So. This is how things are. Obama vs. Romney. Honestly, I'm so disenchanted with both of them that I'm having a hard time caring about the contest. I couldn't even come up with a more interesting title for this post. I desperately want to be excited about one of them. They're just not that interesting.
I went back to read what I wrote about both of them during the primaries in 2008. 4 years later, my opinions haven't changed much. Obama hasn't convinced me that he can effectively work with Republicans (which was a major running point 4 years ago). If anything, and I don't blame him for it, the Republicans very effectively shut down nearly everything he wanted to accomplish. His current platform appears to amount to "Give me 4 more years, and I promise I'll be more effective this time." He's still charismatic, but I just don't think he has the fire to actually accomplish his big ideals.
As for Romney, if anything, he's even harder to pin down to any positions than he was 4 years ago. Thankfully the Mormon issue seems to have blown over this time with plenty of talk about it, but little actual effect. He's put even more distance between himself and his Governorship, which is probably in his own best interests.
On the issues... I'm conflicted. Obama says all the right things to make the socially liberal side of me want to support him. But for all of his talk, I'm not convinced that he'll actually accomplish any of them, even if he wants to. Romney, on the other hand, appeals to the social conservatives that I want to oppose, but, in my personal opinion, he has little interest in pursuing those goals with any kind of enthusiasm.
Economics issues... I tend toward more conservative principles (lower spending, balanced budgets, etc.). But, that said, the principles I favor are not, necessarily, ideal for the current economy. I've tried reading the Ryan budget and listening to experts, and the more informed I become, the more certain I become that none of them know what the right answer is. They're working by trial and error, which is unfortunate, but probably necessary. Economics (on the national scale, as set by national policies) doesn't have hard and fast rules (as much as both sides would like us to think it does). Or, if it does have hard and fast rules, we haven't figured out what they are yet.
So what am I going to do in November? I haven't decided yet. But I live in New York, the state is going to vote for Obama regardless of what I do. So maybe I'll worry more about local elections and less about the national contest for the next few months.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The 2nd Amendment
Alright, I realize I'm a little late to the game on this one, most of the discussion is over for the time being, but with all of the talk about gun control since the incident in Colorado (and that will be my only mention of it) I realized with frustration and chagrin that I really didn't know enough to have a proper opinion. I've set about trying to rectify that fact, with some success.
My starting outlook was mostly apathetic. I never saw myself as likely to own a gun, and I still don't, but I knew it was a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. My opinion could have been accurately summarized as "Constitution good, machine guns bad." A thorough and nuanced opinion if ever there was one. Hopefully I can express something a little better than that now.
As I see this, it's a question with two independent halves:
Another common argument against the studies is that they prove correlation not causation. I don't find that argument particularly compelling myself. I'm not remotely qualified to prove one way or the other even if I had access to all of the data but, that said, it depends on studies consistently ignoring variables that would better explain the data. That would virtually require willful disregard for the ethics related to data analysis.
So, is gun control effective? Maybe. Countries with similar cultural mores have successfully implemented gun control laws without an outbreak of "only the criminals will have guns" violence. That doesn't, necessarily, mean it would work in the US, but I genuinely believe that it would be worth the attempt.
That brings us to question two, the constitutionality of gun control. To quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's one of the shortest amendments to the US constitution, and yet, fairly contorted in modern English. The Supreme Court held in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller that this right is essentially a right to defend ones' self with firearms and, necessarily, a right to own those firearms. The dissent argued that they were specifically protecting the right to form a militia. Contrary to my normally liberal bent on such questions, I find myself swayed more convincingly by the majority opinion on this case.
So, is gun control constitutional? I have to come down against it. Despite the awkward wording, there's not a lot of ambiguity in the second amendment. Reasoning about the militia aside, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward. It leaves me in the difficult position of wanting gun control but believing it to be unconstitutional and I don't think that this should be the end of the discussion.
I would offer a third option. Personally I think the founders simply had no way of conceiving of modern society. The second amendment was written in a time when a well armed civilian militia could reasonably defend itself from an attack. The right to keep and bear arms amounted to the right to form a militia if it ever proved to be necessary. These weren't separate concepts as they stand today, they were intrinsically linked to each other. That said, the concept of tanks (let alone an air force) would have been completely foreign to their frame of reference. Realistically, our modern day armed forces have replaced any need that the founders would have foreseen for a militia.
