This Party

Congress to Obama--

2009-09-10T00:47:00.001Z

We're not going to go English House of Commons on you, but we'll be at least as raucous as the Dutch.

Use of the Hype 2012 tag...

2009-09-08T03:09:00.000Z

...can officially begin.

Discussion Question

2009-09-04T04:53:00.002Z

Has America's level of distrust in its leaders and the corresponding apathy made America fundamentally ungovernable?

Suck It Rendell

2009-04-16T02:52:00.004Z

I ranted about this on Facebook, but it's worth ranting in public too. Rendell wants to

1) Allow municipalities to enact their own gun laws. This is old hat for him, and the Assembly soundly cracked his idea over the head last time. Frankly, it would be asinine to have only limited uniformity in gun laws across the state. Right now one can find and know the laws and abide. What happens when a person travels halfway across the state and every single township, borough, and city they pass through has its own rules, all hard to find and written as well as half the local laws I've ever seen? (My last township's income tax form says that people do not need to file a tax return unless they have income. It next says that everyone without income needs to file a tax return. Then it reminds us that people required to file will be fined $500 if they do not file. It's almost as sensible as the Georgia state income tax form that-- I kid you not-- said to "add or subtract" one line from another.) It just would not work. Did you just have a fender bender in a town that allows only unloaded weapons in cars? Oops! You should have run into that guy in the last town back instead, to keep yourself out of jail. Want to prevent people from traveling with their handguns? You would need to pay off only a few city council people in cities with interstate crossings to ban non-residents from transporting guns there instead of just paying off half plus one of the legislature to go DC on us. That sort of thing can't happen if the rules are uniform.

2) Ask Congress to re-enact a ban on "assault weapons." Let's look at that for moment, shall we? The federal "assault weapons" ban was a ban on a few specific models of semiautomatic firearms that looked like menacing military style weapons instead of consumer target, hunting, and defense weapons. The key here is looked like. A host of guns that work the same way-- semiautomatic actions-- were never banned. Fully automatic weapons-- the guns that actually work differently from the consumer weapons-- are already illegal among the general population under federal laws. So what exactly was the point? Yes, some police in Pittsburgh got themselves killed last week. That had nothing to do with the "AK-47" one of the shooters had. It was about police being called to a place to be ambushed. If they had been ambushed by people with swords or piano wire would we be wanting congress to outlaw knives and pianos? Or would we compromise and only outlaw knives that looked like electric knives or pianos that looked like player pianos?

I think Rendell needs to buy a clue before I am forced to buy an NRA membership.

WTF?

2009-03-29T02:34:00.002Z

Do either of the major political parties have any clear direction right now? The Democraps can't seem to do anything except act like the government will save us from, well, everything, and the Republicants are trying to dance somewhere between "Rush is Right" and "Democrats are Wrong."

Socio-Political Unrest = Good times! on your dollar

2009-02-06T12:52:00.003Z

Nate explored an interesting train of thought on Lyin Cheatin Midwesterners - but I wanted to go just a little bit further with it by examining what causes our good honest politicians and government employees to go bad.

Lets start by setting some controls (facts), variables (assumptions), and operators (guidelines).
1) One of my personal favorite Sociological operators - "Perception IS reality". What people perceive as fact, they will treat as fact.

2) Another Operator - In Cost/Benefit analysis, greater risk = greater reward

3) Government Employee = any person whose pay check originates from "The Office of..." or holds political office of any level (Twp Supervisor thru Fast Eddie Rendell)

4) Variable - Personal Choice - You can't fix stupid, but everyone has a choice to be stupid.

5) All Facts as set forth by "Lyin Cheatin Midwesterners" - particularly the ratios proposed by Nate as to ratio of politicians to population

Ok, Now that that is out of the way - I countered Nate's line of thought with the idea that while corruption studied as a ratio to population is correct, it does not take into account enough socio-politico-economic factors. I proposed that corruption is more aptly found in higher concentrations of population such as major metropolis' and organized service provider campi.

Alright, I know I get long winded, so I'm going to boil this all down to a clip that you canpost on your refrigerators...
Political corruption will exist when individuals believing that their position of service gives them perceived power and when they believe that said power negates the cost benefit analysis of rational though to the point where all decisions are base on "what's in it for me."

Rod Blago - incorrectly believed that his position allowed him to put up the senatorial seat by whatever means he deemed appropriate. Conversely, society had already determined that no one person had sole authoritarian dictatorship of that process and any violation there of would be "corrupt." For all Rod's crying about whether the tapes actually said what they said is like Clinton asking what the definition of "is" was. Rod's obvious thought was what he would get from the persons interested in purchasing the appointment.

In larger population hubs such as Chicago, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc, large bodies of people directly correlates to an increased need for services and oversight. As the population grows, the needs increase, as the needs increase, positions must be filled. As positions are filled, personal ideals are bound to clash with ethical standards as personal choices soon outweigh the cost of being caught. When this happens, the seed of corruption is planted and soon blossoms into criminal activity.

The crisis really comes when one counts his ammunition and realizes there's not enough for all the corrupt people out there...pardon me, I need to run to Walmart and stock up on "supplies". Back in a jiffy.

Lyin' and Cheatin' Midwest'ners

2008-12-16T02:42:00.005Z

So, Rod Blogojovichmuskanuwazzisnameagin' has been accused of a corruption. This proves the Illinois political machine is the worst oiled int eh country, yes? Well, sort of. Chicago is historically a hotbed of trouble. It's hard to get somewhere in IL without involving Chicago, and to do that means rubbing shoulders with some freaky business. But I was a little surprised at this article. So I had to read it. I mean, seriously, those cattle traders need to be watched, yes?

It turns out that the situation is probably more flash and sparkle from USA Today, who did the analysis, than anything actually newsworthy. North Dakota is not, as the headline implies, the most corrupt state. It does top the particular analysis of corruption, however, so no lie has been made. The analysis that it tops? Take the number of federal convictions for corruption during ten years and divide by the state population. Um... okay? First off, even though some factor is being divided by a population, it's not being divided by the right population. What percentage of the people in the state could be involved in corruption? Theoretically everyone, but in practice no state is that pure of a democracy. Second off, federal laws are not the only laws that could be enacted against corruption.

A better measure for the first point, why not consider what percentage of the population is involved in government? Here are a few states

WY 11,810
SD 12,150
VT 13,682
ND 14,597
MT 17,013
RI 18,511
DE 22,810
AK 23,647
LA 77,597
IL 105,471
MI 118,667
OH 119,147
PA 141,478
FL 171,342
NY 236,719
TX 259,578
CA 334,432

Now, what is the ratio of state government employees to population in those states?

WY 2.259%
SD 1.526%
VT 2.202%
ND 2.282%
MT 1.776%
RI 1.750%
DE 2.638%
AK 3.460%
LA 1.801%
IL 0.821%
MI 1.178%
OH 1.039%
PA 1.138%
FL 0.939%
NY 1.227%
TX 1.086%
CA 0.915%

(Note that I cheated a little. I used November 2008 employment with 2007 populations. But my main point lies in the first digit or two of the percentage, which won't change much.)

Notice anything about those states? The smallest states by population (1,000,000 or so and under) have about twice as many state employees as the largest states by population (about 10,000,000 and over). This is an estimate for the amount of government in the state, and is probably related to the amount of people likely to be involved in corruption. True, it misses local and federal employees. Those should to be factored in as well, along with convictions on non-federal charges.

But seeing that small states have bigger governments, loosely speaking, raises a question. If we divide convictions on corruption by relative size of government, would states like North Dakota still be on top of the heap? In other words, if we took the number of corruption cases divided by the number of people in position to be corrupt, would the numbers line up the same way as when convictions are divided by population? My guess is no. States like Illinois would probably be higher. Disagree? Then why is a state like Louisiana, which the article mentions as pretty darn corrupt, conveniently located with a government to population ratio close to the smaller states?

If anyone has time to kill, a more detailed analysis (including all government employees, not just state; doign all states; etc.) would be fun to see. Of course states like Illinois and New York would probably end up on top, so in the end it woudln't be news.

Congratulations are in order...

2008-11-23T19:33:00.003Z

...for Master Johnny, who got married on Saturday. I was not able to attend, sadly. But I wish him and his wife a happy marriage!

Ted Turner

2008-11-13T12:38:00.001Z

Ted Turner should have run for president. Check him out on Lou Dobbs. He's so direct and cutting, it makes me feel all nice and warm inside.

