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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Media Monsters

According to the mainstream media the democratic race is all but over and Obama has already won. To be fair, they already called it over in Clinton's favor 6 months ago. In much the same way the Republican nominee was guaranteed to be McCain only after it was guaranteed to be Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani.

I've made no attempt to hide the fact that Obama is not my favorite candidate. I don't want him to get the nomination but if he does I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. That said, I don't think his current bounce in the polls has much to do with him gaining any ground. Sure he's won a lot of states in a row, but most of those are less populous states in fly-over-country. In other words, he's winning in states that he can't take in the fall anyway, the republican party is too good at uniting behind a candidate (even if they don't entirely like him) to allow inroads into the solidly red states. Clinton on the other hand has been doing well in the larger / more populous states (NY, CA, NJ, MA) as well as the swing states (PA, MI, FL, OH).

The largest states Obama has taken are Illinois, Georgia, and Virginia. In terms of the electoral college those are almost worth California (49 vs 55). Until the last week of nearly incessant reporting on how many states (regardless of their delegate counts or usefulness in the fall) Obama has taken in a row, Clinton was leading by a significant margin in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas.

I hate to say that some states don't matter but its the truth. No democrat is going to take Georgia or Texas or most of the Midwest. No republican is going to take New York or Massachusetts or most of the Northeast. The only states with significant electoral votes (more than 15) that swing are Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The other states are either predictably red/blue with minimal effort or so small that they aren't worth the time and money to sway.

The Post I Really Hoped I Wouldn't Have to Write

This wasn't supposed to happen again. At the very least it shouldn't have happened before the conventions. It's that time of the election season again The third party kook of the year throws his hat into the ring. I use kook in the nicest possible way. For the most part these are or at least were at one time perfectly reasonable candidates that have decided to eschew the two major parties. Generally they claim this is a principled stance. They say that the two major parties are corrupt and that only an outside influence can save Washington. I'm fairly certain that they're delusional. Modern third party candidates seem to have been born with both a messiah and a martyr complex. They feel it is their duty to change everything and that only they can save us from the two party system. They also feel that the only way to save us is to stand alone and die (at least politically) for their cause.

Personally I find it is generally more productive to actually be in a position to effect change than to make a principled stand. Making a stand on principles has a place. In order for it to be effective there has to be someone to take up your cause for you. The whole point of a principled stand is to set yourself up for failure and, in the process, propel your ideals into power.

Nader has once again decided to run, thus dashing my hopes for a reasonable 3rd party candidate. (Not that I would've voted for them, but it would've been interesting to write about.) Nader is running on the platform (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Get off my lawn you whippersnappers!' Now there's probably more to his platform than that but honestly I don't care that much. He can claim to be a serious candidate all he wants, and there was probably even a time when that was true, but that time has long since passed.

I'm not one of those who blames Nader for Gore losing in Florida in 2000. Had Nader not run, Gore probably would have won the state, but, if Gore had been a stronger candidate Nader wouldn't have made a difference. I am however tired of his soapbox. There are few things that annoy me more than people who adamantly refuse to help change what they complain about. Nader shows up every four years and complains about corruption and environmentalism then drops back off the radar. I'm sure he's keeping busy with charitable works and all that, but if he cares enough about the political scene in Washington he should make an effort to get there. Running for Governor, or the Senate, or the House of Representatives would be a start in taking his message out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of action.

This is the general problem third party candidates (and their staunch supporters) always seem to have. Instead of building a base of support, working their way through the lower levels of government, they try to shoot the moon and hope a base fills in underneath them. They never seem to understand that they can't overcome governmental inertia by sheer force of will. Most of these third parties aren't unreasonable; they could build that base; but no one has the patience for it. When everyone demands their specific changes immediately none of the changes get made. Compromise and patience may not be the most appealing answers, but it's the only way to make actual progress.

DOMA, DADT, and Penguins...

