Nebraska became the first officially "purple" state over the weekend as the final tally gives my district (with its one electoral vote) to Obama. Go team. :)

Labels: politics

A few minutes-to-midnight comments before the polls end and the fate of our next four years is announced:

-First off, go vote. Really. Even if you disagree with my politics (actually, from your point of view, *especially* if you disagree with my politics). Voting is the lifeblood of a democracy (or a representative republic such as ours), and I can put ideology aside long enough to look at the bigger picture of an election where the will of the people is honestly represented.

-One of the drawbacks to voting early (I voted 10 days ago) is the conspicuous absence of an "I Voted Today" sticker. :P Maybe I should make my own.

-The World-Herald endorsed *both* John McCain and Lee Terry. I'm pocketing that one for the next time my father insists the World-Herald is an "elitist liberal propaganda newspaper." It's like line of sight in geometry; what you see depends on where you are.

-As two sides to one coin: (a) I read an article about a 95-year-old Alzheimer's patient who apparently registered and then voted during a voting outreach program at her nursing home, despite the fact that she often can't remember her own name (prompting an investigation into coercion of a captive audience by the program); and (b) a local morning radio program dipped well into tastelessness when two of the hosts began ridiculing a judge who ruled that the homeless have a right to vote, suggesting (in colorful language) that the homeless are mentally incapable of thinking of anything beyond what kind of soup is staining their clothing and suggesting they just put "park bench" down as the place their voter registration card should be mailed (only the third host correctly pointed out that the requirements to vote are few and well-protected and they don't include "owning or renting property").

-I'm glad we've had no celebrity "If Candidate X wins I'm moving to Canada" declarations as we've had in previous elections (declarations which by and large revealed themselves as empty threats).

-My mother has been politely but persistently inquiring into potential present ideas. My suggestion that the entire family make one big donation to the Obama campaign in my name was met without laughter.

-Early voting in Douglas County set an all-time record. Part of that is the change in wording from "absentee" to "early voting" during the last cycle, but it's also a bellwether of greater voter interest. I've served in elections with turnout as low as 15% (we had less than a dozen voters before lunch), but I think the Secretary of State is predicting turnout as high as 65-75%, which is just fantastic.

-Everyone have a safe and happy Election Day.

Labels: politics

This guy is so getting divorced.

Labels: politics, what the hell

The McCain engine is faltering as the campaign enters the final stretch. In the face of this, such luminaries as the bile-for-blood Sarah Palin have made noise about attacking Obama personally (not in the hit-him-over-the-head-with-a-crowbar-way, mind you, but in the impugn-his-character-because-we're-losing-on-the-issues way). She was the first to bring up the pseudo-terrorist charge (attempting to link Obama with former Weatherman William Ayers, despite the fact that the latter's terrorist activities happened when the former was eight), which it appears McCain is going to continue in hopes of distributing the meme that Obama has ties to terrorist organizations.

But in a rare display of restraint for that campaign, McCain has prohibited his staff and discouraged the independent Republican parties of the states from trying to assert that the incendiary beliefs of Obama's unrepentant former pastor are also the beliefs of Obama himself. Palin appears to be chaffing at the restriction so much that she's still talking about it in a roundabout way by talking about McCain's prohibition:

[T]o have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that - with, I don't know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn't get up and leave - to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.

Notice the "Palin style" at work here; the "I don't know"s and the "I guess"s giving the impression that she's not sure and just throwing something out for everyone to consider, which is most certainly not the case. It's almost a subliminal message, one that's remarkably effective on those who think she's the best thing since sliced bread or Reagan. But still dishonest.

Compare with McCain's original-and-still-held statement on the issue:

I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything you say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with. And I don't believe that Sen. Obama would support any of those. ... I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.

In this instance, at least, McCain has the integrity to admit that what his campaign wants to suggest, that Obama shares the views of a man who both (a) supports Obama and (b) suggested the U.S. deserved 9/11, isn't true, that he knows it isn't true and that he won't make up an attack just to win an election.

Labels: politics

I didn't find anything particularly of note in the Democratic National Convention that took place over the last week. I wasn't surprised by the pick of Joe Biden as Obama's VP nomination (and in fact originally believed Biden would be the nominee when the VP discussions first came up months ago, although I forgot about him when the media started focusing on other choices). I didn't watch any of the speeches, although I hear they were good.

