Apparently, one of Barack Obama’s largest political liabilities is that 15% of voters think he is a Muslim, and do not feel comfortable voting for a Muslim (AP-Yahoo Poll Conducted April 2-14) (some polls say 10%).  Notwithstanding that it is a bit crazy to think someone who just publicly dealt with his connections to a crazy Christian pastor is Muslim, it disturbs me that 15% of the country would not vote for a candidate because he is a Muslim.  Isn’t it racist to not vote for someone because he practices a particular religion?  I do not see any other way to describe these attitudes.  Isn’t the Jim Crow era over?  Haven’t we moved on?  Apparently not, for 15% of the country.

The title of this article may be misleading.  To be clear: I am a big fan of the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech is possibly the most important individual human freedom.  Every person in the world should be allowed to freely express himself in “the marketplace of ideas,” except in extremely rare circumstances.

Yet many people confuse the point underlying freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech gives one the right to express him or herself.  However, it does not mean that one should express one’s self in any manner.  John has the right to say: “If you are a non-Christian, you are inferior;” yet Susan does not have to condone this speech simply because John has a right to make that statement.  Freedom of speech works both ways - Susan can judge John and make her judgment known by stating publicly that his statement is bigoted.  If John responds by saying that he should not be condemned because of freedom of speech - this is a false argument.  John has the right to say what he wants, but Susan and all others offended by his comment may judge him at will.

Bloomberg.com reports that while economists have overwhelmingly ridiculed the idea of suspending the gas tax over the summer, Hillary Clinton has continued to stick to her guns. Clinton, after hearing that the economists thought the idea was ridiculous, stated:

I’m not going to put my lot in with economists

Ya know, it’s perfectly fine to say that you’re not going to listen to a consensus of football players giving you advice on filling out your taxes. Or a large group of lawyers giving you advice on how to paint your house. But generally, if you’re untrained in a subject, and practically an entire professional field gives you advice on the subject they specialize in, you should probably listen. And if you’re not going to listen, you’d better have a darned good explanation beyond “I know where you’re coming from, small folk,” for why you’re deviating from trained professionals. So Hillary (and Mr. McCain): if it makes sense to suspend gas taxes, please come forward and explain why rather than giving the same old pandering political speeches about how you’re trying to help “the little guy.” Call me an elitist, but I would rather that economic decisions follow the advice of trained professionals than “the little guy,” who hasn’t learned a thing about economics in his entire life.

I have no idea who I am voting for in this upcoming Presidential election, but I’m certainly looking more favorably upon Barack Obama after reading his reactions to John McCain and Hillary Clinton’s populist attack against gas taxes. From the New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports.

I wholeheartedly agree. And so does one of today’s brightest economists, Greg Mankiw:

I don’t know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal.

First, we have to realize that the increased gas prices are, although inconvenient in the short run, somewhat of a blessing. People are quickly starting shift away from driving larger cars, which will lower gasoline consumption in the long run. Additionally, if gas prices remain high for a long period of time, economic theory tells us that people will start taking larger actions to lower their gas prices, such as telecommuting or living closer to where they work. Additionally, this shifts more demand toward alternatives to gasoline-powered vehicles, such as electric cars, that don’t pollute and are by nature more efficient per mile than gasoline cars.

So today on the radio I hear someone talking about how he thinks that Hillary Clinton timed her surge perfectly, and now she has the “momentum” to carry her to victory.

Does anyone else think this statement - not just the one I heard on the radio - but the general idea of “momentum” and “surges” in politics is so stupid?

I mean, seriously, are we talking about running?  When I think of “timing a surge,” I think of the tenth mile of a half marathon where my opponent is tiring out and I want to surge to drop him.

When people vote I sure hope they are not voting for someone because they won the previous primary.  I can see  voting for someone because they have exposed problems with the other candidate, or persuaded the public on issues, or whatnot, but for momentum?  Sadly, I really think “momentum” has an effect on the way people vote.

There is nothing different between the two candidates’ political platforms from when they started the campaign and now.  So if you vote for people purely based on the issues,  you’re probably not going to change your mind about either of them as the primaries come and go.