Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1374.7 | -15.5 | -1.11% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2392.5 | -5.9 | -0.25% |
| Oil (WTI) | 101.65 | -1.7 | -1.61% |
| LIBOR | 0.4692 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.92 | 0.034 | 0.04% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.03% | -0.02% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 170.61 | -0.1 |
Slow news day.
Equity futures are lower on the back of Friday’s lousy employment report. Bonds and MBS are rallying, with the 10-year again flirting with a 2% yield. European markets are closed for the Easter holiday, so volumes will be light.
Friday’s employment report showed an increase in 120,000 private sector jobs and a drop in the unemployment rate to 8.2%. The reason for the drop in unemployment was due to a drop in the labor force participation rate, which has fallen from 64% to 63.8% since December. These are the 99-ers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and no longer count as part of the labor force.
Alcoa kicks off Q1 reporting season tomorrow after the close.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
AOL has licensed patents to Microsoft and sold some to it, as well, reserving a license back, for over $1B. Hard for me to imagine that AOL had “valuable” patents to that extent.
LikeLike
what does AOL do?
LikeLike
A question or two for my conservative friends. This could perhaps be considered a touchy subject but I assure you all I’m not offering these questions to “bait” anybody. In fact I’m stating up front that I shall not reply to any response I receive because I’m not interested in debating this topic…more interested in learning attitudes from Conservatives I respect
Are all of you aware of Conservapedia?
Phyllis Schafley’s son has created a conservative version of Wikipedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
It denies evolution, the existence of climate change, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. It contains gems about homosexuality that are also not supported by the larger body of science.
I’m sure you know how progressives feel about this…the old Moynihan quote “You’re entitled to your opinions but not your facts”. But I also know how progressives feel which is why I come here to learn how conservatives feel.
And so some questions because this is my go to blog for thoughtful Conservatives.
1.) Are you even aware of conservapedia? I only learned of it this week.
2.) Do you believe it’s use to be confined to a small number of zealots who do not really represent a significant number of the larger conservative movement?
3.) How much do you trust Wikipedia? Does Wiki have a liberal bias?
4.) Do you believe in evolution?
5.) Climate change?
6.) Do you accept the scientific consensus surrounding Einstein’s Theory of Relativity?
7.) Do you believe that his entire topic is just another progressive ruse to make Conservatives appear less educated or intellectual? IE Conservapedia is not really important at all, progressives simply drag it out in an attempt to embarrass conservatives.
Finally…let me conclude by once again emphasizing…I’m not here to sew discord or start debate or as you guys call them dustups…my views have already been expressed in the Moynihan quote. I won’t be responding to any of your ideas…I’m just genuinely interested in hearing from a group of conservatives I can trust.
LikeLike
ruk:
1) Vaguely, yes.
2) No idea. Don’t know who uses it.
3) Depends on the topic. For straight historical facts (X did Y in year Z) it is probably pretty reliable. For anything that requires judgment, especially on politically contentious topics, probably not so much.
4) Yes.
5) Of course…the climate has been changing since the dawn of the planet. However, if by climate change you mean AGW, I am an agnostic.
6) I don’t know what that consensus is, and probably wouldn’t understand it even if I did.
7) I wasn’t aware that conservapedia was being raised as an issue, but if it is, my guess is yes, probably.
LikeLike
AOL is a web portal which has several high-traffic blogs and aggregator sites, many of which people are unaware are affiliated with AOL. For example, the hyperlocal Patch network is run by AOL with local reporters and shared content between sites.
LikeLike
thanks yellojkt.
LikeLike
I’m sure the instant messaging is worth a lot.
LikeLike
@ruk
1) never heard of it
2) probably
3) never noticed a bias on Wikipedia, but don’t really use it for political stuff
4) of course
5) yes, but… for a group of people who supposedly have the science and the facts on their side, they sure don’t act like it.
6) 3 semesters of calc-based physics and I still don’t really understand it.
7) of course.
LikeLike
Scott and Brent
Thanks so much for your answers…I truly appreciate your input.
LikeLike
“And so some questions because this is my go to blog for thoughtful Conservatives.
1.) Are you even aware of conservapedia? I only learned of it this week.
2.) Do you believe it’s use to be confined to a small number of zealots who do not really represent a significant number of the larger conservative movement?
3.) How much do you trust Wikipedia? Does Wiki have a liberal bias?
4.) Do you believe in evolution?
5.) Climate change?
6.) Do you accept the scientific consensus surrounding Einstein’s Theory of Relativity?
7.) Do you believe that his entire topic is just another progressive ruse to make Conservatives appear less educated or intellectual? IE Conservapedia is not really important at all, progressives simply drag it out in an attempt to embarrass conservatives.”
1. Not until this post
2. Yes
3. I trust Wikipedia a fair amount. For contentious topics, it varies to the extent that the articles are foot noted. i don’t consider Wikipedia “liberal” at all, and in fact there’s a fair amount of navel gazing in Wikipedia about how much it reflects a “northern hemisphere” bias in it’s entire conception of organizing information into an authoritative source. I.e. the entire concept of an encyclopedia is inherently biased in favor of Western thought. I conclude from this that it is literally impossible to be “politically correct” enough and it’s a fool’s errand to even try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
4. Yes, but as a matter of the scientific method it’s a theory, not a law, due to the inability to conduct a controlled experiment to reproduce the results the way that you can in physics and chemistry. It is however the theory that best fits the currently known body of facts until we dig up evidence that the space aliens seeded the planet millions of years ago ala 2001: A Space Odyssey.
5. Yep, climate change is probably being caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The more interesting question is whether the effects will be truly catastrophic and whether it’s more economical to adapt to it or to prevent/roll back climate change. This gets into all sorts of distributional questions between the developed countries and the third world as well.
