Posts tagged election

Why Your Professor Supports Gay Marriage (and Other Revelations)

November 18, 2008 · Filed under Columbia University, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , ,

This originally appeared in the Commentariat, Columbia Spectator’s opinion blog.

In one of my previous posts, I asserted that professors and the highly-educated were liberal because progressive ideas were inherently better, and vice-versa. Clearly, as some have pointed out, this is, to a degree, complete nonsense for a variety of reasons. In fact, one of the problems I should point out with the studies that I cited is that they do not distinguish between social liberalism and economic liberalism. I would venture to say that, while many Columbia students are fairly economically liberal (that is, they believe in economic regulation, the New Deal, and so on to varying degrees), you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find a Huckabee supporter.

Anyway it’s time for an actual explanation of why professors are so liberal, part one.

The Republican-Democratic divide requires a closer look.

Columbia University Professor of statistics Gelman wrote an article (which he later turned into a book) in which he addresses this issue. He writes that:

income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America.” In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference.

In other words, wealthy people in blue states are likely to vote Democratic while their counterparts in Republican states are likely to vote Republican. The explanation for this is that:

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Electoral Fraud — in Rhyme

November 17, 2008 · Filed under Election 2008, Humor · Tagged , , , , , , , ,

This is a parody of The Cat in the Hat that I wrote a couple of years ago. I remember it being longer, but I guess part of it was lost. Sigh.

Well it was right awful on that cold winter day

It wouldn’t stop raining, and the sky was a dark gray

The kids were at college, and the garbage was out,

And watching the news was just making us pout

When something went bump,

And the bump made a thump.

Right in from the rain walked this man in a suit,

Right in from the rain, a suit quite astute.

He said, “why haven’t you all gone out to vote?”

He said, “why do you all just sit here and mope?

I know a place where there’s election day cheer,

Let’s go,” said the man, “for that cheer is not here.”

So off to the polling booth they followed the man,

They left to go vote with the man with a plan.

Then Billy Bob said, “Stop, let’s not go,

I left my coat at home, and it looks like it’ll snow!

We should not be going, it just isn’t right,

We should not be going,” said Bob in a fright.

But the man just replied, “We’ll have a great time,

And don’t worry at all, for it isn’t a crime.”

So onwards we went

and over those papers we bent.

Then onto computers we entered our votes

And returned from that place, happy as goats.

But that night on the news, we discovered something quite bad,

The election results weren’t quite right, and we’d clearly been had.

In the race for the house, Thing One received not even a vote,

Even though that’s for whom we had voted; and Bob took the remote.

Billy Bob said, “See? We wasted our time in that line,

I wasted my time in that line, that time that was mine!

We wasted our time in that line because of that man,

That man with a plan, the man dating Suzanne!”

Leave a comment »

“Fair and Balanced” indeed.

November 13, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, Internet, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

In one of FoxNews.com’s latest columns, Greg Gutfield demonstrates a remarkable ability to be a gigantic assclown. I’ll quote some of the most offensive sections:

Any moron who remembers Eddy Murphy’s stand-up routine knows that blacks haven’t always warmed to gay causes. They probably also don’t enjoy comparisons between their civil rights struggle and gays not being allowed to marry. Yeah, I know gays have been treated like crap over the years, but they were never slaves, unless it was requested on Craigslist

I’m not arguing that gay people have been more oppressed in the United States than blacks have (though internationally is another matter), but this paragraph was nonetheless pretty offensive.

Furthermore, while this guy wonders why gay people have been “venting their rage at white churches, but oddly, not the black ones,” he totally ignores the possibility that there might be gay black people.

He then goes on to say:

And remember, it was David Geffen who helped picked Obama and it was Obama’s main supporters who voted for Prop 8. So blame Geffen, not the Mormons.

Why shouldn’t I blame the Mormons? These are the same people who didn’t believe that black people have souls until 1978. More topical, these are the people who donated 22.8 million dollars to Yes on Prop 8. They mobilized their members to travel to California to campaign against it. They had statements made in every single one of their churches. So why shouldn’t I be pissed at them?

