I'm on a roll

I don't know if I'm just taking good luck with me everywhere I go or what...

1) Obama gets elected.
2) The Gators have a real shot at the BCS National Championship.
3) The Hammond Skyhawks won their third state football championship in a row (SCISA AAA). The State has video and an article. This is after RHS won in 2006.

Celebrate good times, come on!

The reason for celebration, of course, is that voters got to decide on whether or not to allow beer and wine sales from retailers on Sunday here in the unincorporated areas of Richland County.

They decided YES! By almost two to one margins! In the heart of Jesusland! Die blue laws, Die!

Oh yeah, and we will be seeing President Obama on Jan 20 too, and that was nice ;-)

Jan 25, 2007 was a long long time ago, and I often wondered if he could win, but my support for him has been pretty unwavering. McCain's concession was as classy as his campaign wasn't. What will I do now with all the time I used to spend following the election?

Oh yeah...


Can you fuc*ing believe that Alaskans re-elected a convicted felon? Jesus Christ.

Columbia real estate

The last time I mentioned home price information in the greater Columbia area, I was fairly pessimistic in assessing the April '08 MLS data:

Prices
Apr 07 - 08 change in real estate prices: +5%
2007YTD - 2008YTD (as of 4/08) change: +1.4%
Sales
Apr 07 - 08 change in real estate sales (units sold): -16%
2007YTD - 2008YTD (as of 4/08) change in units sold: -12.9%

Wow, how the times have changed:

Prices
Sep 07 - 08 change in real estate prices: -8.8%
3Q 2007 - 3Q 2008 change: -3.4%
2007YTD - 2008YTD (as of 9/08) change: +0.0%
Sales
Sep 07 - 08 change in real estate sales (units sold): -8.4%
3Q 2007 - 3Q 2008 change: -17.4%
2007YTD - 2008YTD (as of 9/08) change: -17.1%

Quite a change in the rate (deceleration) from April.

Inflation during the period 9/07 - 9/08 was +4.94% so subtract that further from prices.

CNN reports that the national avg drop of 4.8% in comparing year over year prices is the worst in history. Columbia is obviously a little above that.

Given the economic indicators, things don't look good for a reduction in lending rates and the recession will put a serious crimp in people's plans to upgrade or buy for the first time. Short full nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, the housing market will continue to deteriorate for the next 6 months for sure. Call me a bear, but I wouldn't be in the market for a home for at least a year.

A little over-the-top

Here in Columbia, SC, the Richland County Sheriff's Dept. has secured a ridiculously over-the-top weapon of warfare: dubbed the "peacemaker"...

Now I'm not a criminal or a person who is very libertarian with respect to government power, but I have to agree that this is ridiculous, not to mention how this was named after (supposedly) Jesus' reference in Matt 5. This worries me as being something that is completely out of proportion to the threats faced by the police, and thus something that will probably just end up killing someone unnecessarily. They'll use it to break up poker games or pot smokers just so they can use it.

Kind of like how cops kill dogs regularly now (and back then) with no justification. I'd sue the sh*t out of them and probably be arrested for trying to assault them if they ever shot my big teddy bears.

Praying for Jamey didn't work out so well

When I first moved to Columbia, I saw lots of bumper stickers that said, "I'm praying for Jamey."

I finally found out what they're about: a guy who got pancreatic cancer. Well, he died this January (9 months ago). I have a feeling a lot of people will take those stickers off without even reflecting on their effect...that is, their lack thereof.

In one of my posts at Debunking Christianity, I looked at the question of whether or not there really is any scientific evidence that "prayer works" or a correlation between faith and health. Unsurprisingly, I found none.

The core methodology of such studies is flawed for three reasons:

1) Some studies examine how frequent churchgoing relates to health. The problem with this methodology is that the same correlation would appear between frequent football game attendance as well; anyone healthy enough to frequently attend anything that they enjoy will do so, and the more unhealthy you get, the less you will be able to attend...and so church attendance is not special.

2) Another big problem with studies designed to measure the "prayer effect" is that the people are often receiving medical care while being studied, and it is impossible to say that the prayer had an effect compared to their treatment. If you could study only patients who have exactly the same disease at exactly the same stage and receive exactly the same treatments, then you could truly control these other variables. However, it is basically impossible to control the other variables that will affect the prognosis.

