aiming for. With lots and lots of verbal darts.

Because creativity IS, after all, a big part of what makes us unlike the other two-eyed, four-cheeked mammals out there. Everything you see when you look out the window, no matter how ugly it might be, is the result of natural forces or artificial creativity. (Except the second-generation Hummers. Those beasts are the result of evil. Pure, no sugar-added, evil. The bad kind of evil. Look away.)

Writing a song, painting, producing a novel, sculpting: these are so quintessentially human activities that they rise above human. They become quasi-divine abilities. (Blogging is somewhat beneath that level, I admit.)

And now that I've made my quota of jokes for this post, I'm going to temporarily raise the serious level a couple of notches.

To investigate one layer deeper, it's not enough that these creative juices exist. It's their just-out-of-our-grasp-to-explain-ness that strikes me as so very special.

What moves me most about music (and you can substitute other forms of art if they're more your thing) is:

Its not fully known path. "What will come from this? Where is this headed?"

Its wind-like nature. "You can feel it, but you can't grab it."

Its water-like nature. "It moves, it ebbs, it flows, it builds, it progresses. It can fill a space. Its power can be used in so many ways."

Its omnipresence. "All observed and observable societies employ it."

Its omnipotence. "All can receive blessing, happiness, joy, revelation -- and maybe even meaning -- from it."

(Funny, these all are ways people have chosen, for millennia, to illustrate what they call "spiritual" or "divine.")

Before I return to music as water, I want to make a couple more pointlets.

Music has immediacy. It has presency -- a Johnvented word which I define as its "being present in the present and not elsewhere or even elsewhen." It's here, you can sense it, but you can only have it in the moment. You can remember it, but that's not the same as experiencing it happen. Like the present, it only exists while it exists, and it doesn't exist out of that bar-less cage. A plan or an outline or instructions for the performance of music, those things exist at all times. The instruments themselves continue to exist when we're not playing them.

But the music only takes place at its moment. If you miss it, tough beans. That portion of it is gone, forever. It is when it is.

Also, music has a way of acting as a metaphor for our bodies. Music is physical and physics-based, as there are sound waves involved, so far as we can tell. Just as our bodies obey a number of physical laws simultaneously in order to function, music can exist only when the right waves coalesce at the right time. And yet there's something non-physical going on in both cases, right? We experience consciousness, whatever that is, and we gather it's not purely a chemical reaction. We experience music, and the waves resonate in our inner ear and transmit messages to our brain, and the brain conjures up emotions to accompany those messages, but there's more than simply that chemical reaction going on.

I can teach kids that a C-E-G combination creates a major chord, which suggest happy or bright feelings, but those feelings don't flow just from the wave patterns or the accepted conventional associations that go with major chords. They seem to happen on another level, which is probably good, since they're feelings and sensations, not equations. (Feel free to write an algorithm for "peace" to disprove me.)

And then, crucially for me, the way we talk about music has a way of sounding like the way we talk about the Tao.

It's adaptable. It's malleable.

It fills areas. It envelops them too.

It works around stuff. It even moves around walls and people and objects of relative animateness.

It escapes definition. Playfully, almost.

Its source is hard to find, but its effects are easy to observe.

It can be used, harnessed, wielded, yet remains impossible to hoard.

Hm.

To wrap this up, ponder bad music. To you, bad music might mean opera, country, a kid singing out of tune, grunge, or an hour spent watching America Idol. But I'm not talking about matters of personal taste here. As much as I dislike certain brands of music, I know a good performer when I hear one, despite the medium.

I mean consider poor music: poor in effort, poor in creativity, poor in originality, poor in execution.

It just... it just feels so dirty, so wasteful, so irresponsible. So sacrilegious.

And you could say the same for other forms of art, no? Life Theory Moment: The reason so many people despise modern art is that they feel cheated by it, like it ought to do something special, accomplish something, set something in motion, like it ought to turn wheels in their head, at least make them quizzical, but NOT make them indifferent.

So something done wrong feels like sacrilege... then its opposite, that same thing done right, I'd like to call sacred. So it is for music.

144 or Less, Vol. V / 11-16-10

I like to avoid calling people hypocrites -- it's never too long before that kind of talk whips around and bites you in both buttcheeks.

However, if I see another "I don't value riches" type of slogan on an pricey piece of luxury, the irony is going to kill me instantaneously.