In general, I believe that the only successful solution to climate change that actually has a chance of being adopted is a technological one. I.e. fusion powered atmospheric re-processors. The idea that we are going to radically reorder society Naomi Klein style rather than just turn up the air conditioner in response to climate change is absurd.
6. Yes, unless the CERN experiment proves Einstein was wrong in a manner that can be externally reproduced and verified.
7. Of course. For some reason progressives feel a need to “prove” something about the conservative thought process. See “Paranoid Style” and “What’s Wrong with Kansas”. These exercises provide a convenient excuse to avoid engaging the arguments on the merits.
A similar example is President Obama’s surprise that it could be considered in the realm of possibility that the Supreme Court would revisit it’s economic jurisprudence that was supposed to have been “settled” by the New Deal. I believe it’s part of the larger progressive/liberal conceit that history is a march of progress and that every dispute involves one side on the “right” side of history and one side on the “wrong” side of history.
LikeLike
Fantastic answers to ruk’s questions jnc. I read this morning that CA is #1 in preparedness for the effects of global warming but I imagine it’s not along the lines you’d like to see……..lol They didn’t wax very scientific in the piece I read so it was difficult to know exactly what the specifics were but I found it interesting. They appeared to be more focused on water issues, of which we have numerous ones even now.
LikeLike
JNC
This is why I love your posts. I don’t always agree…perhaps we’re about 50-50, but your posts are always dispassionate, well thought out, and cogent.
It’s not really important that any of us agree, but to always engage honestly and dispassionately when possible. Thanks so much for your input.
LikeLike
jnc:
6. Yes, unless the CERN experiment proves Einstein was wrong in a manner that can be externally reproduced and verified.
Once they fix their oscillator and screw in the loose cable, I want to see them reproduce their own data on supraluminal neutrinos before I worry about external verification.
ruk:
I’m going to quibble with your phrasing. Evolution and climate change are not “beliefs” any more than relativity is. As jnc points out, they are evidence-based theories that scientists have constructed to explain our natural/physical world. You either accept that these theories are currently the best explanation of the evidence or not.
I understand that “do you believe in evolution?” is the accepted, shorthand way to ask about it, but I don’t think it is the correct one.
LikeLike
Heh, James O’Keefe strikes again. Manages to obtain a ballot in AG Holder’s name. In Holder’s precinct.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295431/why-we-need-voter-id-laws-now-john-fund
LikeLike
Mike
Point accepted about “scientific theories”. Besides who amongst us is prepared to debate anybody who can discuss “supraluminal neutrinos? lol
I’m still working on bozons and quarks…sometime I’ll have to get you to explain some quantum theory to me…as in how they measure the “potential” of the smallest bit of matter…what it’s somewhere in the wave…they can predict it? But not truly quantify it…easy to get lost in a hurry discussing physics..especially quantum mechanics.
LikeLike
Troll
But was O’Keefe actually able to vote as Holder? In Florida they were able to document thousands of illegal registrations..but none of them voted and the vast majority were not due to voter fraud but do to lazy people who were paid by the number of registrations acquired…it was a lot easier to simply fill in MIckey Mouse, Goofy, Pluto et al…but Mickey, Minnie and Pluto did not vote…the system weeds out false registrations at least here in Florida.
What the system does not always weed out here in Florida are mistakes in machinery and handling of ballots already cast….most folks are more worried about some rigging of the system…not individual voter fraud…and especially not incorrect voter registration. Hanging chads while famous are only some of the problems…voting machines have also been questioned. Mostly since that fateful election we’ve improved in Florida with our systems but we still see far too many Supervisors of Elections who screw things up, not necessarily in an attempt to sway an election…most times it’s simply incompetence.
LikeLike
ruk:
But was O’Keefe actually able to vote as Holder?
It was actually someone who works with O’Keefe, but in any event he chose not to actually vote. This was the conversation:
LikeLike
The NBC station in Tampa recently found rampant illegal voting by noncitizens. Conclusive proof. Please let’s stop all this business that it never happens.
LikeLike
“Man: I’ll be back faster than you can say furious!”
nice touch
LikeLike
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/
The Baker-Carter Commission wanted national IDs for voting. 2005. Unanimous report. At the Baker Institute at Rice, Jimmy Carter said he thought many American polling places were so lax as to make the vote unreliable, and he had seen third world elections that were more verifiable. I was pretty much universally condemned for raising this uncomfortable point at The Fix in 2007. I might be able to find Jim Baker’s and Jimmy Carter’s comments as a video.
That having been said, TX polling places accept the county issued voter registration card or other ID. But nobody gets by with “I am who I say I am”.
May as well broaden this – I once feared a national ID card but it really could resolve a lot of issues. Undocs and IAs, embedded medical record chip like in Japan, voting, etc.
LikeLike
An article in The Economist contains this sentence:
One principled libertarian line on this question is that government has the power to tax only for the purpose of spending on the provision of those public goods, such as the common defence, which voluntary exchange on the free market cannot be relied on to provide.
I think that is a fair statement of both a libertarian principle and of my view. From our many conversations, I know that I have a broader view of public goods than Scott and NoVAH and I think the free market cannot be relied upon whenever the competitive mechanism is thwarted by monopolistic practice, or whenever the cost of entry for the project is beyond the level of private investment such as the community water treatment facility [which would probably have to be a monopoly to “work”, thus subjecting it to both shortcomings].
But I think it is useful to have this one sentence starting point, so I have added this comment.
LikeLike
It was actually someone who works with O’Keefe, but in any event he chose not to actually vote
You mean he chose not to actually commit a crime? Weird how laws against voter fraud work like that.
He definitely proved that you can get really close to committing voter fraud without getting in trouble. Some stunning work there!! Here’s a suggestion for his next hard hitting expose…l walk into a drug store, stuff some candy in his pocket, walk to the door, but stop and turn around before actually walking out the door!!
