The 1st Amendment: Part 1: Religious Liberty

The First Amendment

In the new tradition of almost timely posts, I've decided to renew my ongoing 27+ part series on US constitutional amendments.  Today we have part 2 (you can read part 1 here).  Luckily, unlike my first piece, I had somewhere to start with this one and enough to say that I will most likely break this into three posts.

The Text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you might have surmised from the title, I'm going to stick to religion today, speech, press, and assembly will just have to wait until another time.  This is not an expression of importance; in many ways I believe the freedom of speech to be the most fundamental of all rights; this is solely because of the number of current issues regarding religious liberty and how it can contrast with civil rights.

Public Prayers

First, a local case currently pending a decision from the Supreme Court, the Town of Greece v. Galloway (a more comprehensive breakdown can be found here).  In summary, the Town of Greece opens their town meetings with a prayer and generally invites a member of the local clergy to lead it.  Those leading the prayers were primarily Christian and so non-Christian residents are suing to either have the prayers ended or expanded by giving guidelines to those leading the prayers as to what would be appropriate.  Let me start with this; I'm not a particularly religious person and public prayers outside of a church service always leave me feeling a little out of place. That said, I also realize that these prayers are an inescapable fact of life.  Even as a secular society we have no shortage of public institutions invoking deities through prayer to open meetings or any of a dozen other types of gatherings.  As (and I can't believe I'm citing him) Justice Alito raised during the arguments, no prayer can possibly appease every religion, especially when atheists are included in the discussion.  Typically this is why prayers of this sort are expected to be as inoffensive as possible, and come from a variety of sources; something that the Town of Greece had been trying to do, but failed to follow through on. The Supreme Court decision is due back this summer, but it's unlikely to be anything earth shattering.  A sweeping ruling could ban all such public prayers, which would be a wildly unpopular decision, so I expect it will amount to little more than some type of enforcement of more diverse prayers.

Aside from being of local relevance, this case lets us talk about what will be a recurring theme. Where does my freedom to exercise my religion end and someone else's begin?  This isn't an easy question to answer and it becomes the central argument in most of these cases.  Does the city have a right to open their sessions with a prayer if they choose to?  Do the clergy leading the prayers have the right to do so without government oversight?  Do the citizens have a right to a government that does not favor any one religion?  The city probably does have that right; without some compelling reason higher governments shouldn't be dictating to local governments how to run their own meetings.  The clergy definitely have the right to non-interference; just the concept of the government dictating which types of prayers are publicly acceptable is clearly unconstitutional, even if it would resolve the immediate problem.  Finally, the citizens definitely have the right to a government that respects all religions.  So how do we balance the rights of the city, the clergy, the citizens?  Perhaps the best answer is really to give time to each religion represented in the city.  There will always be some who feel put off by however the meetings are started regardless of the prayer or lack thereof, so sometimes the best thing to do is cycle through making everyone uncomfortable occasionally.

Birth Control

Second, the first big national topic, Birth Control and Religion.  I'll leave the analysis of the specific cases to the more qualified and speak to the general principles involved (though, again, SCOTUSblog is a fantastic resource for the curious about both Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius and Sebelius v Hobby Lobby).  I find these cases fascinating in the abstract.  Do private companies have a right to operate based on religious principles?  And, if so, to what extent are they allowed to enforce those principles on those who work for them?

For the most part we, as a society, don't care when businesses operate on religious principles.  If they want to be closed on Saturdays or Sundays, or choose not to sell alcohol, or operate a Kosher or Halal kitchen, or any other manner of operation that is based on religious tenets, we rarely care either as customers or as employees.  Unfortunately, under the Affordable Care Act, we have to deal with address the implications of faith based private businesses.  If we accept the premise that a business can be faith based regardless of their actual business, we must decide how far they are allowed to enforce that faith and we need to deal with the conflict between non-discrimination acts and those religious liberties.  Hobby Lobby can't refuse employment based solely on the religion of the applicants which means they must have some employees who do not share their religious beliefs.  Even if we accept that the owners are running their business based on their faith, do they have the right to limit the health care options of the employees who do not share those beliefs?  Must everyone who works for them adhere to their religious standards?  In any other situation this would be an almost obvious no, but because the ACA is so controversial, this is seen as another avenue to attack an unpopular (at least in some groups) law. Imagine if, instead, the employees were being required to maintain a religious diet, or join in management led prayers daily.  A common argument is that this is a slippery slope to religious exemptions for other types of medical coverage, but I see this as a slippery slope to employment discrimination.  If businesses are allowed to be adherents to a religion then they would be able to argue for all rights therein, not just this specific scenario.

Photographers and Cakes

Third, we're going west to the gay weddings, photographers, and cakes.  Arizona made big news twice, first for passing a deeply unsettling bill and second for vetoing it.  Arizona made the big news, but they weren't the only state with a bill of that nature on their agenda and they won't be the last.  This has also been couched as a "religious liberty" question.  Since the business owners are good faithful Christians who can't, in good conscience, provide services to gay couples, they must refuse service based on religious grounds and they argue that they should have that right based on the 1st amendment.  Unlike the first two questions, I don't believe that this is a question of religious liberty.  The first is a clear question of Establishment (City vs Citizens), while the second is definitely a case of Free Exercise (Company vs Employees).  This last situation is, at least in my opinion, a question of business rights vs consumer rights regardless of religion.

Some business owners would like the right to decline service to certain customers.  These are primarily service businesses and they are largely basing their current claims in religious beliefs.  Unfortunately I think this misses the fundamental question: Do businesses have a right to deny services to customers?  In most cases they don't unless there is a key business interest in that denial.  In that sense, it may circle back as a question implied by the Birth Control exception cases.  Does maintaining religious beliefs constitute a key business interest?  That's a tough argument to make since religions generally believe in individuals living properly rather than businesses.  A person might find salvation, but their bakery won't be joining them in heaven.  That said, I'm not entirely convinced that businesses should be required to serve individuals that they disapprove of.  Typically a business functions best by providing their services to everyone regardless of their particulars, but if they choose not to, that seems like a decision best defended under Freedom to Assemble rather than Freedom of Religion.

