There's a Non-Partisan Election Chat over on Dodger Thoughts. For those of you who cannot hold your tongue there, you can dump your thoughts here. I'm posting it on Fairpole so that it stays on the "Hot from the Toaster" list for a while.
Be as partisan as you like on this thread. Boo. Cheer. Argue. But as always, my one Toaster-wide rule applies: don't insult your fellow Toaster Posters, and if you do, apologize.
I have many other opinions, too, but let's start with those.
Here are the reasons I voted for it.
There's never a bad time to build infrastructure. Actually, it's my opinion that recession is the one time when it's a good thing for governments to run deficits.
Also, I feel that we do need a better way to get between our states' two largest cities. Gasoline is not going to be cheap forever. Air travel has also become expensive; it's also getting increasingly inconvenient, and barring a dramatic shift in how the TSA is run, I don't see a change there.
Rail seems like a good alternative.
Weirdly, Franken is neither the most famous nor the most ridiculous among those.
And I might be crazy, but if I had to choose between Franken, Coleman, and Barkley, I would probably choose Franken, and I would be aware that unless he turns out to be the second coming of Paul Wellstone, he would probably lose in six years, and I'd be kinda OK with that.
vr, Xei
(a) I could be wrong, and
(b) even if I'm right, the difference might not be all that much.
In my opinion, I think the biggest argument AGAINST 1A is that this kind of spending should be worked out in the Legislature. They know a lot more about the long-term picture of the state than I do.
But we don't have that option. All we have is a yea or nay vote on the merits of high speed rail itself. That's gotta be good enough for me. YMMV.
I like him well enough and I think he's ridiculous.
I prefer representatives who dedicate their lives to public service. It's not the most important thing to me. But -- and I know A LOT of people disagree with me on this -- I think you become a better lawmaker when you start, say, on your school board, then rise to your city council, then state rep or congressman, then senator or governor... than if you're a businessman or celebrity who says, y'know, I have a lot of ideas.
Maybe that's when he said (paraphrasing), "The election gave me political capital and I intend to spend it."
Is there any evidence that these lifers are better at the big stuff then those who skip the steps.
For some reason, my other favorite commentators could be more conservative and I don't think I mind. But I think I would have gotten in more bickering fights had I known there was any Yes on 8 thumping.
I'm sure it's like this all the time, but I've never had the "I like the idea of this bill. I hate the way it's written." feeling on so many Props before. The good of 1A allowed me to vote for it, but I'm still fencing Prop 2 (I likely will non-vote it), and will likely vote against 5,6,7,9,and 10 because of it.
But what's started to annoy me even more than staunch, incoherent, illogical partisanship on either side is the oft-youth-spun apathy. Just because the two party system is flawed doesn't mean there isn't mounds of difference to be made within it. I almost had a giant reply typed up to another's online journal, but remembered the last time I did that was to point out Ron Paul wasn't a liberal, and even a softball rebuttal like that wasn't made easily.
/goes back to playing Political Machine!
As for Prop 8, I worry that I may get into legal trouble if it passes, so maybe I shouldn't get into any Prop 8 discussions here.
BTW, a political blog that I've been reading for years, is marccooper.com. Marc's a bit of an old lefty, but he takes on both sides of the political spectrum with equal fervor. Or glee. Whatever you want to call it.
And he could always use some fresh blood in the comments section.
Anyway, he's a great writer. He's just ending his afiliation with the L.A. Weekly (he used to be on KPCC quite a bit with his RadioNation show. Worth a look.
I was quite delighted to find JoeyP a staunch conservative.
The prop I had the most problem with was prop 5. My initial inclination was to vote for it as I've always felt education was better then incarceration for non - violent criminals and the fact I don't believe in drug laws in the first place, but then Moonbeam told me to vote no, and that left me conflicted.
Some young women will seek out abortion no matter what the law says, which tend to be less regulated and safe (is this the lie part? Just curious what you meant by that).
Then there is always the cases of young girls who get pregnant from family members (incest). Not a pleasant thought, but it does happen.
I thought Bush was opposed to man dates. In fact, isn't that largely why he got elected twice...?
And then in the 90s it was the decade of his son, Joe Franken.
You have "think outside your bubble." That's my favorite line from a political ad this year. I really, really dig it. I'm going to get myself punched in the snoot, probably sometime soon, over using it so much. But it's worth it.
I think I'll probably end up non-voting Prop 2.
Also, when in doubt, I vote no.
Plus, I would never bet on a public transit system to beat Southwest. I'm flying up to San Jose in a couple of weeks. The ticket cost $160, and the trip will take an hour and half. What are the chances rail is going to be competitive with that? I hate the TSA as much as any ten men, but not enough to pay more to go to the same place, slower. Unless they introduce smoking cars. I'm betting they won't.
How did nobody run against the TSA this year?
I'm still not sure on how to think about Proposition 8. Is it really just the concept of marriage that is at stake, or are there actual rights involved?
I ended up doing what I usually do and voted no on all the prop's except 2. I is easy to make fun of such a prop but if most people here had visited a commercial egg/chicken farm they would probably vomit. Upton Sinclair lives on.
Just ten men? You've obviously not flown out of Phoenix lately.
Believe me, if/when I ever run for office, TSA and DHS will be squarely in the firing line.
As the father of a now-adult daughter, I find the weird dichotomy of parental consent for juvenile medical issues is strange indeed. Whatever else I might think of Proposition 4, 48 hours seems awfully arbitrary for the waiting period and should that prop pass, I expect that to be a significant part of the legal challenge.
Proposition 8 is an abomination.
14 After the last two presidential elections, I may be willing to settle merely for a clear win featuring a non-controversial margin.
For 45 years I've been waiting to travel via the jet backpack. They are probably waiting until they have put all the phone/power lines underground.
(Kidding, kidding).
I actually have seen much of the farm ways--and I'd love to get progressive in reforming them--but "Five years and you guys gotta fix it" just seems like a poorly constructed way to do it.
43 There's a lot of icky "we don't know yet" here. Right away, no 'rights' would be lost but the naming convention--but it was the same philosophy behind "separate but equal," and could lead towards city and further state legislation that would differentiate rights (ease of adoption comes to mind as one that would hit the political hot stove quickly).
You can usually look the candidates up on the state bar's website to find out where they work, how long they've been in practice, and if they have any disciplinary actions against them (www.calbar.org)
I absolutely agree with your first part (although Prop 6 this year seems really, really poorly written and not the standard "Give more money to police" bill), and is why I begrudgerlly am voting yes on 1A and 3. It really angers me that my tax money (which I wouldn't mind if it would get raised for these things) isn't already going to them, along with education, which is curiously missing a statewide bill this year. A big city wide bill, but I believe it's paid with a broad tax hike, which I'm much happier to do than a bond measure.
OK, that's out of the way. How did people in LA county vote on Measure R, the 1/2 cent sales tax for metro rail? I voted for it even though it gets us close to a 10% sales tax rate in the county.
But the official "Fiscal Effect" says "Depending on the level of ridership, these costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers."
So it might pay for itself (costs estimated at about $1B/year), but it might not. If it doesn't, then we've just cut even more money from our schools, because that's even more money coming out of the state budget.
I don't know what the risk of that happening is, and what percentage of that $1B is likely to be needed to be subsidized. What's the best case/worst case/most likely case?
Of course, running the Senate is a lot like herding cats, as more than one Senate leader has said over the years.
Also, my impression (not necessarily from anyone here) is that proponents of 8 are viewed as being hateful. Is that due to their belief on marriage, or because they are trying to impose their belief on others?
58 Given all the city support it has, I have to imagine the most likely case is it gets built, pays itself back, but later than (with higher ticket prices) than estimate. There's always the risk, but I'm such a dork for public transportation that it's one I'm willing to take.
But if the ticket prices went up by 50%, it would still beat most of South West's fares. And with security and getting to the airport added in, would probably be quicker.
I will be voting after work and would appreciate any input anyone has on the different Measures. Otherwise I'm voting yes on 2 (step in the right direction) and maybe yes on 3 and no on everything else.
A No vote would be the way to go, and you'd just have to be open to the idea (which already exists) what constitutes a marriage to you is not the same to others, and you'll be sharing the word. You wouldn't blink at two athiests using the same word as two born-agains.
The biggest fear (outside of the almost-absolutely-certainly-fallacious idea that gay parents can't rear socially correct children as well as straight parents) seems to be that churches could lose tax-exempt status or even be sued for denying a gay couple to marry, but it doesn't have much at all legal precedence. There was a case in New Jersey that gets toited out, but is usually horribly mis-construed when retold.
As far as "they'll teach it to my kids," my double response is it isn't such a bad idea to teach children about tolerance, but if California Education Code does mandate community approval for anything taught in local schools.
The "No" side missed an opportunity to spell out those risks in the "Arguments against" section.
I've been reading the text of the actual proposal, and it does have plenty of taxpayer protections built in, so maybe I'll vote yes and pray for the best.
Hypothetically, do you think the outcome of this vote would be different if the issue were about plural marriage instead of same-sex marriage?
It's not just five years, by the way; the tax would be in effect for thirty years.