3) The final problem is that it is impossible to separate people into "prayed for" and "not prayed for" groups by virtue of the fact that you'd have to ask each person and their extended families and their entire churches not to pray...and do you think that is going to work? If someone has a serious condition and is religious, they're going to stop praying for a few weeks or months? No. And so many of the people in the "not prayed for" group whose situation turns bad are lumped in as "evidence" that those who don't receive prayer are worse off...even though the people themselves as well as their families and church members were praying for them, especially if the health condition is serious, like cancer or heart disease.

And those are just the core methodology problems. In other studies, the ones cited as "evidence prayer works", the sample sizes are very small (n<20), and therefore the probability values are unimpressive: p>0.05. Whether or not you agree that the standard for statistical significance should be p<0.05, when p values approach 0.2, you have very little statistical evidence to back up a claim of a significant impact from whatever variable you're studying. But people conveniently ignore this when touting these meager studies.

In the only double blind, multi-year, multi-thousand-patient study ever conducted on the effect of prayer on health, God failed the test. Big time. Every empirical study has shown the same thing -- that nothing fails like prayer. Don't believe me? Find one documented amputee whose limb grew back from prayer. One. Ever.

Some studies purporting to support the idea that prayer works have been literally written by criminals and frauds.

Dr. Richard Sloan (M.D., not Ph.D.) has done a lot of work in examining these sorts of issues and wrote a book recently summarizing the facts -- there is no valid study supporting the idea that prayer changes anything (valid in the sense that they used a competent methodology and a large sample size and got a good p value).

On the logical side of things:

Does prayer move God to act? If yes, then God is callous/cruel, and God is not totally sovereign. If no, then God will act regardless of whether you pray or not.

If the desired goal does not happen after you pray, would you admit that God wanted things to turn out the way that they did, or do you believe that God wanted things to turn out differently? If God wanted things to turn out the way that they did, then your prayers don't matter, because God is sovereign. If God wanted things to turn out differently, then your God is weak or stupid or both.

See, God gets the credit when the desired goal occurs, but none of the blame when it doesn't.

So both from the logical and evidential sides, you really have an uphill climb in trying to show that praying for someone even makes sense.

Racism makes you stupid

I was reading this Free Times article about Obama's chances of making SC blue (absurd), and I saw this tidbit:

Two months ago, Noble published a guest column in The State and other papers (including Free Times) under the headline “Why Obama will win S.C.,” an opinion piece for which he was both praised and pilloried. And his critics, of whom there are many, aren’t shaking him. Just ask state Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson. Last month he received a well-publicized letter from Noble betting him the barbecue dinner of his choice — sans Maurice’s — that Obama will carry the state come November.

My curiosity was piqued about the Maurice's bit, so I googled Maurice's BBQ and found that the Columbia chain had put up a Confederate flag and put out tracts in their stores that were, well, let's just say, "controversial":

His troubles began after he lowered the U.S. flag in front of his restaurants and replaced it with the Confederate banner last month -- in what he said was a protest against federal power. Then came the pro-slavery complaints
...
"It's just political correctness that's sweeping the country and now trying to sweep the South. You've got to be in line with the mindset of the big corporations to do business," he says. "This is nothing more than an attempt to dictate the religious beliefs and suppress freedom of expression of all of their American suppliers."
...
This week, Bessinger won a victory when Piggly Wiggly supermarkets decided to keep his mustard-based barbecue sauce on its grocery store shelves. "Our focus is to provide our customers with the products they want. We're in the grocery business," Piggly Wiggly spokeswoman Rita Postell said.

"Praise the Lord," Bessinger responded. "I'm glad to see at least one South Carolina chain that still believes in American fair play and my constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Bessinger said.
...
At Maurice Bessinger's original Piggie Park barbecue restaurant in West Columbia, South Carolina, he sells a tract called "The Biblical View of Slavery," which suggests Africans brought by force to the United States liked slavery.

An excerpt reads: "Many of those African slaves blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America. Because what they had over here was far better than what they had over there."

Bessinger has run out of that particular tract right now, but when he gets more, he says he'll put them on display again.

I realize that South Carolinians are starting with some disadvantages as far as critical thinking goes.  Hell, god knows I did too. 

