I wanted to comment on "Why do you believe what you do?" , but I couldn't find a way to do it.

I hope that my most vociferous beliefs are well-considered and supported by evidence, but I think there is a process by which I form my initial beliefs that is often repeated.

My basic belief is that children, women, working people, minorities, and people with unpopular ideas and expression are treated poorly by our market and our active suburban social norms that celebrate independence, wealth, leisure,the achievements of white people, and conformity.  When a political dispute pits minorities against the majority, women against men, poor workers against wealthy owners,  children against investors, or artists against stingy taxpayers, I first take the position that favors the first group against the second.   Consciously, I think that politics should take care of everyone; subconsciously, I think that some people are overdue for their share of equal protection, and I want to make sure they get their share.

 Although many beliefs that are formed in this way fade in the face of evidence, this process is where my beliefs comes from.   For example, I do not support a $15.00/hour minimum wage, which I once did, because the fact that such a minimum wage is fair doesn't keep it from wreaking economic havoc and driving up unemployment;  on the other hand, I would support a nationwide 75% increase in K-12 teacher salaries and a dramatic increase in the standards for the teachers who earn these salaries, even if this required a doubling of my taxes.

I believe that most Rightists arrive at beliefs by a similar process -- they believe that attention to some sectors of society are long overdue.  These people believe that black folks, feminists, gays and lesbians, and unions have more influence than they are due, and they favor any political position that restores these groups to what they perceive as their rightful place in society. 

Suppose that, in a gesture of compromise and bipartisanship, Barack Obama appoints John McCain secretary of the Interior (to use his genuine expertise in Native American affairs and his enthusiasm for drilling), and Olympia Snowe the secretary of Health and Human services.

That would leave two Republican senators replaced by Democratic governors, bringing the Democrats to 60.

Not likely, and not advisable, but an interesting twist...

I just saw this link.  Palin isn't named, but her tenure as mayor of Wasilla covers this time.

Sarah Palin--who is famous for taking an active interest in small personnel issues as Mayor and Governor--allowed her police chief, without comment, to charge Rape Victims for their own DNA tests until a state law made this practice illegal, and then said nothing when the same police chief testified against the law.

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/09/while-mayor-palin-charged-rape-victims.html

I just saw this link.  Palin isn't named, but her tenure as mayor of Wasilla covers this time.

Sarah Palin--who is famous for taking an active interest in small personnel issues as Mayor and Governor--allowed her police chief, without comment, to charge Rape Victims for their own DNA tests until a state law made this practice illegal, and then said nothing when the same police chief testified against the law.

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/09/while-mayor-palin-charged-rape-victims.html

    Why, oh why, didn't Wes Clark say this when he was interviewed about his remarks on meet the press.

"I don't believe that being injured or captured in war makes you automatically more qualified to be president than an opponent who hasn't served in wartime.  For that matter, neither does John McCain.

 If John McCain believed that serving your country in uniform in wartime made you a better president, he would have endorsed John Kerry against George W. Bush."

Recently, John McCain has been harping about the fact that Hamas leadership has expressed a preference for Barack Obama as president. Skipping for the moment the fact that John McCain supported a war that pissed away universal goodwill for the US after 9/11 and created the most effective recruiting and training environment for terrorists in several lifetimes, I find there are several problems with his logic.

McCain seems to (deliberately, perhaps) misunderstand three things.

• Terrorists sometimes want a specific political goal, or at least claim to want it, but they usually want different things in private and public. A public announcement that terrorists will rejoice in a particular outcome in the presidential election has, at best, no correlation with what they actually want.


• Terrorism is completely ineffective at achieving any end except fostering conflict. Well organized terrorists like Hamas want conflict above all other things. Israel and United States are not up to the task of wiping out organizations like Hamas with violence--if they were, Hamas would have been history long ago, given the superior firepower and training of Israeli forces. A violent religious extremist doesn't blow himself up in a public square hoping there won't be a retribution--he is counting on a retribution, and he is counting on that retribution to be severe and generalized; this radicalizes moderates, undermines his enemy's political position, and forces other co-religionists to choose sides, with his side at an advantage. A belligerent mad bomber such as McCain and Clinton at least portray themselves to be is ideal from their point of view.


• Historically, the least belligerent party to a given terrorist group has been the most effective at countering that group. Among the major party candidates, Jose Luis Zapatero of Spain, Tony Blair of Britain, and Yitzhak Rabin of Israel were the least belligerent to their terrorist opponents. In all three cases, they were the far more effective against ETA, the IRA, and Palestinian terrorists than their more belligerent opponents. None of these candidates were prepared to make concessions directly to their terrorists opponents, but all of them drove wedges between the terrorist organizations and the moderate members of their constituencies.

In general, I seriously doubt that Hamas will benefit from the election of Barack Obama or suffer from the election of John McCain in the least. There may be rational reasons to vote for John McCain over his three likely general election opponents (though I can't think of any at the moment), but a perceived endorsement by the leader of Hamas for his likely Democratic opponent is one of the dumbest reasons to do so that I can imagine.