LDS also, with some conservative sects excepting, do not support polygamy anymore.
I didn't know LDS was involved with prop 8 until I got a call (a pretend poll) from a no on 8 group asking me if knowing that they were made me more or less likely to vote for it.
But civil rights are central to such an idea, so it's sort of a fluffy thing to argue about.
The deal with prop 4 is this - as the law stands now, an older adult male can get a teenage girl pregnant, take her into an abortion clinic, cover his tracks, and continue abusing her, without the knowledge of her parents or the authorities. The girl can die from complications because she hasn't told anyone her condition. The kind of sexual and moral enslavement that current law protects is insurmountable for an underconfident teenage girl.
Prop 4 would save lives, both literally (i.e. save girls from death from complications to a condition no one close to her knows about) and figuratively (i.e. bringing a dangerous state of affairs to light so that others can help the girl straighten out her life).
Yeah - they're kids, and they're scared. They don't know how their parents will take it. They don't understand the implications. Just like a kid will say "I don't know" when asked who scribbled on the wall because they fear punishment, a teenage girl in deep water will not want her parents to know. In fact, the tantalizing nature of the "no one will know" aspect may push a girl into having an abortion she will later deeply regret.
55 I voted no on R, mostly due to my general hatred of the general sales tax.
If a candidate can give me something to clear that up, s/he has my vote.
Except I already voted, so I'll just try decongestants.
The policies of one side are founded in superstition. The policies of the other side are based on theft. You're expected to choose between ignorant and evil.
Yet both sides agree on the great value of economic inefficiency enforced by arbitrary violence.
If your analysis of public policy is premised on the ideal of individual freedom, there is no place for you in the public debate. Arguing the merits of any of the current proposed expansions of public debt seems akin to fighting over a single umbrella after you've both jumped out of the airplane.
I'm therefore sorry to say that I have really nothing useful to contribute here. For now, anyway. Maybe someday.
Not you, Bob. You, you're okay.
Just wondering if you guys consider always having to vote on various propositions annoying or empowering.
Democracy was not designed to work by having somebody sign a piece of paper on a clipboard outside of Target that they were too lazy to read.
Can't say my 8 year old necessarily enjoyed being forced to participate in a group reading of the Gettysburg Address, but someday, you know, when he's old and I'm dead, I'm hoping he'll appreciate the gesture.
What? Nobody said this was a non-schmaltzy thread . . .
However, a high-speed train in California is one project that will take longer to build then the LHC project that I have worked for 20 years.
In 1964, Californians went to the polls with a referendum (which they don't do often) to reverse the Rumsford Act which banned racial segregation in housing. Basically Californians voted to put racial covenants back into deeds.
In the 1950s, the state had an initiative to cancel all public housing contracts it had signed with the Federal government. The California Supreme Court declared it unenforceable BEFORE the election and it still went on the ballot. And it still prevailed.
And was never enforced.
SOOOOO
Obama wins the electoral vote 364-174. Carries all the usual democratic states plus Minn, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Penn, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.
Just a pool and some money down on the outcome.
Anybody else into the political numbers detail as much as we are?
What can I say, I'm an optimist at heart.
vr, Xei
I'm blaming Nate Silver on both counts if I'm wrong. He had the Dodgers winning the west with 87 wins and he's the one who convinced me Georgia is viable.
1,994,990 people voted early in Georgia. 3,301,875 total voted in Georgia's presidential race in 2004.
Minnesota has moved closer to the Republican Party in the last elections.
The state has gotten older and the influence of Labor side of Democratic party was dropped in the last few elections. Plus the Democratic party has picked poor candidates since Hubert, Eugene, Mondale, etc.
California is a donkey state and yet we have elected our good share of elephants to run our state.
Nate is going to be one wealthy BP writer after this election if he can sign up Boras as his agent to handle his speaking fee's, and he hires Mr. Shimmin to do the actual appearances.
When Minnesota elected Ventura governor, one of the defeated candidates was named Humphrey.
Farmers are not strong Republicans. However small cities are very solid republicans. larger cities ans college towns go Democratic.
http://tinyurl.com/5pfxg6
http://tinyurl.com/6ku65w
http://tinyurl.com/5dc33v
Is this a faith based concept?
Just think, if the Peace side of the Democratic party had voted in the close election of 1968 instead of staying home how different we would be today. (in other words Nixon loses)
My first big memory of TV was moving from Germany to Virginia just in time to watch the 68 election results on TV. We hadn't watched any TV for 3 years. I remember being fascinated by the whole thing and thinking Hubert sure had a big ole forehead.
I wonder about Indiana, Georgia, West Virginia, and North Dakota.
Forgot about the changes in Nebraska. Good call.
I was thinking of buying a billboard to advertise this too.
Or so he claims. I've been unable to figure out who he could have voted for in 1992. He swears he didn't vote for Clinton and there's no way he would have voted for the other two.
1968 Humphrey
1972 McGovern
1976 McCarthy
1980 Anderson
1984 Mondale
1988 Dukakis
1992 ?
1996 Nader
2000 Nader
2004 Kerry
I've never voted for a winning candidate either but this is only my fourth election.
Oh, and I absolutely hate the initiative process. But I did vote yes for 1A and R, so I'm a hypocrite.
It's too bad folks like Nader can't get a legitimate shot at competing with the Ds and Rs.
And back on 4, BlueMomma--it certainly is a hard issue. We restrict minors from a lot of things because we assume they don't have a clear enough head to make the proper call--but abortion does seem to be such a unique and special case. The problem with it is that it also overrides underaged privacy rights for the sake of telling only an adult family member (I seem to recall remembering notifying anyone but your parents requires a cry of abuse, but I could very well be wrong on that). I just know too many people who, with the law enacted, would have an equal amount of births they didn't want as a non-pass would produce abortions they later regret. It's by no means a cut-and-dry case, but I think it does ultimately step on the case of forcing morality and doesn't solve enough wrong to justify it.
There is undoubtedly cases where such a law would help prevent harm, but there has to be a line, and I don't think 4 does enough.
That was more rambly than I liked it, but I sort of am interested in recalling the argument in this rare case of rule 5 violations--you all mostly seem like such level headed people, I'd like to be told more--both with my feeling and the dissent.
He was a Rockefeller Republican. If he were alive, he would have voted for McCain though.
I usually go with CNN although I'll probably try to watch some HDNET, where Dan Rather is doing the returns and Nate Silver will be on-camera as an analyst.
My father accused Obama of being a terrorist, months before it became trendy to do so.
Also a Nelson Rockefeller fan.
As a Vietnam veteran I wanted an excuse to vote for McCain. However I never got one. Colin Powell made it very clear about how I should vote.
vr, Xei
Agree. I hope you are right about the belief structure.
However the last six years have been so bad if would be hard for Obama or anybody else to lose.
In other words, I'm not sure we should be patting ourselves on the back too much and declaring racism dead, because you could argue that this election result owes much more to the cosmic alignment of external factors than it does to Obama himself.
No patting on the back. Just impressed it happened. 2000 McCain had a chance, 72 year old 2008 McCain did not, especially after he picked Palin. All he did was solidify his base but scare the crap out of anyone who was tired of being smarter then the president. If he had picked Mike Huckabee it might have been a real race. I don't agree with hardly anything the man stands for but dang if I didn't like him anyway.
158
I keep hearing that both sides were doing the scare tactics but I guess because I only watch Jon Stewart/Colbert instead of Fox I only saw one side doing it on a consistent basis.
If this election has shown anything, it's that racism in the US is alive and well.
How do you do?
That would be funnier if Eric Stephen were visiting this thread.
Extreeeeeme right winger, but very personable, telegenic, and likeable.
Except I guess running an Indian guy would have negated the GOP's main strategy against Obama.
vr, Xei
The Palin pick was the final capper...it showed both terrible judgement and utter cynicism in one fell swoop (gotta pick up those evangelicals that hate me, and maybe a few Hillary supporters in the meantime!).
Oh, jeez...I realize now that I've just described every politician that ever lived.
I see the lines in the US and I think, is this typical? Does this not disenfranchise people in densely populated areas?
Does Obama's (presumably) winning the general by a wider margin than the primary mean that non-Democrats are less racist than Democrats?
As a progressive, the Republicans don't need to take notes from me. I won't be voting for them anyway.
But that said, I can't help thinking about this. It seems like the party is formed by, roughly, two groups: the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives. While I would assume there's some overlap between those groups, I do wonder how much each has adopted the other's issues to keep a marriage of convenience alive... Maybe I'm wrong about that --
Except I can't help but get the feeling that if a moderate Republican ran against Obama in 2012, with an argument that he'd get the federal government out of your wallet and out of your bedroom, AND if that candidate somehow captured the nomination (not an easy thing to do), then he might stand a very good chance against Obama.
He could run as "a different kind of Republican." One that doesn't care about gay marriage or abortion -- those are individual decisions best left to individuals. Also one that would keep taxes low and cut spending.
He'd have to not be crazy and he'd have to be a current senator or governor, so I don't know if there's anyone that can do it. And I certainly wouldn't support that candidate. But I can't help shake the feeling that such a Republican might be able to peel off enough Democratic support to win.