On the other hand, I *was* surprised by McCain's VP announcement today. He chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to compliment his ticket, a move that has puzzled pretty much everyone (regardless of party or position). Alaska always votes Republican (their economy is based on oil production) and has only 3 electoral votes, so there is no advantage there for McCain. One of the McCain campaign's leading criticisms of Obama is his lack of experience (both in government in general and in Washington); Palin has been governor for less than two years and has no Washington experience at all, which severely undercuts McCain's criticism. She appears to bring very little to the ticket.

What I think McCain thinks she brings is a chance to snag some of the disenfranchised Hillary supporters (from what I've read, the campaign *really* wanted a woman candidate, with names like Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman being tossed around). I don't think that will work (and if it does I'll be even more disappointed in the Hillary holdouts than I am now). Palin is pro-life and even belongs to an anti-abortion group. She supports teaching Creationism in public schools. She is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She strongly supports opening up Alaskan wilderness preserves to oil drilling. She supports constitutional bans on gay marriage. These are all things that are essentially "anti-Hillary" (okay, maybe Hillary isn't pro-gay marriage, but she did vote against the federal bill to ban it), and I'm hoping the Hillary supporters realize this.

In the "positive" check box (not in the "reasons I think she's great" way, but in the "reasons she might help McCain" way), she's very telegenic. I've watched a couple of video interviews with her and her speaking style is much closer to Obama's than McCain's (more familiar and cross-generational; she even uses "it's cool!"). She might appeal to moderate "soccer moms" because she fits into that category, as well as undecided blue-collar males (not only because she's more attractive than the other three main figures but because she rides snowmobiles, likes to hunt and is married to a blue-collar fisherman). I'm guessing my father and brother will think she's fantastic. Her pro-life, pro-Creationism and anti-gay marriage stances will also win over at least some of the evangelical right that has so far kept its distance from McCain.

But in the long run I think McCain screwed up. If I'm right, the Hillary contingent won't fall for the ploy (they're adamant about not supporting Obama, but will they really vote for a candidate who opposes most of their core values just because she's a woman?). McCain's "experience" criticism has been severely weakened. And there is a whole range of criticism open to the Obama campaign regarding her lack of experience should McCain die in office and hand the presidency to her (a very real possibility, given McCain's age). She's also under investigation by the Alaska Legislature for a firing controversy during her watch (which, to her credit, she has voluntarily complied with, although it's still going to come up repeatedly during the campaign). It's too early to call the race, but I'm not sure McCain's wild card is going to gain him that much.

Labels: politics

This is a level of petty discontent more appropriate to a three-year-old than middle-aged bloggers.

Okay, I get it, you're unhappy that the person in whom you put all of your hopes and dreams didn't make the cut. But we're not talking hanging chads here. Sure, there was the dust-up in Florida and Michigan, but your candidate agreed to the rules that governed both candidates beforehand; is it realistic to claim Hillary deserves all of Michigan's votes because Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot? Aren't we then alienating the Michigan Obama voters in the same way you're claiming to be alienated now?

I think much of this fervor is based on an entitlement theory; the die-hard Hillary supporters believe Hillary owned the nomination before it began, and it was usurped by Obama. The vague claims of "irregularities" (which I translate as "Hillary didn't understand the mechanics of caucuses as well as Barack did") are pretext to mask a core unwillingness to admit that Hillary herself has conceded the nomination. I applaud them for their exercise of free speech and dedications to their beliefs; I just picture them as being driven by bitterness rather than inspiration.

Labels: politics

Labels: amusement, funny, politics

- Note to John McCain (as if he hasn't already heard it ad infinitum): Don't schedule fundraisers with supporters who compare rape to the weather ("As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." My god.).

- My next-door neighbors of the last four years (technically my only next-door neighbors, given my corner-lot status) are reluctantly moving in with their children after a stroke incident, something I was very sorry to hear given how friendly and upbeat they've always been. The family has been clearing out the house into moving trucks over the last few days, and an estate sale is scheduled for later this month. Given the dismal housing market, the family has decided to keep the house and rent it out. This means that I will now officially have an entirely different set of neighbors (on all sides) from the those present when I bought my house.

- As an addendum to the above, I learned from the adult children cleaning out the house that apparently either the wireless control for my garage door or the wireless keypad for my security system sets off the side doorbell of their house . . . and has been doing so since I moved in. Every time I come and go. For some odd reason, my elderly neighbors decided not to mention it to me, and instead have been treated to a few bars of a Dixie song of some sort day and night for years. I offered to try to track down the interference, but the adult children laughed and said they're just going to disconnect the doorbell instead.