Eh

2008-11-06T14:14:00.002Z

Sorry for my absence during such an historic election. I've been deathly ill and politics has only made it worse.

So, I guess the meaning of the word "change" will likely now be changed to "status quo." We shall see.

Regardless, I went into the polling place with my Nader pin on. Voted for an Independent, 2 Libertarians and a Democrat. One of the Democrats running for attorney or auditor general actually wanted to make it illegal to join a gang, which of course I thought was a wonderful idea since I don't much like Boy Scouts and think they should all be locked up. Anyway, though I'm no L/libertarian, they seemed to be the only candidates other than Nader who actually had anything real to say. How surprising!

Check out http://november5.org/. Some former Nader supporters have created it to try to hold Congress accountable. Maybe you'll agree with their issues, maybe not, but it's worth checking out.

Worst Commentary Award

2008-11-05T06:44:00.003Z

I think I passed out more awards last time, but this is all I've got energy for this year.

My Worst Commentary Award goes to the CBC, who I saw using a live Twitter feed, rather than statistics, to point out that some Yanks aren't happy with Obama. My hat off to our neighbors from the north. I thought it was only our country.

I'm going to be retiring the Hype '08 tag, with a prayer that we get until at least February before I need to post something labeled Hype 2012.

Most Boring Election For President...

2008-11-05T06:07:00.004Z

...in sixteen years.

No surprises. No big fights. No... anything other than what we've gotten endlessly for months.

I would prefer to have Bob Barr as President. He's got all the charm of Cheney and all the balls of Biden, but in a welcome sort of way that uses fewer words to say more.

I don't have much hope of him or anyone like him becoming President for a very long time.

Too many people play petty party puppet politics. I've gotten crap from all sorts of McCain people for my supporting a candidate who can't win, ironically mostly from people whose ideas match more with Barr than McCain. Sadly, the abortion and gay marriage vote can't handle a Libertarian, no matter how much else they have in common. On top of that, the more deeply thoughtful conservative* people I know seem to use their brains every four years only to rationalize why they should vote for some lesser evil who any outsider looking in would never think they would support.

Unless someone can show me otherwise, I will not believe that I happen to know all 500 people who vote for Republicans even with someone like Barr around, or for that matter all 500 people who vote for Democrats with candidates like Nader out there. Two-party politics is a self fulfilling prophecy. It only remains because almost everyone plays as if it must be the way we do things. And unfortunately it pays off the winning group with welfare in the pockets as a distraction or hints of theocracy to make them feel holy.

I'm with Thomas Jefferson who in remarking on instability being a difference between democracy and oppression wrote--

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them.

Unfortunately, when it's the people screwing themselves, the people provide no good way out. Fat chance any Republican I know will wake up because I voted for Barr. They'll only listen if everyone like Barr changes radically and becomes part of the problem.

[* As they call themselves. I find no meaning in that word.]

President-elect Obama

2008-11-05T04:16:00.003Z

They've called it for Obama!

In other news, they say that Sarah Palin won't be speaking at McCain's concession speech.

In his concession speech, McCain referred to "our faith" -- his and Obama's. About time.

Speaking of Good Commentary

2008-11-05T03:24:00.004Z

Steve Forbes. Remember him? He's on with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. It's absolutely adorable.

Stephen Colbert is scoring zero on the dead animal jokes. He commented that the last dogfight as big as this presidential election was in Michael Vick's basement.

georgia blues

2008-11-05T03:10:00.004Z

Something doesn't smell right in Georgia. Right now the NY Times count is 1,700,000 votes cast for President, with 63% reporting. But early voting totals I saw indicated that 2 million people had voted early. I know there are obviously more votes to be counted but ...

Barred

2008-11-05T02:24:00.001Z

Our county's results are coming as well, and without our precinct I already know that I'm not the only person to vote for Bob Barr.

local results coming in

2008-11-05T02:07:00.005Z

2108 EST They've started to post the local results; a few more minutes until we can see what won. Looks like I'm going to have to drill down to precinct level to feel good about the Obama turnout, though.

2140 EST The ballot initiative to reduce the size of Knox County commission (from 19 to 11 members) and force adoption of an anti-nepotism policy looks like it will pass. Early voting built a 9,000-vote majority in support of the measure; but election-day turnout has gone the other way. Interestingly enough, the election-day voters have been slightly more supportive of B.O. than the early crowd (43% vs. 37.5%).

2223 EST The Great Reduction of 2008 has passed! Barely! Wow. By 3000 votes. Maybe we can finally move forward on combining County and City government--so we don't have to pay for a Police Dept AND Sheriffs Dept, for City Fire AND County Fire, City Property Tax AND County Property Tax, etc... Maybe the Library could get some funding if it weren't funded by the County but used mostly by people living within the City.

voting

2008-11-05T01:47:00.001Z

What type of voting equipment did you get to use? In TN, we have the easily-hacked electronic touchscreens.

Sununews?

2008-11-05T01:32:00.001Z

Will John Sununu be voted out of office? He's like the smartest person in our government!

Nate Weighs In

2008-11-05T01:19:00.004Z

I voted today. What fun! It was like the SAT except that the questions mattered more and my answers mattered less.

What am I looking for tonight?

1) How many people in PA voted for Ron Paul?

2) Am I the only person in my county who voted for Bob Barr?

3) Will Charlie Dent stay in PA15?

4) Who's going to file lawsuits about what?

5) I need to give out the Worst Commentary Award. (Fox News is excluded, and MSNBC is excluded if the anchors yell at each other without getting physical.)

6) Will Sarah Palin insult my identity again?

7) Ted Stevens.

And much, much more.

PA, already?

2008-11-05T00:23:00.001Z

Wow, NBC just called Pennsylvania for Obama!

Will Brian Williams have to eat his shorts?

turnout is steep!

2008-11-05T00:13:00.003Z

Local turnout is heavy this year; there are a number of county charter amendments on the ballot to (hopefully) clean up county government in addition to Barack and Sarah. We had 2 weeks of early voting in October, before the "real event" today.

125,270 people voted EARLY in Knox County for this election. The Census Population estimate (2006) is 411, 967 persons, of whom 320,922 are over 18 and therefore potential voters. That means (checking my calculator): 39% of all possible voters, not just registered voters, have voted early. Wow.

P.S. I'm bummed to not be at the Obama party in Chicago. I love Grant Park.

stories of the night

2008-11-05T00:04:00.002Z

I'm here blogging from TN alongside my colleague A.C. Power this election night. We'll be following the coverage on NBC for the most part, with jaunts over to PBS from time to time. I'm jealous of those of you who can watch the Comedy Central coverage between Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert--that should be awesome.

Oh, and we're unabashedly rooting for Obama. Fingers crossed!

Besides the overall result of the Presidential election, here's what I'm interested in learning this evening.

1) Will Georgia be in play? Early voter turnout was nearly 2 million. The 2004 election saw a total of 3.3 million voter in Georgia. That leads to my second:

2) How does early voting affect the turnout?

3) The Senate battle: will the Democrats reach 60? 59?

4) Will the polls be accurate? Could this state (TN) be closer than McCain +15? After all, it was just 2 years ago that Harold Ford, Jr. narrowly lost an election to the US Senate.

NBC's starting to call the easy ones: KY and VT. Here we go!

Useful Tools

2008-11-04T18:05:00.000Z

Poll closing times

MSNBC election retuns

New York Times Politics Section

PA election returns (for the locals)

Let It Begin

2008-11-04T07:18:00.004Z

Early reported results have Barack Obama winning the election.

Dixville Notch, NH,

Obama/Biden: 16
McCain/Palin: 5
Nader/Gonzalez: 0
Phillies/Bennett: 0
Barr/Root: 0

Hart's Location, NH,

Obama/Biden: 17
McCain/Palin: 10
Nader/Gonzalez: 0
Phillies/Bennett: 0
Barr/Root: 0
Paul(w-i): 2

Like I care. The freaky party puppet judges up there decided that there would be two Libertarians on the ballot.

I'll be going to a crack of dawn seminar, then to vote, and then to the dentist, and then to work for whatever is left of the day. After dinner I will be back here.

Ahhh... the dabate....

2008-10-16T02:01:00.002Z

Mythbusters was pretty darn good tonight. They were shooting arrows at a ninja. It had violence and adrenaline and, most importantly, substance.

do we really have to endure another 3 weeks

2008-10-16T01:41:00.002Z

of this tepid non-campaign campaigning? Why? Why? Why?