The Point?

So what is the point of all of this?  Much like the point I reached in The 2nd Amendment post; the point is that we're thinking about rights in ways that our bill of rights was never designed for.  Our founders wanted to ensure that we would not be citizens of a country with a new State Religion.  We were to be free of both the Church of England and the Pope.  We were to be free to exercise our own religious beliefs, whatever they may be.  Well we have that.  We live in a society where the government does not tell us which religion we must be members of and does not arrest us for exercising our own beliefs.  Everything beyond that, be it liberal or conservative, is trying to find a justification in a document where none was intended to meet our current needs.

Anthropogenic Global Warming An Important and Irrelevant Argument

Welcome to week 2 of my "tell me what to write about" challenge (all requests accepted, but try not to get too far outside my wheelhouse).  My topic this week was "the Humboldt squid".  When I reminded them that I don't even know how many tentacles (arms?) a squid has, I was given a reprieve with a nice light topic like global warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming

First let's break down the concepts before we talk about why it's important and what makes it irrelevant.  So what is anthropogenic global warming?  In short, it is an average increase in global temperatures caused by human activities.  This doesn't mean that an exceptionally hot summer or an exceptionally cold winter proves or disproves anything.  The key word, often forgotten, is Global.  If three quarters of the world is warmer than normal, it really doesn't matter that I'm currently shivering.  (It does, however, make me hate them ever so slightly.)  All told, this isn't really a difficult concept to understand, to relate it to a house, if you turn the heat on in 3 out of 4 rooms, the house is getting warmer even if the poor sucker in the guest bedroom is freezing.

So why is this controversial?  The arguments generally come in three varieties: "Is it happening?", "Are we causing it?", and "Is it a bad thing, or how bad will it be?".

Is it happening?

Yes.  That's really all I'm going to say on this one.  You can argue about the causes; you can argue about the severity; you can argue about the effects; but this one really needs to be dropped.

Are we causing it?

Probably.  Most of the prevailing science points that way and most of the counter arguments are coming from those with vested interests in proving that we aren't causing it or from people radically opposed to science in general.  But more on this later.

Is it a bad thing or how bad will it be?

This gets complicated, but the best answer I can give is "probably" and "we're not sure".  It's probably going to be a bad thing for much the same arguments as above, but also due to the fundamental principle that change in an environment is generally a bad thing for the things that are currently living in said environment. Nature, humanity included, does not adapt quickly to changes in their living conditions.  Humans are amazingly resilient creatures, but we rely on technology to adapt our locations to our needs.  Areas that rarely see snow are traumatized by even small amounts where areas that get multiple feet per year don't even blink. Similarly areas that are accustomed to and prepared for hurricanes or earthquakes or heat waves are more than capable of handling them, but areas that aren't can be shut down entirely by what would be considered a common occurrence elsewhere.  As climates change more areas are going to have to adapt to more types of events, the only question is how much it will change and how severe those events will be.

How bad will it be then?  That's decidedly less settled.  Global climate models have come a long way in the last 20 years, but they're massively complex and still frequently wrong with their predictions.  We've been left with the extremes of "we're all going to die" and "maybe it'll even be a good thing" neither of which seem particularly credible.  The former incites unnecessary (though they would disagree with that) panic, while the latter implies that we should ignore it entirely and enjoy the warmer weather.  As with most things, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, more on a scale of "annoying" to "severely unpleasant".

Why this is all Irrelevant

Now that I've finally gotten the background out of the way, I can get to the point.  None of it matters.  Don't give me that look, yes I'm serious, and no I'm not crazy.  I'm not trying to argue that Global Warming is irrelevant, just that the arguments about it are.  The reason is simple.  The things that we should be doing to stop Global Warming are things we should be doing anyway for much less controversial reasons.

Let's start at a personal level (for reference, the EPA actually has a site with a list of things individuals can do).  First, using energy efficient bulbs and appliances.  Regardless of one's views on climate change, there is a near universal acceptance that using less energy (and spending less money on it) is a good thing. New bulbs and new appliances use less energy, last longer, provide the same quality, and in the end cost less than the inefficient products that they replace.  The same thing goes for heating, cooling, and insulation.  Who cares if you don't believe in Global Warming when everyone believes in paying less in utilities.  In transportation (and more on this in the next level up) mass transit should be a good idea because it's cheaper than commuting.  Alternatively, for relatively short commutes, bicycling should be a good idea because it's better for our health.  Growing our own fruits and vegetables should be a good idea, not because the transportation of produce is causing the ice caps to melt, but because they're cheaper (and in my opinion, more delicious) that way.  Obviously most people don't have the time (or space) to grow enough food to be entirely self sufficient, but that isn't the point.  There is plenty of room between every house having a white picket fence and 2.5 SUVs and an agrarian society and good, self-serving, reasons to take a few steps in that direction.

So after the personal comes the municipal.  Towns and cities aren't making environmental policies on the grand scale; they don't set CAFE standards or set up cap and trade markets; but they do have impacts and motivations similar to the personal level.  If we want to reduce vehicle emissions, then towns and cities need to give people non-car alternatives for feasible transportation.  That means bike lanes and trails that go places that people want to get to (that also promote public health) and public transportation (that also saves on congestion, parking, and can be revenue generating).  If we're worried about offsetting emissions with carbon sinks, they can promote parks and green spaces (which again, promote public health and community building), tree plantings (just to make an area look nicer, which can raise property values) or community gardens (which can brighten up downtrodden neighborhoods as well as provide under-served communities with much needed fresh produce for public health reasons).

