General Election 2020: NC results

While we're all watching Georgia and Pennsylvania for up-to-the-minute data, I decided to dig in a little to my own state of NC. It's still not been called, and the lead appears pretty solid for Trump. I dug in a little more, though. 

Donald Trump's denial-o-meter

I have a theory about Donald Trump’s acceptance of denials from powerful men in spite of all evidence. It’s a work in progress, so please bear with me.

We saw him accept Putin’s denial of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.” -Trump [The Guardian]

We saw him accept Kavanaugh’s account, even though Trump's handlers managed to make him also say Dr. Blasey Ford was credible. He tweeted:

“Judge Kavanaugh['s] testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting.” [Donald Trump's Twitter account]

Now we see him accepting King Salman’s denial of any involvement in the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi

“It wasn't like there was a question in his mind. The denial was very strong.” -Trump [CNN]

What do these three examples have in common? The first obvious answer is that it serves his political motives to believe these three characters. Trump has shown himself to care little for the truth in the face of potential self interest, after all. But is that the only thing?

Here’s where my theory comes in: Trump thinks really highly of himself. He’s the best. No one could be better. As such, he believes that he’s the best at pretty much whatever he want to do, including being a human lie detector.

But there’s more.

He’s also surrounded himself with yespeople who are afraid to tell him things he doesn’t want to hear, and who are afraid of his angry outbursts. Due to their conditioning him, he can’t fathom someone being willing to lie to his face. Who would dare, after all?! He’s the leader of the free world! He has power! The biggest buttons! All who meet him must surely quake in fear of his grandeur and find themselves struck as if by truth serum and incapable of lying!

So, with his self serving nature, belief in his own greatness (which leads him to think he can read people perfectly), and his infatuation with raw displays of power and its ability to cow adversaries, Trump simply can’t fathom that any of these people would be lying to him.

But we saw it at the UN. Other world leaders aren’t struck powerless and laid low by his mere presence. They laughed at his ignorance and bumbling gaffs. They saw him for the clown he is, and some of them have played him as such. Those who have carefully watched him found that the secret to getting him to blindly believe you is simply to tell him what he hopes is true anyway, say it emphatically, and repeat it loudly. He’ll do the rest. Like a puppet.

How embarrassing for our country to have a puppet would-be-authoritarian-dictator being played like a cheap violin by anyone who cares to pick up the bow and sing a pretty song to him. Flash a shiny bauble to distract him and *BAM* you’ve cracked the mainframe.

So there you have it. A man who’s not as smart as he thinks he his, whose fascination with and drive for power has blinded him to obvious distractions and lies, and has been enabled in this blindness by a willing throng in his orbit.

Alex Jones on Twitter

Jack from Twitter doesn't want to suspend Alex Jones, claiming that he hasn't violated the rules. This is so much malarkey (hat tip to Joe Biden!) and needs to be discussed.

First, lets start by reviewing the Twitter policies. Here’s some screenshots with highlights. Go see them yourself if you want, too.

So, has Alex broken these? I decided to see what he’s posted over time. I think we’ll find he’s been a bad boy. Let’s start with his harassment of groups of folks based on religion.

And then move on to national origin.

Then, we’ve got some “non-consensual slurs” (whatever that really means). Note that he actually @‘d Megyn while calling her a liar which is one of the lines good ol’ Jack drew in the sand. His link from the David tweet certainly degrades and tries to silence him.

Some tweets that hurt victims of horrible tragedies.

And one horrible, continual lie that actually lead to violence.

Finally, there are two I found that strike me as specifically calling for violence. Take a look for yourself. I added a highlight to the one on the left.

Would a normal user get called out on these tweets? Unlikely. But a media personality, even one who’s trying to defend himself by saying that reasonable people would know he does it for entertainment value, should be held to a higher standard.

The actions folks take as a result of Alex’s misinformation and unhinged attacks must have consequences. That could be warnings, temporary blocks, or, as many companies have decided, bans for continued and unrepentant bad behavior.

So tell us, Jack, what is really going on here? Your explanation holds less water than an environmentally friendly plastic straw. Please don’t take us for idiots and just say, “We like the eyeballs his crazy brings.”