This leaves me with only one recourse. I believe that the only way to move forward on gun control is through amending the constitution to better reflect modern society. I'm not suggesting that we repeal the second amendment, I'm suggesting that it be replaced with a constitutional protection to keep and bear arms with an eye toward the real and practical uses in our society; hunting, sport, and self-defense. That would be an effective compromise between the legitimate uses for firearms that can and should be constitutionally protected and the public need to be protected from firearms that don't have a legitimate civilian use.
My starting outlook was mostly apathetic. I never saw myself as likely to own a gun, and I still don't, but I knew it was a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. My opinion could have been accurately summarized as "Constitution good, machine guns bad." A thorough and nuanced opinion if ever there was one. Hopefully I can express something a little better than that now.
As I see this, it's a question with two independent halves:
- Is gun control effective, and if so, what is the tipping point of effectiveness?
- Is gun control constitutional?
Starting with the first question, I set about trying to find the studies and statistics that I just knew would prove that it has been effective. Well... I'm sure data exists, but the best I could find was either out of date (mid 90s) or controversial on its face. What I could find that was consistent is that violent crimes involving guns are significantly more common in the US than in other western nations such as the UK or Germany. Some countries with strict gun control laws have substantially lower gun related crime rates than the US. Opponents to gun control point to other countries, such as Mexico, that have strict gun control laws and rampant gun related crimes. The obvious counter-point would be to argue that we have more in common with the countries that are apparently successful than the ones that aren't.
Another common argument against the studies is that they prove correlation not causation. I don't find that argument particularly compelling myself. I'm not remotely qualified to prove one way or the other even if I had access to all of the data but, that said, it depends on studies consistently ignoring variables that would better explain the data. That would virtually require willful disregard for the ethics related to data analysis.
So, is gun control effective? Maybe. Countries with similar cultural mores have successfully implemented gun control laws without an outbreak of "only the criminals will have guns" violence. That doesn't, necessarily, mean it would work in the US, but I genuinely believe that it would be worth the attempt.
That brings us to question two, the constitutionality of gun control. To quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's one of the shortest amendments to the US constitution, and yet, fairly contorted in modern English. The Supreme Court held in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller that this right is essentially a right to defend ones' self with firearms and, necessarily, a right to own those firearms. The dissent argued that they were specifically protecting the right to form a militia. Contrary to my normally liberal bent on such questions, I find myself swayed more convincingly by the majority opinion on this case.
So, is gun control constitutional? I have to come down against it. Despite the awkward wording, there's not a lot of ambiguity in the second amendment. Reasoning about the militia aside, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward. It leaves me in the difficult position of wanting gun control but believing it to be unconstitutional and I don't think that this should be the end of the discussion.
I would offer a third option. Personally I think the founders simply had no way of conceiving of modern society. The second amendment was written in a time when a well armed civilian militia could reasonably defend itself from an attack. The right to keep and bear arms amounted to the right to form a militia if it ever proved to be necessary. These weren't separate concepts as they stand today, they were intrinsically linked to each other. That said, the concept of tanks (let alone an air force) would have been completely foreign to their frame of reference. Realistically, our modern day armed forces have replaced any need that the founders would have foreseen for a militia.
This leaves me with only one recourse. I believe that the only way to move forward on gun control is through amending the constitution to better reflect modern society. I'm not suggesting that we repeal the second amendment, I'm suggesting that it be replaced with a constitutional protection to keep and bear arms with an eye toward the real and practical uses in our society; hunting, sport, and self-defense. That would be an effective compromise between the legitimate uses for firearms that can and should be constitutionally protected and the public need to be protected from firearms that don't have a legitimate civilian use.
Friday, June 29, 2012
I'm not sure how I feel about this (and neither are you) AKA: Obligatory Healthcare Ruling Post
I honestly have no idea how I feel about the healthcare ruling. This is in part because I don't know how I feel about Obamacare to begin with. It's a monstrous bill that manages to combine economics (which I'm still convinced is some kind of voodoo magic) and social welfare policy (which I understand well enough, I'm just not convinced in the goodness [or badness] of it). That said, even if I had a strong opinion on the issue, I'm not sure I'd know how the ruling made me feel. Luckily for me, the more I read, the more I realize that no one else does either.