I'll address the last two levels together, state and federal policy.  A lot of this comes down to energy and transportation policy, though obviously they can also support green spaces and parks at a larger level as well for the same reasons as the cities and towns.  So why should they support things like more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels or alternative energy sources if not to reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming?  Simply because it's good policy.  We have more people driving more, using more fuel, and using more energy than ever before.  Regardless of your views on the impacts, these are all limited resources.  Even if you believe that there's no urgent need for alternatives, we have people who are capable of doing the research now and, when or if they're successful, they may come up with a vehicle that meets all of our current needs in ways that are cheaper and easier for the consumers.  The same goes for alternative energy.  We should be researching solar and wind because it's there and because it gives us another option for generating energy.  We should also be researching nuclear and cleaner coal and cleaner natural gas and anything else that comes along.  The more options we have, the more secure, and less expensive, our energy becomes.

All told, this is the final point. We don't need to argue about Global Warming.  Climatologist will continue to research it and other researchers will continue to figure out how to stop it.  In the end, if it is truly so severe that we need direct action (here I'm referring to some of the more outlandish plans, like seeding the clouds to thicken them and cool the planet) it won't matter whether this is anthropogenic or natural, we'll take action to sustain society.  In the meantime, we should all be taking steps to reduce our energy consumption; even if you don't believe we're affecting the climate, it's still a rational fiscal and health decision.

Ukrainian Maidans and Why We Should Care About Them

Ukraine

In keeping with my tradition of timeliness (which, in my defense, is improving), we're going to talk about Ukraine, the situation therein, the history thereof, and why it matters to us.  There are a number of reasons that this is a challenging post for me to write.  First, it turns out I don't know that much about Ukraine that doesn't involve a Risk board.  Second, I'm not well versed in foreign policy or the relevant entanglements that the US has in Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  I'm sure it was included in the things that I was taught, but my true love was energy policy and the rest of the world fell into a bucket with economics of "things that are important that I hope someone else is caring about.  That said, when I asked for a topic, I was given a choice between Ukraine and Venezuela, so here we are.

As it turns out, in researching for this post, the little that I do know about Ukraine is not entirely useless knowledge.  [Token side note, Ukraine is typically considered to be derived from the word for "border" as stated by basically everyone who has written or spoken about the situation in the last month.]  Let's start with the Risk board.  Situated neatly as the entirety of Eastern Europe, Ukraine serves as the buffer between Europe and Asia while technically being part of Europe and, while Europe is relatively secure with just their own territories, Asia is essentially uncontrollable unless you also control Ukraine.  [Second side note, it is officially "Ukraine" not "The Ukraine" since 1991.]  While Risk is certainly not the same as reality, the need and desire for Russia to control or influence the country bears a striking parallel, as does the lack of interest from Europe.  Europe is perfectly happy with a Ukraine that is free, independent, and doing it's own thing while Russia really needs a Ukraine that is actively friendly toward it, if not outright dependent.

At this point, it is worth noting that this type of conflict in this region is not new. The Ruin of the 17th Century, The Great Northern War of the 18th Century, The Crimean War of the 19th Century, and the Iron Curtain post WWII in the 20th century.  All of these conflicts or arrangements were, at least in part, over who would control the borderlands.  Come to the present and Ukraine is finally coming into it's own.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have been coming in to their own.  They have substantial productive farm land, the third largest total area in Europe, and the 9th largest population.  More importantly, they're one of the few economies in Europe that has been growing consistently since the last crash that hit all of Europe in 2008.

Maidans

So if that's a brief (and probably overly simplified, if not outright wrong) summary of Ukraine, what are the Maidans?  In short, the Maidans that we're talking about are the current protests.  They have been named after the central square in Kiev that has been a focal point for the current movement (as well as most of the ones in the last 30 years, it's a popular place to protest in Ukraine), the Maidan Nezalezhnosti.  So why are they protesting?  That gets complicated, but the short answer is because half of Ukraine wants to take support from Europe while the other half wants to get the support from Russia. The Ukrainian government had been leaning toward Europe, but that angered Russia who started withholding their trading opportunities.  That dramatically hurt their economy which led to a reversal to accept support from Russia instead of Europe.

As it turns out, both sides had strings attached to their financial support.  Europe tied their support to laws requiring Ukraine to become a freer nation, and Russia tied theirs to not being friendly to Europe.  I would imagine that this is a bit like finding oneself trying to choose between the pretentious snob who wants to tell us how we can be a better person and the insecure bully who will take his toys and leave if you're friends with anyone other than just him.  Ukraine is stuck in the middle where what it probably needs is to just be left alone to pull itself together as a modern nation and not be controlled by either side.  The protesters against the Russian influence appear to be of a mind that at least the snob doesn't make threats when he doesn't get what he wants, making Europe the better choice for support.

Then things got messy.  Ukrainians who favored Europe protested, and Russia, for lack of a better term, invaded.  Why Russia invaded is a matter of debate. Russia claims they're just there to keep the peace (or they're not there at all, those soldiers are just pretending to be Russian).  The popular view seems to be that they're hoping to scare enough Ukrainians that the protesters will lose and Ukraine will continue to seek support from Russia.  (Personally, I just think Putin is an egomaniac who wants to reclaim the lost territories of the USSR under the Russian flag, but that doesn't seem to be a popular view.)

Why Do We Care?

Why do we (being the US) care about Ukrainian political protests?  Primarily because Russia, even post cold-war, scares the crap out of us.  We don't want them too weak because we don't want chaos in a country with that many nuclear weapons, but we don't want them any stronger than they have to be either.  If they get stronger we are weaker by comparison.  Our interest is not in the Ukraine, it is in Westernizing the former Soviet Bloc with a long term goal of Westernizing Russia itself.  We don't want a Russia that we're just "not at war" with, we want them to genuinely like us so we don't have to worry about them going rogue (again, they have a lot of nukes).

Why does Europe care? Europe has more pragmatic interests in the area.  A stable Ukraine with a healthy economy and friendly European relations is good for everyone.  That said, Europe doesn't really care if Ukraine is also friendly with Russia.  The stronger the Ukrainian economy, the better for Europe, as long as Europe isn't blocked out of the deal entirely by Russian influence.