LikeLike
ashot:
Weird how laws against voter fraud work like that.
I have to admit I am a bit bewildered by your mockery. Surely you understand there is a difference between someone trying to demonstrate how easy it is to break the law, and someone actually trying to get away with breaking the law. Is it really your belief that, if the law deters the likes of the former from actually committing voter fraud, it will deter the latter?
Do you see no value in demonstrating how easy it is to commit voter fraud, in the hopes of prompting action to make it more difficult?
LikeLike
I recently voted in the Maryland early voting primary. I was asked my name, address, and date of birth. Anyone with that information could have voted for me. And they would be doing so fraudulently. If this practice were widespread, eventually incidents where the actual person was denied his vote would come to light. This type of fraud is a non-issue because it is so tough to do wholesale.
Far more common is what happens in Florida nursing homes and other places where administrators bulk process absentee ballots of the residents. But neither of these really would be addressed by the voter suppression rules currently being put into place.
Voter security could be increased but I really doubt its necessity and I question the motivation of those advocating it.
LikeLike
Conservapedia has been the brunt of much humor in places like Wonkette for quite a while. It’s really both sad and pathetic because the articles are so blatantly ignorant and biased. People have tried to game it to make it even more ludicrous but they seem to eventually be found out by the true believers, so I believe much of it is sincerely crowd-sourced by genuine conservatives.
I just checked out several random pages and they seem to be upping their game for at least look and feel versus Wikipedia. The non-controversial topics seem straight-forward, but the articles that touch on homosexuality or evolution or political events are skewed beyond recognition.
There are also just weird gaps. Here is the entry on ‘Surgeon’ in its entirity:
Compare with the far more thorough version on Wikipedia
LikeLike
The NBC station in Tampa recently found rampant illegal voting by noncitizens. Conclusive proof. Please let’s stop all this business that it never happens.
That’s fine, then lets give attention to reports like that rather than publicity stunts by the likes of O’Keefe.
LikeLike
“But neither of these really would be addressed by the voter suppression rules currently being put into place.”
Kudos on the framing of the issue.
LikeLike
Ash, here’s that story mentioned above. The headlines and commentary from the conservative websites leading to the story itself sure were interesting.
LikeLike
The NBC station in Tampa recently found rampant illegal voting by noncitizens. Conclusive proof.
Here in Tampa? Missed that story. Got link?
LikeLike
ashot @ 2:59: “The NBC station in Tampa recently found rampant illegal voting by noncitizens. Conclusive proof. Please let’s stop all this business that it never happens.
That’s fine, then lets give attention to reports like that rather than publicity stunts by the likes of O’Keefe.”
Yes, it may deserve further attention. But “rampant” and “conclusive proof” are hyperbolic. The article says NBC found “nearly 100” such voters. Per Hillsborough County [Tampa] Supervisor of Elections website, there are over 692,000 registered voters there. My calculator says that’s 0.01%, which I would not call rampant.
LikeLike
Kudos on the framing of the issue.
Thanks for noticing.
The headlines and commentary from the conservative websites leading to the story itself sure were interesting.
This story strikes as a bit of a Sweeps Week scare-mongering story. Far more common, particularly in Florida, are activist groups filing bulk registration protests. When the recipients get their verification notice (and often they don’t due to moving without updating records or typos on the forms) they often suspect it is a scam or ignore it. Then when they show up to vote they learn they have been purged and have no recourse except the much maligned provisional ballot.
It all becomes a matter of whether you want to err on the side of false positives for fraud or deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.
LikeLike
It all becomes a matter of whether you want to err on the side of false positives for fraud or deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.
Yes, if the intent is malign.
No, if we systematically move to a national ID card. Read the Baker-Carter .pdfs in the link I provided.
LikeLike
lms:
Ah, thanks for the link.
That isn’t Tampa — Lee and Collier county are south of here. Think Naples, Ft. Myers, and inland. I think there may be fewer voters down there, though not by much (maybe 500K). So, 100 cases is ~0.02%, as opposed to okie’s 0.01%.
Interestingly, Collier is one of the 5 FL counties covered by Section 5 of the VRA (Hillsborough is covered as well).
LikeLike
Many thanks for the correction, Mike. I still would not call 2/100ths of 1% “rampant.”
LikeLike
If you see something about the evidence that is less than conclusive, what is it?
As for prevalence, this is always the response pattern: First, it never happens. Then, they only found X; it still doesn’t matter.
This was simply a reporter’s review of a limited set of jury service records in which people admitted they were not citizens. And they found a lot. Are we to believe these are the only noncitizens who are voting? Seriously?
Which party do you think they tend to vote for? Which party consciously appeals to them even they are not citizens?
And then recall how close some elections are. Florida 2000 ring a bell?
LikeLike
Do you see no value in demonstrating how easy it is to commit voter fraud, in the hopes of prompting action to make it more difficult?
Should makers of car alarm systems distribute videos on how to hot-wire ignitions?
LikeLike
The way kids use…kids? Wow am I and old fart and you’re not far behind lmsinca. lol
Anyway, one of our techie hygienists as well as my son and daughter in law live through bar codes. They print nothing they exchange virtually no cash..it’s all commerce by bar code…and magnetic strip on their credit and bank cards. They make their online purchase of say movie or concert tickets..download into their Iphones..they show up..pull up the bar code on the Iphone and swipe their way into whatever…for all I know they do this with airline tickets as well…
All this voter ID discussion and national ID suggestion from Mark leads me to believe in the brave new world all new babies will have a barcode tattooed under their wrist or someplace out of sight but easily displayed. Show up to vote..and you show your barcode tattoo…use it at any store…for every purchase or any kind of transaction.
It’s not something I look forward to in my lifetime…but who knows…last time I visited the hospital it was all barcodes…bracelet on the patients…on the staff’s ID badge…nurse gives you a shot…she shoots your barcode with her hand held scanner..then the med..then her badge and voila the mainframe instantly has a record of med/dose/time administered/patient/provider…really slick.