- As a further addendum, I'm really starting to worry about my memory. My mother is suitably distressed that my neurological dysfunction has obscured or obfuscated a sizable portion of my childhood and my friends are routinely frustrated when I forget not just names and dates but entire conversations. One of the tricks of poor memory retention is not knowing you're forgetting the things you're forgetting, but when the adult children cleaning out the house next door ask what you were taking pictures of in the backyard a few nights ago, and you don't remember even being in the backyard with photographic equipment, you start to be concerned (the alternative is there was someone else in my backyard, which is equally disturbing). I'm hoping he just misinterpreted the cordless drill I was using to fix a bird feeder as a cell phone or camera of some sort.

- Omaha revalued thousands of houses last year (leading to massive criticism in the paper and a new business niche for attorneys offering to challenge valuation increases of up to 50% for some homeowners). Mine jumped about 40%, although I thought it reasonable given that my house had been undervalued given what I paid. Still, a higher value means higher property taxes, which showed up in the form of an increase in my mortgage payment of $130 a month starting this month. Ouch.

- For those of you who haven't seen me online lately: maybe I've been ignoring you, and maybe Adium hasn't wanted to connect to the Yahoo servers for about three days, a problem I originally thought was a server issue that would correct itself and only today discovered is a glitch in Adium itself (corrected with the new version). Whether I've been offline for technical reasons or actually ignoring you is up to your imagination to decide.

Labels: house, miscellany, politics

Not at the same time, of course. Some things should not be cooled to -320 degrees F, and nipples are probably one of them.

The Top Chef finale was last night. Unfortunately, I can't talk about it yet because Cris's cable was out due to the second round of tornadoes and flash flooding we've had in a week and I don't know if he's seen it yet. I *will*, however, say that my favorite contestant, Richard, once again tickled my molecular gastronomy bone by incorporating liquid nitrogen into his cooking (yay for cool gadgets and high-tech ingredients), in this case to make a flash-frozen ice cream. The idea is pretty simple; assemble your non-frozen ice cream ingredients (in his case bacon-flavored ice cream, which did not particularly impress me; his original idea for tabasco pepper ice cream sounded better), put them in a high-grade mixer (like my KitchenAid), turn the mixer on low and slowly add liquid nitrogen until the concoction is ice cream (observing all due safety precautions, of course). Nitrogen is inert and boils out, leaving only the original, now-frozen ingredients. Lane has encouraged me to try it (with her present, of course), and liquid nitrogen can be had without permits or the like (it's not a regulated gas). The limiting factor is finding a place that will sell it to you in small quantities (most gas supply stores sell in bulk and I don't really need 30 liters of the stuff, since it doesn't store). I haven't found one in Omaha yet. Maybe someday.

On the nudity end of the spectrum (Do spectrums really have nudity ends? Is there a chocolate end?), the Transportation Security Administration rolled out its first full-use backscatter airport security machines this week. I first heard about these years ago in a Discover Magazine article (because they use a unique form of X-ray that measures object density by how much the object "scatters" the radiation rather than how it absorbs and re-releases it), where the focus was on the science rather than the politics. Now that they're in use, expect to hear about them in the news, because they produce near-photo-quality black-and-white images of the subject's nude body, regardless of clothing (clothing scatters almost none of the radiation so it doesn't show up). In an attempt to address privacy concerns, early versions of the machines had software that blurred out private areas, but apparently the TSA has decided that blurring those areas will encourage terrorists to hide items there, because the machines delivered to 10 airports this week "allow the security screeners . . . to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs." The TSA's press release assures people that there is no way for the screener to make a copy of the image, and the software still blurs the subject's face, but they're still getting a "show."

The defense offered to make the machines easier to swallow is phrased in the form of options. You can still request a physical pat-down in place of the machine, and the idea is that the machine is less physically invasive. I can see from my own personal standpoint that I would prefer the machine to having a stranger's hands on me, but then I'm not particularly uptight about images of the nude body (even my own), given my photography portfolio. It remains to be seen how most people, especially women and parents of pre-teen children, react, and how the actual security setup is handled (the procedure would likely be more palatable if the person viewing the images is in a different room and cannot see the subject, making it more impersonal, and the screener and subject are matched up by gender the way physical pat-downs are). I imagine it's only a matter of time before there's a scandal of some sort involving an overzealous screener; stay tuned.

Labels: cooking, politics, science, social commentary, television

Racial attitudes were also striking. About one in five whites in Kentucky said race played a role in choosing their candidate - on par with results in other Southern states. Nearly nine in 10 of that group backed Clinton - the highest proportion yet among the 29 states where that question has been asked.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the concept of a candidate claiming viability through a strong victory when that victory is provided in substantial part by an electorate that openly admits to discounting human value based on race. The question arises, then, did Hillary win in Kentucky because she's a stronger candidate who is more capable of taking on McCain in a national election, or did Hillary win because her opponent was black? If it's the latter, Hillary's qualifications in this particular race were irrelevant.