It's important for us to care about what is going on on the other side of the world, but it's more important for us to care for the right reasons.  This isn't about us or them. It isn't about whether we want Russia or Europe to come out better in the deal, this is about Ukraine getting the opportunity to decide for itself where it wants to stand and letting it make that decision without the threat of repercussions from outside influences.

This is not a Novel, I am not a Writer, and Congress is apparently not a Government

Welcome to day one.

So, for a variety of personal reasons, I have decided to participate in National Novel Writing Month this year... sort of.  First I should take a moment to explain NaNoWriMo to those who don't know (and can't be bothered to look it up).  It is, in short, an excuse to use crappy November weather as motivation to stay inside and write like mad to the tune of 50,000 words in a month, or a ballpark of 1,700 words per day and at the end of the month have something resembling a short novel (or a long novella, it appears to depend on who you ask with novelists scoffing at 50,000 word novels and everyone else agreeing that 40,000 is the barrier, but I digress).

I say "sort of" regarding my participation because while I am challenging myself to sit and write, in volume, every day for the month of November, this is not going to be a novel or anything resembling one.  I am not a fiction writer, or more accurately, I am not a dialogue writer.  I can write a nice, compelling short story, but 200+ pages without a single conversation would be painful to read, let alone write.  So, those expectations being set aside, my goal this month is to write 2000 words per day, every day on the kinds of topics that I've written about before.  Politics, current events, possibly some things about science and technology, and, if all else fails, random thoughts about life.

When I agreed to do this, it didn't seem like too big of a deal, I like to write, and I have wanted to get back to writing on here anyway so it seemed like a great idea.  After all, how hard can 2000 words be to write?  Well, for perspective, my last post was just over 1000 words and took me two days of intermittent writing to finish (a fact that disheartened me more than a little when I realized how short it was).

The other part of NaNoWriMo that I'm going to buy into is creating entirely new content.  I have at least a few posts that are half finished from the last few months that never quite got finished.  I don't plan on using any of those this month to cheat on my word count.  If any of them do get fleshed out, then I will only be counting the new content toward my total (so if you see any 3000 word posts, that's probably why).

So, now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's move on to something lighter like... the government shutdown.  Okay, so I know it's over already, and I should have written this a month ago, but November is young and this will probably come up again soon enough.

I guess that the easiest way to break down the government shutdown is by the fundamentals; who, what, where, when, and why.

The why is actually the easiest part to understand for once so we'll start there.  The short answer is, of course, Obamacare, with some side arguments on the Debt Ceiling (again) and, in more general terms, spending.  Of all the shocking parts of the shutdown, perhaps the most shocking was the lack of depth to any of the underlying problems.  Republicans in broad, general terms oppose government spending, and that's okay.  There is nothing inherently terrible about believing in a government that can operate smaller and more efficiently than it currently is.  Unfortunately we seem to have reached a point where that is their only concern.  A large section of the Republican party (I'm look at you Tea Partiers) seem to currently believe that the only responsibility of Congress is to spend less money, slash expenditures, then slash taxes, any spending is bad spending.  That view is, and I’ll be generous, simplistic.  To that end, obviously they inherently oppose Obamacare (Spending money to help poor people? Egad!) and, less rationally, raising the debt limit.  With those forces combined (and the need to have something resembling a budget for next year) the House Republicans promptly jammed their fingers in their ears, stuck out their tongues and refuse to act like adults, let alone congressmen.  (I don't live in DC, so I'm just assuming about the fingers in the ears part.)

I can understand Republicans opposing Obamacare; it's a massive bill that involves the Government spending money to meddle in otherwise free(ish) markets.  It would be shocking if they didn't oppose it, but it passed and they've failed 46(?) times to repeal it.  That is a truly remarkable level of ineffectiveness, but in researching this, they seem to believe the next time they'll finally hit that football (just like they did after attempts 30, 41, and 45, and those were only the ones I stumbled across trying to find the most recent number.  (That analogy doesn't really work, there's no Lucy pulling away the ball, they're just a delusional Charlie Brown kicking over and over again and hoping someone feels sorry for them and puts a football in front of their foot.)  That's a reasonable, if somewhat sad principle to stand on.

That brings me back to the Debt Ceiling.  First of all, let's just establish that the Debt Ceiling is awful.  It is bad policy.  As with many things that are awful, it started as an attempt to avoid fighting in Congress; specifically, over loans required to run the country.  I'm going to let that sink in...  Before 1917 Congress approved borrowing when it was needed.  In what now appears to have been misguided optimism, Congress approved the Second Liberty Bond Act to establish that the Treasury could just go ahead and borrow whatever was needed up to a specified limit.  And, shockingly, it worked just fine; at least until 1974.  That was when congress established a new budget process through the Budget Act of 1974.  At that point Congress had managed to create a process where they required two separate and unrelated bills to pass a budget.  One to create the budget and spend the money and a separate bill to actually approve borrowing the money they just spent.  From 1979 to 1995, they bypassed this (wisely, in hindsight) with the Gephardt Rule, essentially saying 'if we pass the budget we must, obviously be willing to borrow what is needed to pay for it'.  Congressional Republicans, because apparently they were crazy before the Tea Party, decided that was too easy and split the votes back apart.  So now, just shy of 100 years later we find ourselves with a Congress that can't manage to cut spending, but can, somehow, manage to refuse to pay for their spending after the fact.  This is why the debt ceiling is not the same as a credit limit.  We're not buying things on credit cards; we're essentially buying things on our word.  Buying them with little more than a "no really, I'm totally good for that" and we get away with it because, well, we have been.  Refusing to raise the Debt Ceiling is Congress saying "thanks for that stuff you gave us; we're not going to pay you for it".  If the Republicans had a problem with the spending, they could have addressed it in a budget, but they didn't, so to come back now and claim to be fiscally responsible by refusing to pay what has already been spent is just flat out disingenuous.