I respectfully ask our Republican members for their thoughts.
vr, Xei
I don't think you can come up with a meaningful average. The long lines are in big cities. Also some places get better poll workers than others.
My wait at 8:30 am in a small part of Los Angeles was zero minutes.
vr, Xei
But I'm not a Republican, so what do I know?
In Georgia and other places, there have been reports that rural and suburban precincts have more than enough voting machines, while urban precincts have extreme shortages and people have to wait in very long lines there. It seems obvious that this influences the election in a partisan way, but there has been shockingly little uproar about it. Yesterday somebody, I forget who, referred to the long waits as "a poll tax on working people," which I think is spot-on.
My experience must be atypical as I've never waited in line, not even for one minute, to vote for president. The first time I voted was in a university library, the second and third times were at a fire station in Cooperstown, and this year I voted in a big city but voted 10 days early.
As socially progressive as I am, I could see voting for a small government politician--especially on the local level--in order to enact a fiscal conservative check. But I don't see this ever being a safe choice unless the party changes their direction semi drastically.
Also, I am going to shove this Jason Molina mix CD at you whether you like it or not...Once I figure out how to hunt you down :)
Not really, winning the Repub primary is a lot different then winning the center which is where all national elections are won and lost.
I don't think McCain ever realized how much his age played against him in this election. More then any other person who has run for president he needed a VP that the national electorate would have been comfortable with as president if the burden of the job proved to much for his health.
1. Howard Dean has been a mixed bag as party chairman. The DNC could be better at raising money. But he was right on when he demanded a 50-state organization. Tonight the Democrats should win Virginia and Colorado, might win North Carolina, and are going to come close in Indiana and Missouri. This is a far cry from the Democrats who encouraged their party to focus on the big cities and nobody else. Perhaps the policies haven't changed, but the way they approach electing their candidates has.
2. Clinton had every advantage a year out and lost. It isn't just that Obama was a better candidate -- Clinton was formidable. The fact that the party chose him and not Clinton speaks volumes -- 2008 would not be business as usual.
So I think it's too simple to say that the Republicans will take over when the Democrats screw up. While that's certainly true on a base level, it doesn't really explain how you think that will come about.
The first candidate I ever voted for was Jerry Brown in 1974.
I would love that CD. Thank you.
I recently checked out that Neutral Milk Hotel album at your suggestion. I like the title track best so far.
Believing in science and ACLU for 40 years I may not be the best person to answer this
HOWEVER
The Republicans need a solid fiscal conservative that only talks about social issues. In the end does nothing about social issues.
Can you say Reagan.
Also a party that does not find ways to destroy its small progressive wing that can win senate/house seats in certain states.
Wow, you have done every drug in the book. :-)
I don't claim such a life-affirming, magical state to happen to everyone--some people just like it. But I know a dozen or so people who had similar experiences to mine.
For the sake of my wife and my baby, it's a really good thing that I don't know how to play guitar.
It's weird how that all works. Timing has a lot to do with it. I've also been exploring some Iron & Wine stuff lately as well.
The title track to the NMH album kinda reminds of my favorite song from The Flaming Lips "Clouds Taste Metallic," "They Punctured My Yolk."
Seriously, I'm very much a fiscal conservative and a social moderate as you described. The economics tend to override everything for me when I vote so I often feel like I end up voting more along party lines than I actually feel.
The next Republican to win, I think, will certainly have to come from outside the current GOP power structure, somebody most people haven't heard of yet. It won't be Huckabee, Thompson, or any of those guys. Even Jindal has the stain of being a Bush appointee. The next Republican to win may be somebody who's not even in a major public office right now.
However, being a former CEO may not have granted him political capital during the recent crisis either.
In what sense do you mean "remarkable?"
Will Oldham (Bonnie 'Prince' Billy) is next.
I may start doing a monthly mix based on what people have been saying they're listening to for DT commentators--It's something I've always loved doing, and having a half audience would be fun.
I would subscribe.
All the folks who have been denying for 8 years that there were any problems in Bush's US will eventually acknowledge all of the problems and blame them on Obama?
If McCain-Palin don't win, I would assume Palin would give it a go in 2012. There is a sizeable chunk of the GOP that likes her.
Plus he's boring.
I didn't trust the slick talking hillbilly Rhodes Scholar, I sent my vote to Ross Perot.
Palin, like Ferraro, will not be an issue or involved in the next presidential election.
Her best possibility is a GPS tracking device.
Despite having the aura of the typical citizen in my very conservative suburban town, he actually did a great job of offering a balanced and fairly in depth view of history for a non-AP class (my handwriting is nearly illegible, so I could never pass an in class essay to go higher).
I'll e-mail you. Jason Molina is the guy from Songs:Ohia, right? I only have the split with My Morning Jacket, but I think that's a cool (long) song.
Has the evangelical support. Was anti-bailout from the get go (and we'll see how that turns out; many are pessismistic at the effect it will have). Is very charismatic.
Why isn't he at the top of the list for republicans in 2012?
No, I think she's loved by the evangelicals, and not many else.
I think Humma in 177 provided a good desription of what the next successful Republican candidate will be like.
Hockey moms.
I want national health care.
I want regulated financial institutions.
I want, Don Corleone, those politicians you carry around in your pocket like so many nickels and dimes.
Wait, forget the last one.
Bush Senior blew that argument out of the water. Skip the small fry stuff and just go for the prize winning bass.
And then, the burning of mixes!
vr, Xei
Isn't Obama in favor of cutting taxes for some people and raising taxes for others?
*second-most populous state when he was first elected, first by the time he left office.
vr, Xei
vr, Xei
IF any of them go for Obama then McCain is in very serious trouble.
Those states are Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia.
(Not counting Vermont)
vr, Xei
Molly Ivins, Studs Terkel, Paul Newman, and Paul Wellstone.
Indiana 55% Obama and 43% McCain with 1% reporting.
Ky is 36% O to 62% Mc, 1% reporting
N.H. is 67% O to 33% Mc, 1% reporting
We have a bunch of college profs of the American History/Political Science in the house.
All over 59. Wifes and kids are gone.
Every four years unlimited beer and pizza for one night!
With our ages I am sure we will asleep by ten :) :)
2% reporting in Indiana, 50-49 Obama leads. If McCain can't win Indiana, there's going to be a lot of blue on the map.
The rant of moderateness is gone. Maybe later if certain props pass or don't pass.
Indiana...
Just looking at some of the places where we have results in so far. Obama is substantially outperforming Kerry -- which is what he needs to do to win the state, of course, but the differences are pretty substantial.
Steuben: Kerry 34%, Obama 42%
DeKalb: Kerry 31%, Obama 38%
Knox: Kerry 36%, Obama 54%
Marshall: Kerry 31%, Obama 50%
Saxby is a silly name, too.
http://tinyurl.com/55jpz5
Ben and Jerry sold their company years ago.
273
We used to get our eggs from a kid in my wife's class who won the science fair 1st prize with his awesome automatic chicken feeder.
Ken, just wanted to thank you for this.
I guess we'll see Jindal in national politics in 2016.
Thanks, Ken...reading the comments today has been great fun.
Don't mind me.
Let's have some good news and some blue on the map by the time I get back! Hurrah!
--Wolf Blitzer, 2008 Presidential Election Coverage
It's like a Tomorrowland movie come true.
vr, Xei
You're not worthy.
Florida, 1% reporting, 48% Obama, 34% McCain.
[insert Palm Beach, Florida butterfly ballot joke here]
that's a huge amount of 3rd party voting going on there.
vr, Xei
vr, Xei
I considered just not voting for President, since California probably didn't need another vote for Obama anyway, but my gut wanted Obama to win and I thought it'd be a little hypocritical to want Obama to win and not vote for him.
I'm still not completely sure I did what I should have done, and I'll surely wrestle with the issue more in the future, but that's that.
Anyway I hope that answers your question in a non-controversial way.
vr, Xei
Asked if she'd ever run for president, she said, "Heck no. We've got enough boobs in Washington already."
She said if asked about foreign affairs, she'd reply "what's wrong with American men?"
And if asked about global warming, her reply: "If my globes get warm, I just take off my sweater."
And Soledad O'Brien.
According to 538, if I'm reading it right, McCain cannot win the election unless he wins Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
politico is reporting Obama with 56.8% of the vote in Florida. McCain with 47.8%.
vr, Xei
Ah, so.
vr, Xei
vr, Xei
Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been re-elected.
I am surprised by the speed by which the state was called for him.
Better, because we know in advance the outcome.
Carry on.
Vote Whig!
When did the Doles move to North Carolina?
In what way do you consider that "good news"...?
vr, Xei
For the record, I'm cheering for my guy, not booing yours.
Ghasp! I suppose you're not really a DBacks fan either...
vr, Xei
Xei
Of course, being in Carson City, I guess I mean that figuratively. Sigh.
I've still never voted for a Republican for Congress, or any state office. Maybe someday.
So it's with respect that I say why I'm not gloating.
During Clinton's presidency, I could not for the life of me understand why Republicans hated him so much. And, frankly, I'm not interested in understanding. That's history.