Labels: politics, social commentary

*sigh*

Labels: annoyance, politics

Labels: amusement, politics

Because winning fairly just isn't as much fun . . .

In recent weeks, conservative talk radio stars Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have urged loyal listeners to vote for the much-despised Clinton in open Democratic primaries so as to prevent Obama from sealing the nomination, and there are some indications that their calls have already been heeded in states like Texas and Mississippi . . . [T]here are signs that some Republicans are going so far as to switch their party registration by the March 24 deadline to participate in what Limbaugh has dubbed "Operation Chaos."

It's one thing to decide, based on your own opinions, to change parties and vote for a candidate you like. It's quite another to intentionally attempt to interfere with the voting of a group to which you don't belong (and have no interest in belonging) because someone else told you to. The latter is intellectually dishonest and shows a callous disregard for the concept of democracy in general. I see little distinction between this selfishness and actual instances of voter fraud; both dilute the vote of actual, honest voters and skew elections, and are essentially admissions of doubt as to whether your group can win based on merit.

Labels: annoyance, politics

[I]n Ohio - a crucial battleground in the general election - there are concerns that some Democrats would not be willing to vote for an African-American in November.

Rarely is that view expressed openly. "There's just something about Obama that makes me uncomfortable," said one woman at a Clinton event in Hanging Rock, Ohio, last week.

What the hell? Concerns that Democrats wouldn't vote for an African-American? In 2008? Seriously? Is that "something about Obama" that makes the woman nervous the fact that he's black? Or is it something else and the writer cherry-picked the quote? Am I so incredulous that I can only end sentences with question marks?

Labels: politics, what the hell

There's a distinct line between challenging a system because of real or perceived inequities that affect the people participating and challenging a system because it doesn't benefit you personally the way you would prefer. This situation seems to be listing heavily toward one of those categories. Granted, contrary to the common (mis)perception, we don't live in a democracy (as attractive as the concept is in patriotic ads and fiery speeches), but rather a constitutional republic (a form of government in which a core of established rights trumps the majority will of the people), and thus voting, as important as it is, is subject to limitations and interpretations; despite that, the candidates for any office should be sensitive to what the people want, not what benefits them most. Honesty, people. Please.

Labels: politics

It's a good thing the liberal portion of the country tends to eschew violence, because Ralph Nader is the sort of misguided-yet-destructive personality that engenders very strong negative emotions among the people he thinks he's trying to help. Don't get me wrong; I strongly dislike the established two-party system and I've toyed with various third parties in the past, but one of the facets of third parties is that they draw votes *only* from the main party they most resemble. In the case of the 2000 election, it's arguably likely that Nader handed W. the presidency by refusing to drop out of the race and earning enough votes from people who otherwise would have voted for Gore to send the election spiraling into the recount mess that followed.

Labels: politics, social commentary

An opinion piece on NPR a few days ago discussed the military service of the children of political candidates (specifically in this case those candidates running for president, although the points made were broad enough to apply to any political candidate with input on U.S. military policy, including members of Congress). The piece actually confused me, as the commentator (a father of a serviceman) openly admits that the U.S.'s volunteer military does not require service and no parent should push his or her children into service in the interests of furthering political ambitions, and yet he's "resentful" that his son (who it is assumed volunteered for service) was deployed to Afghanistan while President Bush's daughters were not. The majority of the statement is a detailed listing of the children of each of the top-tier candidates in the current primaries, noting their military experience (or lack thereof), but the reason for this analysis is never given. The author fails to clarify his position, other than to suggest a "higher standard" for political candidates (without giving his opinion on what the candidates should actually do).

The are significant problems with the author's point of view, not the least of which is the minimum age for military service is, in most cases, also the age of majority, the point at which parents no longer have any authority over their children. The author seems to suggest that candidates should be judged by the decisions of their adult children, and even more the candidates should try to talk their children into military service in order to satisfy the author's point of view that a president should not send troops into a conflict unless he or she was comfortable sending his or her own children there. This completely ignores the autonomy of the adult children, who may have opted not to consider military service for reasons entirely separate from the "privileged and protected" lifestyle that the author heavily suggests is the reason some of the candidates' children are hedge fund managers or real estate developers; it could just be that military service doesn't appeal to a great many people. In addition, it's highly unlikely that any presidential child would see direct combat (and thus satisfy the "I'm willing to send my children in with yours" requirement that the author likes); the recent decision to withhold Prince Harry (a commissioned lieutenant) from combat for security reasons underscores the logistics, not to mention U.S. military policies that exclude women (even the daughters of presidents) from combat operations.