I wouldn’t be opposed to voter ID laws if they were truly non restrictive. That is to say if the Government made a sincere effort to contact EVERY citizen to provide them with a card. For those who do not drive or are house bound for any reason..be it infirmity or financial condition..the Gov’t should be required to go their house to let them fill out the form for proper ID.
LikeLike
Everyone who opposes a national ID card – please explain your anxieties, or fears.
Isn’t the notion of “flying under the radar” simply nostalgia? I concede that it could be done, but y’all are not the people who want to do it, are you?
LikeLike
mark:
Everyone who opposes a national ID card – please explain your anxieties, or fears.
I admit that I have an instinctual aversion to the idea, but I could perhaps be persuaded that it is a worthwhile idea. On the other hand, I remain entirely baffled by any opposition to the idea that some ID be required to vote.
LikeLike
Please note that I did not opine that it should not be investigated. Could have saved yourself some keystrokes.
LikeLike
okie:
But 0.02% is more rampant than 0.01%!
LikeLike
yello:
Should makers of car alarm systems distribute videos on how to hot-wire ignitions?
If the attorney general is trying to outlaw car manufacturers from installing car alarms, claiming that hot-wiring cars can’t/doesn’t happen, then sure, a video demonstrating how easy it is to hot-wire the AG’s car might indeed prove useful in demonstrating the AG’s folly.
As an aside, anyone who needs a “how to” video demonstrating how to walk into a polling place and ask for a ballot is probably too stupid to be allowed to vote even in their own name.
LikeLike
Does anyone out there know how to add a fold to a post? I just wrote a huge post and I don’t want it to take up the whole ATiM page, so people can skip it if they aren’t interested. I tried the “more” button, but that didn’t seem to do anything when I previewed the post.
LikeLike
Mike – send Kev an email. Unless the website has instructions, that’s my vote.
LikeLike
Mark
I have no objections…I think that the privacy cow left the barn long ago..largely due to the internet, charge cards and social media. We allowed it to happen. Today when I signed on Gmail, google demanded that I supply a phone number to access my account…I typed in area code and number fuc kyou. It went through!
Yeah I get that it’s FREE and if I don’t like it I can go to hotmail, yahoo and other spots…I wanted to make clear to google that’s what I’ll do…if they keep pressuring me I’m going to try and disengage from all google products which is almost impossible..Verizon is now allied with google..I’m no techie so I don’t even know just how pervasive google has become in our lives….any ideas techies?
LikeLike
“Everyone who opposes a national ID card – please explain your anxieties, or fears.”
WRT voting, if its free, the poll tax issue is mooted. But I’d question whether it’s a cost-effective solution to the claimed problem. Per the above unanswered question, I think it’s worse to deny a valid voter than to allow an invalid voter. Yes, 100% accuracy is preferred, but if that is impossible to achieve, we must err on the side of ensuring that all valid voters are allowed; rather than denying valid voters in the pursuit of ensuring all invalid voters are disallowed.
Here in MN, we have same-day voter registration, which has contributed to our typical above-average voter participation rates. In the Franken-Coleman recount, the number of invalidly cast ballots was vanishingly small – and they looked very very closely at the ballots in search of any improperly cast. Again, what problem is to be solved; at what cost?
LikeLike
“Everyone who opposes a national ID card – please explain your anxieties, or fears.”
More specifically to the national id question; again I wonder what problem it is designed to solve? If it is designed solely to track voter eligibility, will there be a new fed bureaucracy to properly administer the program? Presumably this would require a national clearinghouse to track who, exactly, is eligible to vote at any given address, at any given moment. The birthdays are theoretically easy. Slightly more complicated are people who move, particularly those moving near moving day. What about college kids or snowbirds*? What about people convicted of felonies – or those rolling off parole**?
When am I expected to carry this ID? Just on voting day, or are the cops going to use it to verify that I’m a citizen? If its just on voting day, I circle back to the “just what are we getting for the cost” argument.
* In the 2010 election, some reported voter fraud was related to people who allegedly voted both in their ‘home’ district (absentee), and at their winter/school residence. Does an ID solve this problem?
** In the 2008 and/or 2010 MN elections, some voter fraud was perpetrated by convicted felons (some perhaps by plea bargain), who allegedly did not understand they’d lost their right to vote; some may have been freed and/or on parole, but had misunderstood that they were still denied the right to vote.
LikeLike
Brian, a national ID card is usually justified as the means to control illegal immigration. Its secondary uses could include med record maintenance, as in Japan (the Japanese say it is a huge cost saver). It could serve as the backup to voter registration as the permanent ID. It would not list your address, as I understand it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703115.html
Schumer-Graham specifically barred using a med info chip and claimed not to set up a national clearing house of info – your status as citizen or legal alien would simply be carried on the biometric chip on your high tech social security card.
I will concede that once we have biometric chips in our SS cards a database will develop, probably at DOL and likely at NSA. I still wonder what difference that makes in a world where this blog is stored instantaneously at NSA and other places.
LikeLike
Surely you understand there is a difference between someone trying to demonstrate how easy it is to break the law, and someone actually trying to get away with breaking the law.
Obviously. My point is that the stunt by O’Keefe attempts to ignore perhaps the biggest deterrence to committing voter…the criminal penalties. It focuses exclusively on other deterrence measures that, at least in my opinion, pale in comparison to the threat of a felony conviction. So it’s a rather incomplete picture of our voter fraud deterrence efforts.
Is it really your belief that, if the law deters the likes of the former from actually committing voter fraud, it will deter the latter?
Obviously not. But is it worth trying to deter the later if you end up preventing totally legitimate voters from voting?