I can say, with absolute certainty, that this decision is either a dramatic victory for Obama, a dramatic victory for Conservatives, a dramatic loss for Obama, a dramatic loss for Conservatives, or possibly a dramatic victory for Conservatives disguised as a dramatic victory for Obama. Or possibly a mixed and incoherent ruling.
Okay, seriously News Media.
What.
The.
Hell?
I really don't ask for that much from you people but seriously, this is ridiculous. Now, I get that there are different reactions to things like this. One side won, the other lost. Whether or not your side won should determine whether you think this is the best or worst decision since Sliced v. Bread.
I think I know what's going on. I think we're trapped in a suspicion loop. We've gotten to a point where we can't accept a victory (or a defeat) because we're constantly watching for the "hidden agenda". Sure, it looks like a victory, but that's just what they want us to think! But it's okay we know what they're really up to. But wait, they know that we know, so maybe it's a double ploy to get us off balance! But if they know we know that they know we know, then EVERYONE DIES.
So who knows. Maybe this is good, maybe it's bad. Maybe we won't really be able to estimate that for another 20 years. And maybe, just maybe, we would be better served by a little more reporting on the facts and implications thereof without tainting them with who won or who lost.
I can say, with absolute certainty, that this decision is either a dramatic victory for Obama, a dramatic victory for Conservatives, a dramatic loss for Obama, a dramatic loss for Conservatives, or possibly a dramatic victory for Conservatives disguised as a dramatic victory for Obama. Or possibly a mixed and incoherent ruling.
Okay, seriously News Media.
What.
The.
Hell?
I really don't ask for that much from you people but seriously, this is ridiculous. Now, I get that there are different reactions to things like this. One side won, the other lost. Whether or not your side won should determine whether you think this is the best or worst decision since Sliced v. Bread.
I think I know what's going on. I think we're trapped in a suspicion loop. We've gotten to a point where we can't accept a victory (or a defeat) because we're constantly watching for the "hidden agenda". Sure, it looks like a victory, but that's just what they want us to think! But it's okay we know what they're really up to. But wait, they know that we know, so maybe it's a double ploy to get us off balance! But if they know we know that they know we know, then EVERYONE DIES.
So who knows. Maybe this is good, maybe it's bad. Maybe we won't really be able to estimate that for another 20 years. And maybe, just maybe, we would be better served by a little more reporting on the facts and implications thereof without tainting them with who won or who lost.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Stop Trying to Make Me Care About Wisconsin
I swear, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is determined to make Wisconsin important. Yes, technically it's a "swing" state so our breaths should hang on every fickle whim of state election drama, but I'm just not buying it.
So, in case you live under a rock, a brief synopsis:
2010 - Wisconsin elects Republican Scott Walker as Governor. 52.3% - 46.5%
2011 - Governor Walker proposes and (after some good old fashioned antics from the Democrats) gets the legislature to pass Act 10 which, among other things, restricts state worker bargaining rights.
2011 - 7 State Senate recall elections are held, resulting in 2 seats changing hands from Republican to Democrat.
2012 - 4 additional State Senate recall elections are held as well as a recall for the Governor resulting in 1 seat changing hands from Republican to Democrat. Governor Walker receives a 53.1% - 46.3% majority.
So hooray... Now Wisconsin has a Republican Governor and Democratic majority in their State Senate. What does this mean for the rest of the country? Not a lot. Despite what people are saying, a 53% - 46% majority is not a "landslide victory". It is by no means a narrow win, but it's hardly a resounding triumph either.
What does it mean? It means that roughly the same percentage of people who elected him based on his campaign promises still support him for following through on said promises. He apparently hasn't really convinced anyone who didn't support him before that he's right, but the Democrats haven't convinced anyone that he's wrong either.
What doesn't it mean? It doesn't mean that Wisconsin is suddenly more likely to vote for Romney in November. Obama polls more consistently ahead in Wisconsin then he does in some states that RCP considers to be "leaning Obama". (See: Oregon and Michigan). The only times Wisconsin has voted Republican for President since the 70s were the actual landslides in 1980 and 1984.