So that was the easy part.  Now for the Who did What, When and Where.  (In the following paragraph, you might notice a lot of Republican names and very few Democrats, ponder that if you're trying to figure out who to blame over the fiasco.)  The only word for the lead up to the shutdown that seems appropriate is "plodding".  It wasn't sudden, it wasn't shocking, and it wasn't effective.  The buildup started over the summer with letters of commitment to de-fund Obamacare that were circulated by Senators Lee, Cruz, Rubio, and Paul, and Representative Meadows.  These letters formalized a written opposition to Obamacare, just in case anyone was confused about where they stood after the first 40-odd actual votes on repealing it.  So, come October 1st the Republicans refused to approve any budget that did not rescind funds from Obamacare.  The Democrats apparently found a spine somewhere and decided that this time they were going to stand up and say "no".

A brief aside about defunding versus repealing:  At this point, the Republicans were not trying to repeal the law, just take away the money to pay for it.  Essentially, Obamacare would have still been the law of the land, but no money would have been allocated to make it actually usable (and they're having enough problems even with the money, but more on that tomorrow).

So the Republicans said "you can't have money for Obamacare", the Democrats said "yeah... we can" and... that's basically it for 16 days.  I'm certain the negotiations were more in depth than that, but when you strip away all of the fluff, that's what is left.  Intermittent bills were introduced to fund certain things, primarily to relieve constituent pressure, which were primarily rebuffed by Senate Democrats. And so, 16 days later, they passed the bill that functionally said "we can keep paying for things the same as we are now", the same bill that some (on both sides of the aisle) had called for before the shutdown.

So, the good news, it got resolved without any major harm on a national level.  I have no doubt that those directly affected by the shutdown, the federal employees, were in a bad way through no fault of their own but it could have been much worse.  Unfortunately, there's still bad news.  It will happen again.  And again.  And again.  This isn't the last debt limit crisis, nor is it the last shutdown.  These are the new tactics of the Republican Congressmen and they'll be reelected and reinforced.  They'll be reelected because nearly all incumbents are, to the tune of 91% in the last election.  Americans, as a rule, hate Congress but love their own Congressmen.  They'll be reinforced because, even if it was a spectacularly bad plan, Cruz et al did actually DO something.  Or at least they tried to.  Even in districts where the incumbent loses, the Tea Party is likely to gain seats.  They're more likely to gain from within the Republican Party than from the Democrats, but either way we're going to end up seeing more of this unless some dire consequences finally come to pass.

There is a bright side though.  Most of the problem Republicans want to be President in 2016.  There's always the possibility that they'll take themselves out of Congress to run and tear each other apart in the primaries without leaving any room to recover.  As long as nothing goes wrong before then...

1,820/60,000

The Conversation on Race and Hanlon's Razor

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Welcome to 2013, where Americans are, once again, calling for a national, local, personal, conversation on race.  Every time this comes up I find myself rolling my eyes, sighing, and waiting for it to pass.  Unfortunately, this time it seems to be a little more persistent than the last few times, so I got past that and into the question of "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean".

First, a disclaimer.  I'm a young, white, male; I won't be claiming to understand what racial prejudice feels like.

Now that that's out of the way, let's start with something, 90% of us can agree on (I made up that statistic, but it isn't relevant to my immediate point).  Racism is bad.  I know that seems trite, but I'm afraid that if I don't say it explicitly, someone might misunderstand my point.  If we can agree on at least that point, then we have a starting point for a conversation on race, which brings be back to the question, "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean" and the follow up question of "what does 'a conversation on race' look like".

On a national level, I don't think a conversation on race can happen.  At least not right now.  And why?  Because no one at a national level actually wants to have one.  Realistically, neither side (Democrat or Republican) has anything to gain by resolving racial conflict.  The Democrats can count on racial tension to galvanize their base (regardless of race, all true Democrats hate racism and injustice with righteous fury).  Meanwhile the Republicans, with their decidedly rockier relationships with minorities in general, can count on playing the 'playing the race card' card to rile up their own base.  Since both sides benefit from the controversy, I can't see either side truly investing in actually addressing it.  If the cynicism of that offends you... well... this is called "The Cynical Hammer", what did you expect?

Okay, but if we rule it out at a national level, we can still have this conversation at a local or personal level, right?  Yes... maybe.

On a local political level, these conversations happen when they're needed, without the national call to action.  When there is a race problem in a city, the city... eventually... addresses it.  I think there's plenty of room to improve on that process, but that is going to rely on the personal conversations.  Cities develop problems of race, not because they're led by cackling hooded figures who swear their allegiance to the Klan, but because they honestly don't see the policies and practices as racist or even creating a racial bias.  If you want to have a constructive conversation about those policies, they need to be approached as well-meaning, but ignorant, not malicious.  Accusations of deliberate racism are only met with defensive posturing and denial.  Instead of bringing accusations, bring data, bring evidence that; well meaning as the policy surely was, it is clearly failing on racial lines.  I know that places the burden on the victims to prove that they are victims, but we're at a point where we're not dealing with deliberate racism (for the most part), we're dealing with institutional, incidental, and accidental racism, and it needs to be addressed as such.

That brings me to the point of the personal level of conversations.  First, we should accept that racism is never going to go away completely.  People are typically hardwired to relate better to things that are similar to themselves and there will always be a certain, subconscious level, that feels that way.  The best we can really hope for is to relegate it to the same level of importance as differences in height.  Second, we should accept that both sides are probably going to have valid opinions and that disagreeing on something is not inherently racist.  Third, and most importantly, we absolutely must accept that discussing these issues and asking questions does not make someone a racist or even intolerant.  We will not move forward until we can accept that sometimes people don't know they're being offensive.  Accusing or scorning individuals for trying to improve their attitudes only discourages them from trying.

And both sides need to take responsibility for their part in the conversation.  When a white guy reaches out and says "how can I be less offensive" someone should take the time to answer the question.  All too often the attitude seems to be "you should already know that, how dare you ask" and, you know what, yes, maybe they should, but they don't, and they're asking, so answer the damn question.  And, when they don't ask and they're way out of line, say something.  Say it politely, but firmly, and repeatedly if necessary.