Let's see how this logic goes:

1. Man puts up flag which he says symbolizes states' rights and freedom
2. Corporations decide not to use his product anymore because they are afraid their profits will suffer as a result of bad consumer reaction
3. Man says his "right" to have his product carried by corporations is being violated as they are "dictating" what is carried
   

Sorry, try again.  The same freedom that allows you to be a dumb a$$hole allows companies to pick and choose what products they want to carry...for any reason whatsoever.  Sure, you can put out your tracts, but there may be consequences in terms of your consumers' reaction to it.  No one is forced to carry your product, and no one is forcing you not to do stupid things and suffer for them.  Hallelujah, praise the Lord.

In responding to the article I was reading, here's how a far-right publication summarizes it:

So confident of victory, Noble proposed a friendly wager to state GOP chairman Katon Dawson that the loser buy the victor a dinner of the finest South Carolina barbeque, with all the trimmings, at any restaurant of the winner’s choice in the state except “Maurice’s.”

Maurice Bessinger, owner of the largest barbecue restaurant chain in the state, is known for his efforts to keep the Confederate battle flag flying atop the state capitol dome.

 And now he's known for his stupidity as well.

SC State Legislator Kevin Bryant needs your thoughts

**See the MSNBC clip below or at the site**

The heart of the GOP rears its ugly naked head in raw racism and stupidity. Here's its newest face:

Living here in the heart of Jesusland, with all the attendant problems of living in the South magnified by the delusions of thousands of crackers convinced the War of Northern Aggression is still not over, can be fun. Kevin Bryant, who is a state senator representing Anderson County in district 3, shows us this mentality by posting a picture to his website of Sen. Obama beside Osama bin Laden with the caption, "The only difference between Obama and Osama is a little B.S." The title of the blog post was "Vacation and Funny Picture"...you decide:

This blogger broke the story and has tracked the fallout.

He removed the image after a shitstorm broke loose, retitled the post later as simply "Picture":


In his interview with the AP, he belied ignorance of the New Yorker cover and, more importantly, how he fits the very stupidity it was intended to combat, however misguided its good intent. However, he writes that he has no regrets:

The posting, not surprisingly, only drew out the virulent and vulgar members of the liberal left whose immediate reaction to any criticism of their candidate includes charges of ignorance and bigotry. This reminds us of their criticism of those who cling to our guns and religion and strikes me only as par for the course.

I have no regrets from this picture, however, I’m sure that a further examination of Obama’s foreign (and domestic) policies must occur in order that voters might truly understand the vast, vast differences between him and Sen. John McCain. I refuse to cower to the cultural police who evermore seek to censor our political discussion. You may view the picture with this link if you wish to see what all the hubbub is all about.

Way take a last stand, Cust--, I mean Bryant. He even provides a permanent link to the offensive image!

Some of his work in representing Anderson County includes sponsoring one bill to shield pharmacists from having to fulfill their duties on religious grounds and another bill to exempt religious organizations even further from any sort of sales tax in any types of transactions. Hallelujah!

Here's his contact information:

Senator Kevin L. Bryant
District 3 - Anderson Co.
Contact Address:
(H) 104-A North Ave., Anderson, 29625

Cell (864) 202-8394
(C) 606 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201

Bus. (803) 212-6024
E-Mail Address: BRYANTK@scsenate.org

Let him know what you think of troglodytes calling our next President a terrorist. I wonder how this peckerwood feels about mean McCain cartoons?

Will the media pick up on this story? Probably not. I stand corrected!


On a tangent, of course this lovely state had to come in next-to-last, just behind Mississippi, in a recent study showing the regressive nature of its transportation and energy policy.

LTE in The State re "I Believe" plates

There is a great LTE in The State today opposing the unconstitutional "I Believe" plates, which I mentioned two months ago. (For more background, and you'll have to hold your nose as you visit the site, see this video.)

‘I Believe’ tags threaten religious freedom of all, Christians included

Having been a Presbyterian now for more than a decade, it is also out of my Baptist roots that I continue a lifelong commitment to religious liberty and its corollary, the separation of church and state. It was that itinerant Baptist preacher John Leland who was most instrumental in solidifying the views of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in assuring our well-being and posterity for what Jefferson later described as “the wall of separation” between church and state.

When the General Assembly passed the religious license plate bill and the governor allowed it to become law without his signature, some proponents acknowledged it would be challenged in court. And I commend the clergymen who are the plaintiffs — United Methodist Tom Summers, Unitarian Neal Jones, Jewish Rabbi Sanford Marcus and First Christian Church pastor Robert Knight.