Then, during Bush's presidency, the tables were turned and we had a president that I couldn't stand. I won't go into that here.
Part of the reason I supported Obama and not Clinton was that Hillary Clinton is a wildly divisive figure. I thought she'd be a fine president and if she'd been the nominee I would have voted for her, but -- how to put this -- I felt that if she was the nominee, and/or if she won, that would be bad for the country. It would continue the partisan split that we've seen for 16 years.
Maybe electing Obama won't change that. Maybe I'm a naive moonbeam for thinking even for a minute that he MIGHT change that. But I figured it was worth a shot.
So: no gloating from me. And, in fact, I beseech our Republican friends: give the guy a shot.
Most likely, it's both.
36 percenters hate minorities and the poor, 39 percenters want to collectivize the economy and abolish ownership. At least, that's what I've learned so far.
Oh wait: it's 2008.
I'm still 50/50 on the existence of that place.
I'm with Eric, that is like saying Jason Varitek is not much different then Russ Martin.
I had value added content in my comment. Delaware jokes never get old.
At least for me.
Fox News also call Penn for Obama.
That settles it.
You need to step up your pace if you want to work your wizardry here.
Shocking.
I guess it wasn't.
It might have been. I was just basing my comment on stereotypes.
Obama is outperforming Kerry by a 12-15 point net in the Eastern half of the Virginia.
In the Western half, he's not performing much better than Kerry and is actually underperfoming him in some counties.
I think that equation works out favorably for Obama on balance, though Virginia will be fairly close. Donnie Fowler thinks the Obama people have more reason to be excited about Florida right now.
Maybe they've only counted the "Real Virginia" votes so far.
I would then like to hop into the proper dimension where things turn out as the electorate would have it go.
But it would be a sight to see.
I blame tobacco.
I can already imagine what the Daily Show and the Colbert Report can do with that skit.
She was reporting from the future. Don't want to spoil it for you.
The key to any statewide victory for Republicans in Virginia is to run up big margins in suburban Richmond, and especially in Chesterfield County just below the James River from the capital.
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry there 63-37.
Now, with nearly 100% of precincts reporting, McCain is only beating Obama 54-45 in Chesterfield.
I was trying to figure out if the high population areas hadn't yet reported, but I was too geographically-challenged.
Or, depending upon your perspective, a 2008 Clippers game.
ND should never have hired Charlie Weis.
It's tempting to assume that Fox obviously wants McCain to win.
But I have to think that, deep down, they secretly want the other party to take over so they can have someone else to blame.
Me too. I think the McCain states should secede.
There's a snowmoblie champion in Alaska who wants some of that, too.
From abcnews.com
"New president will inherit economy from hell"
Blame Andrew Jackson.
"Fight Club" rules apply.
Maybe Wyoming.
Jennifer Granholm is probably America's most attractive female governor.
But she can never be president. She was born in ... CANADA.
Thanks for indulging my obsession.
I should know the answer to that, but I don't.
I wonder if that includes Salem's Lot. I hear vampires tend to vote liberal, mainly because of the aversion to crosses.
True. SC also has Charleston, which is great.
The more things change...
Vice-President and President have the same eligibility requirements.
Actually I think McCain is the latter.
Also, non-native citizens can't run for the VP spot either.
- 35 years old
- natural born citizen
- 14 years a resident of the United States
what constitutes a natural born citizen is a bit more nebulous. there is a question raised every four years if a person is born outside the US to two american parents, if he would be eligible. McCain, for example, was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Congress passed a resolution specifically saying that he is a natural born citizen.
I think Indiana Jon runs afoul of more people because he thinks Bob Knight is a better basketball coach than John Wooden.
That's worse than John Lennon saying that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.
Even if only 1/3 of Californians agree with you on something, that's still around 12 million people. You would dump the whole state despite that?
Where I come from, we dumped the Holy Spirit out of the Trinity and replaced it with John Wooden.
John Wooden was also created through parthenogenesis.
He was better having others perform his material.
With 28% to go, McCain's lead is 1,123,324 to 1,110,360.
Assuming the father to be Vin Scully, how long do we have to wait before we can formally name Pete Carroll as the son?
Stupid librul media.
High five!
i am also disappointed to hear that Jon Kyl is safe for another 4 years. the ban on internet poker would make me a one issue voter if i lived in arizona.
I'm kidding. Really. I meant to say it's a "feel good about ourselves without actually helping the poor chickens" thing.
Also, a big way-to-go for Jack Ryan's sexual impulse control.
According to the guy who is an expert on the Vice Presidency and has an office next to my sister-in-law at Saint Louis U, the worst VP choice in modern history was Spiro Agnew.
Not if he was just doing it as a way of getting high.
It's a bold gambit, but I can't blame a guy for trying.
For you non-Southerners, Food Lion is about 10X skankier than Safeway.
That's a lead of .21%
But you were just asking who was a poor choice for VP. Agnew was a poor choice because he would never have been a good president. He was both stupid AND corrupt. He was more corrupt than Nixon. That took effort!
Why not? The worst Presidential choice ever won twice.
Can we agree on during our lifetimes, at least?
my refresh finger is getting tired!
To be precise, he describes Agnew as his "least favorite" and Mondale as his "most favorite."
Wasn't Reagan's initial selection for running mate the then Gov. of PA?
His choice was changed to Bush after about 48 hrs at the convention?
A member of the Trilateral commision needed to be a part of the ticket?
I hated him at the time, too, but then he looked wonderful in the rear-view mirror.
It's nice when nothing happens.
This is obscure but I remember this because I had gone into the wilderness on vacation for a week and caught this in the paper the day we hit civilization.
Who was the Gov. of PA. at that time?
The governor of PA in 1976 was Milton Shapp, a Democrat. In 1980, it was Richard Thornburgh, a Republican.
These people don't read much. Or study history much.
It's a good thing he never went further, since I keep messing up his name and job titles. Reagan did give him a Cabinet in HHS.
Thanks for the Schweikert update Bob
You're welcome.
I watched a lot of the 1976 GOP convention. It was the last time there was anything mildly interesting going on at one of those things.
Reagan tried to get Ford to name his running mate before the convention too, but failed. Schweiker wasn't too popular it turned out as he was a relatively liberal Republican. Ford supporters called the rule change that the Reaganites wanted as the "Misery Loves Company" rule and it lost.
Is this like a chess game?
Do the oil companies prop this guy up and keep our attention off the ball while they drill their brains out and keep finding ways to create even greater profits?
They never loose. Never.
Yes, and John McCain was going to win DC too.
Do you find Bush trustworthy?
Who am I? Why am I here?
I don't know how you can measure shiftiness, and a good portion of the American people approved of Clinton's performance, and while I understand you hate him IJ, using him as a reason why we may not like Obama doesn't equate.
I trust none of the politicians.
Has a less trustworthy person than Bush walked the earth during our lifetimes?
Considering how powerful both Al Gore, and Dick Cheney made the VP slot, I wonder if Obama is going to allow such freedom to Biden.
Rupert Murdoch.
You can drive up to places and toss it in.
Oregon smoked their ballots?
It's not pretty.
In a parliamentary system, voters don't even get to pick the leader of the party. Don't think Gordon Brown could ever survive in American politics.
I didn't know people like KG could think FDR was the worst president ever--surely small government wouldn't like big, but I was never aware people despised him. More you know.
(Note: Not saying you're wrong, though feel free to explain. WWII era American history is not my strong point. I stop my trivia interest at WWI).
How were the US presidents selected prior to 1850?
There was some form of popular vote used in presidential elections from 1824 through 1848. Some states apportioned electors by district.
Before that, state legislatures and governors appointed electors.
It was... different.
This is what I have to tell myself over and over when I get the urge to sing the body opinionated. There's a reason why we all get a vote, and not every disagreement can really be settled right or wrong. I do think a lot of things I care about have more of a degree of right/wrong, but it can be hard to think so in times of political passion.
So prior to 1824 the system was more Hamiltonian in some respects?
FDR was one of the most influential presidents in American history, he redefined the role of the federal government and the office. i just don't like the way it was redefined.
I'm sure he'll get right on that.
FDR was very effective, but as i said in 610 , i don't like the way in which he was effective.
Early presidential election systems: the really short form
Washington won the first two because everybody wanted him. Hamilton arranged for a few people to not vote for Adams so he would be VP (as was the rule at the time).
In 1796, parties show up and Adams and Jefferson run against each other. The Federalists prevail, but Jefferson finishes second and becomes VP. Adams and Jefferson aren't getting along well and people think that this might not be a good idea.
In 1800, Adams and Jefferson go at it again. The electors for each side are highly disciplined this time, especially Jefferson's and all of them vote Jefferson and Burr. For the Federalists, one guy peels off from Pinckney (the putative VP choice). Jefferson and Burr tie and Jefferson wins a contentious battle in the House and Burr goes off and shoots Hamilton.
By 1804, the Federalists really don't have much left and Jefferson wins fairly easily and the VP vote is separate and George Clinton comes to DC.