Did the minority votes put the yes on prop 8 vote over the top? Yes, they did. But if it hadn’t been for the rampant douchebaggery perpetrated by the Mormon Church, they — and millions of older white voters — wouldn’t have been duped into voting in favor of it.

Leave a comment »

In New Jersey, Not Much in the Way of Choice

November 1, 2008 · Filed under Commentariat, Election 2008, Internet, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article ran on the Commentariat, the opinion blog of the Columbia Spectator.

I decided to come home this weekend to spend some time with my family, see some friends from home, and vote. When I arrived last night, I saw my sample ballot waiting for me. I eagerly opened it up, but only to be disappointed.

This election day, I intended, with the exception of President and Congress (my congressman is pretty awesome), to vote a straight Green Party ticket. But I ran into a problem. The only Green candidate running was Cynthia McKinney, for President. For Sheriff and Board of Chosen Freeholders, the only candidates were Democrats and Republicans. In fact, for one of the Freeholder races (there are three), the Republicans didn’t even run a candidate.

I found this all profoundly disturbing, but I was not to be deterred. This morning, I began to research the various candidates, starting with those for US Senate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4) »

The $43,470 Question

October 28, 2008 · Filed under Commentariat, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

My family is awkward. Not necessarily socially — though that too — but economically. I, like millions of other Americans, fall into the gap between qualifying for financial aid and actually being able to afford a college education without going into massive debt.

One of Barack Obama’s most cherished proposals is the $4,000 tax credit to students. The effect of this proposal on Columbia students, as well as students at most other private institutions, would be minimal. In fact, even if I had attended Rutgers University — a New Jersey state school — I would still be paying $17,000 in tuition each year. If this proposal were to go through, the effect on Columbia University students would be almost inconsequential (we’ll still be paying $39,470).

It is curious, then, why so many college students are so excited about him or why we cheered so loudly when he mentioned his $4,000 tax-credit when he and McCain came to campus.

This is not to say that McCain’s proposals are anything less than pathetic. In fact, where the McCain campaign isn’t ominously silent on the issue of education, it offers platitudes and, ironically, is terribly vague (a complaint made by many about Obama’s proposals). To illustrate my point, allow me to digress, momentarily, into a discussion about a few of McCain’s ideas on education.

Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain doesn’t propose any federal subsidies for higher education. In fact, judging by McCain’s proposal (i.e that the tax benefits are just too darn hard to figure out), the ability of many students to be able to pay for college is impeded by their inability to understand our tax code rather than such silly things as, you know, not having the money. He also calls for “effective reforms” for lending programs and “improving information for parents”. The general take-away from this seems to be that students can’t pay for college not because we do not have the means but rather because we do not have the brainpower.

While some minor party candidates might support free universal higher education, the most likely outcome is that neither free nor cheap education is coming any time soon. It seems that the message from the major party candidates to America’s students is this: just keep hoping your bank doesn’t WaMu.

Comments (1) »

Ron Paul, Douchebag Extraordinaire

October 25, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Since I heard about him, I have disliked Ron Paul. His past — not even that long ago — indicates that he is homophobic, wildy racist, and anti-Semitic. His claims of libertarianism are belied by his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay rights generally.

EDIT: While Ron Paul claims that he doesn’t know who wrote those articles, they were published under his name, in his publication. Just as a magazine or a newspaper would have to take responsibility for the articles of those who write for it, so too is Ron Paul responsible for allowing the spread of hateful rhetoric and ignorance.

In fact, he says that he would have voted for the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and proposed the Marriage Protection Act (scroll to the end) which would have prohibited litigation pertaining to either the Defense of Marriage Act or itself. I maintain that his douchebaggery is not lessened by his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, because he did so on the basis that it was too hard (“passing a constitutional amendment is a long,drawn-out process”) and that “liberal social engineers who wish to…redefine marriage will be able to point to the…amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter”.

In a Republican primary debate he sidestepped the issue of the injustice inherent in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, saying that it’s a “decent policy”.