I'm reluctant to write about the Defense of Marriage Act because, to be perfectly honest, I don't fully understand it. I never did understand it really, it always seemed to me to run directly against the Full Faith and Credit Clause. According to some sources, DOMA may be unconstitutional but irrelevant. Apparently there is a long standing precedent of public policy exceptions that states are not required to recognize out of state marriages that would not be permitted in their state. It may have served simply to codify a precedent that was already in place. If that's the case, then DOMA was nothing more than a publicity stunt to mollify the conservatives without directly outlawing gay marriage. In any case its probably a moot point now. DOMA isn't going to be repealed any time soon, certainly not until more states recognize gay marriages.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell I feel much more comfortable working with. I don't question it on constitutional or legal grounds, I think it stands pretty solidly there. I do however question the wisdom of DADT on the grounds of it being monumentally stupid. At the time it was made it was a weak, if arguably necessary, compromise between the extremes on either side. Now it's become a ridiculous joke that costs the country money and troops that could potentially make a difference with the war going on. The whole premise is that if soldiers knew their comrade was gay, it would hurt morale and they wouldn't be able to trust him any more. They'd be too afraid that the scary gay man might look at them in the showers to do their jobs properly. Am I honestly supposed to believe that the army is full of people who would have a nervous breakdown in a typical high school gym class? Let's face it, in an average sized high school of let's say, 1000 students, between 10 and 100 of them are likely to be gay. The odds are most of those students know at least one of them and many know at least one that is openly gay. If a 14 year old walked into gym class or a sports team and refused to play with the gay kid, it wouldn't be the gay kid who gets in trouble. If we can expect 14 year olds to suck it up and work with gay guys their own age, why can't we expect it of grown men? If our armed forces are less mature than 14 year olds, we really need to rethink the quality of recruits we look for.

So the book about the gay penguins got banned in Virginia last week. It's a picture book about two male penguins in the Central Park Zoo who were given an egg that they hatched together and raised. The story is true but that doesn't stop people from screaming 'gay agenda' whenever it comes up. I'm not sure why they feel so compelled to hide the book, but I suspect it's a deep seated fear of gay adoptions. If penguins can do it the argument against people doing it feels a little weak. I don't really know what to say about gay adoptions. The argument is that it'll be bad for the children, but there's no particular evidence to that effect. It seems to just be a visceral reaction to gay people in general. I've never liked the argument that children can only be brought up properly by a mother and a father. I think it's probably the most ideal situation in today's society, but I don't think gay parents or single parents are worse than having no parents at all and I do think that there are too many children waiting for adoption and foster parents.

What’s in a name?

Since nothing earth shattering has happened recently in the presidential primaries (Obama won, McCain got endorsed, etc.) I think I'll talk about that gay thing.

On the bright side, this campaign season gay issues (marriage, adoption, DOMA, DADT, etc.) have been pretty quiet. I say 'on the bright side' not because I don't think those are important issues, but because I think they're issues that tend to get abused and horribly mismanaged. I would rather see a slow steady path toward progress than an all or nothing screaming match that inspires knee-jerk reactions (see: DOMA, DADT, the Federal Marriage Amendment, statutes in 49 states, etc.).

I have to admit I actually did some reading for this one. Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader by Andrew Sullivan. Granted, it didn't tell me much that I didn't already know, but I wanted to cover my bases on this one (plus the bookstore didn't have the novel I was looking for and I needed something to read before bed).

Gay marriage is the biggie. You have those 1,138 federal provisions that depend on marital status. I wouldn't begin to claim that I understand all of them or even some of them. I'm not a lawyer nor am I versed in the epic morass of documents we call a legislative code. I know some of them include things like spousal privilege and social security benefits and hospital visitation rights. Honestly even if it was only those three things, I would contend that it is a strong enough case for gay marriage.

The odd part is that many of the opponents of gay marriage aren't opposed to extending the provisions to gay couples. They favor the 'civil union' answer to gay marriage. For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why that doesn't reek of 'separate but equal' to the proponents, but they insist that it isn't. The arguments in favor of gay marriage are all pretty straightforward and, ultimately, boring. Equality, fairness, truth, justice, and the American way, and other high minded ideals that, while true, do not make for interesting reading material. Instead we'll be perusing (and attempting to counter) the more entertaining arguments against gay marriage.

These could be ordered in any number of other ways... they aren't... but they could be!

1) Lassie

This is my favorite one. If you let a man marry another man, then you'll have to let a man marry a dog. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.) The people who use this argument are fond of asking why we can't allow it since it doesn't hurt any person and it's just a moral distinction. To them I say okay. I challenge anyone to find me a dog (or any other animal) that can sign a legally binding contract. Until a dog is smart enough to understand, accept, and be bound by a contract they can't get married. Once they can I suppose it would be a different story, but if we have sentient dogs and cats running around I think we have bigger problems to worry about.

2) All in the Family

Moving down the line of poor arguments against gay marriage we hit incest. At least both parties are capable of signing legally binding contracts this time. The fact is that the statutes against incest are pretty weak anyway. In general its legal as long as they're at least as distant as first cousins, though it depends on the state. Closer relationships than that (parents, siblings, etc.) are illegal for reasons other than morality. Mainly medical concerns (which are not as significant as they once were) and equality of power. A modern marriage is a union of equals. There is no equality between parents and children, no matter how old they are. The parent always wields the authority over the child. Between siblings that equality could exist, but it rarely does.

3) Barney

Next we get pedophilia. I find the topic distasteful so I'll be brief. Recycle the last two arguments and combine them. No equality of power. No authority to enter legally binding contracts. And we're done.