The same holds true in 1808 and 1812 for Madison, who wins fairly easily. Monroe wins handily in 1820 and has no opposition in 1824. Not that he was the most universally liked president. It's just that nobody could organize an opposition.
By 1824, the process for nominating candidates is a mess. Some are nominated by Congress, some by state legislatures. It's a four way battle among Adams, Jackson, Clay, and Crawford. Jackson gets the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, but not a majority of either. And not all the states have a popular vote.
The election goes to the House and Clay has his states back Adams. All hell breaks loose.
In 1828, Jackson comes back looking for blood and gets it.
In 1832, the Democrats use a convention of party delegates to nominate a candidate and elections begin to resemble something like today's.
In the same way that a baseball game from 1861 would resemble one from today.
See, all of the work you did passing out flyers paid off.
Clay gets hammered in '32.
i am a big Hamilton fan.
I said "promised to."
Hamilton's political career was over before Burr murdered him.
William Henry Harrison said in his inaugural address that the executive branch should always defer to the legislative.
Then he died. Tyler took over. And the ending writes itself!
I was writing fast there, sorry.
I repeated 1824. For Monroe's two terms subtract four years from the starting dates.
I ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Dying in office
Not winning
Disappearing
So where does this leave McCain? Back to the senate until he retires?
http://tinyurl.com/forgregbrock
ideally, at 74, he'll ride off into the sunset.
621 Even if he intended to, the temptation to purchase Louisiana would have been too much.
Quit gloating.
With 90.4% of districts reporting, Obama is up 50.7% to McCain's 48.1%
They are still waiting to see who HBO will cast in the movie.
Very nice.
Orrin Hatch would have made a good justice. Clinton would as well. Taking the partisanship out of the thing, there are some smart legal minds in the Senate.
The man accomplished his four goals, left, and died. Efficient.
In 2000, as hell as was breaking loose in Florida, the sewer line in my apartment building started backing up into my tub and toilet.
That's what I remember the most from that election.
And then be begging to be sent to Gitmo.
642 did
Sorry; habit.
None of my students doubt they could be anything they want. I don't know how many seventeen year old black kids Chris Matthews talks to, but I'd guess it's not very many.
Today's kids just don't think like that.
You do the math.
Also, I didn't realize how racist I was as a person until I took a class on race in America. In fact, none of the students taking the class knew how racist they were as Americans.
Ultimately, I think it will be more historically important that Obama is of mixed-heritage and not predominately "white", rather than that he is "black".
I wonder if they are celebrating at Occidental.
Is Pete Carrol on the Mt Rushmore of coaches with 1.5 football championships?
Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky...plenty of options.
I've long considered winning this election to be a booby prize, with the winner almost destined to fail.
This country gave a pass to Bush in 2004, it won't award the same benefit to Obama in 2012?
Betting against the United States in any ten year period, save the Depression, has never been a very good bet.
It's a pretty resilient country.
"WASHINGTON – Barack Obama has won the presidency."
Economy: terrible
Environment: terrible
Energy: terrible
Foreign relations: terrible
Iraq: terrible
Etc.: terrible
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect anyone to fix all this stuff.
He really is old, I guess.
Interesting times await.
http://tinyurl.com/5kpuf4
there's also something at the secretary of state's website, but it is not loading for me at the moment.
Bob, I retract 677 . Once again, I've been hanging all day in the wrong thread on the Toaster, and missing out on the party over here.
I'm just getting caught up now, and saw your note, posted many hours before mine! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)
And still don't.
Most of the redneck, er, rural areas haven't been counted yet.
Acting like a petulant child isn't going to help her win in 2012.
They don't have to promise anything.
His is a lonely existence.
* 1A: High-speed rail Yes 48.4% No 51.6%
* 4: Abortion notification Yes 49.8% No 50.2%
* 8: Gay marriage ban Yes 54.4% No 45.6%
And all the little girls who are about to get those hugging jobs.
L.A. Times has up to date reporting on all the CA props.
Prop 8 looks like its headed for a win. God help those who opposed it.
I feel like Prop 8 is a vote for discrimination, but that's only my opinion. Personally, it doesn't affect me either way.
---
Prop 1A, the train proposition, seems like a close race so far, but my guess is the people who voted no either
a) Fly often and could care less about train service
b) Feel that energy efficient/electric vehicles will take over by the time it is completed
or
c) Don't care to pay the extra taxes.
Any of those are valid reasons to oppose Prop 1A. I've really grown to love trains, especially light rail, so I voted YES. I think in a perfect world, I would not own a car and just use buses and trains, along with planes, to get where I need to go.
---
Barack Obama is on his way out! Senator Obama, COME ON DOWN!!
Ah, but the flip side is, Barack Obama can do just about anything and improve the State of the Union!
Kind of like when Bill Parcells takes over a fallen franchise, like, hmm... the Miami Dolphins?
---
I'm only 26, so I was wondering: When Reagan took over for Jimmy Carter, was America in a similar state of disarray? It seemed like it based on the inflation issues, the Iran Hostage Crisis, and so on.
* Parks 39.0%
* Ridley-Thomas 61.0%
I'll only note this race because they ran some of the crappiest ads I ever seen. I'll be happy if both of them were ran over by a bus tomorrow. However, I will say that Parks is probably still paying for RAMPART.
I think the Prop 8 vote will end up being very close.
I voted for 1A (like the idea of building infrastructure...it's a long term investment)
I voted against 2, 4, and 8, for many of the same reasons said here today.
I hope Obama gets around to thanking David Palmer in his speech soon. :)
People weren't happy. And Jimmy Carter had intimated that it was the people's fault because there was a national malaise.
It was not a time when the country was bristling with optimism.
I just hope that Barack Obama doesn't shake the hand of any woman who looks like Mia Kirshner.
Frankly, they aren't the ones who'll need His help.
Worse than watching the 2005 Dodgers?
If I have ever have a chance to meet Ms. Kirshner, I have vowed to avoid shaking her hand.
Maybe I can get an initiative on the ballot to eliminate propositions.
Then I saw her after I voted, standing on the corner by my work, campaigning to passersby in the rain with no umbrella. I thought that was pretty hardcore, and was proud of my vote. :)
I viewed it as the latter since he also said he viewed a yes vote as a vote for discrimination.
I will stand with you outside any Target or Wal-Mart at anytime to help you get that on the ballot.
The U.S. Constitution requires enormous hurdles to get amended. The CA Constitution can be amended by just waving a clipboard at somebody at the supermarket.
That's not what Hiram Johnson had in mind.
In a state that includes Hollywood, you'd think we could get the state constitution a decent rewrite by now.
LOL. I meant God help those who voted NO. Although by "God" I mean your deity of choice, if applicable.
I may have confused myself.
vr, Xei
This LA times map is really well done. Kudos to them.
The simple majority is never, ever supposed to change the rule of law.
I read that in a book once. In the third grade, I think.
Yeah, something doesn't seem right about the ease with which the CA constitution can be changed. I voted no on anything that would change the CA constitution with merely a 50% vote.
Also, regarding all the initiatives in CA, it speaks to an incompetence of the state legislature to get anything done. Money for hospitals, roads, police and firefighters? Why are we voting on this? Isn't that what our state legislators are elected to do? Maybe we can balance the state budget by eliminating their salaries and just vote statewide on every issue.
The "will of the people" used to be in favor of a lot of things we find pretty heinous today. I weep at the propspective passage of proposition h-eight.
He probably just got hit with another paternity suit or something.
damn.
1A?
4?
In fact, I'd be willing to give the senate back to the state legislatures. I'd prefer it.
vr, Xei
Kudos, I guess.
Measure 2 in Florida is passing with 62% of the vote.
can we also package this stuff with a repeal of legislative term limits?
"The people" is a fierce beast.
So you want to take the franchise away from women?
I'm not sure I'm for universal white male suffrage at this point, so it's not a sexist thing.
Keep laughing...
{rubs hands together menacingly}
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
don't know if it means anything.
1A - I voted no; not convinced that high-speed rail from SF to LA is going to solve that many problems, nor that our state gov't will prevent it from becoming a huge boondoggle.
4 - I voted no, but this was a difficult issue. My daughter is 19 now, but when she was a juvenile, I had to ok the most minor medical procedures, but not even be informed about abortion or birth control prescriptions - this seems weird+++. On the other hand, proponents could not convince me this was a good law, plus the 48-hour waiting period seemed like an ugly tack-on. My wife is an R.N., OBGYN specialty, and she tells me stories that make my hair stand on end - on all parts of the spectrum.
+++ I can't remember, but I think that's only from the age of consent and up.
Meanwhile, the "Crossing Over" John Edwards anxiously waits by a pay phone outside of a Circle K somewhere in middle America, wondering how it all went wrong.
I voted no on Prop 11, but I was torn on that one. It seemed to me -- a very simplistic view, I admit -- to complicate the redistricting process, as well as put the responsibility into the hands of fewer people.
I liked it so much better when I was the only person doing it.
852 - the only reason i voted for it is because i believe we need more competitive districts in the legislature and the congress. legislators are more interested in drawing lost of safe seats.
Come out of the box with your base's pet projects and the moderates can swing right back. '94 was not that long ago.