For government to issue religious license plates is clearly unconstitutional. It is contrary to the First Amendment’s establishment clause that prohibits government from advancing or endorsing any religion, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddism, Islam or any other. There is no majoritarian exception.

Religious liberty means that each person can become an adherent to the faith of his or her choosing, or can choose not to be a believer. It means that the religious experience is between God and the human heart and mind. It means that faith never can be coerced, as well-meaning as government, the church, the synagogue, the temple or the mosque may be.

We don’t look to government for permission to believe, nor is it government’s prerogative to approve or disapprove our practice. Government is without competence in religious matters.

We are free to put personal religious decals on our vehicles. We are free to put religious symbols in our yards or our businesses. We are free to witness to our faith in the public square as long as we are not disruptive (e.g., a student cannot disrupt the teaching process in a public school classroom).

There are some who seek unconstitutionally to draw government into the most sacred precincts of our being. Some would see this as a means to curry favor with certain voters.

But as South Carolinians with deep individual faith or with no religious faith, let us never trample the freedoms that have made us unique, especially the freedom to worship. I will continue to “render” to both God and Caesar. May government and religion remain ever separate. This is best for both.

FLYNN HARRELL

Columbia

Well-spoken. See AU and this item for more.

Godless Columbia

When we moved to Columbia in August, I felt the culture shock for a while. Eventually, work swamped me to the point that I didn't have time to reflect on it much. Besides Gainesville being ranked number one of the best places in America to live, it was a "college town" in the sense that USC does not make Columbia. This city is the state capitol and is rich with secessionist history and Dixie pride, while G'ville really had only UF to its merits. In February, during a lull (winter break at my school), I decided to poke around and find out if there were any atheist/freethought groups here in Columbia.

Almost to my surprise, there are a few.

I first found a secular humanist group here, but it seemed pretty dull. I emailed one of the officers there and he directed me to Godless Columbia, a more social, informal and active group. I joined it in February. I attended last night for only my second time, at the meeting at Starbucks in Sandhills and we discussed making a website and a logo. This morning, I bought the godlesscolumbia.org domain and constructed a page there using Blogger. I also put up a facebook group for good measure. Go check it out.

I'm pretty proud of what I was able to do in such a hurry.

I found out this morning that USC has something of a freethought group, although their web presence is a little weak: a Pastafarian group. At least there's something here, which is almost surprising, considering the history of Gator Freethought and the relative size and demographic disadvantages here. The former group, Carolina Freethinkers Association, registered with CFI, went defunct after a short while, the faculty advisor told me.

I'm not sure that I really have the time or desire to get involved in leadership in a group again, but I certainly enjoyed putting together those web resources this morning, and I hope they ameliorate the group's membership and activity in some way. I've grown a little more realistic (cynical, probably) in my vision for what websites can do. When I started GF, I thought everyone there would want to join and contribute to the blog, and that it would be like a hive of activity. Now, I see that a group's primary lifeblood is its meetings, while website are only great for sharing information and preparing for said meetings.

One of the things I've never liked about groups such as Godless Columbia is when it seems that those attending meetings only rave or rant about atheism or religion on a "pop-culture" level, repeating common fallacies and engaging in fallacious generalization rather than engaging on a respectable (philosophical) level. This group falls more into the Kelly at RR category than my friends at GF, so I'm not sure I'll even attend very many meetings. They don't seem interested in setting up debates or guest speakers, nor engaging academically with the "other side" to any degree. We'll have to wait and see.

Columbia real estate - things look worse

A new Harvard study reports that the housing market will continue to spiral downwards, even as this represents the greatest slump in 60 years. Some key points:

During 2003 to 2005, housing prices surged so far ahead of incomes that by 2006, the number of households (both renters and owners) paying more than half their income on housing rose to 17.7 million, or 15.8% of all households. Today, lenders are requiring larger down payments and higher credit scores, squeezing many would-be buyers out of owning a home -- even though prices have fallen.

More proof of the changing lending landscape: Subprime loans fell to 3.1% of originations in the fourth quarter of 2007, from 20% in 2005 and 2006. Interest-only and payment-option loans fell to 10.7% of originations in 2007, from 19.3% in 2006.