Lastly, he calls himself “strongly pro-life” and, in a sentence for which the term “logical clusterfuck” would be generous, he claims that “abortion leads to euthanasia”.

It should be no surprise, then, that he recently endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, a nutjob probably a step to the right of Strom Thurmond, and certified assclown. For those of you who don’t know, the Constitution Party claimsit wants to “uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States” by returning American to its its “original Biblical common-law foundations”, persecuting gays, and making everyone believe in Jesus. (These are all quotes from their mission statement.)

This, sadly, only vindicates by original belief that Ron Paul is, was, and always will be an unrepentant racist, homophobic, hatemonger.

EDIT: For those who are unable to find the quotations to which I refer in the sources provided at first glance, please peruse the articles and speeches carefully and you will discover exactly that to which I refer. Thank you.

Note: both edits were done at 6:45 PM EST on Oct 26.

Comments (8) »

Beyond the Issues

October 23, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

Over this past weekend, Sarah Palin released the following statement:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage

For those of you who weren’t able to make out quite what she was trying to say — I couldn’t, at first — she is declaring her support for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Needless to say, I disagree with her on a fundamental level for a variety of reasons — every amendment has been thus far designed to expand freedoms, not restrict them; I believe that marriage is a fundamental human and Constitutional right (see the 9th and 14th amendments); and, quite frankly, there’s really no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (and even the religious argument is debatable). But, you know, I’m friends with all sorts of people, some of whom don’t believe in same-sex marriage and we get along just fine as long as we don’t talk about politics. But the one thing that I can’t accept is blatant hypocrisy. Sort of like the hypocrisy that Sarah Palin demonstrated in the following statement:

I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

Well, we’re all educated people here. Can anyone else tell me what’s wrong with this? There are a lot of things wrong with it, such as what she did to the English language, which, honestly, ought to be criminalized, but that’s not quite what I’m going for. My point was that, first, by supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage she is by definition “judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment”. In fact, her statement about “strong families” directly implies that same-sex couples cannot foster strong families (which, incidentally, they can. Oops.) — this is, again, a moral judgment. Secondly, again, by definition of supporting an amendment, she is “telling [individuals] what they can and can’t do, should and should not do”.

The prospect of giving Sarah Palin any more power or influence than she already has is, quite frankly, terrifying. In fact, I find it profoundly disturbing that any educated person who has been exposed to her statements could vote for John McCain, who has a one in three chance of dying in office.

Beyond any policy differences I might have with John McCain and Sarah Palin (and believe me, there are very many) the sheer number of personality flaws which make both of them unfit to lead is staggering.

John McCain’s well-documented and well known anger issues, his mysogyny (he tells unfunny rape jokes involving gorillas and called his wife both “a trollop” and “a cunt” in front of a group of reporters), his old age and poor health (the fact that he couldn’t remember that Iraq shares a border with Iran, not Afghanistan, and that he couldn’t remember the number of houses he has demonstrates a failure of memory, not necessarily a disconnect from Joe the Plumber), and his evidently poor judgment (he picked Sarah Palin) all combine into a terrifying prospect of a McCain presidency.

And, if, for some reason, John McCain were to die in office and Sarah Palin were to take charge, I would be even more horrified. Sarah Palin’s ignorance of American and legal history (she could only name one Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade), her inability to form a coherent sentence (see above, or any interview with Couric), her belief that some parts of this country are more “pro-America” than others, and her ethical questionability (she attempted to ban books at the Wasilla library, fired the police chief for personal reasons, and charged victims for rape kits) all paint a very, very dim prospect for America under a Palin administration.

Comments (1) »

More on Pro-America

October 22, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , , , ,

I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America, or anti-America. I tihnk people would love to see an expose like that.

- Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

I forgot to mention, in my last post about this, this comment from Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. This comment, from a woman who banned Aladdin from being shown in a charter school in Minnesota because she thought it promoted “paganism and witchcraft”, is reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when the civil liberties of Americans were ignored in a pathetic, frantic, and — in the end — entirely fabricated search for “un-American Communists”.