Why I don't care either way:
First, even on the issue of collective bargaining rights for state employees, I don't really care what Wisconsin does. I'm not saying that it isn't an important issue, because it is, and if I lived in Wisconsin I would have a thoroughly researched opinion. That said, it's a state issue, not a national issue. If you oppose it and live in a state other than Wisconsin, the answer is pretty simple: Don't vote for anyone who proposes similar measures. If you happen to live in Wisconsin well, first, welcome, let me know how you found this because I don't know anyone in Wisconsin, second, he's up for reelection in 2014, vote him out of office. The recall was a referendum on that policy, a normal election can be about new issues rather than one singular divisive issue.
Second, as I stated above, I don't think this election will have much, if any, impact on the Presidential election in November. President Obama is polling consistently better than Governor Romney and will likely continue to do so.
Third, Wisconsin isn't going to matter in November. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes, is not going to be the deciding factor in the general election. RCP, as linked to earlier, currently lists the Electoral Votes at 237 leaning Obama to 170 leaning Romney. So while Romney needs to win Wisconsin, Obama doesn't. Obama needs to pick up 2-3 of the swing states. Wisconsin might be one of them, but the focus is far more likely to be on Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words. Literally, if, come November Wisconsin is the swing state that everything hinges on, I'll print this posting out and eat it. Otherwise, stop trying to make me care about Wisconsin.
So, in case you live under a rock, a brief synopsis:
2010 - Wisconsin elects Republican Scott Walker as Governor. 52.3% - 46.5%
2011 - Governor Walker proposes and (after some good old fashioned antics from the Democrats) gets the legislature to pass Act 10 which, among other things, restricts state worker bargaining rights.
2011 - 7 State Senate recall elections are held, resulting in 2 seats changing hands from Republican to Democrat.
2012 - 4 additional State Senate recall elections are held as well as a recall for the Governor resulting in 1 seat changing hands from Republican to Democrat. Governor Walker receives a 53.1% - 46.3% majority.
So hooray... Now Wisconsin has a Republican Governor and Democratic majority in their State Senate. What does this mean for the rest of the country? Not a lot. Despite what people are saying, a 53% - 46% majority is not a "landslide victory". It is by no means a narrow win, but it's hardly a resounding triumph either.
What does it mean? It means that roughly the same percentage of people who elected him based on his campaign promises still support him for following through on said promises. He apparently hasn't really convinced anyone who didn't support him before that he's right, but the Democrats haven't convinced anyone that he's wrong either.
What doesn't it mean? It doesn't mean that Wisconsin is suddenly more likely to vote for Romney in November. Obama polls more consistently ahead in Wisconsin then he does in some states that RCP considers to be "leaning Obama". (See: Oregon and Michigan). The only times Wisconsin has voted Republican for President since the 70s were the actual landslides in 1980 and 1984.
Why I don't care either way:
First, even on the issue of collective bargaining rights for state employees, I don't really care what Wisconsin does. I'm not saying that it isn't an important issue, because it is, and if I lived in Wisconsin I would have a thoroughly researched opinion. That said, it's a state issue, not a national issue. If you oppose it and live in a state other than Wisconsin, the answer is pretty simple: Don't vote for anyone who proposes similar measures. If you happen to live in Wisconsin well, first, welcome, let me know how you found this because I don't know anyone in Wisconsin, second, he's up for reelection in 2014, vote him out of office. The recall was a referendum on that policy, a normal election can be about new issues rather than one singular divisive issue.
Second, as I stated above, I don't think this election will have much, if any, impact on the Presidential election in November. President Obama is polling consistently better than Governor Romney and will likely continue to do so.
Third, Wisconsin isn't going to matter in November. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes, is not going to be the deciding factor in the general election. RCP, as linked to earlier, currently lists the Electoral Votes at 237 leaning Obama to 170 leaning Romney. So while Romney needs to win Wisconsin, Obama doesn't. Obama needs to pick up 2-3 of the swing states. Wisconsin might be one of them, but the focus is far more likely to be on Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words. Literally, if, come November Wisconsin is the swing state that everything hinges on, I'll print this posting out and eat it. Otherwise, stop trying to make me care about Wisconsin.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
North Carolina and the Missing Agenda
So North Carolina passed Amendment 1 a couple days ago.
