Poll Trolls

A couple of weeks ago there was some controversy about a Wilson Research poll which tested 1000 McCain and Obama supporters on some basic campaign facts. The poll was originally conducted only on Obama supporters. Since the results showed a poor knowledge of campaign trivia, the supposition was made that Obama supporters were ignorant. However, Wilson repeated the poll on both Obama and McCain supporters and the results were identical.

As it turns out, both McCain supporters and Obama supporters had trouble on certain questions. Based on the full poll data and cross tabs, here is my analysis of the poll:

What McCain supporters knew that Obama supporters did not

• 64% of Republicans knew that the Democrats already controlled the Senate before the election.
  
  Only 38% of Democrats knew that.
  
  
• 50% of McCain supporters knew that Barack Obama had said his policies would bankrupt coal companies and make energy prices skyrocket.
  
  Only 14% of Obama supporters knew that. 24% of them though McCain had said it.
  
  
• 48% of McCain supporters knew that Barack Obama had claimed to have campaigned in 57 states.
  
  Only 24% of Obama supporters knew that.

What Obama supporters knew that McCain supporters did not

• 
  

What both Obama supporters and McCain supporters knew

• McCain could not remember how many houses he owned (about three-quarters of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• The Republicans spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothing (about 80% of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• Sarah Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter (95% of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• Joe Biden said that Barack Obama would be seriously tested in his first six months in office (just over half of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• Barack Obama said the government should redistribute wealth (about 80% of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• Barack Obama reportedly started his political career at Bill Ayers' house (86% of McCain supporters and 68% of Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• John McCain was involved in a 1980's savings and loans scandal (about half of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  

What neither Obama supporters nor McCain supporters knew

• Sarah Palin did not actually say that she could see Russia from her house (about three-quarters of McCain and Obama supporters believed she had said so)
  
  
• Joe Biden was forced to drop out of a 1980 campaign because he was found to have plagiarized a speech (only about one-third of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)
  
  
• Barack Obama won his first election by getting all of his oponents kicked off the ballot (only 29% of McCain supporters and 13% of Obama supporters knew this)

Nice Ice

I've started to do some research regarding the ice storms that hit Western Massachusetts and Southern New Hampshire. Both Governors Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and John Lynch of New Hampshire have declared states of emergency and deployed the National Guard.

To begin, I'd like to commend the leadership of my governor, Deval Patrick, during this catastrophic storm. As is documented in the news video below, Patrick was on the scene today assessing the situation first hand. It is obvious that he has a good understanding of the needs of the area and is addressing them. Would Mitt Romney have trekked out there all the way to Fitchburg for the afternoon? You can decide that for yourself.

That said, I am upset that Deval Patrick will be asking for federal funding to aid with the storm clean up. The last newscast I saw reported that the total for the cleanup could be seven million dollars. Does the governor of Taxachusetts really need to go begging to our broke federal government for a few million dollars? I haven't heard any reports yet that tax-free New Hampshire will be picking Uncle Sam's pockets.

I am going to keep an eye out for this. It won't surprise me if New Hampshire doesn't seek federal funding at all. Still think Massachusetts needs income tax?

I lied, I'm a loser

I lied, I'm a loser.

I've been thinking about it, and I wish to revise the statement I made a few months ago in my post Watch the Debates.

Don't watch the debates next time.

After reading a few good books, I began to realize that presidential debates are just a stage where Democrats and Republicans pretend to disagree with each other.

Read Obama Nation for some more on this issue.

Black vs. Red

Have you ever wondered about the origins of the name "Black Friday"?

The media would like us to believe that the name was coined because it is the day when businesses earn enough revenue to be "in the black" as opposed to "in the red", meaning at a profit rather than at a loss. However, the origin of the word is much darker than most people think. It was first coined in the sixties by the Philadelphia Police in a comparison to Black Tuesday. To them, the frenzied traffic and overcrowded stores reflected the chaos of that day when the stock market crashed in 1929.