Protesters: The Soros-is-Paying Claim

In the wake of the 2016 election and 2017 inauguration, we have seen hundreds of protests. These have ranged in size from millions on January 21st with the Women's March on Washington to many smaller local events targeting specific issues. As these protests, rallies, and marches have continued, some have made spurious claims about who is involved in the protests. I plan to take a bit of time to analyze these claims. In this post, I address the claim that protesters are being paid by George Soros.

Raw labor cost

Today, let us take at face value the claim that protesters are, in fact, being paid to attend the rallies. As we did when calculating the cost of shipping in protesters, we'll start with the Moral March on Raleigh that took place on February 11 and use the conservative estimated attendance of 10,000.

How much would a protester get paid? A similar job might be an extra in a movie or TV show, so let's find out what they make. EntertainmentCareers.net indicates that union member extras earn $110 per eight hour day plus overtime for any hours beyond that. This comes out to $13.75 per hour for normal time. Since there's probably not a Protesters Union^{[citation needed]}, let's drop the cost to just $10 per hour.


The Moral March on Raleigh was a four hour event, not counting commuting, preparation time, setup, and cleanup. It's time for more math again!

Okay, we can handle that, right? To a billionaire, $400,000 is pocket change. Of course, this is just one out of hundreds of protests, marches, and rallies, not to mention all of those town halls, calls to senators and representatives, postcards and letters, visits to congressional offices, and more.

Let's again take a low-ball, shot-in-the-dark estimate and say there have been twenty five similarly sized protests each weekend for the last four weekends since the inauguration. Let's also come up with a rough tally for all of the other actions based on some articles from reputable sources. From this Politico article just about the DeVos confirmation, we can tally up approximately 85,000 calls, emails, and letters targeted at just five senators out of 100.

Let's also assume each contact takes one minute on average including the time waiting for a staffer to pick up the phone. Also, since these actions can be taken from home maybe they only get $5 per hour. Finally, the Politico article was written on January 26th. A more recent CNN article indicates that as many as 1.5 million calls per day have been coming in to the Senate, which approximately matches our number above. Go us! There have been 24 days since the inauguration. Hey look, it's more math.

And let's add in the rough estimate of 100 protests at the previously calculated cost of $400,000 each.

Over $43 million, and we haven't factored in the cost of all those signs people are carrying, sound and stage equipment, port-a-potties, and more. Let's just pretend that's all free, because why not.

Show them the money

At this point, we some how have to get $43 million dollars distributed to people. Are we going to write them all checks? Unlikely. It takes me about half a minute to write a check, even if I leave the name blank for the person to fill in later. If I write two checks a minute to just the 10,000 people who attended this past weekend's event, we're talking 5,000 minutes or 83 hours or nearly three and a half days of continual writing. Can you say "hand cramp"?

Let's try raw cash instead. Cash is good, right? Wait - what bank is going to just let me make a $43 million cash withdrawal without getting suspicious and notifying authorities? And how do we disperse that? Even if we had, say, twenty people we trusted to stand in front of a mountain of cash it would take them quite a bit of time to give everyone their pay, and you know someone would get a picture of that to put on the internet.

Perhaps the only way is some form of electronic dispersal. We could use payroll software like ADP. Now we just need to enter at least 10,000 people into the system and... Think about how long it took you as an individual to get set up in your company's payroll system and then multiple that by ten thousand - for just a single march. Also, we're now the size of a massive corporation, and spending money in similar volumes, too. We probably need people full time in HR, financial, and legal (to either pay taxes or somehow hide all of these transactions). This is ballooning way out of proportion.

We've got 99 problems but a check ain't one

This all leads me to this inevitable conclusion:

Wrong as they are, accusations that Soros is funding protests are a tacit admission that the Tea Party was astroturf. #MoralMarch #resist

— Adam's Eye (@suddengenesis) February 12, 2017

Protesters: The Out-of-State Claim

In the wake of the 2016 election and 2017 inauguration, we have seen hundreds of protests. These have ranged in size from millions on January 21st with the Women's March on Washington to many smaller local events targeting specific issues. As these protests, rallies, and marches have continued, some have made spurious claims about who is involved in the protests. I plan to take a bit of time to analyze these claims. In this post, I address the claim that protesters are sent in from out of state.