4) Three's Company

Polygamy, Polyamory, Polywannacracker.. Okay maybe not so much that last one, but you get the idea. The argument goes like this: If you can marry any ONE you want, why not any TWO? The real argument against polyamorous marriage is the equality of power but I'll admit it's tenuous. It's certainly conceivable that multiple people could enter a perfectly equal relationship if its done with the full knowledge and consent of all parties. I'm forced to back into the less politically appealing argument of "not my problem." Basically it comes down to this: Gay marriage should be judged on it's own merits or faults; not on the merits or faults of a subsequent issue that may or may not arise. I don't have to argue against polyamorous marriages because it isn't the issue at hand. If and when it is the issue at hand I will consider the facts and judge it accordingly. Frankly if gay marriage makes the argument against polyamorous marriage that week, it wasn't a very good argument to begin with.

5) Married with Children

Marriage exists to encourage people to make babies and raise them. Wait, what? There's no ban on the infertile or disinterested from getting married. Last I checked the last part of the vows right before "I do." isn't "Will you swear to make babies?" The counter to that argument is usually along the lines of 'they might have a miracle baby'. Sure, so could the gay couple, but when did our laws become based on the possibility of miracles?

6) Who wants to Marry a Millionaire?

Marriage is sacrosanct and this would force the churches to perform gay weddings. I'll counter this on two fronts. First of all, no one can force the churches to perform ceremonies and there are already some churches that will perform the ceremony. As for this sanctity of marriage, its true, marriage should be sacrosanct; but with shotgun weddings in Vegas by superstars that last less time than some wedding ceremonies and marriage proposal game shows I think that ship has sailed. The conservative states that tend to oppose gay marriage also tend to have the highest divorce rates while liberal Massachusetts has the lowest in the country.


So what’s in a name?

From a practical perspective having two parallel structures with identical legal benefits just requires twice as much paperwork. If people are really that caught up on calling it marriage, and polls have shown that they are, then we should eliminate marriage entirely from the federal legislation. Replace it with “civil union” in all instances and open it up to same sex couples. That way the church can keep their word, gay people can get their equality, and the rest of the country can go back to worrying about things like the economy or global warming.

Stay tuned for the sequel "DOMA, DADT, and Penguins."

"Yes We Can"... fail

I can almost feel the dirty looks I'm going to get from most of my friends for writing this, but hopefully they won't hurt me too badly. But in my defense, it's their own fault for making me want to write this.

The more I watch the election results come in the more convinced I am that Obama can't win in the general election. This comes after Obama won all three primaries last week and is likely to win in Maryland and Washington D.C. by similar margins while Virginia will probably go to him but might be a closer race. This is the part where most of my friends get excited and say "See look! He can compete in red states!" And that's true... sort of...

Obama and Clinton have managed to neatly divide the Democratic base. He wins with the young, the educated, the wealthy, blacks, and men. She wins with the old, the less-educated, the poor, whites and latinos, and women. This is great for the primary, but come general election time it'll be risky.

Obama is in many ways the anti-McCain. Young vs. old, black vs. white, democrat vs. republican, etc. But they both appeal to the moderate center of the country. In general I find this to be a good thing, I want moderates in power but I also want a Democrat in the oval office. Obama appeals in red states but hasn't really come through in the traditional blue powerhouse states like Massachusetts (in spite of the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements), New York, California or polling particularly well in traditional battleground states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania.

Normally that wouldn't be a problem. Blue states aren't going to swing red just because they don't like a moderate democrat. They might however swing for a moderate republican over a moderate democrat. Obama doesn't excite the liberal core enough to lock in the weaker blue states which leaves them open to McCain while McCain seems to have found his place both as a moderate and in the conservative base. Obama might be able to excite the base after the convention but by then McCain will have been running virtually unopposed for months which can only end badly for the democrats.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Well I was going to post something earlier today about gay marriage or abortion or some such issue (and something on those topics will come up sooner or later) but something very strange seems to have happened while I was at lunch. Apparently Mitt Romney decided to withdraw from the race. I can honestly say I'm surprised. I thought he was much too stubborn to bow out before the convention, partly because he always said he would be sticking it out until the convention as recently as Tuesday.

On the one hand, strategically it was his best move, on the other hand I was really hoping the Republicans would get dragged into a slugging match up through the convention the way the Democrats are still set up to do. At this point McCain really can start shifting over to appeal to moderates. Sure Huckabee and Paul are still technically running, but Huckabee never capitalized on his Iowa win the way he could have, and let's face it, Paul is almost entirely unelectable. Unless something goes horribly wrong (e.g. huge scandal, McCain dies, etc.) McCain will be the Republican nominee in a few months.