Those are supposed to be illegal. When I went to Starbucks and asked for a tall drip coffee, I was told to pony up $1.60.
They didn't ask for my sticker. I heard they offered the free coffee to everyone, if the customer asked.
That's what I tried! And they wouldn't give me free coffee.
They don't know about my obelisk.
They probably figured, "Hey, this is the guy that paid us an extra $20. He'll pay anything!"
There must be shenanigans going on in Bridgeport.
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/11/03/the-dugout-slander/
Orange
Riverside
Plumas
Solano
Los Angeles
San Francisco
We also had a vacation home for awhile in Calaveras. And I used to work in Marin.
Is anyone more of a CA county whore than me?
I say this without judgment on the tax issue. Merely as an observer and fan of realpolitik.
I also have a recession-proof job, so I'm not sweating it, no matter what happens.
I got my free coffee
864 The African-Americans in my class, and my African-American friends, and liberal Catholic friends are all for Prop 8.
Civil rights for some, tiny American flags for others.
Yes, that's it, and I hadn't thought of the liberal Catholics. Are there a lot of those?
I did, in the first grade. The backyard was a forest. We were even snowed in!
I'm a liberal Catholic and I opposed Prop 8.
Small sample size warning.
Don't worry, I would never use you as an example of typical.
My dad owns some nearly worthless, undeveloped land in Modoc!
Notre Dame University.
On this we can almost all agree*.
*Sorry, Indiana Jon.
She's like a younger Cheryl Miller.
As a member of the Centrist Catholics, I also agree!
Being against gay marriage, in the long term, is a losing issue anyways. I don't doubt that it will be legal in most states within the next 20 years.
Oh come on, I'm not convinced that Cheryl and Reggie were even born on Earth.
I just want to take care of Amy and bring her water and stuff. She was born in Zambia. I wonder how many other white-mothered, African-fathered Americans voted against Obama today.
I avoided this thread like the plague earlier today because I feared the worst. However, I underestimated the fine group of posters here at the Toaster, many of whom I have met.
Regardless of everyone's opinions, the tone has been remarkably respectful, and I should have expected as such.
Kudos to Ken Arneson for setting the standard of conduct here, and kudos to everyone else for voting.
I want to see what happens with Jane Harmon. She's paid her dues in the House for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets to run the CIA.
Jim Webb is the real question. Is he manageable enough to get a good gig?
I didn't mean that as a slight on Holmes. I'm a fan of 'fro Cheryl.
Of the CNN crew, I'm more of a Soledad O'Brien fan myself.
You're going to have to fight Shimmin and his magic pens of death for Soledad.
Kerry at AG
I want to see who will be chief of staff. That's the job you give the guy you really feel is the smartest.
Chief of Staff was the captain of Academic Decathlon in high school.
I'll bring a sword so the world can finally have an answer to the age old question/myth.
i have no problem with richardson at State, i'd prefer to see homeland security broken up.
i've heard Harman as head of the CIA. that's intriguing
I hope Xei will run some projections for that duel.
"Yes, sir."
"Is he smarter than you?"
"Yes sir."
"Would you trust him with your life?"
"Yes sir."
"That's your chief of staff."
L.A. County will have more votes than many other states.
No matter the party, I have an intense dislike for party apparatchik. Emmanuel seems like the kind of guy savvy enough to survive a Stalin party purge.
Obama is supposed to be above hiring apparatchik. The New Politcs and all.
Obama hiring RONALD REAGAN's Fed Chairman is pretty...Um...Counter intuitive.
Bob's people. Let's not let him forget it.
Thanks, Bob.
I am not surprised that Prop 8 is winning, many don't see it as discrimination issue and others are still uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.
The Bradley/Wilder effect needs a new name. A more gay name. The Graham Norton effect? The Larry Craig effect? The Johnny Mathis effect?
The Clay Aiken effect?
vr, Xei
The wrecks-n-effect?
He should never have wizzed off that building onto a cop in Cleveland.
Oh, different Gary Miller?
vr, Xei
This from one who supports prop 8 - because I'm afraid I could get into legal trouble for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony (I'm a Catholic, and an organist in reasonably high demand in my county) if it were to fail.
I wonder how many protectors of traditional marriage realize the historical nature of marriage and familial relations. The natural state of marriage, for a thousand years, was one man and multiple wives.
That popes held concubines. That the genius of the Sistine Chapel, and it's depiction of creation, was created by a homosexual.
Gayness really scares people, I guess. Maybe their children will catch the gay.
Thankfully, when I'm 70 years old and ready to die off, gays will have the right to marry. This issue will be an anathema to my grandchildren. As miscegenation laws are to us
Prop 8 may fail, but the fight for equal protection will ultimately succeed, and discrimination against gays will fall into the ash heap of history.
It must suck to realize that a victory against gay marriage is temporal. Enjoy it...It won't last very long.
The "No" side also needs LA to at least move closer to their side or there is no hope.
This coming from a very religious person, for what it's worth. But it's fallacious to try and compare his comment to other trends, as they're not directly causal.
This has been really fun. A lot of my stances on a few things I've been really challenging--more or less staying the same, but trying to deal with my fiscal moderateness, and decide what I really like, and where do I draw the line of government accountability and trust for them to do the best for the welfare of the nation.
that is funny to me.
I may have to reread the letter to Birmingham tonight. Of all "obvious" heroes out there, MLK rates skies and skies above most every else for me, as a thinker, speaker and as a writer.
Bob, Brock, you're in charge of gathering signatures.
vr, Xei
And I'm in KG. I was also thinking of that earlier--how on earth could a country that 48% always prefers the status quo every clean up entire documents that desperately need it, without some dire circumstance.
I'd be in there fighting for the social programs I deeply care about, probably getting guff from you KG and Greg :)
I love the Constitution...I believe it to be the ultimate fulfillment of Enlightenment ideals, but I think, after 200 years, it's time to rewrite the thing.
Larry Sabatow, my legal and spiritual mentor, has long advocated a re-writing of the Constitution. I think it's time for a new one.
I think a new Constitutional Convention would be awesome.
But Obama is only losing Orange County by 6 or so points, he's barely losing Riverside, Fresno and San Berdoo
Xei
Of course, now that a gay marriage ban is in the constitution, Prop 8 proponents will probably now spend millions to immediately enact my proposal to make constitution changes require a 2/3 majority.
Activist judges ended school segregation. Would you argue that Brown was a bad thing?
You only dislike activist judges when they are active against your moral/religious/political interests.
How big a majority do the Democrats in this state need before they sack up a tiny little bit, anyway? The California Republican party isn't going to get more dead. Jesus, did you see who they ran in the last Senate race?
And before I go any further, I'm in a calm mood because I'm having pizza, but I know that may not stay, so while I am: as I think you know Xei, I deeply respect you and find you one of the most valuable dudes on DT, and by no means think less of you for anything we've argued over. Anything heated said is just my convictions getting the best of me.
Greg and KG (and anyone else), how do you feel about certain social programs? Are they always a bad idea? Where do you draw the lines? My devotion towards public education (both a complete re-doing of how it works, which I could write forever and ever about) and devotion of funds and an opening of who gets access to great education are, bar none, my #1 political priority.* What about health care? Pension plans? Parks/Rec services? These are things that I in theory support, but would love to hear you guys' opinion on it.
* - With issues that I feel deny undeniable civil rights being an exception, but I look forward to the day where these don't come up on a direct vote.
Tell me how I can accomplish my goals, and I'll tell you which branch is best.
The legislature is obviously the worst, unless my political allies dominate it. The presidency should be supreme...Unless the other party controls it.
I like the branch of government that enforces my beliefs.
Oops, Coleman just went up by 1600. I bet there's a recount.
In Alaska, they're about to re-elect a convicted felon to the Senate.
Actual results so far: Obama 52.2%, McCain 46.6%.
The only state he missed is Indiana, which he called as a narrow loss for Obama, but ended up a narrow win. He called for 353 EV, but it looks like he'll end up at 364.
Alaskans are freaking nuts and you can tell them I said so.
A fairly big upset appears about to happen in Oregon, which means three Udalls got elected to the Senate tonight. Which, along with the Prop 8 result, means the biggest winners in tonight's elections were... the Mormons.
Jim Martin in Georgia is about 17,000 votes shy of what he needs to force a runoff, with 99% reporting. Sounds like recount city there too.
This is fun.
JOHN MCCAIN 1273939
BARACK OBAMA 1570879
ALAN KEYES 1
Is uncall a real word?
Uncalled is a word, but not uncall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJvGIvWHfI
You know, I was literally in a sandbox and in 1st grade when the news of Kennedy's assassination was announced. I haven't heard a political speech that rivaled his since then, until last night.
And the, well, moisture that welled up in my eyes when I first saw `President-Elect Barack Obama' on screen last night, they were real.
I get why you would be frustrated with the divisiveness caused by religeon, but I think "I can't stand religion" comes across at least as hateful as the anti-gay marriage folks are painted as being.