Getting There

Suppose, for a moment, that protesters are sent in from out of state to make protests appear larger. One recent protest in the central North Carolina area was the Moral March on Raleigh which took place on February 11th. While some estimate that 80,000 people attended, other news organizations are simply citing "thousands." (ABC11, WRAL) Let's take the conservative estimate of 10,000 attendees.

Now, these people had to be brought in somehow. How do you transport 10,000 people? Buses would be one of the most cost effective ways to transport large volumes of people. Now, to get a quote for the price of a charter bus, we need to know where they're going to start from. Washington, D.C. is one of the closest liberal havens to central North Carolina so seems a good starting point. There are probably at least 10,000 liberals in the D.C. area, right? Right. 

Okay, now that we know where we're coming from, we can start to price out this trip. BusRates.com has a pretty easy interface that doesn't ask us too many questions so lets start there. To cut down on costs, we're going to say "No" to hotels, attractions, and restaurants.

Our list of results is pretty reasonable and starts with a pretty good bet. A 56 seat charter bus for only $1,200 per day plus $3.99 per mile! A little farther on is an executive bus for $1,900 but there's no need to go overboard here. There's only 7 of them but maybe other services have similar buses available. Here's hoping, anyway.

Okay - so just for the bus service we'll need... how many? And how many miles? Google Maps gives us a rough estimate of 278 miles from D.C. to Raleigh and a travel time of a little over 4 hours. Let's do some math.

Good, that's 179 buses. Now, assuming just a one day rental, we'll have to pick everyone up around 4 AM to make the 8:30 start time and then we'll leave when the march ends at noon and be back in time for dinner. That's reasonable, right? What will the cost be just for the massive fleet of buses?

Wow - okay. We're talking over half a million just for transportation for one march. And if there were only twenty five such protests each weekend for the past four weekends since the inauguration we're talking 100 protests which would be sixty-one million dollars on transportation.

Let them eat... something?

Certainly people wouldn't come from out of state, traveling and marching and traveling again for twelve hours straight without at least something to eat and perhaps drink. Let's assume that they all bring along their own water bottles so the latter is free. But food? Well, I don't know about you but over the course of twelve hours of activity I usually have three meals. Let's skimp and just give them two. We can even go super cheap and try to feed them for, say $2 each for each meal if we get some crap in bulk.

Okay, and recall this is just one protest out of approximately a hundred so we're talking another four million dollars. This total of $65 million is sounding kind of massive, and we haven't even talked about paying the protesters. Maybe they'll work just for the crappy food? Let's leave it at that for now.

Problems

We have many problems already, though. First, where do you get a fleet of 179 buses? Second, how to you get them nearly 300 miles from DC to NC without drawing too much attention either way? Third, where do you park all those 45 foot long buses so someone won't get a picture of them to post all over social media? Hint - none of this can be done. Clearly, these protesters did not come from out of state given the prohibitive cost and lack of any evidence of a tremendous bus fleet.

Religious freedom. A basic human right.

As a Jew, I am well are of the potential consequences of mainstream politicians ostracizing and scapegoating a portion of the population based on religious beliefs. Some statements are truth, some half-truths, and some blatant lies that somehow persist. For example, Jews were attacked with the blood libel for centuries.

I will not stand idly by as others are attacked in this way. I will not be silent at the persecution of my fellow human beings. There is no just cause, ever, anywhere, for labeling and segmenting a group based on race, ethnicity, religion, creed, nationality, orientation, or other shared characteristic they inherited by birth.

There are millions suffering at the hands of DAESH (a.k.a. ISIL, ISIS), and most of those are Muslims. They need our help, the world's help, in fact, and we must not turn our backs. Every life we can save is a world saved. Every life we fail to save is a world lost.

