Believing without evidence doesn't bother me; it's believing in spite of evidence that drives me nuts.

Moore makes a good gesture, a moral boosting speech for Dems. But, his argument—Amercia's ready for a black president—precludes the well-known racism that infects much of America, even those liberals who try their hardest not to be racist want to cross the street when they see a group of young black men coming towards them.

Barack ability to win the democratic ticket in a Northern state is not indicative of how, say, Southerners will want to vote. Talk to one, and, believe me, democrat or republican, they're still bitter about losing that Civil War. It's a bitterness directed towards the North for having to stop disenfranchising whom they wanted to disenfrancish. And it's masked in a thin veneer of "Southern rights" to do what they wanted, what they deemed constitutional.

Moore made a good point about the number of Democrat and Republican voters.

The Republicans are not only miserable chickenhawks when it comes to war, they are also miserable chickenhawks when it comes to voting.

What is needed is a God Obedience Party symbol of the elephant with a yellow stripe down its back.

The writer Vendantam, also has another interesting article.

"Bad Ideas can be contagious"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601472.html

Hate to spoil the party, but Iowa's a blue state. Thus it certainly seems logical that there would be a higher Democratic turnout. There's also no clear Republican frontrunner, which better explains the disparity than the common liberal talking point of "Republicans are evil and stupid". Exactly how does being evil and/or stupid keep you from voting, by the way? Too busy at your goat-killing ceremony to go, or too stupid to operate the navigation system?

Good to see Michael Moore continuing to make an ass of himself, though. Gotta pay the mortgage on that $4 million luxury NY condo somehow. What a blue-collar hero.

And it strikes me as funny that people constantly insist this is such a horrible, racist country. We're so racist that the Democratic front-runner is black. How can we live with ourselves?!?

The only person being racist here is Moore. The country isn't "ready for a black president", the country is ready for a president who seems to have some good ideas and a modicum of intelligence. I give a shit if Obama is black, if the Democrats put him up as their choice (and if he doesn't waffle and take Billary as his VP) I'll vote for him. Why? Because he's the only real candidate.

Barack ability to win the democratic ticket in a Northern state is not indicative of how, say, Southerners will want to vote. Talk to one, and, believe me, democrat or republican, they're still bitter about losing that Civil War. It's a bitterness directed towards the North for having to stop disenfranchising whom they wanted to disenfrancish.

You, sir, are too stupid for words. Good thing you don't traffic in idiotic stereotypes, right?

Hate to spoil the party, but Iowa's a blue state.

Hate to spoil your bullshit, but Iowa is close to the political center - if anything it leans right. Since 1945, Iowa has has only 4 Democratic majority congressional delegations, 5 evenly split, and the remaining 23 were GOP controlled. One of Iowa's senate seats has been held by a Democrat for 35 of 62 years, the other for 12 of 62 years. In presidential elections, Iowa has voted against the winner only once - with Gore in 2000 and by just about the same percentage margin as Gore won the US popular vote. In fact, Iowa's votes seem almost always to be within a few percent or less of the nationwide vote percentage margin.

Check some of the adjectives in that Harris article: nature is "blind," "destructive," "not our friend." Can anyone cite a more obvious example of orthodox -- that is, unjustified -- belief than this? Is this the speech of a scientist? I think, or at least hope, not. Is it the speech of an atheist? Well, does he speak for you, atheists? Or is this merely the speech of a 21st century priest, a new kind of demagogue?

blind," "destructive," "not our friend."

The only loaded tern here is destructive. Is nature "sighted"? Does Harris say that nature is our "enemy" - no, merely "not our friend." Even the word "destructive" is balanced with "renewal", albeit blind and lurching. Harris seems to be getting much more comfortable with human beings experimenting with "optimizing" our own species than I am, but I don't see a priest here, sorry.

"Can anyone cite a more obvious example of orthodox -- that is, unjustified -- belief than this?"

How is this belief? Nature is destructive at times, and it's not our friend (it doesn't act in our favor). In fact, it acts as if we don't exist in many cases. As Harris said, it occasionally sends a mountain-sized meteor into our planet and kills nearly every living thing. Hurricanes destroy and kill our houses and kill people all the time. (And for the religious people out there, nature comes through and destroys churches, as well. Why would a god destroy his own house of worship? To test your faith? Ha ha...)

I see nothing wrong here.

Guess where the nation's first black governor was voted in Marco?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilder

@Cali: iowa is a blue state

Well, take a look at the numbers :

"In 2000, Republicans turned out 87,000 voters, while Democrats produced 59,000. There are around 600,000 registered Democrats in Iowa, and about 550,000 Republicans.....

Last night, the Republicans produced around 115,000 voters -- an impressive 30% increase. But the Democrats turned out 236,000. That's an increase of roughly one whole helluva lot."

That's why it matters cali.