Republicans have been focusing today on the need to get Hispanic votes. While that is true, there is another chunk which we should also aim at. Look at these two numbers from the exit polls:

Are you?

               Total   Obama   Romney     
Hispanic        10%     71%     27%

How often do you attend religious services?

               Total   Obama   Romney     
Never           17%     62%     34%

So, Romney got 27% of the 10% of people who are Hispanic, but didn't do much better among the non-religious at 34% of the larger 17% group. If Romney had gotten 5% more of the secular vote he would have added 0.85% to his vote total. Getting 5% more of Hispanics only nets 0.5% more.

Every time Republicans talk values, every time they talk about god, even every time they end a speech with "God bless America," they are turning off a large chunk of population. If we are to go after the Hispanic vote, can we also make an effort to go after the secular vote?

Update: I worked it through with the numbers. Bottom line, a 5% shift of Hispanics would lower Obama's victory margin from 2.8 million to 1.6 million. A shift of 5% of Seculars would lower the margin from 2.8 to 0.8 mil. Doing both would have put Romney in the White House:

(Updated again to add the estimated results if both shift--assuming they are independent groups.)

Young evangelical adults stand apart from elders on same-sex marriage

The poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 44 percent – nearly half – of young evangelicals between the ages of 18 to 29 favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

And heads explode all throughout the left.

I understand AI's position...

Amnesty International is calling on Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to stop the execution of a Lebanese man sentenced to death for "sorcery."

In a statement released Thursday, the international rights group condemned the verdict and demanded the immediate release of Ali Hussain Sibat, former host of a popular call-in show that aired on Sheherazade, a Beirut based satellite TV channel.

According to his lawyer, Sibat, who is 48 and has five children, would predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.

but if they let him go, and he turns someone into a toad, is AI going to take responsibility?

I was just thinking... wouldn't it be nice to have a browser extention that allowed you to read NRO's "The Corner" without having to wade through KJL's endless abortion and Catholic-related posts?

Update: No need to blog when we have Charles Krauthammer!



Original Post
From President Obama's speech in Cairo today:

"Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world."

Is he serious? Does he really think that it is reasonable to compare the status of women in the US with their status in the Muslim world? Six of one, half a dozen of the other? The idea is preposterous and Obama's statement is obnoxious.

A few blogs are making something out of Hillary's "faux pas" in Mexico:

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion. After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

So the blogs are saying Hillary should have known this. Although the argument is made that Hillary's staff should have briefed her about this, one can't be expected to know everything about a country he or she visits. Hosts should understand that. Indeed, I doubt the priest was offended.

Really, when you are looking at a painting, who doesn't wonder "who painted it?" Would it occur to anyone that it might be offensive to ask, because someone might think that "God painted it"? Give me a break. I give a lot of credit to Hillary for not laughing!

Ann says: I agree with most of that, except one report said she had been there 30 years ago. I thought tourism was supposed to broaden your mind. Apparently, the whole reason people flock to the icon completely escaped her.

The staff work in this administration is terrible. If there were a Republican in office, I would be starting to suspect sabotage by the notoriously biased staff at Foggy Bottom.

You know, I spend a lot of time reading The Corner, which means I see a lot of talk about opposing gay marriage, and I try to read the arguments to give them a fair shake. I've never been convinced, but I've never been more un-convinced than after reading something as silly as this bit from well-know Catholicism advocate Michael Novak:

The Obama presidency is only one week old, but it has already limned its main moral outlines:

On January 20, President Obama called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual couples.

On January 22, he issued an order announcing his intention to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year, but admits he has not figured out how to do that. President Bush had expressed a similar wish, but could find no nations willing to take responsibility for the detainees.

On January 23, President Obama issued an order that authorizes tax dollars for abortions abroad.

From these announcements we learn that President Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex, in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors.

This is a relapse into paganism.

Yes, I see it clearly now: Gay marriage is paganism!

Well, they have me convinced!

From the Brookline Tab, an an Obama inauguration celebration:

Barbara Simonetti of the First Church in Brookline estimated more than 200 people at a celebration held there Tuesday night.