--

In a similar vein, if anyone tries to tell you that, "unlike Christianity, Islam is religion of violence" remind them that there are Christians who have interpreted the Bible to mean non-Christians should be forcibly converted or slaughtered. Perhaps they've heard of the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Balkan war (Christian Serbs slaughtering Muslim Yugoslavians as the country disintegrated into civil war), or the current genocide occurring in the Central African Republic in the name of Christianity.

Also, direct them to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence . In particular, call out quotes such as:

'According to Feisal Abdul Rauf, "the Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the use of coercion in faith because coercion would violate a fundamental human right—the right to a free conscience. A different belief system is not deemed a legitimate cause for violence or war under Islamic law. The Quran is categorical on this: "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256); "Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine" (109:1-6)"'

Knowledge and facts are power.

Small government, and why it isn't just selfish

A friend of mine posted a very well written and easy to digest post on why he believes in small government.  It's well worth a read, even if you, like me, don't agree with his conclusions.  At least you'll find yourself nodding along with the goals we all agree on.

Please read so the next time someone brings it up you won't immediately think they're an idiot. Frankly, the next time anyone brings up a political discussion you should approach it with an open mind.  Reading his post is just one way to start doing that.

You'll find my response in his comments if you're interested.  I may flesh it out into something larger to post here at some point.

More here:

apophenia, or “why i’m ‘small government’, but not (just) an unbelievable asshole”

What Freedom of Speech means

Recently, Piers Morgan interviewed a gun rights advocate Larry Pratt [1]. In this interview, he does call the interviewee "an unbelievably stupid man" which is admittedly a rather odd turn of phrase to use on national television as an interviewer. The conversation continues and it's clear neither man has much respect for the opinions of the other.

Even so, we see that, in response, gun rights advocates (lead by infowars.com [2]) have created a petition to deport Mr. Morgan. [3] This is utter nonsense. For anyone who holds the second amendment in such high regard, one could expect that other amendments to the constitution would be deemed of great import, as well.

Take, for instance, the first amendment. It protects not just free speech but also freedom of the press. [4] To be precise, it also protects the freedom to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" which, in theory, protects the right of those offended to petition. At the very same time, it does not protect them from making fools of themselves with their ignorance of the rest of the first amendment.

Piers Morgan is in no way inciting to riot, calling "fire" in a crowded theater, advocating violence, esposing any form of treason, or performing any number of other violiations of the reasonable limits on free speech or freedom of the press. To deport him would be create a new precedent which has never existed - the right to not hear opinions you disagree with.

For anyone who is baffled by the desire to deport a journalist for sharing his views, please consider signing and sharing a different petition to remind the gun-rights advocates of the first amendment. Than you for your time.

[1] Larry Pratt interview
[2] "The Law Says Deport Piers Morgan"
[3] Petition to deport Piers Morgan
[4] First Amendment to the US Constitution

Another year, another campaign

As summer begins, the reality of another presidential election year campaign is setting in on me. I'm seeing more and more ads from both Romney and President Obama harping on the other's record. Each tingles my skeptic nerve, though I do appreciate that the latter's ads includes graphs to help show there is some data and numerical processing behind their claims. That's not to say the claims themselves aren't distortions or partial truths, of course. In contrast, the Romney ads have generally only spoken numbers and didn't put them in greater context.

I'll be relying a great deal on PolitiFact.com and similar sources to help sift through the sound bites to the true data. Please do the same, or at least take what you hear with a grain of salt. If any particularly glaring examples come to my attention, I'll write up the results of my research here.

Stay tuned - this blog isn't abandoned, just hibernating through the long primary season winter.

Update at 3:45 PM: Here's and example of a misleading graphic from the Obama camp. Outsourcing jobs. Romney himself didn't outsource jobs, companies owned by the venture capital firm he headed did so, perhaps at his firm's directive. Did the outsourcing occur while he we still working there? We don't know from the graphic.

Speaking Diplomatically

I have a strong distaste for what we might call "Cowboy Politics." It's one thing to believe that a foreign nation is acting in a way that is adverse to our nation's interest and another to publically call them part of an "axis of evil", for one thing. Tough talk sounds great in movies and, to some extent, presidential debates, but in the end, we live in a world with shades of deep grey in our international relationships. We have to live with the world community when all is said and done - we can't simply ignore or bomb them into agreeing with us.