In conclusion, I'm going to relate a pair of anecdotes.  I'm not going to claim that in every circumstance that racism and homophobia parallel.  I don't think they do, because there is something to be said for the fact that you can't necessarily identify a gay guy or a lesbian on sight.

First, I want to vouch for the effectiveness of honest conversations about offensive things.  In college my fraternity, spurred by drunken antics, periodically threw informal "ask a gay guy" sessions.  The questions ranged from benign to raunchy, from mechanics of how things work in bed to the social norms on who pays for dinner, and they touched on what is and isn't offensive.  And people left knowing more than when they came in.  Some took it to heart, some didn't, but they were productive enough to happen periodically.  It is always better to ask the question and get the answer, than to make an assumption and be wrong.

Second, I had a roommate who knew I was gay, that idly, and with know malice towards me, would resort to using "fag" as a synonym for "idiot".  I politely, repeatedly, and firmly reminded him that was offensive.  (OK, I hit him in the arm with a wiffle ball bat every time he did it, but it was college and that was relatively polite.)  He finally snapped that I would never change the world.  My retort, and I wish I had this much wit most of the time, was "I'm not trying to change the world, I only need to change you".  And that, ultimately, is the truth here.  Racism, and all prejudice, born out of ignorance, can't be fixed at a national level.  It can only be fixed by one person reaching out to another; by one person saying "this is something I don't know how to address appropriately" and another saying "that's okay, this is how".

Obama vs. Romney

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.

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:

1. Is gun control effective, and if so, what is the tipping point of effectiveness?
2. 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.

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.

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.

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:

"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.

Why Democrats lose in Massachusetts: Reprise

Well it's been a while again, but life happens sometimes and the political world has been, well, dull lately. Okay, maybe not to some of you who care about things like "Health Care" or "Haiti" but for me, they just aren't the same as a good Energy Policy debate or a really interesting election.

For those of you who don't remember, I wrote a bit back in 2008 about why Democrats lose in Massachusetts. If you don't, well, I gave you a link, go read, I'll wait.

Done? Good. (Spoiler alert, that isn't what happened this time.)

So there was a special election to fill the empty seat of Ted Kennedy in the Senate. You've probably heard about it in the vast amounts of news. I was home a week or so before the election, just when the national news started to pay attention and asked around a bit to see what was going on. There was a general lack of concern. Everyone was generally dismissive of Scott Brown's chances, regardless of what the polls said.

Now that he's won the media is scrambling all over itself to explain why this happened and are grasping at reasons. I haven't heard anyone get it right yet. They call it a "national referendum" and a "judgment on Obama" and other high and mighty things.

The truth is (as I've mentioned briefly in the past) Massachusetts is a contrarian state. It was bad enough when Coakley acted like she was a sure thing and didn't even need to bother convincing anyone. That, probably, could've been forgiven. But when the national media started paying attention because it could change the "critical vote" on Health Care and wrote Brown off as a convincing, but likely unelectable underdog... that was when Coakley lost.

To the rest of the country this was an election about health care reform and partisan politics. In Massachusetts, this was a big ol' middle finger to the rest of the country. It's not that we from the Bay State don't like the rest of you or want you to have health care reform, we just hate being told what to do and REALLY hate being told why to do it.

Massachusetts already has progressive health care. They didn't need to elect someone to the senate for that. The rest of the country decided that was the issue Massachusetts was voting on, but the reality is that it wouldn't have really affected them. Massachusetts was voting on all of the other issues they disagree with Scott Brown on, but mostly they were voting to prove that they don't have to do what everyone else thinks they'll do.

It's the economy. Stupid?

Alright, so I have a confession. I don't understand economics. I seem to have an actual, physical, allergy to it. Whenever people start to talk about it my brain tries to crawl out of my head through my ear. This is why I haven't written anything about it recently. But my 'wait and hope it goes away' approach seems to have failed so I asked a few people to dumb it down for me.

Apparently the mess started when the banks lent out more money than they actually had. It seems they can do this because they were lending out against the promise of other loans being paid back sooner or something like that. Then the housing bubble burst and the lending house of cards imploded.

This brings us to the bailout. Basically the problem is that the banks have no real value. The loans exist in some quantum state of both having a value and being worthless at the same time. So the government is stepping in by buying Schrodinger's loans. By buying these loans the government is giving banks real value and thus ensuring that they are not dead cats.

Personally I don't worry too much about where the government finds the money to pay for the 700 billion dollar bill. I expect it will be paid for by the same people who pay for everything else the government does for me, namely my children and their children. I would worry for them, but we have a long tradition of passing on bills like this and I expect them to do the same to their offspring.

Well at Least They're Safe...

Right, so it's been a few months since I've written anything and I'm sorry about that, but the elections got boring. For the first time in my memory we had two nominees who won on moderate platforms. Both McCain and Obama had independents to thank for their early wins. Granted their moderate platforms were very different. Obama was running on a platform of change and hope while McCain ran on what I can only describe as curmudgeony experience.

Sadly they are still boring. I had high hopes for the VP choices. They really could have woken up the moderate center of America that is tired of far left/far right politics. They could have made a real effort at reuniting the country. They decided not to.

Obama, candidate of change, hope, and vague idealism. His VP choice: Joe Biden, epitome of Washington Establishmentism. I have nothing against Biden really, but he doesn't fit with a platform of change. He's been in the Senate for 35 years. The only interesting part of his selection as VP is watching the liberal media outlets bend over backwards to paint him as a "Washington Outsider". Apparently going home regularly (he lives a whole 2 hours away) is enough to keep you "outside" in Washington.