Certainly, there are expressions of religion that have caused people to do horrible things. On the other hand, I think that religion has also caused people to do a lot of wonderful things. Millions upon millions of people would tell you that their religion has helped them to be better, kinder, happier people.
Well said.
In the meantime, I am going to be pissed about all the tax dollars and court time that will be wasted as this issue is fought in the court system, perhaps to the federal level. Will it be irony if the Prop 8 backers who complain about judicial review overturning 2000's Prop 22 have in fact caused even more judicial review, perhaps even to the SCOTUS?
Prop 8 passes with 52% of the vote.
Voters were in a move to approve stuff, I guess.
960 - i think most social programs should be at the state level. personally, i wouldn't mind seeing the federal department of education reduced to three attorneys at the department of justice who monitor civil rights act abuses. i'd prefer social security to be optional. i'm not opposed to a social safety net per se, nor am i opposed to regulation per se. I just don't think you should deincentivize work and/or self-reliance; but you also need to recognize that some people are going to fail and they shouldn't be left to die. my problem is generally that the federal government has overstepped its bounds through the aggregate principle in Wickard v Filburn (it's the second time i've mentioned that case, basically, the supreme court said that a farmer growing crops on his farm for use on his farm was part of interstate commerce because if every farmer did that, in the aggregate, it would have a profound effect on interstate commerce. i still blame FDR).
yes, it has to be decided by the courts, but i'm not sure who would have standing to challenge the marriages. the terrible scenario would be a married gay person is in critical condition and the family who would otherwise have the right to determine treatment disagrees with the spouse.
the other aspect is that marriage is a contract - there is an offer, acceptance, consideration, and performance. the federal constitution does not allow states to pass laws impairing the obligations of contracts. so, congratulations prop 8 supporters, you just made gay marriage a federal question. in the Ninth Circuit. some of us would call that poetic justice.
I would guess that even the most staunch proponent of Proposition 8 believes that same-sex marriage will become widely accepted sooner or later. My impression of this proposition is that it is really only an effort to slow down the inevitable.
1. Married gay people having sex with each other
2. Unmarried gay people having sex with each other
As a general question, what rights within marriage do gay couples currently not have with domestic partnerships, civil unions, or whatever it was called before the SF judges started letting them get married? What rights are they missing? Health Insurance, tax benefits etc...?
vr, Xei
I don't know the answer to your question, but if civil unions/whatever really are no different from marriages, then why even have the debate in the first place? Why the need to ban gay marriage? Why distinguish between marriage and civil union?
If there's no difference between civil unions and marriages, then just call them marriages.
Without the umbrella recognition and protection, it could allow for exceptions and exclusions in further litigation--adoption rights being the quickest to the chopping block, I'd guess. I don't want to sound like Chicken Little here--it's certainly possible nothing ever happens and they keep the mostly same 'tangible' rights. But it doesn't make it justice.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of those who are trying to legalize it. They presumably feel like they're being treated differently (i.e. being "discriminated" against), and want to be treated equally instead.
From their perspective, as 998 intimates, they are (understandably) suspicious that any kind of "separate but equal" designation is a covert attempt to actually treat them differently in practice.
In the end, moderate faith insulates the rights of more and more "extreme" faith (you can question anything in this society OTHER than people's religion). If we are supposed to look the other way as people accept that which goes in the face of reason, we as a society will continue to get unreasonable results including prop 8 and including nastier and nastier wars.
And there are two major differences between somebody like me who fervently disagrees with religion and someone who is religious disagreeing with me: 1) I would never attempt to take away their RIGHT to believe and 2) I could be swayed be reason. If Jesus pops up tomorrow and proves himself, I can be swayed. NOTHING will sway someone who admits their belief has nothing to do with reason.
By I think the equal right that they want is the "right" to be married.
Well, I fervently disagree with this statement. Don't know who you've been talking to, but my faith and my reason go hand in hand.
Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Reason: "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought"
What is faith other than a belief that can't be proven? If it Can be proven, where is faith involved?
I think often faith is an excuse used to support doing unreasonable things, but saying "faith and reason are opposites" is way off, in my opinion.
There are a lot of very reasonable people who are religious, and their ability to reason supports their faith.
In my view, religion and reason, as well as science, for that matter, are all means by which we search for truth. All three have limitations, but I think they should lead us to the same place.
That sounds an awful lot like one set of water fountains for one group of people and another set of water fountains for another group of people.
From what I can tell, the "sinful" aspect of gay marriage isn't the marriage per se, but the sex. But they're going to have sex whether they're married or not, so IMO being married doesn't add to the sin. In fact, being married might actually reduce sin by increasing the probability of monogamy (and thus decreasing the probability of promiscuity).
What I think is interesting about this discussion is that many people, based on their religion, readily point out that homosexuality is sin. But really, the fundamental issue here, at least according to those same people's religion, is that all extramarital sexual relationships are sinful.
I think if Proposition 8 dealt with providing social acceptance to straight couples living outside of wedlock, the churches in favor of Proposition 8 would be equally supportive of the measure (though most of the public wouldn't care).
Would the proponents rather have:
1. Domestic Partnerships with the same rights as M/F married couples.
2. Current Domestic Partnerships, which don't have all the same rights.
3. Niether 1 or 2, and a State Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriages.
vr, Xei
There are plenty of sins that very few (if any) people seriously want to make illegal, such as greed, pride, lust, selfishness, gluttony, etc.
No, it's just being on equal footing. Try telling all atheists, who don't give a care about a sanction from a church, that they no longer are considered to be married but in a civil partnership. Pretty sure, Hetero or not, they wouldn't be much too pleased.
I think the issue is that applying the term "marriage" to that kind of a relationship is a mockery of what a lot of people consider marriage to be. I don't think people care so much that other people are living in sin, and they don't view Proposition 8 as trying to outlaw the sinful activity.
People who believe in God can equally believe in science/rational thought/etc. Just because they believe in something that is outside rational proof does not mean they're incapable of (in some cases) believing everything rational thought suggests.
I don't think anyone is trying to make gay sex (or extramarital straight sex) illegal either.
What I meant was, that's not what Proposition 8 was about.
I think that is a particularly bad comparision.
I would argue that if you believe in God (that is, an all-powerful being who created the earth and everyone on it) but you don't believe he tries to communicate with people, you are being unreasonable.
The belief in God in the first place is harder to get to, in my opinion.
Your latter points are all more or less correct, especially BTW, I don't think a belief in some form of God is necessarily outside of rational thought. But a lot of very smart religious people aren't so cut and dry, and often believe in a more unifying undying connection between a moral good which spurred things as organized religion, The Bible, etc etc. I won't get too heavy into the specifics, but it's true that if a person gets to a point, you can accept that a person who believes in a particular reason believes in an unreasonable thing (though opinion does way in here and I'd argue is very, very rarely cut and dry). What you cannot do is make that slippery leap of "Well, the person thinks the Bible is the word of God, guess he hates evolution, only listens to rational that the Bible would approve of,..." ad nausium.
One day this country makes you smile and beam with pride, the next day it makes you wonder if they ever learned anything about historical discrimination. Discrimination is cool in the US as long as it does not involve myself. Where else can you be the victim and then several generations later inflict your own beliefs on someone's else's without any concern for what happened to your own people in the not to distant past.
Is this a great country or what?
1032 I truly don't mean to offend (I appreciate you at DT too!) but I disagree that it is totally silly. How else to make the point that unreasonable arguments should not be accepted because someone else has faith in them? Yes, I am making an insane example but not to compare--to point out that there are SOME beliefs that SHOULD be questioned.
And I make no such leap as you describe at the end of your post.
My problem with this whole line of discussion is that IF you accept most forms of Christianity (and there are certainly reasonable, thoughtful people who do), then you would be irrational not to believe that God hates gay marriage. The whole point of being Christian is that you accept the doctrine as being divine, NOT invented by humans.
He also said that the loser now will be later to win, and he was right about that, too.
I think I was in 2nd grade when I said to myself what a bunch of malarkey. I've been on the outside looking in ever since. My experience has been that those who used to be with me have left for "faith" when they have lost loved ones. While not believing was good enough for them, it is not good enough when they need to believe their child didn't just die but went to a better place. I'm certainly not going to rain on that parade. Non-Believers should shut up. We have no idea how much of a crutch the believers need to make it through the day.
Talk about your misleading headlines.
As a non-believer, I agree.
But I would add: if non-believers should shut up, so should believers.
I'm not sure about that. As I said earlier, the "sin" is the sex, not the marriage. If two people of the same sex are having sex (or are not having sex), it doesn't seem to matter from a "sin" standpoint whether they're married or not.
On a related note, God doesn't seem to support the idea of forcing people to behave "righteously". On the contrary, He seems to want people to make those decisions for themselves, even though that means they will sometimes make the "wrong" choice.
I would like to point out that "crutches" are good things, despite the fact that the words "crutch" in this context is usually used in a pejorative sense.
http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1371978.html
The difference right now, according the the Times is 434,821. that's tough to overcome with only 3-4 million to go, but still, it's close.
I know, but it's usually used in a negative sense, which has never really sat well with me before because crutches are good. They help people.
I very much agree with your second point.