My problem is not with concerns over voter fraud. My problem is highlighting publicity stunts by peole like O’Keefe. Let’s find real examples of voter fraud and talk about how to deter/prevent them. Let’s not give attention to what is basically a high school prank. It really surprises me that people here find what O’Keefe did to be compelling or enlightening in some way.
As an aside, anyone who needs a “how to” video demonstrating how to walk into a polling place and ask for a ballot is probably too stupid to be allowed to vote even in their own name.
Indeed, everyone knows you can walk into a polling place and claim to be someone you’re. So why exactly is what O’Keefe did of any value whatsoever?
LikeLike
ashot:
But is it worth trying to deter the later if you end up preventing totally legitimate voters from voting?
Perhaps. We have all kinds of laws that prohibit people from engaging in non-harmful behavior in order to prevent others from engaging in harmful behavior.
Indeed, everyone knows you can walk into a polling place and claim to be someone you’re [not].
Not at my polling place, because, well, I have to show a picture ID.
LikeLike
BTW…Am I imagining things or has a comment from last night been deleted?
LikeLike
Don’t know if anyone’s interested or not but here’s a poll conducted April 5-8. It details positive/negatives for both Obama and Romney. I know it’s still early but I believe the candidates watch these and then I think it’s both entertaining and informative to watch them adjust.
Oh and I’ve pretty much accepted a National ID card, I just hope it’s not like an AVID chip for animals.
LikeLike
I read the poll at WaPo, LMS. It is not a surprise. Looking forward, what we have known remains true. The election is pretty much outside the hands of the nominees or their handlers, this time. Unforeseen circumstances like economic or employment bad news, or war, or a third party on the left, may change the game. All else equal, WMR is not likable or personable enough to overcome the deficit.
George’s point that women vote heavily D in POTUS races may explain in part the R tendency not to worry that pandering to fundamentalists will lose them votes. My guess is that Rs overplayed that hand this time around, especially having one fundamentalist candidate – Santorum – in the race and openly lecturing against women having premarital sex, as if this were Elmer Gantry land, and coupling it to his argument that all contraceptives were against nature. This preoccupation with the sex act strikes many of us as weird politics, but it has fostered an agenda that directly affects women and only indirectly affects men.
LikeLike
Mark
George’s point that women vote heavily D in POTUS races
Thank God
LikeLike
Mark:
This preoccupation with the sex act strikes many of us as weird politics
A few questions for you.
Can you specify what Santorum has said and/or what political positions he has adopted that you think can be accurately characterized as a “preoccupation the sex act”?
I know that Santorum has expressed policy opposition to legal abortion and says he is personally opposed to the use of contraception. If policy opposition to legal abortion and personal opposition to birth control are indicative of a “preoccupation with the sex act”, wouldn’t it also be true, then, that policy advocacy for legal abortion and laws mandating insurance coverage of contraception are equally indicative of a “preoccupation with the sex act”? If not, why not?
LikeLike
” Indeed, everyone knows you can walk into a polling place and claim to be someone you’re. So why exactly is what O’Keefe did of any value whatsoever?”
It demonstrates the obvious impracticality of any plans to throw an election by impersonating voters at multiple precincts. Obviously the prankster could easily enough impersonate one voter at one polling place. How many cohorts would he need to enlist in order to fraudulently vote enough times to throw an election & get away with it? Seems to me the far easier course of action is hacking.g the voting machines; which, of course the voter I’d proposals don’t address.
LikeLike
Scott, I deleted an intemperate comment of my own. I regretted posting it.
LikeLike
” national ID card is usually justified as the means to control illegal immigration. Its secondary uses could include med record maintenance”
So is it then a card I’m required to keep on my person at all times in order to prove I’m legal? If not, I’m not sure how it solves the immigration problem. And, again, what would such a program cost, who would administer it & are those costs justified to solve the problem?
LikeLike
Brian, we would only need to carry it for job applications. If it became a secondary evidence for some other purpose, then we might want to carry it for that purpose. Suppose one has a voter registration card, as I do. I can show any secondary ID, as well. This could be one option for the secondary ID. If I want to use it, I would carry it. My guess is that folks would carry it in the same way they do a driver’s license, typically.
The cost estimates on Schumer-Graham were low, although we understand the rosy view of costs for new programs.
Gotta Go!
LikeLike
“overplayed that hand this time around”
too early to tell. Every so often I’ll ask a political question of my outside-the-beltway-not-politically-engaged friends. (small businessman in update NY, lawyer in OH, etc.) most of them hadn’t even heard of most of the latest controversies, be it BC or Obama chiding the court and everything in between. they just don’t follow this stuff and won’t until this fall.
LikeLike
Scott asked: Can you specify what Santorum has said and/or what political positions he has adopted that you think can be accurately characterized as a “preoccupation the sex act”?
Well, last fall he argued that contraception is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”. For someone to say that implies that s/he has thought a lot about what in the sexual realm is normal and what runs counter to what s/he thinks is normal. Personally, I haven’t thought about sex acts enough during the last year to be able to formulate any opinion of how contraception is or isn’t linked to any of them, but Rick Santorum has.
LikeLike
msjs:
For someone to say that implies that s/he has thought a lot about what in the sexual realm is normal and what runs counter to what s/he thinks is normal.
Well, notably, you’ve truncated his quote which actually clarifies precisely what he was talking about.
So it seems that, rather than talking about what is “normal” (your word) in the sexual realm, he was simply expressing the very common Christian belief that pre-marital sex is wrong. Do you really think that such an expression is indicative of a preoccupation with the sex act, or of someone who has “thought a lot about what in the sexual realm is normal”?
LikeLike
My understanding of santorum’s position on contraceptive use covers all contraceptives, not just the pill. So comparing him to liberals who want a prescription covered by insurance is false equivalence. His equation of gay sex equalling ‘man on dog’ likewise reflects an unhealthy preoccupation with others’ personal behavior.