And how soon before the election is John McCain going to hoist the blooded head of Osama Bin Laden on the White House lawn?

McCain just called Sarah Palin "his partner". She's qualified to be President because she understands special needs families, and autism is on the rise. Could autism be the new terrorism?

McCain's hurt

2008-10-16T01:27:00.003Z

McCain's getting all teary and upset that he and Sarah Palin have been called racists.

"If only Senator Obama had agreed to do town hall meetings with me we wouldn't have had a negative campaign."

Uh, whatever.

McCain comes out swinging

2008-10-16T01:11:00.002Z

"The centerpiece of Sen. Obama's plan is class warfare."

Where do I sign up for the revolution?

Debate Deshamte... Where's the Juke Box in This Dump?

2008-10-08T03:08:00.004Z

Lousy town hall, really. That's all I have to say.

I want Bob and Chuck to come so we can hear something relevant, Cynthia to come make a fool of herself, and Ralph to come lobby for fewer airbags in the debates.

On an unrelated note, I've been thinking about the Queen song "Flick of the Wrist" every time I hear Obama's name today. Worse could happen, I guess. I could have "The March of the Black Queen" stuck in my head. Or "Radio Ga-Ga."

final words

2008-10-08T02:33:00.002Z

[In the next 4 years] "we will be talking about countries that we don't know where they are on the map, most Americans." Thank God you picked a VP who follows that strong lead, John McCain.

Hilarious! They stepped in front of the teleprompter to shake hands and threw off Tom Brokaw! Poor Tom! He was trying to keep this thing together the whole time and never did get the candidates to cooperate.

okay, this debate officially stinks

2008-10-08T02:22:00.002Z

This has been a horrible debate on both sides. Both Obama and McCain keep talking and there are fewer and fewer questions being asked. I was waiting for, I don't know--something--and it never happened.

McCain on foreign policy

2008-10-08T02:11:00.004Z

We, Afghan freedom fighters, whoever, drove the Russians out of Pakistan.

Iraq has been great war to get distracted on because now we have a strategy to solve the problems in Afghanistan.

I'll get Osama Bin Laden. I'll get him. But I can't tell you how.

did you hear the size of the fine?

2008-10-08T01:59:00.002Z

John McCain, champion of small business, would like to know how much the fine will be for Small Business Owners who refuse to provide healthcare to their employees. I'd like to know why he thinks we should regulate Wall Street but let Main Street run any way they want to.

Reasons John McCain is NOT my friend

2008-10-08T01:41:00.002Z

1) He works in government.
2) He likes Sarah "Guns & Ammo" Palin
3) He is rich.

Quit saying "my friends" like you've ever come over for movie night!

why not tax the rich?

2008-10-08T01:03:00.001Z

John McCain wants a tax cut for ALL Americans. And he's going to buy up our homes and rent them back to us?!? Okay...

McCain vs. Obama

2008-10-08T00:59:00.002Z

All the pundits seem to be saying that McCain has to win tonight in order to appear relevant. Tom Brokaw looks very youthful. Watch out Brian Williams!

Democrats in Alaska?

2008-10-03T02:26:00.003Z

So Sarah Palin says she's Bipartisan, which is quite an admission considering her stand on gay marriage.

Point 1, First Point: Are there any?

And Second: What are they there for? The free oil-company handouts?

And Finally: Do they run their snowmobiles on biofuel? Do they humanely club seals? Do the give the environment the morning-after-pill after they rape it, using a condom?

John McCain has, John McCain hasn't

2008-10-03T02:23:00.001Z

It's all about John McCain here, for good or bad. Barack has been mentioned once or twice, mostly by Joe Biden.

Sarah Palin Sez

2008-10-03T02:22:00.001Z

The Republicans are the party of diversity due to how many variations you can find in crazy white male members?

Huh?

quotes

2008-10-03T02:07:00.002Z

Sarah Palin--"John McCain knows how to win a war." WHAT WAR DID JOHN MCCAIN WIN? If you're looking for "Vietnam" as your answer--WE LOST IN VIETNAM.

"a national tragedy of historic proportions" if McCain-Palin win.

"And heaven forbid, ever, that that would happen, no matter..."

I believe Sarah is starting to crack. I don't think it's just the wine wearing in.

"Mandate more things on me..."

Early Voting?

2008-10-03T02:02:00.003Z

I found this on the Drudge Report at 9:58PM.

[adding: I forgot to mention that it disappeared when DR refreshed. Let's see if it comes back later.]

never mind the moderater

2008-10-03T01:58:00.003Z

From the way they're going at it, I don't think that anyone is going to remember tomorrow that Gwen Ifill moderated this debate. She's getting run over.

BOSNIACS?!?!?! WTF?

Sarah Palin Sez

2008-10-03T01:55:00.003Z

That a campaign that talks about change and the future is wrong to look to the past?

Um... huh?

so after this debate...

2008-10-03T01:52:00.002Z

Will Sarah Palin go on to do more interviews with the press?

"Our nukular weaponry here in the USA is used as a deterrent and that's a safe, stable way to use nukular weaponry."

How Can Anyone Vote For

2008-10-03T01:42:00.002Z

A ticket where the vice president wants to use Alaska's energy resource to make America energy independent? What the heck? I mean, we use a quarter of the world's oil, and how much of it's coal? What are we going to do after we use the 3% of the world's oil that's in Alaska? And then the however much it is of the world's natural gas? Are we going to burn down the southern forests, then kill all the seals and squeeze their oils into our gas tanks?

Ugh!

Foreign Policy!

2008-10-03T01:36:00.001Z

Iraq! Surge! Success! Funding for troops!

"Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that's not what our troops need to hear." -- S.P.

Everyone has "great respect" for everything.

"As my mother would say 'God love him' [John McCain] but he's dead wrong." -- J.B. Oh, good! So he can do folksy, too.

Sarah's met with G.W Bush: Everything is Newk-you-ler.

is the McCain campaign suspended?

2008-10-03T01:27:00.002Z

Sarah has made several references about the McCain campaign being suspended due to the financial crisis. What's been suspended besides media access to her?

OOOh! She's talking about ANWAR! Drill baby drill!

"Alaska feels and sees the impact of climate change before any other state." We have to reduce emissions! Energy independence. Conserving our petroleum products.

Joe Biden just wants to export clean coal technologies to China so the West Coast won't have to suffer from China-caused pollution.

Drill baby drill. Again.

the Joe and Sarah Smackdown!

2008-10-03T01:17:00.002Z

"I call [the McCain healthcare plan] the Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere." -- Joe Biden

Let's get it on!

John McCain and I: the Sarah Palin story

2008-10-03T01:04:00.006Z

"The fundamentals of our economy which are strong are the American workers." Ah, so NOW I understand why John McCain kept saying that.

"We need to band together and say: Never again!" Joe Six-Pack and I are going to Wall Street to protest!

"Darn right we need tax relief for Americans!"

Gwen Ifill is going to get herself in trouble if she keeps cutting Palin off. I can hear Rush crying foul already.

can I call you Joe?

2008-10-03T01:04:00.002Z

And so it begins ... the debate to see whether Sarah Palin can put together a coherent sentence.

what the hell?

2008-09-27T02:47:00.003Z

After the debate finished, NBC News went to a live interview with Joe Biden. And then, "because the McCain-Palin camp refused our invitation" to allow Brian Williams to talk to Sarah Palin--maybe because he's male and Catholic??--they offered up Rudy Guiliani. I suppose any idiot will do...

Obama vs. McCain, Round 1

2008-09-27T00:45:00.002Z

Roger Cohen had a good article outlining the foreign policy outlook of the two major party candidates.

If I remember all the way back to American History days in high school, American engagement with the world was divided into periods of Isolationism and Engagement. Isolationism generally went hand in hand with Economic Protectionism (high tariffs); the Engagement crowd (as would be expected) bore the flag of Free Markets.

What's got me bothered about this election is the breakup of 20th century Political and Economic theory. Consider:

Obama is For foreign engagement (Cohen's Universalism), but supports, in his proposal to tax outsourcing corporations, Employment Protectionism. So we'll talk with you about your nuclear weapons, but we have reservations about doing business with you.

McCain is For a go-it-alone isolationist foreign policy (Cohen's Exceptionalism), but says he's for Free Markets. So we'll bomb you whenever we want for the sake of our freedom, but after that we'll buy anything that you sell us.

I like Obama's mix-up better--because if you're willing to talk to the rest of the world at the start, you can come around to free markets. If you've pissed off everyone at the get-go, I don't see how trade policy will bring them back around.