The author's closing statement is equally confusing. He suggests we "take a page" from Eleanor Roosevelt, who wrote of how happy FDR was that his children volunteered for military service without his input, leaving open the question of how today's candidates are supposed to replicate such a situation.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Republicans in the state criticized the bill as undermining federal elections. "This legislation is a constitutional travesty," Assemblyman Richard Merkt said. "It's a backdoor end-run of the federal Constitution."

Please. How can one make a travesty of the Constitution when the Constitution itself says nothing about how electors are chosen on the state level other than to note the number each state sends? There is no "end-run" here. States are well within their legislative rights to base their electoral slate on the state's popular vote, the nation's popular vote, the state legislature's direct vote (used by more than half of the states until the 1816 elections) or a random coin toss. This is only a "travesty" to some people because the popular vote isn't friendly to their candidates.

Labels: politics, social commentary

I wasn't even aware Alan Keyes was running for President on the Republican ticket until hearing the most recent Republican debate on NPR yesterday. If there were any chance of him winning I'd find his rhetoric frightening, but seeing as he's more of a caricature than a viable candidate he's vaguely amusing. Somehow, in his mind, the various judicial decisions that have reinforced the separation of church and state are an example of legislating from the bench (bad!) but his own bold statements that on his first day in office he would sign executive orders banning abortion and reintroducing God into the schools (examples of legislating from the executive branch) are apparently good. I'm not sure how his "strict Constitutional adherence" works when the executive branch is doing the legislative branch's job, but apparently he makes it work.

Labels: politics

As a prelude, did you know the United States has 16 intelligence agencies? Wow.

On Monday, those 16 agencies (under the auspices of a National Intelligence Estimate) released their conclusions that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and would not be capable of producing weapons-grade uranium until 2010. Panicked that its hard-line stance against Iran would be lost, the administration immediately tried to spin the report, focusing on the fact that Iran at one time *had* a program and that it would be possible to start it again (and then had to clarify that it actually did know about the report two months ago, contrary to its earlier statements this week), and actually threatened Iran to "come clean" rather than use this to start new diplomatic lines.

So here's the way it stands, as I see it. The administration used weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to invade Iraq, only to discover (and very reluctantly admit) that there was no weapons program. Since then the administration has warned repeatedly of Iran's near-nuclear capability (in August Bush suggested Iran would start WWIII when it completed its bomb) as a justification for military options. When told by its own agencies that Iran is not pursuing a program, the administration trumps with "Ah, but they *were*!" A few points:

1) The administration has to realize this smacks blatantly of putting goals ahead of facts. The administration seems bound and determined to invade another country, and intelligence reports be damned. It's almost a certainty that our "coalition of the willing" (let alone China) is not going to support military action against Iran after this report, so any posturing and potential force is going to be strictly from the U.S. That's an awfully lonely path, especially with a stretched military.

2) Iran having a nuclear weapon would be bad. I don't think there's any disagreement there. But the nuclear arena is far more complex than simply stating "if Iran gets a bomb it will start WWIII." It's interesting to note that North Korea has already carried out at least one nuclear test and claims to have functional nuclear weapons, yet receives far less public administration scrutiny (my more-liberal friends would retort with "that's because there's no oil there," whether or not that's true).

3) The U.S. has a long history of being selective in its weapons policies. Again, Iran having a nuclear weapon would be very bad, but notably the U.S. has never had any trouble with Israel having a non-disclosed nuclear weapons program (which has, according to intelligence reports, resulted in a functional nuclear arsenal). The nonproliferation treaties, which I agree with wholeheartedly, have the unfortunate drawback of being enforced by nations who maintain large nuclear arsenals on the argument that "we had them before the treaty so we get to keep them," an argument that certainly doesn't resonate with other sovereign nations.

The NIE report should encourage the administration to take a more diplomatic approach to Iran, rather than maintaining its apparent intent to intimidate Iran with force regardless of changes in the situation. The last six years should have shown by now that military force alone is not our best path to peace.

Labels: politics

Condeleezza Rice today attempted to shore up the administration's frantic downplaying of the latest NIE report regarding Iran by reiterating most of the administration's points. Of note, though, was one statement that really caught my attention:

"I am not going to comment on that comment except to say that what the National Intelligence Estimate shows, and the transparency with which the administration released it, is what it means to live in a democracy and I hope one day that the people of Iran will live in a democracy too."