As employment conditions worsen and the credit crunch spreads, these two points have dire consequences for housing. Consider that the larger the share of one's income that is devoted to housing, the more likely a foreclosure will occur from even a temporary loss of employment or other financial stress. Also, given that there were still so many subprime loans being originated in 2006, and that a lot of these were 3/1ARM or 5/1ARM-type mortgages, the rate adjustments have not yet hit those loans, and many of them will go into default once that occurs.

With baby Seth on the way, our 2 BR apartment, cramped by our two ginormous bear-dogs, is getting a little cramped. We were thinking about buying instead of transitioning into another rental in August. I called Bank of America and Wachovia two weeks ago to get pre-qualification to buy, just to give myself a price range. We have good credit (my FICO > 720), but they told me that they just aren't doing the 80/20-type 0% down loans anymore. Since a lot of the market values are falling, the banks just don't come out with a safe margin. In addition, as of last week, Bank of America is requiring a standard 10% down payment, and they are not alone:

Two things are certain. The days of 100-percent financing—no down payment—are gone. And the baseline credit score you need for approval has risen sharply.

“It is more difficult to qualify borrowers for loans these days,” says Peggy Deane, vice president of mortgage services for Member Options, which provides mortgages for the UVA Credit Union. Dean says the secondary markets, institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who buy loans from originators, have tightened up their guidelines around the county.

“Even a year ago, for credit scores in the 500s, I won’t say those loans were easy to come by, but they were certainly possible,” Deane says. “That’s not the case today. We’re seeing a migration to a minimum of a 620 on more programs.”

So basically the demand for housing will sharply decline as fewer and fewer people now meet the bar for homeownership. In addition, the rates on mortgages are going to be rising soon:

Wells Fargo economist Michael Swanson sees rates rising to 6.6 percent by the end of the year. Other economists and analysts say interest rates could climb to 7.3 percent or higher by the middle of next year. Such a jump could further dampen the already-anemic demand for housing.

“I wouldn't at all be surprised to see mortgage rates jumping between 1 and 1.5 percentage points over the next year,” said David Galland, managing director of Casey Research in Vermont. “The only reason they haven't moved up sooner is that foreigners have been reinvesting their dollars into Treasury bills.

Put all these factors together:

1. a lot of subprimes haven't even "come due" yet
2. largely as a result of losses on subprimes and forecasts for more losses on subprimes (#1), banks are raising the standards of lending
3. as a result of #2, the pool of qualified buyers will go down sharply, which will reduce demand further
4. as a result of the weakening dollar and other economic impacts, mortgage rates will continue to rise, pushing down prices

This gives credence to the Havard study. The slump is really just beginning.

I put up a post last month with housing data for the greater Columbia area, and I expressed concern about the prospect of buying due to a continuing slump that might leave me with negative equity for a while. This morning, using the SC Realtors data, I got a few numbers to share on the state of the real estate market here:

The number of units sold in the greater Columbia area comparing April '07 to April '08 has dropped by 16%. Keep in mind that the "housing slump" was noticed and appreciated around that time last year -- which means that some of the slack has already been removed from the markets:


Now, on the price side things don't look so dire, with a 5% increase in median prices from April '07 to April '08, and a 1.4% increase in the '08 median over the '07 median. To temper your optimism, the gains were wiped out by inflation, as the rate during the period Apr '07 to May '08 is 4.81%:

Thus, in effect, prices have stagnated with inflation. In addition, since the days on market (DOM) here in Columbia rose 22.5% from April '07 to '08, I fully expect to see some declines in prices soon. This is typically peak buying season, so that sort of hit during April tells you a lot about the general weakness of the local market right now:

Of course, the realtors themselves have a rosy optimism about conditions here over the next 6 months, although their predictions about how things would be right now didn't look so good:

My prognostications aren't worth much, but just looking at the fundamentals and the supply of homes available, I would be right now that prices in this area will drop over the course of the summer. Columbia may not have been victim to the rampant speculation that drove up prices in some areas, but it cannot escape the inevitabilities of the fundamentals mentioned at the top of the post.

We'll just have to wait and see...

Columbia real estate

A few weeks ago, I started looking at some of the data on Columbia & SC real estate. Amber and I have been interested in buying, while at the same time remaining realistic about our financial situation since moving from Gainesville and expecting baby Seth. I've gotten into conversations with lots of people that are adamant that the market here is still great. Since I hate anecdotal evidence, I want numbers.

Here's what I've found so far...