Across the bumper of a shiny new Benz today: "Don't let the car fool you -- my treasure is in heaven."
Thirty seconds later, on the lawn of an immaculately landscaped gated home, sitting on a one-acre lot, complete with speedboat in arched driveway: "Our treasure is in heaven."

Like I said, hypocrisy ain't the issue. It's the denial. People should buy nice things if they like spending their money on nice things. Freedom! America!

But don't wallpaper your materialism with anti-materialist slogans. That just looks dumb.

(Word count: 142)

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Please Expalin / 11-04-10

I'm not succumbing to early-onset dyslexia.

No, I just need something expalined to me. What is it that makes a former Alaska governor so attractive? Not physically, of course. I mean politically, yeah, that's what I mean, uh huh.

It is, though. I'm no longer trying to be cute here (at least for a few paragraphs). I'm posing an honest question.

What is it that makes you believe Sarah Palin has anything to offer as a candidate for high political office?

I get that she's a symbol. She represents right-wing ideas. She stands for smaller, more efficient government. Although her track record belies such a statement, she subscribes to fiscal conservatism.

I get that she's a woman in what is largely a man's arena -- right-wing politics. If you're into identity politics, she brings a different perspective to male-dominated debates.

I get that she's clever and snappy and full of attitude, and she considers herself a maverick. Those can be fine qualities in a public figure.

I get that she's clearly one of the pre-eminent Tea Party personalities. And God knows we need a third party ASAP. (Sadly, even God can't break the stranglehold the R's and D's have on our country.)

But what makes her palatable as a potential executive or legislator? I've always figured a serious politician has to be more than a symbol -- that there has to be some substance underneath all that coiffed hair and all those perfect teeth. And finding something below her surface has been a challenge, for me, that is.

So what does she bring to the table that makes her a viable member of the executive branch of government, or even of Congress?

It's an honest question, and I'm honestly requesting an answer that will provide me with some closure.

Please expalin.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Before the Night is Through / 11-02-10

Six random and unrandom thoughts as the election progresses.

1. Democrats may well have won the expectations game. Everyone and their dog's fleas saw the GOP House takeover coming. But there were three main story lines for tonight: Will the R's take the House? And how about the Senate? How many Democratic statehouses would flip?

By conceding the first point, then winning point two and scoring a couple crucial victories in point three (CO, CA, MA), the Democrats salvaged something of a split decision. Not in true value of seats won or lost, but in the expectations department. Don't misquote me: tonight was a bad, bad, bad night for the left. Bad. (At least for left-leaning incumbents.) But they still control one and a half branches of government, while pulling off a couple high-profile gubernatorial wins.

In short, they avoided a repeat of 1994.

2. Colorado Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. Less than 10 percent for their gubernatorial nominee (and it's going to be close) means they receive minor-party status on the 2012 ballot, and share space with the Greens and others. Not a disaster, for sure -- motivated conservatives will find the dude with the R next to his name no matter where they put him. But Floridians can tell you that ballot design has a knack of finding a way to matter.

3. Tea Party successes (Paul in KY, Rubio in FL) figure to nudge Sarah Palin closer to a 2012 run. Please. Do it Sarah. For all the "Real" Americans out there. Best way for the R's to lose their hard-earned House? Put the least respected candidate in recent memory at the top of the ballot. I used to fear she would win if nominated. Now I am fairly certain she will not. So bring it on, Grisly Mama.

4. Locally, 65 percent of Washingtonians are rejecting an income tax that would have been levied strictly on those earning more than $200k (or $400k per household). Great. Now we too can inch closer to bankruptcy, just like the people from two states south, whose example we love to emulate. Way to go.

5. Oh boy, Nevada and Alaska could be lots of fun tonight. And tomorrow. And into December.

6. This is our third straight "wave" election. This doesn't happen in American political history, uh, ever. Well, now the GOP has to help govern. They've been really good at saying "No" without voters asking them why they want the unemployed to lose their home, children to go without health insurance, and Wall Street to be able to run wild again.

Maybe now the voters will see what "ideas" the R's have, and we can start to build momentum for a fourth wave in 2012... but first, my conservative friends, enjoy your partial victory for a day or so.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Surprise! 11-01-10

Something in tomorrow night's election results will shock the world.

Actually, the way things are going in elections nowadays, the lack of a high-profile shocking result somewhere would probably be... shocking. (Gotta find me a thesaurus.)