This, from the Secretary of State of an administration that (through the Ashcroft Memorandum) has actively attempted to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests whenever possible (not only classified information but, as a guiding principle, any information at all), that reluctantly admitted (after multiple spin attempts) a secret spying program that circumvented all FISA oversight, that engages in extraordinary rendition to kidnap foreign nationals in other countries and hold them in secret locations and that has cited Executive Privilege to hide as much of the administration's activities as possible (starting with the Cheney Energy Task Force). I'm afraid I'm not seeing the administration's dedication to "transparency."

Labels: politics

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota (the U.S.'s first Muslim congressman) took the ethical high ground by not calling Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia names for his recent comments about Muslims being elected to public office. Others haven't been so kind. If you want to write a letter expressing the belief that "if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office" and then co-sponsor legislation to end a visa program for people "not from European countries," expect suggestions of bigotry and racism to follow.

Labels: politics, religion and atheism, social commentary

American U.N. ambassador John Bolton announced his resignation today, something I believe to be for the best, but not to the extent of writing a lengthy entry about it. What I'm more concerned about is this one sentence, repeated in every news article I've read about the topic but not attributed: "[T]he White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador." I haven't found any other information on it, but I'm somewhat concerned nontheless. It looks to be another attmpt at an "end run" around the checks-and-balances structure of the Constitution (in the vein of executive orders and Congress writing sentences into laws forbidding the Judicial Branch from ruling on them). I don't care which party is doing it; knock it off.

Labels: politics

I'm not as elated about the expression of the people's voice as I would have liked to be, but neither am I unhappy. In particular, I was hoping Jim Esch would win the House seat from my district (and in fact he was in a dead heat when I went to bed), but alas, it was not meant to be. Hopefully he doesn't give up and tries again.

Some random political impressions:

- Nancy Pelosi said the newly empowered Democrats in the House "intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." Dear Cthulhu I hope so. Please, please, Nancy, no partisan witch hunts or revenge agendas. It's bad for the karma, and if that's not enough it will certainly come back to bite you in the next election.

- The Senate results are not yet final (and I'm waiting for the recount requests to begin). If the Democratic candidate wins, the Democrats will control Congress by one vote (provided Joe Lieberman isn't vindictive about not being supported by the DNC and votes with the Democrats). If the Republican candidate wins, the Senate becomes a 50-50 split, at which point Vice President Dick Cheney gets to break any ties and the Republicans have a de facto 51-50 majority on any party line votes.

- I find it interesting that Joe Lieberman, previously a Democratic senator who was defeated in the primary and ran, and won, as an Independent, garnered more Republican votes than Democratic votes (the Republican candidate was in the single digits). So, in a scene straight out of a novel, we have the election of a formerly Democratic senator (who plans to vote Democratic) by Republicans.

- I know everyone is sick of politics at this point, but preparations for the 2008 elections have already begun (trust me). Democrats won this election largely by campaigning for change, which, quite frankly, they're not going to be able to provide. Even if they win the Senate and consolidate power in Congress, they have nowhere near the majorities needed to override Bush's vetoes (which will flow freely); I foresee many Democratic campaigns based on variations of "Well, we *tried* to change things, but Bush wouldn't let us." I don't think that's quite the clarion call that the immediate message was. I would have also preferred to see the Democrats win on their own merits, rather than on the incompetence of and the wave of scandal from the Republicans.

- I was disappointed that the majority (almost 90% in one CNN poll) of voters believe the elections are secure and accurate, despite the incompetence and secrecy of Diebold, the FBI's investigations of voter intimidation yesterday and the potential for massive electronic voter fraud. I'd really like to see Diebold lose their contracts.

- Pete Ricketts got his ass kicked. I was not unhappy to see that, given that the only exposure I had to him was his series of vitriolic and vicious attack ads. I know that negative ads work (sadly), but I have a natural reluctance to vote for those who use them. Really, if the best way to promote yourself is to point out the flaws in your opponent, you're really not leader material.

Labels: elections, politics

I spotted this on the way to work on Friday. I found it amusing, in a "shame on you hooligans for defacing a billboard but kudos for doing it in an entertaining way" way.

Labels: amusement, elections, politics

I received my early voting ballot in the mail on Saturday. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was accompanied by no fewer than seven political advertisements. A few highlights:

One is laminated and actually says "Suitable for framing" on it. I'm sure that's a popular wall adornment. "Oh, I love that photo of a guy in a suit with a fake smile surrounded by bullet points of his career! It goes so well with the begonias. Is that from World Market?" It's particularly poignant with the two typos (you'll be glad to know he has testified for the "legistlature").