Despite the protests and complaints from agents in the area, even the local markets here are being hit hard by a housing recession.

• SC MLS data, 1999-2007: pdf
  
• SC DOM data, March 2008: pdf
• SC MLS data, March 2008: pdf

1) There has been a steep drop-off in the total number of sales and the media price of homes in in the past few years.
2) Locally, in the Greater Columbia area, the average days on market (DOM) has jumped 19% since this time last year.
3) The number of homes & condos sold in the Greater Columbia area has dropped 17% since this time last year.
4) The median prices of homes & condos sold in the Greater Columbia area has remained completely flat since this time last year; in comparing Q1 08 to Q1 07, it has risen a paltry 0.95% since this time last year, far below the rate of inflation.

To me, it seems that the self-reinforcing trends will continue for at least a little while longer.

Here are some images from trulia:


the same image modified with trend lines:


The slump is real and obvious, although realtors are predicting an upturn this summer. Their jobs depend on it, obviously:

Compared to the first three months of last year, the median home price in the state dipped by 2.1 percent to $149,000, down from $152,000. The total number of sales declined by 21.4 percent to 11,240 total sales, according to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data from SCR. Despite the overall decline, six of the 15 reporting regions in the state again showed positive price increases this quarter.

Something you thought you'd never need to read

"Which GOP front-runner is the least liberal?"

I really do wonder if the South will vote for a Mormon recent pro-life-convert, or a thrice-married serial adulterer who is not staunchly pro-life and supports gay marriage. I don't really care who they vote for on that side, to be honest. What I do wish is that Dems would win here (i.e., in South Carolina), but it just won't happen.

Why? Here's why: the religion gap and the education gap that we suffer in the South, and suffer horribly in South Carolina. As long as that gap exists, a party that makes sense to both sides of the divide simply cannot and will not exist. And, rather than closing, the gap is widening in education and religious disparity, as I point out regularly.

Today at our school, Charles T. Ferillo, the guy who was instrumental in getting the racist symbol of the Confederate flag moved from the SC Capitol Building [aside: Obama is against flying the confederate flag here, saying it belongs in a museum] and made the documentary The Corridor of Shame came to talk at our school. The film is about the problem with funding in poor, rural, minority-dominated South Carolina public schools. It's quite an eye-opener. You can watch it/download it free here at eTV. Issues like education and the confederate flag, imho, are not going to bring over moderates and sensible independents in enough numbers to outdo the fundamentalist social conservatives in the Bible Belt. I really think it's time for Dems to ignore the South and focus their efforts elsewhere. See an excerpt of Whistling Past Dixie below.

See:

White southerners used to be among the most economically liberal voters in America but are now among the most conservative. The South is America's most militaristic and least unionized region, and the powerful combination of race and religion create a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most statewide Democratic candidates and almost all Democratic presidential nominees.

Meanwhile, there are growing opportunities for Democrats to improve their electoral fortunes in other parts of the country, where demographic changes and political attitudes are more favorable to Democratic messages and messengers. Citizens in the Midwest have been decimated by globalization and are looking for economic salvation. In the Southwest where white and, most especially, Hispanic populations are booming, a strong platform on immigration reform and enforcement could divide the Republicans and put the region up for grabs. In parts of the Mountain West, Democrats can pair the lessons learned from Ross Perot's fiscal reform campaigns with an emphasis on land and water conservation to establish traction among disaffected libertarians and the millions of coastal transplants who either moved westward or bounced back eastward from California in search of open spaces and more affordable suburban lifestyles. If the Democrats can simultaneously expand and solidify their existing margins of control in the Northeast and Pacific Coast states -- specifically by targeting moderate Republicans for defeat, just as moderate Democrats in the South have been systematically terminated by the GOP -- the Democrats can build a national majority with no help from the South in presidential elections and little help from southern votes elsewhere down the ballot.

As I read this I smiled a little to myself; it is highly unlikely that this will happen, given the two Democratic frontrunners' penchants for pandering here in the South: Obama used a virulently anti-gay minister in SC and Hillary puts on an accent down here.

I wish they would whistle past Dixie (and my own doorstep) to secure the White House. Unfortunately, this wisdom hasn't sunk in yet.

Also, check out Polarized America (H/T: Paul Krugman) for amazing graphs showing the correlation of income inequality to political polarization.

Back to Obama, here's someone defending his mandates for health care coverage...and someone criticizing them.