The interesting question now is: Who will his VP candidate be?

For obvious reasons right now both Romney and Huckabee are being speculated about. Other names that are being bandied about in forums and speculative news articles include Lieberman, Pawlenty, Ridge, Powell, Guilianni, and about 2 dozen other Governors and Senators. As to what McCain has planned I can only guess.

Romney and Huckabee both have obvious benefits and drawbacks. Romney can help make the northeast and the west competitive in ways they haven't been in years. Huckabee shores up the religious conservative credentials that McCain is lacking which will help in Florida and pretty much lock the south. On the down side they've both been fighting McCain for the last 3 months and not pulling punches so they'd have to sway the public on their change of heart, but I think they're both charismatic enough to pull it off. Guilianni falls into the same category, helping in much the same way as Romney but without exciting the conservative base at all so he's probably out of the running.

Lieberman would certainly be an interesting (if highly unlikely) choice. The Democrats would be hard pressed to beat them on a message of post partisanship and change. It's hard to argue that you're less partisan than an ostensibly cross-party ticket. (I should admit now that I really don't like Lieberman. 8 years ago I did, but I lost respect for him when he abandoned the Democratic party after he lost his last primary in Connecticut.) A McCain / Lieberman ticket could plausibly sweep the entire country, it probably wouldn't if only because Massachusetts is a bit contrarian but it's conceivable which is more than anyone has been able to say in many years.

Colin Powell would be another interesting choice, he's still widely respected even after the incidents while he was Secretary of State. He's still an unlikely choice though, he doesn't bring much to the ticket. He's a socially moderate, ex military septuagenarian and the ticket already has one of those. He might be moderate enough to carry the center but Lieberman is better for that route.

Pawlenty and Ridge I admittedly know much less about. I vaguely remember Ridge from the 2000 campaign but that's about it so I had to pull a little bit about them from wikipedia. Ridge is decidedly less likely than Pawlenty in my opinion. His time as Secretary of Homeland Security might hurt his otherwise moderate and northeastern credentials. Pawlenty seems to be in many ways a foil to McCain. He's a young, charismatic, moderate conservative from a moderately democratic state that could swing with him.

Ultimately its hard to guess who he'll pick. If he decides he wants a conservative Republican ticket it'll probably be Romney with Huckabee being the second best choice. If he wants a moderate Republican ticket expect Pawlenty with a slim chance of Guiliani. If he takes the leap of faith for a real campaign of change and moderation it'll have to be Lieberman or Powell if Lieberman declines.

Why Democrats lose in Massachusetts (a.k.a. Tuesday [I refuse to call it super])

Alright it's time for my official inaugural post on The Cynical Hammer. The "hey, I'm here" and copied from facebook notes posts don't count to me.

Well, seeing as there are roughly 83 primaries tomorrow (I haven't bothered to count so that may be the tiniest overstatement) I figure that should probably be the basis of this rant. That said, let's talk about Massachusetts.

Its my home state so I feel somewhat safe in talking about it and acting like I know a thing or two about the political system. My father was involved in the political realm sometimes and I met a fair number of politicians while I was growing up. My first job was delivering the Sunday paper to Eddie O'Brien (nepotism at its finest). He was the father of Shannon O'Brien the former Massachusetts State Treasurer and 2002 Democratic gubernatorial candidate. She lost that election to none other than Mitt Romney.

Now I like Shannon, and the whole O'Brien family for that matter, they were always nice to me when I was growing up. But I remember watching the 2002 primary and wondering how the Democratic candidates could be so stupid. The Democratic primary between Shannon and her opponent (who I can't remember and don't care enough to look up) was fairly close and it was brutal. It was like watching a no-holds-barred grudge match. The campaign got dirty and fast.

But the tactics work. They galvanize their supporters so that they couldn't dream of supporting a different candidate. Unfortunately if their candidate loses, they often can't support a candidate who has said so many horrible things about the candidate they loved. This drives a lot of voters to vote for the other party (if its a moderate candidate and Mitt Romney was) or to not vote. That's how Mitt Romney won the governorship in the Democratic bastion of Massachusetts and its how the Republicans can win in a country that has an almost visceral reaction to George W. Bush recently.

Clinton and Obama need to get their acts together. By the end of tomorrow I expect the Republicans will be more or less unified behind one candidate (probably McCain, but Romney could still pull an upset if the stars line up just right) and the Democrats will still be ripping each other apart. That means the Republican front runner can start framing himself as a moderate again, appealing to the independents and moderate Democrats, while the Democrats are still fighting over their liberal base. If the Democrats can't cut the infighting before the convention the Republicans are going to have an almost guaranteed win in November.