Questionable grammar on two others would normally be spared the red pen, but I'm intentionally looking for it now (one is an encouragement to vote for an education bill, which is borderline ironic).

Perhaps the most interesting is a two-page letter mailed in a hand-addressed envelope, with a salutation involving the pre-printed "Dear Fellow Taxpayer" crossed out and my name written in (how touchingly personalized). It also includes the candidate's home phone number with a note that he has some yard signs left if I want one. Personally, I've never really understood the whole yard sign thing, and I've turned down all the people who have called me to the door to ask if they can put one in my yard, but I suppose that's a symptom of a lack of passion for any particular candidate. It does make me wonder how many of the signs I see are being hosted by people who just didn't feel like saying "no" and have no idea what the person who provided the signs represents.

I'm not surprised that my overall opinion of the ads is that they lack substance. They're saturated with lines like "I want to improve efficiency" and "I put you first" and "I have proven leadership," none of which convey any sort of content. I would imagine this is the result of the sound byte mentality and its accompanying commentary on the average American's understanding of political issues and attention span. In this respect I'm not their target audience; I'll take independent research over a laminated flier any day. I shudder at the thought of the number of people who go to the polls with no preparation and mark random names on the ballot when faced with races about which they know nothing. Still, to blatantly steal a false-attribution to Voltaire, I may not approve of your method of choosing candidates, but I will defend to the death your right to vote for them.

Labels: elections, politics

I'm sure the vocal left will expound on this in far louder (and more virulent) language (as almost all the mentions of it on the Web currently do), but I do think this was a cheap shot that deserves to be called. For whatever reason, Fox News ran three different clips of former-Senator Mark Foley in two different broadcasts with the line "Mark Foley (D-Fl)" under his name (Foley is a Republican). Fox News says it was a mistake, and I can accept that (not something all liberal commentators are going to do), although since the shows are "live to tape" (essentially meaning they're pre-taped), it does indicate some sloppiness on the part of their proofreaders. Still, it's an easy slip, and one that happens now and then.

Here's where Fox News went wrong. They decided not to "run a correction per se." Instead, they simply removed the identification entirely for the rebroadcast and ran it sans political affiliation. In what amounts to a pathetic defense, the executive producer said that since "everyone knows" Foley is a Republican, there was no reason to point out the channel's error, which of course brings up the question of why the show felt it was necessary to add the (incorrect) affiliation in the first place. In contrast, the AP also incorrectly reported Foley as a Democrat in a handful of articles, but issued a retraction/correction as soon as it was notified. Fox News could have avoided the accusations of ulterior motives with a similar correction.

Labels: politics

A below-the-radar entry from the ongoing Foley scandal, involving conservative political commentator Paul Weyrich speaking with host Michele Norris on NPR yesterday:

Weyrich: It has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex - the idea that he should be continued, or should have been continued as chairman on the Committee for Missing and Exploited Children, given their knowledge of that is just outrageous.

Norris: Now, before we go on, I think I can say, Mr. Weyrich, that there quite a few people who would take exception to the statement that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.

Weyrich: Well, I don't care whether they take exception to it - it happens to be true.

Norris: That is your opinion.

Weyrich: Well, it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them.

The thinly veiled linking of homosexuality and pedophilia in Mr. Weyrich's statements is as repugnant as it is ridiculous; the idea that a homosexual should not head an agency that deals with children because of his or her orientation is stunningly prejudiced. What I found more telling, however, was Mr. Weyrich's use of the phrase "who have to deal with them," as though interacting with homosexuals is unpleasant or they're some contagious danger to avoid. Similar language has been used throughout human history to differentiate the speaker from those unlike him, whether the difference is based on religion, physical appearance or nationality; the dehumanizing of the Jews in Nazi Germany or the African-Americans in late-19th and early-20th century America should serve as ample examples. It's easier to dislike someone if you believe he or she is different and lesser.

On a related note, I'd challenge Mr. Weyrich to validate his claims and come up with any accredited psychiatry or psychology association that agrees with his views. I'd be surprised if he could produce a single one.

Labels: politics, social commentary

I've been following the recent push, by state and federal legislatures, for the mandatory presentation of photo ID in order to vote with both political and personal curiosity (since, as an election supervisor, changes to the voting process will affect me directly). My strong support for the suffrage process should come as no surprise (I volunteer for insane, high-stress hours in order to make sure people can vote, after all), and even beyond the right to vote it's the spirit of voting, and the democratic principles of equality that draw no distinctions based on affluence or education or race or gender or beliefs, that I admire. The voting booth doesn't care about your annual income, your education, your long term goals, your disabilities, your orientation or your skin color, and in that regard has far fewer prejudices than any human. It is for these reasons that I take the voting process, and more particularly any attempt to pluck it away from its rightful owners, very seriously.