So, when a top candidate for the Republican Party's nomination calls the Palestinian people an "invented" people[1], he is treading on thin ice. Many countries strongly disagree with the sentiment, including many of the fledling democracies rising from the Arab Spring. Now is the time to be focussing on constructive conversations with the nations risinig from decades of oppressive rule, not to give them more reasons to hate us and shun our counsel.

Some people may decry this as appeasement and too soft a stance - after all, we're the world's only superpower, right? As a student of history, I would respond that nations rise and fall, and our time as the sole mega force may be waning. China and India are certainly on the rise. The Eurozone, though in dire financial straits and unable at present to form a tighter union, is still not to be discounted. Russia still weilds great influence, if dimished from their USSR heights. If we act brashly now, who will stand by us when next we experience disaster, natural or manmade? Make friends before you need them, before it's too late.

If only the politics of moderation were more in vogue - it seems that each of the two major parties becomes more and more polarized as time goes on. Centrist candidates for congress have been thinned by those more on the extremes, thus leading to stalemaes multiple times this year as representatives refuse to compromise. Shooting from the hip and appearing strong do not make us so. Our leaders need to be careful what enemies they make, both for themselves and the rest of us. Gingrich - I ask you to recant and temper your language. If you seriously want the nomination, you must act presidential. That means you must always put the nation's best interest before your own personal whim and desire.

[1] Palestinians Bristle At Gingrich Comments

Disingenuity

I believe most politicians get where they're going by obfuscating the truth. This could include selective truths, omitting facts that run counter to the desired argument. It might be through use of deceptive statistics (e.g. choosing to use percentage versus numerical volume or vice versa - if you say only 1% of Americans it doesn't have the same impact as saying "3 million people", for example). Perhaps they intentionally misquote or take out of context the words of their opponents.[1][2] They might even simply lie.[3]

Yet, politicians continue to bend the truth to try to make their case stronger. The media often buys into it, repeating their assertions and using them as counterweight to opposing viewpoints. Some of this is in the interest of appearing to be non-partisan, but it simply detracts from the level of debate.

It's wonderful that in this day and age we can use sites like Snopes, PolitiFact, and FactCheck, among others, to help sort fact from fiction. However, that requires time and effort. Why go to the trouble of validate all the numbers we hear from politicians, reporters, and the various spin doctors when we can just take their word for it? That's not to mention all the data we receive from coworkers, friends, family, and everyone else we happen to know who got their information from who knows where. We could spend all our time checking facts and never get anything useful done.

The intensity of the arguments I've read about whether or not there actually existed a surplus in the late nineties is remarkable, for example, particularly because the main ones both got their data from the Congressional Budget Office. When two people look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, who do you believe? Do you trust the person with the right degree? The person who says what you want to hear? How do you choose?

If only there were a way to know whether the person actually believed what they're saying instead of simply listening to them. Certainly, two people might believe completely incongruent facts, or even one person might have a set of beliefs that are not consistent, but at least that way we would know that they're not trying to deceive us.

Then again, is it just as bad to be unintentionally led astray as if it were planned?

Who do you trust?

[1] Lipstick on a Pig had nothing to do with Palin
[2] Governor Perry's calling President Obama a "dark cloud" hanging over the economy is racist?
[3] Jon Kyl claims Planned Parenthood services are well over 90%

In Debt We Trust

How do we avoid default at this stage as a nation? Can the two parties arrive at a reasonable solution that not only gets us past this crisis but also leaves us with a better balance sheet than before?

I just read an interview over at Global Post[1] that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it does sound like a two phase solution would be most fruitful at this stage since tempers are so high after weeks of negotiating. The current proposals by Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner are farther from the compromise solutions than is resolvable in the time we have before default. The markets are already reacting and are likely to continue suffering so long as no clear path emerges.

One proposal I've read about is a clean bill including nothing but a debt limit increase. At this point, there would still likely be bipartisan support for such a bill and it would buy time to continue negotiating the finer points of deficit reduction without the stress of a looming deadline. Is this workable? Perhaps, though as the ratings agencies stated it might still result in a rate reduction and thus higher cost for future borrowing.