Surprise Me Most

2008-09-09T16:00:00.002Z

In his New York Times column today, David Brooks wrote on a theme worth your reading. His opening paragraph--

None of us have ever lived through an election at a time when 80 percent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction. But now that we’re in the thick of it, a few things are clear. From voters, the demand is: Surprise Me Most. For candidates, the lesson is: Weirdness Wins.

What Impresses My Ilk?

2008-09-06T17:29:00.003Z

I'm impressed by moose hunting. I'm impressed by people who get elected and take on the establishment. That's not enough to make me impressed with someone nominated to run for vice president. It has nothing to do with "experience"-- whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. It has everything to do with the issues at hand. Push comes to shove, I think Sarah Palin is McCain's attempt to calm doubts about his positions. Palin is clearly anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti environment, and pro American oil. I'm a church going, God fearing, theologically conservative evangelical Christian, but I can't vote for that. There is more at stake in the world. McCain didn't have a handle on that, and his new sidekick Palin offers less. She would be a good mayor of my town, where she can maybe be around to have coffee or something. But I don't want her to be the back-up for a guy with one foot already in the home.

Apparently. I'm not alone. From Time,

Lost in the stampede of social conservatives to embrace Palin this past week is the fact that she is culturally outside the mainstream of Evangelicalism. Over the past few years, a growing number of Evangelicals have been consciously distancing themselves from the more extreme stands of the Christian right. They live in the suburbs, hold graduate degrees, and while they might not want their children reading certain novels, would be embarrassed by attempts to ban certain books from libraries, as Palin is reported to have briefly considered while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. They don't attend churches where speakers charge that violence against Israelis is divine punishment for the failure of Jews to accept Jesus, as happened at one of Palin's churches two weeks ago (though Palin has now issued a statement saying she does not agree with those views). And they would disagree with Palin's decision to use her line-item veto as Governor to slash funding for an Alaska shelter that serves teen mothers.

That goes double for younger Evangelicals. These voters tend to be even more pro-life than their parents, but abortion isn't always a priority that moves their votes — it wasn't when McCain was alone on the ticket, and there's no reason for that to change with the addition of Palin. More important, Palin has problematic stances on many of the issues that do motivate young Evangelicals. Her insistence that global warming is not man-made, for instance, is unlikely to appeal to those Evangelicals who have embraced so-called "creation care" in the past few years. This is particularly relevant to the current race, as young Evangelicals account for much of that demographic's undecided bloc. No one knows what the size of their impact may be in November because young Evangelicals are consistently underrepresented in polls of white Evangelicals. (Even a TIME poll of likely white Evangelical voters conducted last month used a sample in which just 10% of respondents were between 18 and 35. That age group made up 22% of the total electorate in 2004, and its share of the electorate is expected to increase this year.)

Sadly, that's all the article says about me and my ilk. But it is worth reading.

Words Can't Describe

2008-08-30T00:09:00.002Z

Man says it would be a terrible thing to vote for McCain, but changes his mind. Make what you want of it.

party at Invesco

2008-08-29T00:54:00.002Z

Fwiw, it's not Mile High Stadium anymore--that got torn down and turned into the parking lot. So quit calling it that, NBC (and others).

But there must still be something invigorating about the altitude. Tonight's speakers are lighting the place up! I know they saved the best for last--Tim Kaine, Bill Richardson, and Al Gore have been on fire!--so I'm glad I could get off work in time to pay some attention. I missed Hillary's speech and slick roll-call interruption last night. The party line is all about taking the 'flip-flopper' tack against John McCain, though Gore got to bring up the climate-change/fossil-fuel/national security Axis of Evil. Good for him.

I'm hoping B.O. follows down the road set by his Olympic TV spots and lays out his economic plan. Btw, all of his commercials have been broadcast in HD. McCain's are letterboxed standard-def, with a husky 'voice of fear' narration. Image, image, image. You'd think the party of Karl Rove would know better.

SNAFU of the Decade?

2008-08-28T16:05:00.003Z

Do we have any Republicans or Democrats around here? I'm just a bit curious to know what those parties are doing or saying about this minor matter.

My Chance to Play the Obama Game

2008-08-22T15:27:00.002Z

Because everyone else is doing it, I'll throw in my two cents about Obama's vice presidential choice.

Oh, wait. David Brooks already did it.

There went my chance.

Oh, Please....

2008-08-13T02:48:00.004Z

It's bad enough that Dobson and company have their little legal shelter so that they can spout their political opinions all they want to pander their conservative fundamentalist audience and still keep their main organization non-profit. It's worse that they do stuff like this-- say something that many of your followers would like to hear and will take seriously and then, after a few complaints, remove it saying it was a joke. I can't judge intent, but I can tell you when the parties involved smell fishy (so to speak; I can't smell them from here).

The good news is that these people haven't lost any more of my respect. It's been at zero for a good while.

I'll Vote for Barr

2008-08-07T04:14:00.003Z

Why am I going to vote for Bob Barr?

I'm not a strict Libertarian loon. I think government has its uses. For example, I think the idea of complete laissez faire economics is foolish. Competition, not non-intervention and the inevitable monopolies, greases the market. I also think we need strong infrastructure on a national level, such as trasnsportation and utilities, with the government facilitating the conflicting interests and making everything uniform. Not all Libertarians think those things, but I've met some who do.

I am Libertarian enough to say that state governments do not need a nanny. The federal government should not, for example, use its power over budgets and funding to control things like education that the constitution explicitly gives to the states (by declaring that the states are allotted all rights not directly given by the constitution to the federal government). And, last time I checked, the Congress and the President are both supposed to run a country of the several states, not the President running a country with some convenient lines on the map to take care of some piddling things.

So, what does Bob Barr stand for that I like? Let me shamelessly plagiarize snippets from his campaign website. (These are snippets, not one incoherent position statement. The incoherence is due only to my selective cut-and-paste.)

Controlling government spending is a necessary step to enact true tax reform, which will reduce the burden on all Americans and allow them to keep more of their hard-earned money.

We may not yet be in the nightmare world of George Orwell's classic novel “1984”, but time is fast running out for a society that values freedom and liberty. Certainly, the government must be able to confront crime and terrorism, but its powers must be limited to those truly necessary to protect Americans and which are consistent with the Constitution. Also, government officials must always be accountable for their actions.

America should not be the world’s policeman. The American purpose is to provide a strong national defense, not to engage in nation building or to launch foreign crusades, no matter how seemingly well-intentioned.

There are many causes of today’s high healthcare cost “crisis”. Medical care costs more than it should; access to insurance is more limited by government than it should be; the practice of medicine is more regulated than it should be. The American health care system desperately needs to be treated for ill health.

Turning education over to the federal government, as through such legislation as the No Child Left Behind Act has not worked. Trying to fix failing schools with more money and regulations also has failed to do anything other than waste taxpayer money without results. School reform starts by shifting control over education from government to parents. We must abolish the Department of Education, eliminate federal grants and regulations, and begin moving power back to the states and local communities.

Private property should not be seized absent an overwhelming public interest, including actual use by the public — and even then only with fair compensation that truly reflects the value of the property.

I oppose any law requiring registration of, or restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition to law-abiding citizens.

There is no perfect immigration reform. The government must balance security and sovereignty concerns, which necessitate controlling the border, with the economic benefits of immigration. The best policy would be to stop illegal immigrant flows while accepting more of the world’s economically productive who want to come to America.

Tax reform is desperately needed in the United States; but before we can reform the tax code, we must sharply reduce the tax burden on Americans. Meaningful tax reform begins with reining in government spending. Second, we need a tax code that makes taxation fairer and simpler for all citizens.

The federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. Laws regulating marriage should be left to the states, precisely where the Constitution places the issue.

Really, there are places I disagree. For example, I don't think Bob Barr's position sufficiently addresses the problem of health insurance as an alternate currency rather than true insurance. I don't think he is right in asking a free market to solve all of our problems with education, which, I feel, are at the root a matter of too many students and their families being apathetic about learning. Barr's energy policy lacks depth. The problem isn't just foreign oil, it is a combination of excess consumption and a lack of viable alternatives. And so on. I'm not particularly in the mood to debate with Barr supporters because, frankly, I am already on his side. For all his flaws, Bob Barr stands closer to what I want than either Obama or McCain.

The main reason I want to vote for Bob Barr, above anything else, is that I'm tired of being part of the two-party problem. By that, I mean that I'm tired of being one of millions of people who feel like a minor party supports my view best but must ignore that to vote for one major candidate so that the vote does not effectively go to the other.