But the real point here is that according to these historical poll numbers, the 2010 midterm congressional election is quite unlike its most recent sibling, the 2006 overthrow of the Republican House and Senate.

(Click on the link if you want to be confronted with 136 trillion numbers in pretty little tables, or if you're a nerdgeek like me. Keep reading if you trust me to share some interesting highlights.)

In 06, anti-Bush sentiment swept D's into control of Congress.
This year, almost as many voters say they're motivated to vote to support Obama as those who say they're excited to vote against him.

In 06, Democrats were winning the "Likely Voter" battle by 10-12 points.
This year, Republicans seem to hold a 4-6 point edge.

In 06, Iraq and the economy were the biggest issues, by far, on voters' minds. Terrorism came in a distant third.
This year, it's the economy, health care, and "D.C. is broken," in that order.

In 06, about 5 out of 7 voters wanted to see Congress change hands. About 60 percent of voters disapproved of the job Congress was doing
This year, it's 4 out of 7. And yet 75 percent disapprove of Congress.

There's more coming, but I want to pause for analysis.

A) There are more D's than R's in the electorate, but R's are more likely to turn out. So they say. And history bears this out, at least as far as midterms, whose voters tend to be older, more white, and -- shocking! -- more conservative than the population at large. And yet... President Obama enjoys much more midterm support than Bush did in '06, when Democrats won 30 seats. If R's win "only" 30 seats, they won't take the House. 40 are necessary.

B) Democrats turned out like crazy in 2006, and won 30 seats. Republicans will turn out like crazy this year.

C) People are pissed at Congress. Not just at the D's in Congress. At the R's too. Just look at how many moderate conservatives got primaried this year by far-right folks like O'Donnell and Angle and Rubio. To say that only Democratic seats are at risk is, well, a risky statement. Nobody is safe this time around.

Everyone has a So-and-So as their congressman. The Democrats have more So-and-So's. (Obviously.) And the electorate is very, very angry with all the So-and-So's. Therefore, many more Democrats will fall tomorrow night. But look for some incumbent Republicans to go down, too.

D) Polling is interesting now. You have to REALLY want to answer a poll to participate, what with cell phones and do-not-call lists and various call screening techniques. Roughly a quarter of American adults rely exclusively on their mobile phones for, uh, phone calls. (Some of the new phones still offer number-to-number dialing. You can use them for that purpose, according to their manuals. Who knew?) The chart ten paragraphs down in this story is useful information. All this to say, even the polls that claim to include cell phone respondents... can you take their results at face value? This seems like a very, very big thorn in pollsters' sides, and it's only going to get worse. For them.

E) That being said, anger is a powerful motivator, and if making conclusions based on only the information above, I'd have to say the R's will win on the order of 35-40 seats. We might not know until 2011 who controls the House.

Back to poll facts. So I can change my conclusion. (I waffle! I flip-flop! I'm ready for office!)

More than half this year's projected voters see a candidate's affiliation with the Tea Party as important to them. Yet more than half of those voters specifically cite Tea Party affiliation as a reason to vote AGAINST that candidate. Jab at the right wing!

64 percent of Obama voters claim they're "certain" to vote this year. 79 percent of McCain voters make the same claim. That's a blow to the head for Democrats. Factor in that the independents believe the country is on the wrong track. Another uppercut.

Then ask yourself which voters are most likely to have changed their minds since '08. The folks who voted for the R during an economic meltdown, or the folks who chose the new guy for a change of political scenery?

Independents favor Republicans handily. And the number of independents keeps growing. The good news for Democrats? Independents tend to change their minds. The bad news for Democrats? Independents have done their mind-changing for the cycle, and not in a leftward direction.

So let me amend my earlier conclusion. Republicans will take the House. 48 seats in all, a handful more than they need. But the 70-seat tsunami some conservative pundits are crowing about -- the numbers don't bear that out.

(P.S.: Bonus analysis, founded in feeling, not fact: Democrats will keep the Senate, probably 53-47. Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer aren't losing this year, and one of them has to be terminated for the Senate to flip. But again, I'm just some dude sitting at his computer, in the most beautiful state in the union, in the best-educated city in the nation, surrounded by a bunch of liberal hippies. So what do I know?)

what you'll find here

i write about politics, spirituality, and sports. no advice columns. no love chat. no boring stories about how cute my kids are when they build stuff with legos. deal.