[1]Debt Crisis interview

Ready to debtonate

Have you heard of the debt ceiling debates? Yes? Okay - skip to paragraph two. So there's this limit called the "debt ceiling" that defines how much money the treasury can borrow via bond and similar instruments to pay for the programs and spending authorized by congress and signed into law by the president. We keep having to raise this limit because we're spending money faster than we're taking it in. On or around August 2nd we will reach the current limit and then be able to pay for about half of the stuff that we're currently doing without any new borrowing.

The debate has faltered numerous times over the last few months. There are several sticking points, or lines in the sand. Most revolve around a strong desire to reform our country's financial situation as a stipulation for raising this debt ceiling. Here are the two main issues I see at the moment:

1. Tea Party Republicans insist the limit be raised only with spending cuts attached, not with any increased tax revenue from current levels
2. President Obama, Senator Reid, and now Representative Pelosi, among others, want the limit raised enough that we won't have to debate this again before the 2012 election

The first has been a major problem for negotiations. Both the President's commission on the deficit and the recent "Gang of Six" proposal formed by three senators from each of the major parties includes additional tax revenue. When you have a cash flow problem, there are two options - reduce outflows and increase inflows. You can do one, the other, or both.

The second issue means that the volume of the money being discussed is very large, potentially up to $4 trillion over the next ten years. The driving force behind this requirement could be political - not wanting to have this issue come up again closer to the election. It could also be an efficiency argument - why have the same debate multiple times? Perhaps it's also tending on the perfectionist side - let's get the right answer rather than the quick one. In any case, I do believe that it is in the country's best interests to have a broader solution than a hack job, but the partial step is better than nothing at this stage.

In the case of a balance sheet as large as our nations, it's very difficult to choose only one of revenue or spending cuts without significantly changing the playing field. Rather, making smaller changes to both outflows and inflows helps keep the system more predictable and allows us time to see the impact of the changes. Several polls have shown that the majority of U.S. citizens favor a compromise that includes some of both. It really depends on the wording of the question, of course.[1] Still, the polls I've checked have shown that Democrats and independents are largely agree that tax increases should be part of the package. Republiicans are generally more in favor of cut only, but not by a large margin.[2]

How will this play out? In one scenario we could get a debt limit increase with only minimal cuts and some ongoing debate on the overall debt. In another, the negotiations that have been underway somehow reach a compromise in time for a vote before the deadline. It's also possible that the limit isn't raised in time and some payments stop going out. The investment world is getting more and more worried about this third option if quotes from economists and fund managers are any indication. Legislators are scrambling over the weekend to come up with something solid to avoid a massive negative market on Monday.

Can they do it? We've seen eleventh hour deals already this year and might be able to get one again. Still, you won't find me playing Russian roullette any time soon.[3]

[1]Poll divide

[2]CNN/ORC July 18-21 poll

[3] "The Tea Party is effectively playing Russian roulette with the bond market and they will, with certainty, lose," said Christian Cooper, head of U.S. dollar derivatives trading in New York at Jefferies & Co. Jefferies is one of 20 primary dealers that trade with the U.S. Federal Reserve.

A perspective on death

I'm guessing you've heard that Osama bin Laden is dead. What does this mean? What comes next? How do we react?

As we just celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover, a quotation comes to mind. After Pharoah's army was drowned in the Red Sea, the angels began to rejoice. The Almighty chided them, saying, "My creatures are dying and you're singing songs!"

Note, though, that this reprimand is not directed at the Jews who are also celebrating on the far side of the banks. I see this as a distinction in what is being celebrated. On the one hand, the angels have the perspective to see the event from an uninvolved position. It is their responsibility to take the good of all into account. The Jews, on the other hand, are celebrating their freedom and the inability of their former masters to take it away from them.

So - are we the angels or the Jews in this story? Or are we some of both?

As for how the world will respond, I predict this will make the odds of a Republican presidential candidate beating President Obama nearly insurmountable, barring an event of the magnitude of Katrina or a double-dip Great Recession. I also predict a small contingent of conspiracy theorists who will be reported on, of course, since they make the event seem controversial in a way that makes modern media salivate.