LikeLike
Can you specify what Santorum has said and/or what political positions he has adopted that you think can be accurately characterized as a “preoccupation the sex act”?
There is also his famous ‘man on dog’ interview equating homosexuality with beastiality. Follow the link and he gives some rather explicit opinions.
LikeLike
For Scott –
“I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is… the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”
WEIRD.
LikeLike
mark:
WEIRD.
So, just to be clear, it is your position that anyone who thinks pre-marital sex is wrong and is willing to say so publicly has a “preoccupation” with the sex act?
Beyond that, I think it is undoubtedly true that widespread use of contraception, particularly the pill, has had significant effects on the development of our society/culture over the last 50 years. Do you think that all of those effects have, without exception, been positive, or do you allow the possibility that some of those consequences have not been for the better?
LikeLike
Just to be clear, I cannot imagine this stuff is relevant to a POTUS election.
Personally, I began having sex with females before the introduction of the pill and have always thought its introduction had a wonderful positive effect on my life and the lives of everyone I knew.
Is that clear enough?
I think making this an issue in a POTUS campaign ought to bring ridicule upon him by most men [as well as women].
*****************
At the societal level, my guess is that the pill has prevented many more unwanted children than abortions, or any other measure. Because I think unwanted children are a tragic consequence for society I think the pill has been an unadulterated good for society; better than prophylactics, that sometimes break.
LikeLike
mark:
Just to be clear, I cannot imagine this stuff is relevant to a POTUS election.
Me neither. But you suggested that he had a “preoccupation with the sex act”, which is why I asked you about that, and not whether this stuff is relevant to a POTUS election.
Is that clear enough?
No. I am still unclear on whether you really believe that thinking sex outside of marriage is wrong is indicative of a “preoccupation with the sex act”.
LikeLike
For someone not running for office and not making this idea a part of the campaign to think sex outside of marriage is wrong may or may not indicate a preoccupation. If it is not shared with me, I would have no way of gauging the import of the idea to the thinker. A person in private life who conveys this concept of right and wrong to me would not by that statement alone cause me to think s/he was preoccupied.
I myself think adultery, rape, sex by deceit or under duress, and sex between adults and minors is very wrong. I think incest is at best a bad idea and at worst, wrong. I am including in the term incest non-blood relatives – it bends the boundaries of the relationship, at best. I think public sex is distasteful, at best, and wrong, at worst.
These ideas of mine do not come unbidden to my conscious attention except when someone else asks, so I guess I am not preoccupied by them. I would extend that presumption to others.
JNCP stated this well. For a candidate to make this part of a public campaign is hugely different.
I think Santorum could not stand our ridicule. HeyHey Good Bye.
LikeLike
Mark:
For a candidate to make this part of a public campaign is hugely different.
Is it really fair to say that he has made this a part of his campaign? He spoke about it in a single interview back in the fall and never again, as far as I know.
LikeLike
Mark
Because I think unwanted children are a tragic consequence for society I think the pill has been an unadulterated good for society
I would only add Mark, that while not everyone will agree it has been good for society, the pill has done more, in my opinion, than any other single factor, to liberate women and give them full access to everything our society offers and obviously much more freedom to choose the kind of lives they want to live.
LikeLike
Breaking news: Santorum suspends presidential campaign
The nation has been spared his weird preoccupation with sex. We can all breathe a deep sigh of relief.
LikeLike
I think markinausin gets to the key point that unlike other candidates who may have an opinion on the subject, Santorum believes it to be a priority worthy of Presidential attention at the Federal level.
I’d contrast Santorum’s approach to that of say Mike Huckabee who I’d argue is also a “cultural conservative” as Santorum is, but not nearly as polarizing in his personal style.
LikeLike
Not that it necessarily applies to Santorum since his heterosexual bona fides are pretty well established, but a new study establishes what any gay man who has seen the school BMOC sneak into the local gay bar already knows: The most virulent homophobes are often closted self-loathing gays.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on April 9, 2012 at 2:13 pm said:
…
May as well broaden this – I once feared a national ID card but it really could resolve a lot of issues. Undocs and IAs, embedded medical record chip like in Japan, voting, etc.”
I’ve never been too keen on the national ID card either, but at the momenent we have a half-assed national ID system where the SSN number is a de facto citizen identification number, despite stating that is only to be used to for tax purposes and not for identification and the state issued drivers license is used for validating identity in a physical setting (i.e. cashing a check or boarding an airplane.)
Rather than continue with this, a national ID card that can be used for voting, boarding an aircraft, etc but is disconnected from an actual license to operate a motor vehicle, may be the best of bad options. I’d also include in any legislation that enacts this a “right to sue” to have erronous information in a government database changed (i.e. inaccurate entries in the Do Not Fly List or the Approved for Targeted Killing list) and also improve the ability to correct erronous information in the quasi governmental approved credit reports.
LikeLike
Scott, read yello’s link. This is a man who thinks about what limits to sex/passion the states have a right to impose in ways that go beyond what a lot of us simply don’t bother with.
Also, his statement that “they are supposed to be within marriage” implies he wishes others to adhere to his beliefs rather than accepting that not everyone will agree with him.
And on that note, I”m off.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on April 10, 2012 at 11:25 am said: Edit Comment
mark:
WEIRD.
So, just to be clear, it is your position that anyone who thinks pre-marital sex is wrong and is willing to say so publicly has a “preoccupation” with the sex act?
Beyond that, I think it is undoubtedly true that widespread use of contraception, particularly the pill, has had significant effects on the development of our society/culture over the last 50 years. Do you think that all of those effects have, without exception, been positive, or do you allow the possibility that some of those consequences have not been for the better?”
I don’t think that any of these issues on sex and contraception are the appropriate purvue of the Federal government. And I have no expectation of moral leadership from a politician.