The fact of the matter is that, as things are now, a vote for Bob Barr really is effectively a vote for Barak Obama. But that is only true because people who should, by their views, support Bob Barr continue to think that a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. It is self-fulfilling. If enough people stop playing this silly game then a vote for Bob Barr will really be a vote for Bob Barr. The country as a whole can ignore millions of people who hide their true thoughts and play the two party game. The country cannot ignore millions of people who openly share their real ideals.

More Word Definitions

2008-06-26T17:40:00.005Z

Elitist: Modifier used by default to describe any idea coming from some source other than some lowbrow social group. If the source of the idea is a member of one of these groups, the word elitist will only be used by a member of the same or another group who either perceives himself less worthy, due to social norms within those groups, or who considers the holder of the idea to be arrogant, due to a host of bad reasons that people use to say someone else is arrogant (such as "we disagree" or "he was smiling when he said it.")

Lowbrow social group: Any group that someone decides is not worthy to be a regular social group. Because politicians and bored high-academics use the word elitist in the manner of lowbrows, their groups may be considered for lowbrow status on a case-by-case basis.

Judge: A person who, for the common good, either interprets and executes the law or who reviews the consistency of law.

Authority of a judge: What a judge is and is not allowed to do. In colloquial language, a judge has the authority to make good legal decisions but not to make bad legal decisions.

Good legal decision: One that goes your way.

Bad legal decision: One that doesn't go your way.

Activist Judge: A judge who makes even one bad legal decision. Especially in plural, judges are accused of being activist without regard to good legal decisions, which must be ignored for rhetorical purposes.

big D in the house

2008-06-25T00:16:00.002Z

I guess John McCain isn't talking to him, so Dobson is going after Obama ... this should be interesting.

Who Is Matt Drudge?

2008-06-03T04:34:00.001Z

Discuss.

Who's Running?

2008-05-30T02:29:00.002Z

As the nominations unfold, I'd like to put a link to each presidential candidate on the sidebar. So far the only solid nomination I know is Bob Barr, who pummeled Mike Gravel and a few others at the Libertarian convention. I'm not sure what is happening in the Constitution or Reform parties; if someone else has time to look, leave a comment with your findings.

Clinton In June

2008-05-30T02:17:00.002Z

Okay, let me see if I understand this. Hillary Clinton thinks it's fine to stay in the race until June because of all of the past times that the nomination was not decided until June or later.

Does this make sense? No. Nominations are decided based on votes, not dates. The votes have moved earlier on the calendar in the past decade or two. So bringing up the calendar as if it is more relevant than votes is, in my opinion, dumb.

So, am I misunderstanding her, is she misunderstanding the world? And are Americans, like her supporters, really dumb enough to fall for what would be called reasoning if it wasn't so bad?

Gratuitous Use of Labels

2008-05-13T18:28:00.001Z

There are reasons why I left Atlanta. Here is one more example.

Ben Stein's Gone

2008-04-30T04:28:00.002Z

In an attempt to put up a conservative of interest, I put up a link to Ben Stein's pages. I've removed it.

My trouble stems from an interview on a Christian TV network that covered, in part, the so-called movie Expelled. (Go to April 21 and find Ben.) I was going to let him get away with that one before I heard about the interview. At one point in the interview, Ben Stein says

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [a scientist interviewed in the "movie"], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed. ... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

This isn't about politics, it's about a complete lack of connection to reality. Minimally, I expect everyone but politicians to have one. If he were kidding about this, I would be amused... as long as everyone knew it was a joke. I can't see how this is a joke, and my sense of humor is as obtuse as the come.

I'll put Ben back up as a person of interest when he runs for a public office that deserves this crap.

Lincoln, Douglas, Clinton, Obama

2008-04-27T18:20:00.002Z

Barak Obama pointed out that the debates are about trivia rather than real issues. Ed Rendell said the same thing while stumping for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton offered a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Obama has declined, at least for this month. I have some thoughts on this.

Obama said he would rather talk to voters. A debate, especially one where you and your opponent set the rules, can be talking to voters, in my opinion. What I'm not sure about is whether Americans really have enough civil knowledge to understand what they would hear. Think about it. All this trivia and garbage that's been "debated" is something people really do watch. I doubt that the average person realizes there is a problem and is watching with a never-ending hope of finding something of substance. If they have noticed a problem they've either shut down or done something like contribute to a rather whimsical and barely read political blog.

One side of me would be happy to watch such a debate no matter what the level of apathy the general public has. I always remind myself, though, that old style debate simply brings back old style misguided decision making. We complain now about how candidates now need to look good on TV and such rather than having substance. In 1858 a candidate needed to debate well. Nothing against Mr. Lincoln, who I am glad was elected, but debate ability does not define substance and capability no matter how much our romantic sides would like to think otherwise. I know very intelligent people who are introverted and whose best thoughts come only after long periods of thinking. They look like bad leaders, their low confidence from bad experiences makes them feel like bad leaders, and yet they go on to do wonderful things of you throw the job on them anyway and encourage them.

On top of that, I don't think that Americans, regardless of their understanding of government, can evaluate debate. Go back to my friends. They "lose" debate after debate with colleagues and friends who end up making far worse decisions. Too many people in our culture think that the last word wins. In my experience the last word just as often shows the fool who won't shut up.

So I'm conflicted. Old news.

A Few Bits

2008-04-27T04:35:00.004Z

I think that anyone with more than a third of a brain and who has paid any attention to the presidential campaigns will appreciate this wonderful little piece titled Wake me in October.

In other news, Ron Paul received something like 30 percent of the Republican votes in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. When I was up there the Friday before the election, there were radio ads brought to us by [name of citizen] and people on the street who really thought that Paul would win the Republican nomination and go on the be the next President. Barak Obama should get his head of of Hyde Park and carefully consider whether people like this can even be bitter. I, for one, know that I trust them with guns.

The New York Times (Late Edition) last Wednesday had a one page photo spread of Pennsylvania polling places. The largest picture? Danielsville, PA. I liked the dead animal heads on the walls.

Mike Gravel

2008-04-23T16:52:00.002Z

When I have more time I'll actually post about what Mike Gravel stands for and what his issues are. If you're curious, you can go to www.gravel2008.us, but I suggest just that you youtube Mike Gravel and debates to see the good stuff.

On to my message. I wrote in Mike Gravel in the PA primaries yesterday, thus avoiding the guilt of voting for one of the two lesser of two evil candidates who love war, despite their recent apparent change of heart. Anyway, hope everyone else feels as good about their vote as I do mine. :D

Law - in the hands of "the people"

2008-04-21T12:51:00.004Z

Vigilantism.

They very word conjours up images of torch toting riotous mobs with pitchforks out for the latest hoodlum to have casued a disturbance in the local town. Kind of a bum rap if you ask me - so I write the following with these premises in mind;

1) Law enforcement agencies and departments are finite - they cant always be where we (the general public) think they should be when we need them most.

2) Camera surveialnce systems dont always see everything - only what they're pointed at, not to mention the insane ammount of subjective review and analysis by human operators at some point.

Here's the premise plain and simple. Vilgilantism is a necessary function of law and order and by very fact, ordained and supported by the law itself. I present the following as evidence.

Thank You to Wikipedia for the following:

"Etymology - The term vigilante is Spanish for "watchman" or "watcher," ultimately from Latin "vigilans"- the present participle of "vigilare" (to watch). It was introduced into English from the Southwestern United States. Vigilantism is generally frowned upon by official agencies, especially when it gives way to criminal behavior on the part of the vigilante.

Vigilante behavior - An impetus of vigilant behavior must exist to facilitate a subjective definition of vigilantism.
"Vigilante justice" is sometimes spurred on by the perception that criminal punishment is insufficient or nonexistent to the crime. Some people see their governments as ineffective in enforcing the law; thus, such individuals fulfill the like-minded wishes of the community. In other instances, a person may choose a role of vigilante as a result of personal experience as opposed to a social demand. Most significantly, some vigilantes specifically target authoritarian entities such as government.
Persons seen as escaping from the law, or "above the law" are sometimes the targets of vigilantism. It may target persons or organizations involved in illegal activities in general or it may be aimed against a specific group or type of activity, e.g. police corruption. Other times, governmental corruption is the prime target of vigilante freedom fighters."