Pakistan will face many questions, some insightful and some downright silly, over how bin Laden could have be hiding so close to a training base. My coworker rightly points out that, perhaps, there are a great many fortified mansions in Pakistan given the tribal war lords common in politics of the region. Perhaps the Pakistani intelligence even provided critical assistance in the gathering of knowledge and planning that led to the raid. We as civilians will likely never know the truth.

In the meantime, let us not rejoice in death but rather in a respite from the slavery of hatred. Perhaps it will be short lived though I hope it will lead to an end to hostilities on all sides.

In peace,
Adam

Marriage equality

As you're likely well aware, there have been several recent developments in the marriage equality arena. Iowa's supreme court unanimously legalized same sex marriage, Vermont's legislature overturned the governor's veto to legalize same sex marriage, and New York's governor revived a same sex marriage bill in his state.

Still, with the spectre of Proposition 8 in California and the state's supreme court unlikely to overturn it, not to mention the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same sex marriage in the U.S. seems to be years from widespread acceptance.

Where does that leave currently married or civily united same sex couples? Apparently in dire straights with no rights. For example, Janice Langbehn was denied access to her partner of 17 years despite having a legal advance directive that was provided to the hospital. I find this unconsciounable and, frankly, heartless. Yes, it's important to ensure only those the patient would want to have access and make medical decisions should be allowed to do so, but clearly the intent of the directive was that Janice should have access and not just make the medical decisions.

A proposal on Marriage

As you may have read on DailyKos, there's a movement to separate marriage from civil unions. Marriage would be a strictly religious observance while civil unions would be granted by the state.

When my wife and I were married last year, we filled out two separate contracts. One was the North Carolina issued forms and entailed the legal benefits and responsibilities of our union. The other was a contract known as a "ketubbah" that is signed by husband and wife in the Jewish tradition and indicated our spiritual bond. Our wedding was performed by a rabbi, but she had to be licensed by the state to do so as well.

From our experience, it already seems to be that there are two separate institutions. Why not make it official? Churches and other houses of worship would not be forced to issue their religious marriages to anyone (e.g. a Catholic church would likely have refused to marry me and my wife), and civil unions will be available to any pair of consenting adults not already civilly united with someone else. Problem solved, marriage is saved, and everyone is treated equally under the letter of the law and our nation's constitution.

I'm considering crafting a petition to this effect, but don't know who to send it to, how to get signatures, and what other organizations to involve. I'm already a member of HRC and recently joined straight FOR equality, but don't know if there's a better place to start than with them. If you have ideas or would like to help out, please contact me. Let's make the world a better place together.

Obama's first 100 days

Here is what I would like to see Obama and the new congress focus on during the first 100 days after they're sworn in next year:

1. Get his tax policy onto the floor of congress and passed so we can start working our way back toward a surplus a.s.a.p.
2. Work with Congress, the governors, and state legislatures to redefine marriage as a strictly religious institution. The government will instead issue Civil Unions to each pair of consenting adults with all the current benefits.
3. Begin troop draw down in Iraq, increase presence in Afghanistan. Ideally, capture bin Laden.
4. Meet with G[7/8], NAFTA, and appropriate U.N. councils to:
   1. Define worldwide emissions standards and get them onto the floor of congress to be passed a.s.a.p.
   2. Get Russia out of Georgia, replace their troops with U.N. peacekeepers.
   3. Expedite and improve aid to African Union troops in Darfur.
5. Revive the SCHIP coverage debate and get that back on the floor of congress so he can sign it into law.
6. Implement strict restrictions on line item vetoes to avoid their abuse by any future president.

The future of the GOP

With President-elect Obama's major victory and the Democratic gains in House and Senate, we will likely see a shake-up in the Republican party as they work to appeal to a larger portion of the electorate.