The controversy over photo ID began in a handful of states and has progressed to the U.S. Congress, where, on party line votes, bills to require photo ID by 2008 and official voting identification by 2010 have passed. Several of the state versions, however, have already been invalidated or put on hold by courts, and it seems likely a similar challenge will be mounted against the federal version. All parties involved seem remarkably shortsighted on this issue, carrying with them a distinctly unpalatable partisan flavor.

The Republicans have characterized their push on this issue as a way to crack down on voting by illegal immigrants, with grandiose speeches about protecting the validity of each individual's vote and the "common sense" aspects of needing photo ID for everything from flying on a plane to renting videos (neither of which, of course, are enshrined in the Constitution). In this regard, they've formulated a solution for a problem that, frankly, doesn't (yet) seem to exist. I could find no numbers relating to voter fraud by illegal immigrants, beyond isolated single elections, despite a half-hour of Googling. If anything, the apocryphal accounts (one in particular from a Utah investigation) show thousands and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants applying for driver's licenses and only scant dozens or hundreds registering to vote (even when registering is as easy as checking a box on the license form), and even fewer (very small percentages) actually voting. I'm taking these with a grain of salt, given that I could find no hard statistics either way, but I find some wisdom in the concept that the average legal voter can't be bothered to vote, and illegal immigrants have no real incentive in risking discovery by trying to participate in a government process. I don't put it past Democratic activists to try to mobilize illegal immigrants in especially contested races (and frown at them with as much disapproval as is reserved for their Republican counterparts), but as of yet massive nationwide voter fraud requiring photo IDs hasn't been documented. Quite frankly, there are easier ways to commit voter fraud (serious flaws in electronic voting seem a far easier-to-exploit option than recruiting illegal immigrants).

This isn't to say photo IDs aren't a good idea, and on this I take the Democrats to task again. Even if the actual threat hasn't manifested, the potential for voter fraud is real and should be examined. I am not opposed to photo IDs . . . if done correctly, on a reasonable timetable, with no disenfranchisement. On this point, however, it is the Republicans who fail. Their solutions have been simply to require photo IDs, leading to multiple court invalidations on the grounds that photo IDs are not free, in terms of both money and time, and thus requiring them to vote constitutes a form of a poll tax, something prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (and expanded by the Supreme Court to cover the payment of any fee as a requirement to voting - "Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."). In other words, the courts have found that the Constitutional right of a citizen to vote cannot be impeded by requiring the citizen to spend money in order to qualify to vote. This seems inconsequential to many people, as a photo ID can be had for $20 or less from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 24th and 14th Amendments, however, is clear that any required fee will not survive a legal challenge.

The simple solution, then, seems to be to make the IDs free. At this point we enter a land of shades of grey. Opponents of the plans (including me) point out that even excluding monetary costs, requiring IDs creates barriers; the hassle of finding the proper documentation (I have no idea where my birth certificate is - I hope my mom has it), the hassle of going to the DMV (not a trivial matter when we're talking about people who don't already have driver's licenses), the hassle of spending hours going through the process and the hassle of doing it all over if the DMV rejects the application. These are not openly covered by the Constitution or the Supreme Court's rulings, but I would suggest that they violate the spirit of voting, if not the law itself, as they present a barrier that isn't applied equally, a barrier that falls to the citizen to overcome.

The major political conflict arises from the fact that the groups most likely to be affected by these barriers are also groups who predominately vote Democratic: minorities, legal immigrants, the poor and the elderly. Thus, it favors Republican interests to require photo IDs, as even a few thousand people who are discouraged by the barriers can sway an election. The innocent protestations of Republican leaders that their intent is pure rings hollow when it is pointed out that they are not requiring similar measures to protect voting by mail (a far easier target for voting fraud), a process that does not favor either party. Less-than-honorable tactics for influencing elections are by no means limited to Republicans, but neither can it be said that Republicans are shining examples of protecting voting rights for all people.

The solution to this seems painfully obvious, if the Republicans are serious about their claimed motivations (to protect the voting process and not simply hinder their Democratic rivals), especially given the low-priority of the threat: a nationwide program to ensure equal registration and availability to all citizens, a deferment of the photo ID requirement until such a program is satisfactorily completed and provisions for similar ID requirements for voting by mail. By all means, set a deadline, but make sure individual citizens are not disenfranchised along the way.

Labels: elections, politics