Again, I don't think Proposition 8 was about forcing people to be righteous.
Ideas are dangerous. Even the ones that stem from naught but secularism.
Also, there's never been a single person who was totally rational and happy. Purity is overrated.
All the examples I gave had obvious connotations of "of COURSE they don't exist, and anyone that believes in them is a moron or has the mental capacity of a child," and I know you don't think that's the case for a large base of theists, so why use such a metaphor?
And I didn't mean to suggest you made that leap--just that the base of the argument sometimes leads there (hi, Bill Maher), and I wanted to quash it from the get go.
It is only because most of us have met you and realized that you are innocuous. Your reputation would have been better served by staying invisible but you can do no harm here even if you tried. I used to wonder about you, now I give you no thought at all.
1057
Sure glad this thread reached 1057 comments.
1058 You should go with Shimmin instead. Realizing you're "kind of a jerk" is likely an important qualification for chief of staff. I'm still in denial about how big an asshole I can be.
1062 Shimmin also has pens and dresses the part. But I think this aligns him for either Chief of Staff so he can be a not-a-jerk or other countries, or Surgeon General so he can join the epic fashions of Janet Reno and C. Everett Koop.
Dang, that was meant for 1059 not you. It lost all of it's punch being directed at the wrong person.
You have been a revelation. I will not engage you in debate but if you ever run for office I would work for your campaign.
Really? Prove that negative!
1057 You'll get no argument from me or most anyone on most of that point. But you don't call speculations facts until they qualify. Until then, you call them theories and you'd be very careful about living your life and making your most important decisions based on them.
1059 You've got me beat.
AG is more problematic. Sure, I never cheated on John Edwards's wife, so I'm qualified. But we already tried burning down Texan nutjobs' combines and nobody seemed that happy about it the first time. And without that, I'm not sure there's much in the job for me. Just not a good match, I don't think.
Shimmin only gets the SG role if he successfully grows his facial hair ala Koop.
Yes, but you may be called upon to answer the question "but can I do it just 'til I need glasses"?
But I'm pleased it's been civil. So thank you all for not making me have to do any policing.
1073 It's just the Bill O'Reilly in all of us :)
But, joking aside, very true point.
Wait, there wasn't a single comment needing deletion? That's pretty incredible.
To clarify:
Your example of intolerance on the part of "liberal and politically correct people" is "Not spending money at Mormon businesses."
Your example of intolerance on the part of anti-gay marriage people is "denying gay people the ability to get married, something that non-gay people are allowed to do."
Is that accurate?
If by "boycott of Mormon businesses" you mean businesses that happen to be owned by private citizens who happen to be Mormon, you're absolutely right. There's no possible excuse for that.
If by "boycott of Mormon businesses" you mean businesses wholly owned and operated by the church... well, as I say, I still wouldn't support that, but I can imagine that the argument goes like this... you patronize the business, the business takes the profits it generates off of your patronage and invests them in programs you disagree with. When you can follow a dollar from your wallet to the business to a yes-on-eight campaign, I can see how that would make somebody uncomfortable.
But like I say, that's a fool's game. Plenty of businesses -- famously, at one time, Wendy's restaurants and the Curves chain of gyms -- got a reputation for being owned by people who were outspoken about their support for causes I don't like, and generous in their support for those cuases. I still patronized the businesses (well, not Curves, but only because I is not a lady). As soon as you start going down that road, you find yourself wearing hemp clothes, and no one needs that.
vr, Xei
While the LDS Church supported Prop 8 publicly, I would not support a boycott of "Mormon-owned" businesses - that is silly - and beyond that, doesn't even follow the money trail.
Guess I'll have to protest the next KofC track meet for Catholic schools though. :)
And I suppose there will more uncomfortable co-existence amongst the faithful at the Masses this Sunday, assuming there is still a sizable gay friendly or tolerant community in the local Catholic Church. There used to be.
1074 Very belated thank you. This has been a good topic to have.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html
That is, since Prop 8 takes away a "protected Constitutional right" from one group (gay Californians) and not all Californians, that it represents too "radical" a shift to be made by a simple majority vote in the initiative process.
vr, Xei
vr, Xei
But in case you're being serious, the answer, I believe, is equal protection. The argument is that changing the definition of marriage in this way changes the fundamental structure of the Constitution, and you can't do that with a simple majority in an initiative.
But I think you know what the argument is.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
---
Is gender a fundamentally different classification from race in this context? That the freedom to marry does NOT exist, in the case of gender, with the individual but with the State?
I would certainly sue to make the Supreme Court decide whether it is or not.
I am in an interracial marriage. Without the above ruling, my marriage could have been, and in many states in 1967 was, illegal and/or invalid. The very thought that my marriage--my love for my wife--could be illegal offends me deeply.
Therefore, I don't blame gays for one second for not accepting a second-class union.
You know, just to see if they recognize themselves at all.
This needs to get settled by the Supreme Court once and for all. This is a constitutional issue that the states have no business dallying in.
The problem from the New York ruling is that it argues a large historical precedence for M/F marriage, and while true on some fronts, it also doesn't take into account the stress on pro-creation and all together business-like nature of that historical precedence. We're so long gone from the dowry ways of marriage that a historical precedence should not be considered in a modern contextual ruling.
http://tinyurl.com/28fj44
vr, Xei
The boycott/blackmail started with the Yes on 8 people. This story was broadcast on local news. A business owner was trying to support his employees by making a donation to a No on 8 fund and got the nasty letter.
Their threat:
"Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies...that choose not to donate...to ProtectMarriage.com...will be published.
...We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution."
http://tinyurl.com/67ey7x
http://tinyurl.com/5d459v
And, respectfully, I think the term pro-homosexual could be better phrased :)
I won't say I'd be happy with any initiative that purposely opposed teaching something so awful as tolerance, but if Parents what to ensure their public school attending kid wasn't taught, proactively, the wonders and acceptance in falling in love with someone with the same sex, go ahead I guess.
How do you not teach it? If Darryl asks Nea why she has two mothers in front of the class what is a teacher supposed to do? Ignore the question or deal with it? Nothing gets accomplished from sweeping uncomfortable things under the carpet. At this point in our culture gay marriage is here to stay, no matter how much a % of the population tries to legislate against it. The only real question is how much and for how long will those who don't believe in it fight to keep it under the carpet instead of accepting it.
As Ken said this is the same fight that took place 40 years ago.
That said, I'd be ok with not guaranteeing such proactive material being taught in public schools, and let the appropriately designed educational code dictate when/if that gets integrated into the teachings.
I think a lot of the conservative people view Gay Marriage like adultery these days--they don't necessarily care if it's legal or not, but don't tell my kids it's a good thing to do. A silly jump in reason, but I believe it exists.
vr, Xei
I fully believe that if people had been better educated on what's already in the educational code and what's already been precedent on church's tax exempt status, 8 would have been nail-bitingly close if not defeated. This plus six-ten years (we're only 8 removed from an 61% victory) and it would get done. No compromising is needed.
How many people from my generation first learned about sex when it was taught in fifth grade? I'd seen Fast Times At Ridgemont High years before then. I can only imagine that kids today know even more adult subject matter than my peers and I did.
The teaching in schools argument is just an emotional red herring. In fact, we are probably better off having it taught in schools because what is taught on the playground is not always accurate.
We have so many gay people teaching our kids right now that to be worried about teaching the kids about gay marriage just strikes me as funny.
In 2nd grade I got in a fight with a classmate because I explained to him what his father was doing to his mother every night. I had 4 older brothers so I expect I knew more then the average 8 year old. Still it was funny how upset he got with the image.
There was always one kid in every class who knew all the dirty secrets. A classmate in junior high used to draw pornographic pictures all day. One time he drew an action shot of our history teacher, then he gave it to her as a gift.
Anyhoo, I know how to fix it, I just have had the time.
I made it personally just so I could view DT while at Dodger Stadium, but Eric Stephen approves of it. To get it to work outside of baseball toaster I have to do a hefty amount of regex processing on my server, so I fear giving the URL to too many people, but I'd love to pass the joy along if desired.
I don't really buy that the school thing is really the objection. It doesn't ring true. Aversion to homosexuality isn't really that complicated, is it?
How far...?
What kind of pen...?
I use it all the time on my iPhone (sorry if I'm overloading your server with traffic, Jacob). Jacob is indeed the man.
Shepard Smith: Now that the election is over, Carl, tell us more about those reports of infighting between Palin and McCain staffers.
Carl Cameron: I wish I could have told you more at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election. There was great concern in the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin lack the degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency. We're told by folks that she didn't know what countries that were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that being the Canada, the US, and Mexico. We're told she didn't understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country just in itself ... a whole host of questions that caused serious problems about her knowledgeability. She got very angry at staff, thought that she was mishandled.....was particularly angry about the way the Katie Couric interview went. She didn't accept preparation for that interview when the aides say that that was part of the problem. And that there were times that she was hard to control emotionally there's talk of temper tantrums at bad news clippings......
As much as it appears I disagree with Xei, he kept his comments at a level that invited discourse.
Two people (you here, one elsewhere) did get me to vote yes on 2, so...
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.