Here's my prediction- the Republican party will swing back towards the causes championed by the fiscal conservatives rather than the social conservatives, thus drawing back in a portion of the Libertarian vote (Ron Paul will have a hand in this, or at least be a target for assimilation by the Republican leadership even if he doesn't take part). A portion of the religious right will be so put out by being sidelined that they'll either form their own party or join another one as appropriate. Some of the evangelical leaders will even as independents, though this will be about as effective as the Green Party has been on a national level.

Two years from now: Democrats will retain a majority in house and senate, losses will be minimal if they exist at all. Republicans may make gains on the state level in several places across the country. Evangelical split will be beginning- at least two high profile races tracked by the networks will include one of the religious right candidates in addition to a Democrat and a Republican.

Four years from now: The Social/Fiscal conservative split will be well under way - Palin will be with the socials, of course. She will have a "party position", though likely not the candidate for president even though she'll run for it. Some other figure from the religious right will win their support and get approximately 5% of the popular vote in the general election. This will be enough to give Obama a second term as it eats into the base for the Republican candidate. Democrats will lose a few seats in the senate and house but retain a majority.

Eight years from now: The social and fiscal conservatives have tried to reconcile and made some limited success. Still the bruises and scabs from the hateful rhetoric of the past six to eight years will be difficult to fully heal from and the Democratic candidate will have an advantage going into the presidential election. Still, the pendulum will have started swinging back and it will be a tough fight. Some segment of the social conservatives will have splintered off and will be (pardon my French) absolutely bat-guana crazy. We'll all have a good laugh, though be scared at the same time.

I wouldn't bank money on this, and I haven't been around as long as other folks on this list probably have, certainly, but I think it's at least a reasonable starting prediction. Feel free to adapt and update based on the output from your crystal ball and tea leaf readings.

Tax plans

If you're interested in the differences between the tax plans Senator Obama and Senator McCain have proposed, you'll probably find the Washington Post's Obama and McCain Tax Proposals as informative as I did.

I'm particularly interested in the fact that McCain's tax break percentage increase as income increases while for Obama tax breaks increase and income decreases. Given the increasing disparity in wealth between the extremes, I believe Senator Obama's plan is the most equitable given this data.

One other fact I haven't been able to find yet is how Senator McCain plans to finance his tax cut. Folks used to complain about the "tax and spend liberals". I think it's time they started worrying about the "borrow and spend conservatives" who have driven up the debt and deficit over the past eight years.

Statistics and trends

I've taken to following as many of the daily polls and statistics tracking the upcoming election as I can. My cousin recommended the site FiveThirtyEight.com to my parents, who passed it along to me. It's hard to argue with cold mathematical prediction models or to skew them to your liking. The only thing you can affect is the questions asked, and with the slew of polls they track that noise is hopefully canceled out. I recommend taking a look if you don't feel you're getting your daily dose of campaign updates already. From their FAQ, here's a bit on their goal as a site:

What is the mission of this website? Most broadly, to accumulate and analyze polling and political data in way that is informed, accurate and attractive. Most narrowly, to give you the best possible objective assessment of the likely outcome of upcoming elections.

For the other end of the objectivity spectrum, there's the Washington Post, as discussed by Chris Bowers in his post "A 2.2% McCain lead is greater than a 13.8% Obama Lead."

I also took a look at the latest ABC/Post polling data and was intrigued by one of the results they called out:

                              Vote preference 
                            among likely voters 
 More important                Obama  McCain 
   Positions on issues (49%)    68%     29 
   Personal qualities  (39%)    34      61

As one of the 49% of folks who is more interested in the candidates' positions on the issues they'll face as leader of the free world, I may admittedly be a little bit biased here. However, it does strike me as telling that those who are more interested in the candidates' positions are overwhelmingly Obama supporters. We've already had one president that folks would like to have a beer with, and his approval rating is now lower than Richard Nixon's worst (also from the ABC/Post poll).

True, a president must be an able diplomat with foreign leaders, but only 2% of those polled said that foreign policy was the most important issue in choosing a president. True, a president needs to be able to broker deals with both house of congress, but Obama holds an edge as a "stronger leader", 54% to 40%. What personal qualities are those polled considering? I don't see the raw data for the question in the report broken down by candidate, so it's difficult to glean any more data here. If you have any insight, please do let me know!