Meanwhile over in McCain land we witness the candidate of EXPERIENCE (said in a loud booming voice). His VP choice: Sarah Palin the first term governor of Alaska. Apparently she's some kind of darling for the social conservatives, but again, she doesn't fit with a platform of experience. She's been Governor of Alaska for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town about half the size of my college for 6 years. Again, however, it is entertaining to watch the conservative media outlets bend over backwards to paint her as experienced. Apparently she's better than Obama or Biden because two years is more than either of them (or McCain) has in the executive branch. Also, it's apparently worth noting that since Alaska is so close to Russia, she has foreign policy experience, in much the same way that everyone living next to the ocean is an Olympic Swimmer.

In conclusion, I'm still utterly disappointed in the candidates. Maybe one of them will excite me by November... but I doubt it.

The Theory of Mediocrity

I've been working on this post for almost a month now and suffering from severe writer's block.

It seems like every few months some politician or pundit starts ranting about science that they clearly don't entirely understand. The outcome tends to range from humorous to downright terrifying. Take, for instance, the "series of tubes" incident from a couple years ago. It was relatively painless and everyone had a few laughs at the 84 year old senator's expense. (Ironically the series of tubes analogy is actually a fairly good, if overly simplistic, one.) But Senator Stevens clearly had no idea what he was talking so vehemently about. That's a dangerous situation with a relatively simple solution. We need to learn to trust scientists again.

I don't know when we stopped trusting scientists, but (as I often do) I blame the 80's. More accurately, I blame Reagan. Sure, it probably isn't his fault, but the culture that decided to elect an actor over a navy man who did his post-grad work in nuclear engineering has clearly been convinced that scientists are not to be trusted. Since then, and for as long as I've been alive, it's been an ongoing discussion of elitist attitudes.

I actually had someone ask me the other day why I should trust the experts on a topic over someone with a business degree. He called me an elitist and accused me of looking down on business majors. He didn't seem to care that it was a question of constitutional law, and when I offered to defer to his expertise on business questions he thought it was all a big joke.

Let's face it, experts are not always right, but as a general rule they know a lot more than the general public does on their subject. That is, after all, why they are called experts. They've typically gone to school for many years on their subject, and generally worked in the field as well. They don't just walk in off the street, declare themselves experts, and start pontificating on the subject (well, not usually).

Don't misunderstand me however, I'm not saying experts should control everything. Scientists are not necessarily good leaders, those are two unrelated skills. A good leader however should trust his advisers. A good leader doesn't have to be the smartest person in the room, in fact a good leader only needs to be smart enough to surround himself with people who are smarter than him and then listen to them.

We, as a society, need to stop punishing elitists. We need to stop beating up the smart kids in elementary school. We need to start rewarding the best and brightest instead of just the ones with a good throwing arm or the ones who can hit a fastball. We need to stop giving jobs to people who look and sound like us and start giving them to the awkward people who can do the work twice as well. And finally, we need to stop electing the people who make good drinking buddies and start electing the people who can outsmart us all.

My Words, Like Silent Raindrops, Fell

Okay so tomorrow is the "Day of Silence". The whole event is based on ending discrimination in highschools and colleges against GLBT students. It's certainly a noble cause and something that more people should put effort into. They point out that one of the biggest factors is that no one talks about the problems that GLBT students face. They have therefor chosen the only natural form of protest, being silent.

I'm going to give you a minute to let that sink in.

Yes, they're trying to fix too much silence by being deliberately silent. They explain it best on their "speaking cards":

"Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?"

This message always bothered me. The whole concept that people notice silence seems to fly in the face of their problem that no one is noticing the silence. There isn't much more I can say on this. GLBT students need to be noticed. Stand up. Speak, shout, yell at the top of your lungs if you have to. Do anything other than stay silent.

That Thing You Do

In the ongoing saga that is the Democratic primary we finally have something new to talk about. Pennsylvania, home to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and probably a couple people who live in between. In the latest battle of what I expect will be a grand lesson in Pyrrhic victories Clinton has once again proven that she wins in urban areas. Anyone that was surprised she won has either slept through the last three months or they've been drinking a bit too much of Obama's Kool-Aid.

At this point one of them really needs to bite the bullet and bow out. There are valid arguments for either one of them getting the nomination, but neither one of them is willing to make that admission. Obama is in the lead with the delegates and if the general election were a national popular vote he would be the clear choice. Unfortunately for Obama we don't have a national popular election. We have an electoral college with winner take all systems in most states. Obama has won the primaries in 26 states at this point compared to Clinton's 15. But is it a question of quantity or quality?

Of those 26 primaries, Obama has won in 12 states that are considered "safe" by the Republicans. In other words, no matter how badly he beat Clinton there, he won't win them in November. Additionally 9 of the states he won are considered "safe" by the Democrats. By comparison Clinton won 3 "safe" Republican states and 5 "safe" Democrat states. I'm choosing to ignore the "safe" states for the same reason the candidates will in the fall. They're almost guaranteed to go to their party.

This leaves Obama with 5 swing states and Clinton with 7. The only swing state that has yet to vote is West Virginia which I will predict with relative certainty that it will go to Obama. In fact, while I'm here making predictions, I also predict Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, and North Carolina will go to Obama. I'm hedging my bets on Oregon and Indiana which I think could go either way.

Now then, assuming Obama takes West Virginia we have 6 swing states vs 7 swing states. They are: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Obama took Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia for a total of 55 Electoral College votes.

Clinton took Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas for a total of 95 Electoral College votes.

To put this in perspective, the required number to win is 270 Electoral College votes and the "safe" democrat states account come to 201 Electoral College votes. Furthermore the last 2 elections were decided by less than 40 Electoral College votes. Now, this isn't to say that Obama or Clinton wouldn't take the swing states they lost in the primary, but they'd certainly have an easier time winning states that already voted for them once.

I also feel obliged to point out that had Florida and Michigan not been so Earth shatteringly stupid in holding their primaries early, Clinton's Electoral College total would get another 44 vote bump. In the end, while I think Clinton is more electable, I think it's more important that it be decided before the convention. The democrats are shaping up to throw away the easiest victory they've had in years with this dirty campaigning and that's bad politics.

