Bad history - Christian nation edition

Facebook is promoting a poll today that reads, "Obama said we are not a Christian nation. Do you agree?" The results--45% yes, 55% no--are alarming, but probably confused. I think some people who were thinking "we are not a Christian nation" might have voted "No" instead of the correct "Yes" we are not, with the Christian nationalists suffering the reverse confusion. It is possible that the results are right--Facebook poll takers are only a little less conservative than AOL poll takers--but the comments seem to running in the opposite direction at the moment, so I'm voting for confusion.

As might be expected, the comments are just as confused as the polling. This exchange shows bad history on both sides. Sharon Bland takes the Christian nationalist side.

This country was founded by Quakers and its laws are based on that quaker faith. Therefore this is a Christian country.

Um, Sharon? Quakers didn't found this country. They founded Pennsylvania long before this country was founded and long after Virginia and the Plymouth colony were founded. Besides, if we want to define what this country by the intentions of the first settlers, then we would have to say that this country is a British colony. Fortunately, we have Calvin Yeager to set Sharon straight>

No, they didn't. Teddy Roosevelt put "God" in the anthem to scare off Communists. You need to go back to Grade School.

Sigh. Let's go through this one at a time. We didn't have a national anthem when Teddy Roosevelt was president. No one has ever changed the lyrics to the "Star Spangled Banner." If we want to talk about adding "God" to something to tweak the Communists, that would be the Pledge of Allegiance (something that was written by a Socialist) which was changed during Eisenhower's tenure. Most Communists are made of sterner stuff than to run away from the mere word "God." There were also no Communists when TR was president. All of the Marxist Parties called themselves Socialists or Social Democrats until the Russian Revolution. TR's big bugaboo was Anarchists. Did I miss anything?

I'm not saying that both sides are equally misinformed. For the most part, the Christian nationalists spout a lot more nonsense that the secularists do.

It doesn't matter that the majority of Americans call themselves some sort of Christian. It doesn't matter whether the majority of the founding fathers called themselves some sort of Christian. The Constitution says we are a secular country. Our treaties say we are a secular country. The law says we are a secular country. The courts say we are a secular country. We are no more a Christian nation than we are a white nation. The majority is not entitled to a special position in America. Cows outnumber us three to one, that doesn't make us a nation of cattle. In America we do not merely tolerate minorities. Minorities are part of our society, part of our culture, and part of our national identity. Minorities have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as the majority. To say otherwise is un-American.

Luxury or necessity?

Here's a fun little poll to play with and ponder during the resolution season. Chris at AmericaBlog came across this Pew Research Center survey from two years ago that asks which everyday consumer products are luxuries and which are necessities. The items on the list are:

• Cable or Satellite TV
  
• Car
  
• Car Air Conditioning
  
• Cell Phone
  
• Clothes Dryer
  
• Clothes Washer
  
• Dishwasher
  
• Flatscreen TV
  
• High Speed Internet
  
• Home Air Conditioning
  
• Home Computer
  
• I Pod
  
• Microwave Oven
  
• TV

I've alphabetized the list to randomize it a bit. Glancing over it, you'll see that some items are dependent on others; you're not likely to have air conditioning in your car if you don't have a car or to have cable unless you have a TV (unless you're using it for your internet connection).

For me there's nothing on the list that I couldn't live without, and I have, in fact, lived without every item on the list at one time or another in my life. I currently do not have a cell phone, home air conditioning, flatscreen TV, iPod, or dishwasher. I lived without a car until I was 42 (that's not a big deal in a city with decent mass transit, but it's quite an accomplishment in most of the West). Even though I live in the middle of Seattle, I've only had a high speed connection for a short while (the connectivity in my neighborhood is terrible). Since I use the computer both for work and play, a computer with some kind of connectivity is probably the only really indispensable thing on the list. After that, either a car or a washing machine is important. Having neither and hauling your laundry on the bus to the nearest laundromat really sucks (though I have done that).

A few of the others, while not necessities, are good ideas if you can afford them. A good washing machine, dishwasher, or microwave can be a lot more energy efficient that the manual alternatives. They're also genuine time saving devices. I've considered dropping my land line for a cell phone just to eliminate the solicitations and robocalls. In Seattle, there are only about ten days out of the year when I could really use air conditioning, so there is no way I could justify a complete system, but I have considered getting a tiny portable unit to cool the bedroom enough so I can sleep during those ten days (I don't sleep and become very cranky during those days, so people around me might consider it a necessity). Among the rest, beyond the things I already don't have, the ones I could give up the easiest would be the clothes dryer and TV.

Of course, when you get right down to it, the only "real" necessities are food and shelter. But who wants to live by hiding in a hole in the ground and sneaking out at night to steal turnips from the farmer down the road? So, how enslaved are you by your gadgets?

A New Low for Bush

George Bush finally broke through the glass floor.

George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.

I think this might be the first time he has broken through the twenty percent line in any major national poll. It might be a first for any president.

Bush is number one!

For well over a year now, Bush's approval/disapproval ratings have flirted with Nixon's pre-resignation numbers--the worst numbers for any post WWII president. But each time it has looked like he was about to set a new record, he has pulled back from the brink (though never very far back). That's no longer the case. According to the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Bush has boldly stepped across the Nixon line.

Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

Curiously, while Bush has beaten Nixon's disapproval record, he is still safely above Nixon's approval low. That means more people in the "no opinion/undecided" category during Nixon's last days while everyone has an opinion about Bush. There's still plenty of time for Bush to beat Nixon's other record.