This sort of poll strikes me as politically motivated in a different direction than I think might be expected. Come on, we all know that 8% of Americans don't REALLY believe that Obama is the antichrist. But asking this question allows the Republicans to say "See! He must be really bad, because see how much Americans* hate him! They hate him so much -- they're willing to call him the antichrist!"

The problem is that the argument is, if I may say, really stupid.

First, you could find people like this anywhere -- that some people have no moral limits to their biases is sad but not unexpected. But more importantly, this sort of bullshit is irrelevant. We should elect people who will do the right thing for the country. We should not decide elections or policy based on whether a small group of people is willing to fill themselves up with anger, hatred, and bile against anyone from the "other side." That you are more angry does not mean that you are more right. Indeed, angry and stupid are not directly related, but they're pretty close cousins.

These peoples' "views" are "deeply felt?" Yeah, and when I was little my uncle fully believed that the CIA was listening to his thoughts. Believed it 10,000%. Believed it passionately. But we didn't take his deeply-held belief as reason to all don tinfoil hats.

(*Read "Americans" as "ultra right-wing Christian conservatives with no filter.")

I accept that there's an assumption in some quarters that anyone who claims rape is telling the truth, and that anyone accused is guilty. I understand that the root of that assumption comes from (a) a concern that traditionally the opposite was assumed and (b) a hope that by being accepting of such claims we will encourage true victims to come forward. I don't entirely agree with that perspective, but I can accept it.

But I'm surprised and disappointed to see that this assumption is so intractable that it applies even to demonstrably false claims. She lied. There's a recording -- documentary proof. She admits that she lied. It is not some sort of "possibility." There is overwhelming proof (including her own admission) that the rape story was false.

In some ways, this situation is a trap for the mindset I describe above. That mindset cannot allow the possibility that a rape "victim" is anything other than a pure and truthful victim, and that an accused "rapist" is anything other than guilty. But when faced with the real world, it turns out that those assumptions break down -- that things are far messier. People lie. Innocent people are accused. It may not happen frequently, but it happens.

By taking a black-and-white view of rape, you diminish the legitimacy of your views -- even people (like me) who generally agree with the principles end up thinking "geez, if an admission and a videotape can't overcome the assumption of guilt in this person's mind, can I ever trust them to take anything other than a wildly uneven view of any set of facts?" This is the set of facts on which you can safely say "ok, not rape -- accuser in the wrong." That you won't is disappointing.

Ah, yes -- the same argument made by the Birthers. Nope, I haven't seen the videotape my physical self. But a district attorney has -- a person whose job is to convict criminals -- and that person reports that there is no ambiguity. He or she is lying? Uhh, hey, if you need to believe that, feel free.

Plus the woman has admitted that it was a lie. When she said she was lying, she was lying? Again, if you need to believe that...

You say this is "such little evidence." In fact, this is far more evidence than would be required to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. A videotape and their confession? Thousands upon thousands have been convicted on less. Short of a dozen bishops testifying, I can't imagine "such little evidence" that would be more damning.

Look, I accept the whole idea that getting at some philosophically absolute "truth" can be impossible, even with a mountain of evidence. How do you prove Obama was born in Hawaii? How do you show that evolution is real? How do you establish that 9/11 wasn't an inside job? But if we accept the concept that truth can be proven...a videotape and a confession is enough to prove it.