The China Syndrome

Alright, so apparently Beijing is hosting the summer Olympics this year. I don't think this is news to anyone but it's more interesting than anything that's been going on in the presidential election lately. It seems people with too much money and/or time on their hands (i.e. protesters) have a problem with China's handling of Tibet, Taiwan, Darfur, Human Rights, and the Spanish Inquisition.

It really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been awake at some point in the last 50 years that China doesn't have the most stellar record on dealing with problems the way Americans and Europeans think they should. But with a population the size of Europe and North America combined but only 1/4 the GDP it's a bit ill-conceived to expect them to react the same way (and that's before we even talk about the societal and governmental differences).

Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending the Chinese actions or positions, just trying to point out the western hypocrisies on the issue. Is China mishandling some of these situations? Almost certainly. If the Olympics weren't being held only months before a presidential election would we still hear politicians crowing about it? Almost certainly not.

Let's face it, as Americans we don't care about other countries unless they get our attention for some reason. There's a lot of talk about saving the people in Darfur but when it comes right down to it we have a "not my problem" attitude. We can't fix Darfur without significant military force and, ironically, most of the people who protest the genocide are also opposed to military force. This leaves me with a conundrum as to how they expect us to fix things. Are we supposed to stand at the border and yell at them until they do what we want?

So now China is hosting the Olympics and people are suddenly concerned about all of their problems. Naturally they're addressing their concerns in the only most reasonable of ways, by harassing the Olympic Torch relay. In the end no big sweeping changes will come from the protests. They aren't going to affect national or international policies because as soon as the Olympics are over the attention will be gone and people will still be dying.

That money thing...

Okay, so there's a new commercial on the radio around here that states (in short) "Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes." I think it's safe to say that no one likes paying taxes. I certainly don't, and I doubt anyone else does, but they're a necessary evil if we want the government to do everything it does. (If we don't, we should probably stop re-electing the people who keep increasing spending.)

In New York the highest income tax bracket pays 7.7% on top of the 35% they pay to the national government. The average tax payer (I'm guessing here but the 20-100 thousand per year range seems about average [30-75 thousand national]) pays 6.85% on top of the 25% they pay to the national government. Now they want to increase taxes on the rich, and I'm all in favor of that. They have plenty of money, they can afford to pay more than I can. That said, they are already paying their fair share. In fact they're paying more than their fair share. By definition a "fair" tax would be completely level across the board. This is almost universally denounced as unfair to poor people.

Most people, even the more liberal members of the wealthy, will agree that the rich ought to pay more in taxes. They should pay more because they can pay more. I have less of a problem with the income tax than I have with the taxation process. My biggest problem is that it's so (expletive) confusing. It shouldn't require a Master's degree in accounting to figure out the tax forms. Granted, I don't understand the tax code well enough to know how to make the tax code easier to understand.

The only proposal that I actually understand is eliminating the income tax and implementing a consumption tax. I understand this well enough to know that it sounds like an excellent idea right until you actually try to do it. The proponents like to mention the good points like taxing the underground economy (Drugs, sex, and general misconduct) and that it's fair to everyone because it's based on how much is spent not how much is earned. They tend to leave out the parts like severe 5-10 year recessions associated with drastic changes in tax codes.

Do you Spitzer swallow?

This is overdue but you aren't paying me so tough.

Alright so Eliot Spitzer, former District Attorney, former Attorney General, and now former Governor. I'm glad he agreed to resign. He certainly didn't deserve to keep his position after the whole scandal. Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually care that he committed adultery, that's between him and his wife. I don't even care that he hired a prostitute, if someone wants to sell themselves for sex I think it's their own choice (forced prostitution is clearly not their choice and a different issue entirely). As far as I'm concerned he needed to step down because he was stupid about it. I mean really, why does the governor of New York need to hire a prostitute? I thought that was what they had interns for.

All joking aside, he really was an idiot. He should've known better than to use wire transfers much less prostitutes. He prosecuted prostitution rings so he knew what they were capable of finding out. Really it isn't his immorality or his philandering that bothers me; it's his apparent incompetence in his former jobs. I can excuse his indiscretions, but I can't excuse his poor judgment in being indiscreet.

The delusion of Maggie Brooks

"I can assure you that our decision to appeal was not based on any moral judgment."
~Maggie Brooks, Monroe County Executive

Now if I were feeling tactless I would accuse Maggie Brooks of being a liar for saying that and a political opportunist (at best) or a bigot (at worst) for actually filing the appeal. But I'm not tactless, just passive aggressive enough to make the implication before the actual argument. This isn't the only quote she gave on the matter but everyone else seems to be focused on the one about the taxpayers so out of sheer contrarianism I'm using that one.

Maggie Brooks is trying to have her cake and eat it too. She expect us to believe that, even though she’s suing to prevent out of state gay marriages from being accepted in New York. (They were recently approved in a 5-0 court decision.) The problem is that her argument isn’t with all out of state marriages, just with some of them. She isn’t trying to say that all Canadian or Massachusetts marriages are invalid in New York, just the gay ones. Legally I’d expect that argument to be on shaky ground. The decision that she’s appealing basically said that to discriminate against gay marriages was unconstitutional. The only counter argument is that discrimination against homosexuals is constitutional and that sets an uncomfortable precedent.

She’s trying to explain this away as a non-moral decision. She’s trying not to alienate too many of the gay voters while appeasing the conservative voters. She can almost get away with it by saying she’s only representing the will of the people. The problem is that “the people” are basing their “will” on moral grounds. Either she genuinely thinks that it doesn’t matter why the people hold an opinion (she’s an empty suit), she doesn’t know what their opinion is based on (she’s an idiot), or she thinks she can weasel her way out of a firm stance (she’s a politician).

I can’t really blame her for being a politician. It is her job after all. I do however think she’s a bit delusional if she thinks a blatant pander to the anti-gay conservatives in the county can be played off so easily. With the whole controversy over the gay bashing and the police scandal that followed the whole issue is a bit touchy lately. If she isn’t careful she could reignite those feelings enough to hurt her in her next election.