In Pennsylvania the crimes code does allow for "citizen's arrest" - in short it allows persons of the general public to apprehend and detain persons who have committed crimes (although this specifically applies to Felony offences).

Without a measure of public - read private activism - involvement, the law enforcement agencies in existance would not be able to address all criminal issues. It is widely known that priority is given to cases which are of a felony degree, followed by misdemeanor, and lastly summary offences. Often the lack of understanding by the public yeilds frustration at "the system" for crimes that appear to go unpunished. "Where is a cop when you need him!!?"

But I suggest that the very law we become disenfranchised with, has given each person the very authority to act - within reason. For those who observe a crime, report it. For those who have cameras - record it. But do NOT do NOTHING. In some instances civilians who opperate annonymously may be able to provide information that otherwise would be tied up by legislative or judicial constraints. Said information is technically called "good samaritan" effort or clause and does not require the same type of burden of proof that is needed by officers.

The kind of vigilantism that I am advocating is simply providing information to lawenforcement that otherwise they might not necessarily discover on their own. I AM NOT advocating the Judge, Jury, and Executioner mentality by any stretch of the imagination. So with that said, when you see somthing that "just isn't right", do the right thing and report it - take action. The pettiest of crimes affects us all.

Peace Thru Superior Fire Power!

Pennsylvania Primary

2008-04-20T03:53:00.002Z

Even the Canadians are interested.

So, does anyone want to help me figure out what to do at the voting machine after I take my fresh and shiny Democratic voter registration card to the polling place next Tuesday?

Mike Gravel @ Muhlenberg

2008-04-10T18:17:00.003Z

Mike Gravel is going to be at Muhlenberg tonight. Guess who's going to see it. Yep, that's it...me!

So far, I've seen Nader and Madeleine Albright (supporting Hillary). With seeing Gravel, I feel I only need to see Ron Paul now to see all of the real straight talking candidates. I know people who speak the truth and say how they really feel can't get elected but can't we still try to elect them? Come on, people, support someone worth supporting. Obama and Hillary give the appearance of being as different as Bush and Gore. Yes, we now know they're completely different, but before the election, we hadn't a clue. I'm just ranting now...I'm sick of lameass candidates who don't truly inspire anyone. People claim that Obama inspires people, though I have yet to meet one. I meet people who like that he inspires people, but no one who's actually inspired by his telling us that the system is messed up, telling us what is wrong with it, telling us what NOT to do and then stopping with that giving no clue as to what he's actually going to do...other than, of course, how he greatly he and Hillary differ on health care and talking to foreign governments. Eh....vote for someone of substance, that's all I ask. Someone who has the balls to say something real and MEAN it. ::sigh:: politics.

McCain Goes Veeping

2008-04-02T18:47:00.003Z

Well, he had to do it eventually, so I don't see why it's news. I did pick up a cute little bit near the end, though.

Turning to the future, McCain said Americans are cynical about their country and their idea of liberty is "the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee."

My comments are

1) True, but that last part is about apathy and the paralleling lack of education more than cynicism.

2) What Americans obviously need to do is care less about coffee. They should care more about supporting the Patriot Act, winning a war where the definition of "win" has not been defined, and begging for tax cuts to keep the deficit up.

3) Do we have any non-designer coffees running for president? All I see are spoiled career politicians. Where's the political equivalent of tall glass of sweet tea with a slice of lemon?

Now that Mighty Casey has struck out

2008-03-29T22:09:00.005Z

what's up with all you erstwhile Pennsylvania Republicans? Still planning on being Democrats for a day, or will you stick around a while longer?

Pennsylvania Might Mean Something

2008-03-05T23:05:00.002Z

For real. Well, for Democrats anyway, most likely.

The initial thoughts on geography?

[Talking head] said Obama is likely to do very well in Philadelphia, with a large African-American electorate, and may win in the city's suburbs, which have the same kinds of upscale, well-educated professionals that have gone for Obama in recent contests. Western and Central Pennsylvania are much more conservative, blue-collar and Catholic, and the voters tend to be a bit older, all of which seem to favor Clinton. The key battleground is likely to be in the Lehigh Valley and the Northeast, toward Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, where traditional blue-collar industry is giving way to high-tech.

Obama's Bethlehem office opened today, and Clinton's campaign is planning to set up shop in Allentown.

The 2004 Recap

2008-03-01T06:53:00.001Z

or: "Hindsight has an Astigmatism, Too"

I don't know which I would be happier having now, someone who says absolutely stupid things like this or someone who takes so long to say anything that he often manages to say it and not say it.

Election Methods

2008-02-26T08:26:00.004Z

How should we choose our Commander-in-Chief, known to those of us outside the military as our President? I know a lot of people with a lot of ideas, so here we go.

Some people want to get rid of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote. That's lunacy, in my opinion. It is rare when the electoral votes do not favor the popular vote-- the numbers are meant to work that way. (Remember, the founders of this nation actually believed in integrity and knew some math, unlike our current crop of rich pricks and blood sucking lawyers.) The only times a problem can happen are when electoral districts have their populations out of whack. We don't need to replace the system, we need to re-work it for a society that moves faster than our census plus congress. Doing the census on a year right after a presidential election, rather than the year of one, would put the redistricting time in a better spot for preventing problems.

Some people I know have completely different voting schemes.

One friend of mine wants to let everyone vote in all parties' primaries. In other words, anyone can vote in the spring, and when they vote they select their choice for Democrat, for Republican, and for any other party that wants to be in the game. Top choice in all gets the convention delegates.

Another few people, including ProLPconserve here, have suggested versions where individual parties run more than one candidate, maybe their top two. That's a neat idea. My favorite way to go with it would be that the electors choose from among the top three, which in a two-party system would cause more imbalance between the congress and the administration. Hey, maybe we could make this a Republic after all!

I know at least one person who approves of a certain weighted voting scheme. In this method, the person chooses their first and second choice. The first gets two points, the second gets one point. The candidate with the most points wins. Who can guess what this person's worst subject in school was?

Johnny has an idea for a vote of no confidence. He explained it in an earlier comment--

Add a vote of "no confidence." This way people could make it clear that they actually want to vote for one candidate as opposed to against another. Also, we know if people actually like the third party candidate or just hate the other two. Additionally, if the vote of no confidence is greater than the other two candidates, then we have a new election without either candidate.

In a similar vein comes my personal favorite. I know one person who, to better reflect the way people actually make their choice, strongly supports that everyone gets to give their vote a sign, plus to vote for someone or minus to vote against someone. People could then vote either for a candidate or against a candidate, but not both. The only caveat is that the winner needs to get a positive number in the end. What if there is no positive number? For one thing, it would show how sad and sorry our ruling class is. Just to keep things moving, we could let the highest scorer into office with more limited powers for a half term (doing things like having congress select their cabinet and removing certain rights of the office). Other ideas bandied about at the bar have included rock-paper-scissors, light saber duels, skeet shootin', and Beirut.

So, what did I miss? Do you have any other ideas?

Is That a Real LIberal I See?

2008-02-24T21:11:00.002Z

Nope, just Ralph Nader. Drat.

Um... Logic?

2008-02-20T07:24:00.006Z

Hillary Clinton says

"It's about picking a president who relies not just on words, but on work, hard work, to get America back to work," Clinton said at a labor rally here. "Someone who's not just in the speeches business."

Okay, let's do some formal logic. I'm going to do this sloppily and not state my assumptions, but it's all valid.

Two Democratic candidates, assume we pick one. We have a disjunction! Let's call this disjunction Democrat = [Obama OR Clinton]. For now we need not care if it's an OR or an XOR, but really it is XOR because only one will win the nomination. Using disjunction Democrat, from not Obama we can deduce Clinton. (Look up modus tollendo ponens.)

Unfortunately, I think Hillary is falling flat on this one. Why? Because her way of saying "not Obama," which I quoted above, could also be saying "not Clinton." There's nothing invalid about taking the argument in that direction, however; we can still get a valid result. For both inclusive and exclusive OR, when both arguments are false the disjunction is also false. So Democrat is false. The "spring" disjunction Democrat is one argument of the "November" disjunction [McCain OR Democrat]. With Democrat false, McCain is true.

Valid conclusion-- Clinton wants us to vote for McCain.

Of course, now that we know it's valid, we need to know if it's sound. (I made two mistakes that can ruin the soundness. Have fun finding them!)

[Nate back to add: And people told me that a semester of logic in the philosophy department at college would never be good for anything! Ha! Second best electives I ever took, after Coaching Football.]