To me, it is neither. "Black Friday" does not symbolize earnings. Nor does it symbolize a revival of "Black Tuesday", a time of chaos brought on by forces which, by the day of the crash, were more or less beyond human control.

It is not beyond human control, for example, when crowds turn so savage that they literally stampede through store doors and kill employees and fellow buyers, as has become an annual tradition. The day may represent "black" versus "red" revenues for retail stores, but surely it does not for most Americans who celebrate the day. Most of them will be "in the red" by Saturday, after charging hundreds of dollars of gifts to their credit cards.

Maybe instead of wondering where the name came from, we should start thinking about what it means to us today. Will Americans someday forget the real meaning of Thanksgiving? More importantly, have we already forgotten the meaning of the American way?

To me, the most disturbing part about Black Friday is also the most disturbing part about the American economy in general: its reliance on the use of credit and debt. In fact, both our everyday shopping expenses and the foundations of our very country are based on the excessive use and abuse of debt.

At the highest level, consider the $25 billion bailout proposed for three of America's largest car makers. It goes without saying that if these companies kept cash reserves rather than operating on debt they would be able to survive a few weeks of depressed sales.

Car sales would not be depressed to begin with were it not for the recession. Let's not forget how that began: millions of Americans nationwide became unable to pay their debts (namely mortgages), causing crisis in one of the largest sectors of our economy. Isn't the fact that American debt markets can cause a global economic crisis evidence enough that debt is being overused and abused in this country?

Of course, the red does not stop there. In response to the debt crisis our government has turned to the most obvious solution: more debt. For years, we thought the war in Iraq was breaking Uncle Sam's bank. In the past month, the government has allocated double the expenses of the entire Iraq war in the form of two $800 billion bailout plans. In other words, the government wants to get into more debt so that companies like the "big three" car manufacturers can borrow money from the government and get themselves in more debt, so that we Americans can buy their products with loans and credit cards and get ourselves in more debt.

I say we call it "Red Friday".

Even better, I say we forget about the occasion all together and find something really worth celebrating. Instead of using the day after Thanksgiving as an induction of the Christmas season, we could show our thanks for the freedom we enjoy by going out in our communities and volunteering with our friends and family. We could continue our celebration of America by holding public parties and events like we do on the Fourth of July. Or--going out on a limb here--we could simply use the day to take some well-deserved rest from the stress of our work and everyday lives.

Obviously it is idealistic of me to make these suggestions. Maybe instead I could suggest something a little more realistic--a new Black Friday tradition that embraces the unchangeable modern trends. Go out early on Black Friday and go shopping, and then later in the evening sit back and unwind by watching Scrooge starring Albert Finney. That way you can get your shopping done, get some family time, initiate the Christmas season, get a perspective on the evils of debt and greed, and maybe become inspired to turn over a new leaf like Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge.

Thank you very much!

Change #2: Reversal on campaign funding

During the presidential campaign, the Obama camp touted their large base of "small donors" and claimed they "changed the way campaigns were funded".

As it turns out, they lied. About 26% of donors to the Obama campaign were "small donors", as compared to 25% of donors to the 2004 Bush campaign.

Campaign Finance Insitute: Reality check on Obama campaign financing

Covered in the news:

ABC News Political Punch blog
USA Today
US News and World Report

So, the "change" here is really the unmasking of a fake "change" that Obama already claimed to have made. Stay tuned for more changes!

Update on Obama's lobbyist friends

My original post on Tom Daschle, the health care lobbyist being appointed as secretary of health and human services:
Change #1: Reversal on ethics promise

According to the International Herald Tribune (New York Times' international edition), the Obama transition team is rife with lobbyists as well:
Obama transition team lobbyists

As noted in an ABC news blog and on FT.com (Financial Times), Eric Holder, Obama's pick for attorney general is a lobbyist with a history of shady dealings in both the public and private sectors.
ABC News: Dicey Deals
Financial Times: Holder Controversy

Change #1: Reversal on ethics promise

(Opinion alert)

I decided I would keep track of a few of the "changes" that will be happening during the next four years. I put "changes" in quotes not because I don't think the Obama administration won't make any good changes, but because I think many of the changes will really just be continuations of traditional Washington policies. Obama is so much more like Bush than most people realize.