In other shocking news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and the Pope is Catholic.
...
Wanted to let that sink in. Amendment 1 reads, in full:
So let's look at the polling. So far, this year, there have been 4 polls conducted on the subject. The average support works out to 49.5% in favor of gay marriage and 43.75% opposed to gay marriage (or in favor of traditional marriage if you prefer to frame the question that way).
(As an aside, I'll be using the gay marriage/traditional marriage framing, this post is not an argument for either side, my opinion on the issue has nothing to do with this post, so I'll be keeping the wording as neutral as possible.)
For the sake of simplicity let's say the entire GLBT community gets fired up in favor of gay marriage every time it comes up and the entire evangelical community gets fired up to support traditional marriage. Neither of those assumptions is remotely accurate, but it makes it easy to illustrate my point. That gives us voting blocks of ~5% of the population fired up in favor of gay marriage and ~15% fired up in favor of traditional marriage.
What this means is that, even if ~50% favor gay marriage, they're still facing 3-1 opposition where it counts. 3 times as many evangelicals from the Christian Right are going to be out there raising funds, stumping for votes, and voicing their cause. This is not an insurmountable opposition, but it is an opposition that requires substantial effort to face The movement for gay marriage needs and, frankly, deserves more than pithy Facebook posts made 2 days before a critical vote or, worse, the day after.
In short, those who support gay marriage need to stop being surprised that they lose these votes (and in NC they lost big, 61% - 39%). For years, a lot of effort has been spent dismissing the concept of a "homosexual agenda". All gay people want is to get married and be left alone they say. Well, the fact is, everyone has an agenda, and that's not a bad thing. In the modern society, nothing gets accomplished without solid planning and the leg work to back it up.
Maybe it's time gay marriage supporters accept that they need an agenda if they expect to get anything accomplished.
In other shocking news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and the Pope is Catholic.
...
Wanted to let that sink in. Amendment 1 reads, in full:
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts"This can, and will, continue to happen in any state that it comes up for the foreseeable future, even though a slim (but increasing) plurality (or majority, it depends on the poll) support gay marriage. It isn't a question of a base of support, it's a question of enthusiasm. The fact is, most Americans just don't care. It might affect someone they know, but for the vast majority of Americans it isn't an issue that has any impact in their lives one way or the other.
So let's look at the polling. So far, this year, there have been 4 polls conducted on the subject. The average support works out to 49.5% in favor of gay marriage and 43.75% opposed to gay marriage (or in favor of traditional marriage if you prefer to frame the question that way).
(As an aside, I'll be using the gay marriage/traditional marriage framing, this post is not an argument for either side, my opinion on the issue has nothing to do with this post, so I'll be keeping the wording as neutral as possible.)
For the sake of simplicity let's say the entire GLBT community gets fired up in favor of gay marriage every time it comes up and the entire evangelical community gets fired up to support traditional marriage. Neither of those assumptions is remotely accurate, but it makes it easy to illustrate my point. That gives us voting blocks of ~5% of the population fired up in favor of gay marriage and ~15% fired up in favor of traditional marriage.
What this means is that, even if ~50% favor gay marriage, they're still facing 3-1 opposition where it counts. 3 times as many evangelicals from the Christian Right are going to be out there raising funds, stumping for votes, and voicing their cause. This is not an insurmountable opposition, but it is an opposition that requires substantial effort to face The movement for gay marriage needs and, frankly, deserves more than pithy Facebook posts made 2 days before a critical vote or, worse, the day after.
In short, those who support gay marriage need to stop being surprised that they lose these votes (and in NC they lost big, 61% - 39%). For years, a lot of effort has been spent dismissing the concept of a "homosexual agenda". All gay people want is to get married and be left alone they say. Well, the fact is, everyone has an agenda, and that's not a bad thing. In the modern society, nothing gets accomplished without solid planning and the leg work to back it up.
Maybe it's time gay marriage supporters accept that they need an agenda if they expect to get anything accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)