LikeLike
jnc:
I don’t think that any of these issues on sex and contraception are the appropriate purvue of the Federal government.
I very much agree. Which is why the feds shouldn’t be funding Planned Parenthood or mandating insurance coverage of contraception.
And I have no expectation of moral leadership from a politician.
Again, I very much agree. It’s not my intent to provide a brief for Santorum. But just because there is legitimate reason to criticize him doesn’t mean any old criticism is sensible. If he is “preoccupied with the sex act”, then so are all the liberals whose politics revolve around legal abortion and contraception mandates.
LikeLike
Which is why the feds shouldn’t be funding Planned Parenthood…
Have we mentioned that Planned Parenthood offers many more services than just contraception? Reproductive health covers a lot of bases other than just preventing unwanted pregnancies (which is an admirable goal in and of itself, IMHO).
I think making this an issue in a POTUS campaign ought to bring ridicule upon him by most men [as well as women].
Al Franken infamously once used pilfered letterhead to solicit testimonials from prominent conservatives on how abstinence has been a beneficial force in their personal lives. He got no takers.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on April 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm said:
…
No. I am still unclear on whether you really believe that thinking sex outside of marriage is wrong is indicative of a “preoccupation with the sex act”.”
It’s in Santorum’s attempts to draw attention to the issue and make it a distinguishing factor in comparison to the other candidates as evidenced by this quote:
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is… the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”
This is seperate from say responding to a question on the subject. Santorum actively highlights the issue to contrast his candidacy with others.
LikeLike
jnc:
It’s in Santorum’s attempts to draw attention to the issue and make it a distinguishing factor in comparison to the other candidates as evidenced by this quote:
His attempts to draw attention to it seem to me to be limited to a single interview at some obscure evangelical college. If anything, I would think that the target audience of that interview ought to be pissed at him, as he doesn’t seem to have drawn any more attention to that issue at all after having said he would.
This is seperate from say responding to a question on the subject.
I’ve been trying to find the context in which he made the statement. Are you sure he wasn’t responding to a question on the subject?
LikeLike
“ScottC, on April 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm said:
…
This is seperate from say responding to a question on the subject.
I’ve been trying to find the context in which he made the statement. Are you sure he wasn’t responding to a question on the subject?”
I believe, but am not positive, that he was speaking in the context of a news cycle about the entire Catholic institution contraception controversy. I.e. he was trying to get some coverage for his campaign by taking the existing news cycle and reframing it as a example of why he was the true conservative in the Republican primary.
I do believe he offered up the statement unprompted after saying that he thought Obama’s decision was wrong. Rather than leave it there, he wanted to go one step futher and make sure you knew where Rick Santorum stood on the entire subject of contraception, not just the current funding controversy.
LikeLike
Perhaps. We have all kinds of laws that prohibit people from engaging in non-harmful behavior in order to prevent others from engaging in harmful behavior.
Again, this is obviously true. However, this conversation aside, stunts like this do nothing to move the conversation forward on how to address the issue. Arguably it hinders the conversation because O’Keefe’s experience may or may not be representative of voter fraud efforts across the country. Yet, it’s propped up and tauted, at least from what I’ve seen, as something more than a anecdotal experience. At best it presents and incomplete picture at worst it purposefully presents an inaccurate picture.
Not at my polling place, because, well, I have to show a picture ID
Well, you could still walk in and claim to be someone else, you wouldn’t get very far doing so, but you could walk in and claim to be someone else. That’s all O’Keefe did here. This comment also shows that O’Keefe’s experience is only that…his experience…and not necessarily representative of other voting districts.
LikeLike
ashot:
This comment also shows that O’Keefe’s experience is only that…his experience…and not necessarily representative of other voting districts.
It is definitely not representative of districts where ID is required.
I truly don’t understand the objections to an ID requirement, unless it is straight political calculation, ie people sans IDs are more likely to vote D, therefore D’s don’t want IDs. I would venture to guess that limited polling times are an inconvenience to more people than any potential ID requirement.
Are there any stats at all on the number of registered voters who literally do not possess any picture ID at all?
LikeLike
I truly don’t understand the objections to an ID requirement, unless it is straight political calculation
I think there is a legitimate concern about disenfranchisement. However, the political calculation is the primary motivation for many, if not most.
Are there any stats at all on the number of registered voters who literally do not possess any picture ID at all?
I didn’t see anything on a rather quick google search so it would probably require putting several sets of data together.
What about measures like Florida’s restrictions on voting rights of former convicts? Even nonviolent criminals have to wait 5 years and if they get a conviction of any sort during that time, the clock resets? Do you think that is a straight political calculation? It seems like a straight political calculation to me.
LikeLike
ashot:
It seems like a straight political calculation to me.
Maybe (are convicts more likely to vote D than R, or are criminals more likely to be D than R?). But assuming away such calculation, including voting among the many rights that are restricted via criminal penalties doesn’t strike me as necessarily strange or outrageous. I can see how it might be seen as a reasonable punishment for criminal activity.
However, if I assume away any political calculation with regard to the ID issue, I really don’t get it. Virtually any rule regulating voting (polling times, polling location, registration requirement) has the potential to “disenfranchise” an otherwise legitimate voter. In this day and age, with the ubiquitous need for an ID to participate in all manner of things in society, the need for an ID just doesn’t strike me as being even close to overly burdensome. Again, I would wager that far more people need to go out of their way to accommodate polling times (I know I do) in order to vote than would have to go out of their way to obtain an ID in order to vote.
LikeLike
But assuming away such calculation, including voting among the many rights that are restricted via criminal penalties doesn’t strike me as necessarily strange or outrageous.
I agree restrictions aren’t strange or outrageous (arbitrary perhaps), but the fact that republican governors in Florida keep passing new restrictions does seem a bit strange. What’s the argument for 5 years? Does it deter crime? Seems highly unlikely.