And Then There Was One

2008-02-19T11:21:00.004Z

See here.

Since I dont know how to make a beeter looking link, I just pasted the one above. Sorry.

Anyways, I saw this article this morning while perusing the web as usual. Looks like Walmart is expanding its already overly large retail empire.

Stop. I just realized that there are so many things wrong with that statement - like "retail". Walmart can no longer be called a true retail store as it has expanded into pharmacology, Optometry, financial provision, beautification, and grocery.

What makes Walmart think it can take on the health care provider role ? Oh that's right - the $420M a year average they bring in annually.

Let's see...They move in to small markets and the prices eventuallyalways win out over mom and pop shops, They now have a controlling interest in almost every aspect of retail because very few large box competetors can compete with the buying power they have, the endless finacial resources they seem to have albeit provided by commerce from the American Public, and lastly they stand pretty much alone. Gosh that sounds so familiar. What's the word I'm looking for....oh yeah, MONOPOLY!

Scarily, I am drawn to the movie Demolition Man (Wesley Snipes and Sylvester Stalone) where Stalone gets asked to dinner at "All Things Taco Bell". I can see it now...little white lab coats, large round yellow smiling faces, "Welcome to walmart, you wont just drop your pants over our prices anymore!"

[Nate: edited link]

The Way We Vote

2008-02-16T05:30:00.004Z

How do we vote? Okay, okay. We pull a lever, fill in a bubble, punch a hole, touch a screen... but how do we pick where to pull, fill, punch, or touch?

A few years ago, early in 2004 in fact, a church friend of mine was definitely hoping for Pat Toomey to win over Arlen Specter in the PA Republican primary for senate. My friend said something that nearly infuriated me at the time-- "Specter is good with the economics issues and things like that, but I want Toomey to win because of the social issues. That's all that matters to me." Specter wasn't standing up saying that we need to constitutionally define marriage, make abortion a felony, and make sure that we get back to Jesus, so my friend didn't like him. I thought this was silly. Surely there are more important things? Why was my friend being "dumb Christian" and not realizing that there is so much more to government than social issues?

Fast forward two years to the next senate race, and I wanted Casey to wipe out Santorum. Why? I could live with Santorum, even with the whole treat the woman who randomly moves her head like she's fully functioning thing. But the man absolutely pissed me off. Why? He submitted a poorly written bill to basically silence National Weather Service scientists.

Did anyone just hear an operator saying "Kettle-- Pot, line 9"? Could I really be so shallow? Sure, I might vote with about ten issues in mind compared to my friend's three or four, but did I really put a man out to the curb because his bill that got nowhere broke my camel's back? My response-- Yes, and I have leftover campaign buttons to prove it.

So, I'm asking for the sake of discussion-- why do we choose the issues that we choose? We can't understand all the matters of a functioning world, how all of them fit together, and how any one person will react when facing the things we don't understand. We can and do make rational choices at the polls, but the way that perfectly rational people focus on different matters and come to make different votes tells me that our choices are rational only within what little bits we do think about and understand. So how do we pick those things that do affect our vote? Why do we choose those? Do we ignore or reject the things we do not consider? Is our choice affected primarily by our concept-- or lack of concept-- in what government does? Are we making our choices implicitly to drive government towards our ideal of what it should be exclusively, or only towards what we think it should be on the issues we select? Are we in it for ourselves, and for what we can get? Are we talking about the good of the country even though we're in it for ourselves?

I doubt you can speak for everyone (welcome an endowed chair in Political Science to any of you who can), so I guess you'll need to answer for yourself. Heck, if you can even answer for yourself then you're a step ahead of me. As much mildly conservative but mainly centrist trash talking as I do, I don't know why I do it.

Potomac is back?

2008-02-13T00:51:00.000Z

Looks like a dead heat right now between McCain and Huckabee in VA (17% reporting). That's good news for McCain, in that he's not clearly losing.

On a personal note, without renouncing my longstanding support for Hillary, I'd like to add that I won't be too upset if Barack Obama (let the "B.O." puns begin!) is the Democratic nominee. Or next president. Even if he has bitten off way more idealism than he can chew.

what's a McCain, after all?

2008-02-11T03:13:00.000Z

Everyone knows that liberals are baby-killing tax-raising gun-hating flag-burning global-warming Satanist evolutionist atheist surrender monkeys, and that John McCain also has a thing for bananas. QED, right?

But now that W has come out and said McCain's one of us conservatives, heck yeah, you might be asking yourself: What exactly is a conservative? And do I want to be one?

If you look at the records of Reagan and W. Bush (who, it should be pointed out, was the original second coming of Reagan), Republican conservatism consists of war against {Communism | terrorism}, tax cuts, limitless defense spending, and a strong record of lip service to all things morally conservative. (Also space shuttle explosions, spending time on the ranch, ~~and the pulling down of walls and/or statues in foreign countries~~ [Whoops! My bad. Berlin '89 was during BushOne. But Reagan called for it to be torn down.]. Certain persons with nationwide radio shows in the early afternoon are circulating the idea that Republicans also are really the party of small government. Wouldn't that be nice?)

I don't see anything in those legacies that McCain is opposed to. Has anyone else got a definition of conservatism that excludes McCain, but is still capable of containing the Republican party? Or are conservative Republicans gone the way of the dodo?

Grand Ole' State of Chaos

2008-02-09T16:29:00.000Z

Last night Huckabee was on Stephen Colbert show and was asked why he thought he would win the primary in Texas. His reply..."Becasue I know barbeque!" My kind of guy. I think I'll vote for him! More red meat on every plate, more steak in every sandwich, and because my true ideal canidate isn't running...Chaka Kahn.

Why Is James Dobson...

2008-02-08T03:29:00.000Z

my poster boy for American Christian political stupidity? Let me count the ways! Oh, wait, time is finite. Let me give you just a few, then.

Background information-- what Dobson says about politics, most evangelical Christians take seriously. He, along with the late Jerry Falwell, are two of the major reasons why Christian kids my age think that good Christians are Republicans. That's all you need to know.

My current issues? This article has one or two. (And this might be a good reference.)

Dobson released a statement Tuesday that criticized McCain for his support of embryonic stem cell research, his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment and for his temper and use of foul language.

Okay, Mr. Dobson. Which current US president got caught using the s-word? Or had his little pal saying nasty things? Are you going to come around to me saying "That's unfair! He didn't do that before I wanted him to be President"? Or maybe your only trouble is that McCain dropped an f-bomb? He's not the first Republican to do such a thing, you know? Of course none of that matters. Why? Because if we can get the people who don't like the word "crap" for its filth to know that McCain says dirtier things, we can add shock factor to an otherwise decent (even though I don't agree with it) list. They aren't going to question the sensibility of making this assessment, but they will be distracted from what could be (even though I don't agree with them) genuine arguments about other things on the list. This is common among conservative evangelicals. Cue the global warming denial explanations that end with "It's all New Age anyway" and watch how they fall back on that last bit when you question any of their scientific points.

Tally 1--- Dobson is hypocritical, inconsistent, or both.
Tally 2--- Dobson puts the petty with the important.

Can we get another quote from that Yahoo article?

He said if McCain were the nominee, he would not cast a ballot for president for the first time in his life.

Dobson had left open the possibility that he would vote for either Romney or Huckabee, but endorsed neither.

Um, yeah.... Okay, I have some problems. First, what about this? And didn't the man himself write this (complete with its false dilemma)? Dobson told a whole lot of people that he'd go third party, but now he's backing out. What? He can't do what he said? Don't make promises you can't keep, brother. You didn't promise? Don't imply things you don't mean, brother. Second, what about Huckabee saying "Some people need to switch to decaf and realize, folks, we may not get all of our battles just like we want, but there's a larger context in which this has to be fought." Why would you even consider voting for someone who says something so... thoughtful? Because he says he respects gays or something? Dobson's zeal blinds him from reality. This time he's missing "Something is better than nothing." Next time it could be "America has changed in the past 200 years." People follow him anyway.

Tally 3--- Dobson pushes the bounds of honesty in Jesus' name.
Tally 4--- Dobson is willing to lead real sheeples into real shambles over unreal ideals.

Okay, I think I'll shut up now. Fat chance I'll ever see the day when Christian leaders in America can talk politics and not make me and their religion (or relationship, as some without dictionaries would prefer) look stupid by association. Jesus, please save us all.

Articles Articles Everywhere...for those with too much time to spare

2008-02-07T17:58:00.000Z

Irrational hatred of Hillary from the left and the right, here.