One such traditional Washington policy is appointing cabinet members who are highly-paid members of the industries they will be overseeing.

(Fact time)

Although no cabinet pick has been officially confirmed as of yet, Obama officials have confirmed that Tom Daschle will act as secretary of health and human services.

According to the New York Times, Daschle has been a board member of Mayo Clinic, a large health care provider, for four years. The Mayo Clinic recieves research grants from the federally-owned National Institute of Health.

Daschle has also been working as a lobbying advisor to large health care clients of the lobbying firm Alston & Bird. The firm has lobbied on issues ranging from Medicare reimbursements to drug approvals.

One of Barack Obama's campaign promises included this exact phrase:

No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.

This was part of a general promise to not appoint individuals who have a conflict of interest.

(Opinion alert)

It is undeniable: if Tom Daschle is appointed secretary of health and human services it will represent a conflict of interest and a reversal by the Obama administration on this promise. Daschle would be unable to do his job effectively without working on regulations or contracts related to Mayo Clinic or any health care company that he worked with at Alston & Bird.

Campaign for Liberty

Why I joined Campaign for Liberty

A Day Without Gays

I just noticed an interesting Facebook notice about an upcoming boycott, Day Without a Gay.

To protest anti-gay laws, Day Without a Gay is encouraging those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities--along with their friends and allies--to "call in gay" from work on December 10th and go volunteering instead.

The idea behind the boycott is that since LGBT workers and citizens contribute over $700 billion to the U.S. economy every year, they should be given the same rights (namely marriage rights) as other groups that contribute just as much.

(Opinion alert)

This is a splendid idea and I wish boycotts such as this one were organized more often. It is a great way to protest for a specific cause. I hope that everybody who supports same-sex marriage will participate.

I figure this is a good opportunity to explicitly outline my views on same-sex marriage, as I'm not sure I've done so yet in this blog (damn the economy!).

My View on Same-Sex Marriage

One of my best friends is gay. Several more of my good friends are gay or have gay relatives. I grew up doing theatre, so suffice it to say that I've met my fair share of gay individuals. I have much compassion for the LGBT community and their desire for equal marriage rights.

In a way I support gay marriage and in a way I do not. In a way I support any and every marriage. In another way, I don't support any type of marriage at all. Let me explain.

I do not buy the theories about same-sex marriage destroying our country. Honestly, I don't think America will ever have a population problem caused by lack of procreation (if you do, you need to get out more, or watch some MTV). As for child bearing, I also do not buy the theory that a child needs a mommy and a daddy. Perhaps they did in ancient times, but things are different now. We are a modern society and children can be raised effectively by effective people. After all, if a child needs a mommy and a daddy, why should couples with children be legally allowed to divorce?

Therefore, in the sense that I have no problem with same-sex couples existing, I support gay marriage. Because of this, I think it's great that states like Massachusetts and Connecticut are beginning to realize that they have no right to deny marriage licenses to any two citizens and are therefore "legalizing gay marriage".

Obviously then, I do not support a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The federal government has no reason to define marriage and therefore no right to do so. Therefore, I also do not support a constitutional ammendment (or any federal law) legalizing gay marriage nationwide. In this sense, I do not support "same-sex marriage", as the term often refers to federal legalization.

Same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue. The problem is in the constitutional interpretation: does any branch of government have the right to deny two individuals from entering into certain types of contracts based on their sex? The obvious answer is no. Therefore, in a sense, same sex marriage is already "legal".

The fact that most states do not permit same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses is an issue for the courts. Since states are denying people a consitutional legal right, they need to be sued. A reasonable judge who makes decisions based on the constitution rather than on moral or Biblical trivialities would rule that no state has a right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is how same-sex marriage needs to be legalized.