Virtually any rule regulating voting (polling times, polling location, registration requirement) has the potential to “disenfranchise” an otherwise legitimate voter.
I agree and I think the political calculation is probably a stronger motivating factor than any fear of underming democracy. There are ways around the polling times and locations requirements via absentee ballots so they may not be the best comparison, but your point remains.
LikeLike
ashot:
What’s the argument for 5 years?
No idea. Maybe that is draconian. I’m not defending any specific law, just the idea in principle.
LikeLike
anyone else think that felons should not be stripped of the franchise?
LikeLike
nova:
anyone else think that felons should not be stripped of the franchise?
I haven’t thought about it enough to say that it should happen, but I am not instinctively opposed to the idea. (Sorry if that is a squishy answer.)
LikeLike
Are there any stats at all on the number of registered voters who literally do not possess any picture ID at all?
My late grandmother never had a drivers license. I don’t know if she ever had some other form of offiical picture ID. The typical anecdotal example is an elderly rural person who has no birth records to even use to obtain a photo ID. Plus nearly all government IDs cost something which does raise the poll tax objection.
LikeLike
Scott/ashot:
are convicts more likely to vote D than R
The political calculation is that the majority of felons in FL are black and male, a demographic that tends to vote D (for example).
republican governors in Florida keep passing new restrictions does seem a bit strange.
Charlie Crist, as an R governor, signed legislation restoring full voting rights to Class I felons in 2007. That was overturned by the current FL Lege/Rick Scott last year.
LikeLike
NoVA:
anyone else think that felons should not be stripped of the franchise?
Felons shouldn’t have voting rights. Ex-felons, or felons who have served their sentence and have been released, should have voting rights. The bright-line for me is the prison wall.
LikeLike
The bright-line for me is the prison wall.
I feel the same way. That seems as logical as any other line and far more logical than say 5 years or some other arbitrary number.
Also thanks for correcting me on the Flordia law changes. Sorry to all for the incorrect post.
LikeLike
Mike/ashot:
The bright-line for me is the prison wall.
People on parole still have legal restrictions placed on what they can and can’t do, despite no longer being behind the wall. Do you object to voting restrictions being one of them?
My (entirely anecdotal) impression is that most felons are released from prison before serving their full term. I would have no problem at all making the restoration of full voting rights subject to a time period equal to one’s full sentence, even if one is released early.
LikeLike
Corked by Mark! The tradition continues.
[edit…And bsimon. I’m so original.]
LikeLike
I would extend denial of the franchise until parole is successfully completed.
Last night I heard Thomas “Hollywood” Henderson talk for 45 minutes on “Re-entry” of ex-cons. I have a client in the security business who has an interest in this. Henderson, once a Dallas Cowboy, then a convict, now sober for 27 years, and a multi-millionaire entrepreneur, is an interesting guy. He funds halfway houses and boys’ clubs, often seeding as much as $500K and telling the County he will put up the money if it will match him. Our Sheriff, Gregg Hamilton, who set the record for sending the most IAs back to MX last year [over 11K, way more than Arpaio], also spoke on the subject. He has a re-entry project in the County Jail. BTW, Hamilton has not lost the chicano community support on deportations because he doesn’t go looking for IAs. They are just routinely removed from his jail caseload by shipping to ICE. Hamilton is head of the TX State Sheriff’s Assoc., and those guys all want to cut recidivism, and they all tell the same story – over 40% drug or alcohol related, about 20% certified psychotic by MHMR, some number felony stupid [this means they do not actually know how to sustain themselves otherwise], some number really hard case, some number ez rehabs. [My client, a former long time FBI guy, has metrics that can tell them apart].
Hamilton, ex-military [MPs], then college and civilian law enforcement, had four older brothers. The oldest was murdered. The next 2 are crack addicted. He has a real personal interest in re-entry.
Henderson said his network of friends, his college degree and his NFL earnings set him apart from most ex-cons. That he only had a taste of what it was like the year he announced for City Council with an 85% approval rating. And then found he was ineligible for public office. He pointed out how discouraging every job interview is when the bottom line is that an ex-con cannot be hired for the job.
He told an OK joke, too.
LikeLike
“The political calculation is that the majority of felons in FL are black and male, a demographic that tends to vote D (for example).”
I wonder what the voting rate is for black men. Or is it low precisely because black men are a disproportionally large proportion of the prison population?
I wonder how safe it is to assume that ex-cons are also mostly black & male?
LikeLike
I’d include (er, exclude) parolees. If you’re on parole, you’ve not yet regained your franchise, in my view.
LikeLike
ashot:
Well, I’m wrong too. The right (or not) to vote for felons in FL is strictly an executive decision, determined by the vote of the 4 elected officials — Gov, Ag Commissioner, CFO, and AG.
LikeLike
I don’t think felons should lose their right to vote, even behind bars. If the goals is rehabilitation, purposely excluding them from what arguably could be their only opportunity to participate in society seems counterproductive.
That and the fact that we’re all pre-felons anyway.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
LikeLike
bsimon/Mark/Scott:
My view of parole is that it is part of a rehabilitative process. I’m of the mind that if you have satisfied the parole board that you are not a danger to society and can be paroled, I don’t see the point of withholding the franchise if you are trying to get the felons to re-integrate back into society. So, basically what NoVA said, except outside
prison walls.
My view of incarceration is that it serves the purpose of punishment and deterrence. Taking away voting rights is appropriate in this circumstance, IMO. That is likely where I differ from NoVA.
LikeLike
bsimon:
From Slate:
“When their voting power is restored, ex-offenders tend to vote in presidential elections at a rate of 35 percent (compared to 52 percent of the rest of us), but they do overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, according to sociologists Jeff Manza and Chistopher Uggen, authors of Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy.”
LikeLike
MIke, thanks for the link.
LikeLike