Video of Colter's support of Hillary as opposed to McCain, here.

Bit of a critique of Obama being more of a campaign about Obama and change than a campaign about any actual goals, ideals or plans, here.

Finally, goodbye Romney!

McCain v. Clinton

2008-02-06T20:02:00.000Z

Sorry I missed this party last night. Things have been pretty crazy and hectic and I've not even had time to read all of the posts yet, but yesterday I was speaking with an Obama supporter. Before I continue, I'll make it known that I'm a Gravel supporter. After him, I kinda liked Biden. Last primary season, I favoured Gephardt and ended up voting against Bush. The election prior, I voted Nader. I'm not good at picking winners.

Anyway, back to my point. I was speaking with an Obama fan. I don't much have any strong feelings yet between Obama, Clinton and McCain. Of the democrats, I want to favour Clinton more because she's always being bashed and everyone is throwing their support to Obama, including John Kerry who didn't even back his own former VP candidate. I could go on with a list, but you get the point. Everyone is throwing their support behind Obama, which is making Hillary seem like an underdog, and I like underdogs. I also enjoy Bill flying off the handle.

Back to the point, the Obama fan seems to think that Obama has a better chance than Clinton against the Republican, likely McCain, because people passionately hate Hillary and will come out just to vote against her. I thought that sounded like it made sense. Then, I read this.

Still, McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.

This makes it seem that as much as conservatives may passionately hate Hillary, they may hate McCain even more, giving the Democrats a chance either way.

Not an earthshattering thought or anything that special, just a rebuttal to someone else who hasn't ever posted here, but I figure it's a thought that may be crossing some people's mind and I just wanted to share the other side. Hopefully I'll have something more thought provoking next time.

Shut Up, Suck It Up, and Deal With It

2008-02-06T18:46:00.000Z

This commentary reflects some of my sentiment about McCain.

Why is he disliked? My dislikes are the whole thing about the war being a Good Thing and the cuddling of wacko fundamentalist Christians like Bob Jones and Co. Sadly, Fox News and the republican pundits, especially the Christian ones, just can't get past "He's a liberal nut!" But of course they don't know what that word liberal means, other than "not going to cut our taxes like George W. and not as pious as Kirk Cameron." Yeah, because the definition of true conservatism is supply side tax cuts, where the government apparently gets its most income by charging no taxes at all, and whether or not someone believes that the Bible is our nation's one true rule of law.

Sigh. Somebody smack my parents generation before we're all screwed. Oh, wait, too late.

Where It Stands

2008-02-06T05:25:00.000Z

So far, nobody wants to say much about California. Peter is off to sleep, and I need to go shopping. I might be back later. Or not. We'll see. For now, here's the count, including every delegate that anyone has gotten.

Democrat
Clinton 466
Dodd 4
Edwards 41
Obama 411
Richardson 5

Republican
Giuliani 1
Huckabee 138
Hunter 1
McCain 469
Paul 9
Romney 168

A Word From Sajak

2008-02-06T04:34:00.000Z

He says it all himself. (Pity I didn't find that few days ago before it was outdated.)

Delegate Counts

2008-02-06T04:12:00.001Z

I'm more interested in delegates than states, but I think that's because I like the numbers that matter more than the numbers that people pay attention to. Okay, that and it takes longer to sort out than a few exit polls and some returns. I haven't found a decent graphic for this on any websites (anyone got one), but I do have recent numbers form PBS.

Candidate # of delegates (# so far today)

Democrats:
Clinton 289 (40)
Obama 230 (63)

Republicans:
Huckabee 40 (24)
McCain 320 (227)
Paul 4 (0)
Romney 77 (0)

Nate Makes His Predictions

2008-02-06T04:06:00.001Z

Looking at the results as they are now, this whole day will be one big clusterhump for every candidate. Nobody will really be too far ahead in either party.

The bright side, however, will be more political news and less Britney and Jamie Lynn.

[Editing to add-- let the CA fun begin]

local results are in!

2008-02-06T03:47:00.000Z

Knoxville is (almost) all in: Almost 90,000 turned out to vote (including early voting), which is fewer than turn out six Saturdays every fall for UT football games, but still a sizable proportion of the 400,000+ that Wikipedia says live in the county. (Not sure how many registered voters there are.) It is, after all, just the primary.

Hillary won 49% of the Democratic vote; Barack 44%.
McCain: 34% Huck: 30% Romney: 22%, Ron Paul: 7%. Fred: 4%.

the democrats, to be fair and balanced

2008-02-06T03:40:00.000Z

have, in a nod to coincidence, alphabetization, and typography, managed to produce this on the front page of the NY Times. Barak, on the left, is cleaning up the first half of the alphabet; while Hillary leads a vast right-side conspiracy. Looks like Obama wins California, for neatness' sake.

Updated....

2008-02-06T03:19:00.000Z

Updated Republican Leaderboard--

McCain: CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY, OK

Huckabee: AL, AR, GA, MO, TN, WV

Romney: MA, MN, MT

Paul: SOL (I just had to post earlier when 0.5% of MN precincts were reported)

PGA Style

2008-02-06T02:17:00.000Z

Republican Leaderboard--

McCain: AL, CT, DE, IL, MT, NJ, OK, TN

Huckabee: AR, GA, MO, WV

Romney: MA

Paul: MN

romney vs. huckabee

2008-02-06T01:46:00.000Z

The BBC, NY Times, and Rush Limbaugh all agree that Mike Huckabee is now in the race solely to piss off Mitt Romney. I don't buy that argument. I think Huckabee is in the race because, at this point, he can't lose.

First off, Huckabee is cool. He plays bass. He stumps with Chuck Norris. He's from Arkansas--fat city--but has a diet plan that works, called "Get Off Your Fat Ass and Exercise." Personal responsibility is so retro, it's cool. He has the best slogans, bar none. "I Like Mike." Awesome.

Obviously, Huck, Baptist minister that he is, is cleaning up the evangelical / fundamentalist vote. But I can't say that he's "stealing" those votes from Romney. I think it doubtful that, pre-Huck, the Christian Right viewed a Mormon (and one intent on being fairly vague about his religious commitment, at that), as their torchbearing candidate. Especially when you throw in statements made by the Mitt of MA gov days on same-sex unions etc.

In sum, the argument that Romney is being blocked out by Huckabee only works if you take Mitt's word that he is, and has always been, a true social conservative. The person standing in Romney's way is, and has been, Romney himself.

Back to Huckabee: the man can't lose. He's young (or seems so), which means that as long as he can run a good campaign, he'll be around for another election. And, let's face it: he's winning actual states with actual delegates--if trends continue, he may be the second-place Republican by the end of the night. So he has a shot at winning, for real.

my candidate wishlist

2008-02-06T01:23:00.000Z

While we wait for results to accrue, here's my policy wishlist for November:

THINGS I ABSOLUTELY WANT:

Foreign Policy: I think I'm basically with Obama on this one: let's negotiate with rogue states. Bush has done it with North Korea, and as best I can tell, it's working. I also like Obama's idea that the US can interface with other nations to help solve their problems, rather than just inflicting our domestic policy squabbles on them.

Environment: I'd like to see some candidate take the recommendations of the Copenhagen Consensus and turn it into their platform: Yes, global warming is a real issue, but it's not as bad as all that: instead of splurging however many trillion bucks to implement Kyoto, here's 100 billion dollars to fund (completely) global access to clean drinking water, HIV transmission prevention, and malaria. Once we've tackled problems we know we can solve, then let's worry about the temperature.

Cabinet Members: Go ahead and give some spoilers: who'll be SecState? of Defense? Major bonus points for bringing members of the opposite party on board your team AHEAD of the election. (Joe Lieberman doesn't count).

Energy: Everyone is talking about renewable energy. Who's going to be the first to say, in so many budgetary words, 'Screw the Saudis--we'll come up with our own energy'? I'll lump all federal science funding in under this. Bonus points for including Nuclear AND Switchgrass. Major bonus points for telling Detroit to get on board with higher mpgs.

POSSIBLE ATTRACTIONS:

Hmm. Health Care. Social Security.

MEH:

Tax reform / Killing the IRS - great idea in theory, but no stinking chance of any consensus.

Abortion - great idea in theory, but -- oh, wait, wrong issue. Yeah, like anything anyone could even conceive of is ever going to bring James Dobson and Planned Parenthood together. Don't mess with the status quo.

Landing on Mars. Rovers are cheaper, and they don't fireball upon re-entry.