In an even more different and obscure way, I reject the notion of marriage as a whole. Why does the government need to recognize marriage at all? Are the special tax breaks and other perks really so vital to our society?

Americans (straight and otherwise) have become far too obsessed with these little rectangular pieces of paper that say we are married. Aren't rings supposed to be our society's traditional symbol of marriage? If legal marriage did not come with such an unnessesarily large load of goodies, the gay community wouldn't be so up in arms about it, nor would anyone else. Even if some strange person wanted to marry a cat, he could give that cat a ring and feel just as special as everyone else. But, as the government so loves to do, we have begun to annihilate the real meaning of marriage by making it into a piece of paper.

If the federal government didn't give unnecessary perks to married couples, same-sex marriage would not be an issue. If a same-sex couple wanted to grant each other the right to visit in a hospital emergency room, they could do so with a lawyer. Anybody can. As you hopefully can see, my point is that the real solution to legalizing same sex marriage is for the government to delete any existing marriage laws, get out of our private lives, and let people of any sex sign any legal contract they want.

Once again: I support gay marriage, I don't support it, I support every marriage, and I support no marriages at all. I love being complicated.

Please Understand This

I have been posting about the Community Reinvestment Act for quite some time now, even before the major news outlets were giving it any mention. Now they are catching on, and of course dismissing the act using bogus statistics and flawed logic.

I just read a great article from Mises.org, the most-read economics web site in the world. The article outlines exactly what I have been saying for weeks, but does it much more eloquently than I ever could.

The CRA Scam and Its Defenders - Mises.org

Please understand this, please. It is so upsetting when I hear people blaming the free market for the economic crisis it makes me depressed.

Please understand that big government is the root of the economic crisis. Please understand that we are not a free-market country anymore, not even under George Bush. If we were, these problems wouldn't exist.

In fact, I'd be glad if anybody could explain to me how the free market did cause these problems. If that could be done, I would become a liberal so that my friends would all leave me alone.

I'm not keeping my hopes up, though.

Commonwealth No Longer Aghast

(Opinion alert)

Remember that last post where I praised Deval Patrick's transit plan? Remember how astounded you were when you realized that his plan called for reduction of government agencies? Well, you can calm back down--things have returned to normal.

According to the Boston Globe, Deval Patrick is considering changing Massachusetts law to allow the Governor to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy rather than the people by a vote. Why? Because he feels like it.

Senator Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with brain cancer and Senator John Kerry may be accepting a new job in the Obama administration soon. Therefore, there is a legitimate concern that both of these positions will need to be filled in current months. However, this does not give the Governor the right to change the law for his own convenience.

This particular law has a history of being changed at the whim of the Democrats.

In 2004, Democrats in the legislature created a law under which an empty Senate seat is filled by vote rather than by appointment. The reason for this? John Kerry was on his way to the presidency and the Democrats (rightly!) feared that Mitt Romney would appoint one of his Republican buddies.

At least this law brought the decision back to the people. The law should remain the same. No governor should have the power to appoint a U.S. Senator whos job is to represent their voters.

Do we really want to allow whoever is in power to change the laws so it is convenient for them to do whatever they want?

Commonwealth Aghast: Deval Patrick has a good idea

In a recent letter to the Boston Globe, Deval Patrick outlines his new plan for the transit system in Massachusetts. Although the plan calls for temporary increases in tolls, it also aims to eventually eliminate most tolls completely. Also, the plan will consolidate different transit agencies and reduce their size! That's right, consolidate and reduce!

Read it for yourself: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/13/redirecting_our_transport_system/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

My favorite quotes from the article:

"The bureaucracy should be radically simplified"

"We have eliminated millions of dollars in waste and duplication"

"First, we will consolidate agencies"

"Long term, our goal is to eliminate all tolls except at the harbor tunnels and border entry points"

Finally, a politician who believes in real change! Deval, I am with you on this one.