“I personally think this is an incredible breakthrough,” Simonetti said of Obama’s election. “We certainly made an incredible statement to the world today.”

Simonetti said the First Church, a Unitarian Universalist congregation, was very community oriented, as, she said, was Obama.

“He’s telling everybody, our hand is open and our arm is out,” she said of Obama’s inaugural address.

As such, Tuesday’s celebration was all about community, with friends and families sitting together at tables and eating lasagna prepared by Simonetti’s husband and a team of cooks. The partygoers ate together and watch a rebroadcast of Obama’s swearing-in and speech together, cheering as he took the stand, booing the outgoing administration, and punctuating Obama’s sentences with choruses of “Yes!” and “Tell them!”

Simonetti was running around all evening at the church, making circuits between the kitchen and two rooms packed with partygoers. “I’m exhausted, and elated, and there’s just a joy in this room and in the country,” she said.

The celebration was held in a small chapel at the church, with a cardboard cutout of the new president standing behind the altar, “so we can take our picture with him,” Simonetti said.

I question the appropriateness of having such a political celebration in a church. Apparently the Universalist's universe doesn't include supporters of President Bush. Beyond that though, putting a life-size image of Obama behind the altar? Do you think they would ever put a cross there? I thought the Obama-Messiah bit was just a joke. Maybe it should be taken seriously. Here's a pic from the event:

The sign says "Brookline MA Stands Up For Obama. Yes We Can!

The UK has begun to allow Islamic Sharia courts to act as arbiters in civil family matters/disputes:

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Similar courts have been in existence in the UK within its Jewish community:

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Unfortunately, the journalism here is a bit mushy, so it is difficult to know exactly what is going on. First, I think there needs to be a distinction between civil and criminal cases here. The first quote above mentions domestic violence. Is that a civil matter? Isn't it a criminal one? Elsewhere in the article it states

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

So it does seem that the intention is to have these religious courts cover certain criminal cases as well, if not now then in the near future. If indeed the UK is ceding criminal authority to these courts, then this is a stunning development. Can the UK continue to exist if there is a state within a state, with a separate legal system and separate criminal codes?

Even if the system in question is for civil matters alone, I would have serious reservations. Is arbitration legitimate if the arbiter has a pre-existing bias against one of the parties? Is it legitimate if the parties do not have equal rights before in the court? It's no secret that Islamic law treats men and women differently, their rights in Sharia courts are not equal.

Ideally, parties entering arbitration do so willingly and voluntarily. But I suspect that many women who are the victims of abuse would not be in a position to demand a hearing within the existing UK court system, due to family and social pressures.

I would like more details about this. I wonder how the people of the UK feel about it.

It's pretty clear to me that the media are hyping Palin's family situation out of a complete misunderstanding and complete lack of knowledge of what they sneer as the "religious right". They want, they are salivating, they are thrilled with the idea that the "religious right"--of which they know nothing--will throw out Palin because of her daughter's indiscretion. "Unmarried sex!" cry the media, while giddy over their belief that the "religious right" won't tolerate such a thing.

Clueless, absolutely clueless.

I doubt many of the heavy hitters in the media know any, and certainly aren't close to, anyone who would consider themselves "religious right". In that complete ignorance, they make a fundamental miscalculation:

Assumption: The religious right is intolerant--a girl who gets pregnant as an unmarried teen would be run out of town on a rail by the Jesus freaks, shunned by her family and community forever!!! The more we hype Palin's daughter's pregnancy, they think, the more sure it will be that Palin will be forced by the Hezbullah wing of the Republican party to drop out--thus discrediting McCain and striking a mighty blow for Obama! Obama! Obama!

Truth: The religious right are religious people who try to walk in the footsteps of Jesus--a guy who put forgiveness and acceptance of sinners awfully high on his priority list. The Sermon on the Mount for starters: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven...And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Or how about a little John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

If they actually weren't creatures of the metropolitan coasts, and actually got out more, the media might have a clue.

As it is, while they think they are trashing the Republicans, they are actually helping them. That's how clueless they really are.