There is currently a petition underway to censure her. I’d encourage people to sign it.

Leave a comment »

The Real America

October 22, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ever since Sarah Palin’s comments about the “real America” and the “pro-America” parts of America, I started paying more attention to these sorts of utterings from the GOP. I had been hoping that it would be limited to Sarah Palin, or perhaps even a few on the fringes of the party, but, of course, I was disappointed.

On Monday I went to see the Daily Show live. That show was glorious, both because it was hilarious and because it was filled with with righteous fury about Palin’s recent comments. What really surprised me, however, was a comment from one of McCain’s staff members which referred to the “real Virginia”, as opposed to the fake, Democratic, part of Virginia.

Then one of my friends pointed me towards an apology that had to be made by a North Carolina Republican congressman. At a McCain rally he said to the crowd:

…liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.

Of course, this is even more offensive than the remarks made by Sarah Palin. I suppose he was at least more upfront about what he meant, however. In his apology remarks he said this:

there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way.

Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter how it “came out”. What matters is the sentiment behind the words, and his sentiments were this:

1. Liberals are not “real Americans”

2. Liberals do not believe in God

3. Liberals do not work or accomplish things

4. Liberals hate people who believe in God

I don’t really consider myself a liberal, but I have no doubt that I fit into his ignorant definition of one, and, quite frankly, none of these implied or explicit statements apply to me. I believe in God and attend religious services weekly, I work hard and have accomplished any number of things of meaning to myself and those around men, I have a great apprecation for people who believe in God (as well as for those who don’t believe in God), and I am a real American.

The fact that this theme has crept up in the past few days is, quite frankly, terrifying.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I have a midterm tomorrow/later today for which I haven’t finished studying quite yet.

Comments (1) »

The Nader Effect and 2008

October 21, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, LGBT Issues, Poll Analysis · Tagged , , , , , , ,

According to RealClearPolitics, Barack Obama has an 8.7 percent lead over John McCain. However, this is only when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included in the polling data. When third party candidates are excluded, however, Obama’s lead shrinks to 6.8%. There are a variety of explanations for this.

One of these explanations is simply that Bob Barr simply siphons off voters who would otherwise be voting for McCain. However, this, at least by itself, is entirely inadequate. In fact, in a partial restoration of my faith in the American people, only 1% of Americans are projected to vote for him. Nader, meanwhile, is polling at 3%. If we accept political science orthodoxy that a third-party candidate will only draw votes away from the candidate closest in ideology to them, then Obama should be ahead by around 10.7%.

I got this number by adding the 3% of Nader, which would theoretically go to Obama, and subtracting the Barr’s 1%, which would theoretically go to McCain. Whille the Libertarian Party shares views with both major parties (it is socially liberal and [very] economically conservative), this year’s candidate is ultraconservative Bob Barr of Georgia, known for his both his economically and socially conservative douchebaggery during his time in the House of Representatives (for example, he both authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act. He also proposed to ban the practice of Wicca in the military and wants to repeal the 16th amendment [which instituted the income tax]).

An alternative explanation is that there are simply fewer polls, which leads to less accurate overall statistics. The problem with this, however, is that a sheer number of polls will not ensure statistical integrity. In fact, the sample sizes of most of these polls have been around 1000 likely voters. With sample sizes like this, it is rather unlikely that the margin of error will be particularly large.

On the other hand, the accuracy provided by the sample sizes might be offset by the varying definitions used for “likely voter”. Gallup has experimented with using two different designs for its “likely voter” polls. The results of one experimental poll were as follows. Among “registered voters”, Obama led McCain by 11 points. Among the traditional definition of likely voters (that is, it takes into consideration “voting intention and self-reported past voting behavior”), Obama was in the lead by 7 points. Among the expanded definition of likely voters (people who claim they will vote on election day), Obama was in the lead by 10 points. There is a problem with the assertion that the “likely voters” model is less accurate. For the registered voters in this poll, the MoE is ±2%; for the traditional LV model the MoE is ±3%; for the expanded LV model, the MoE is ±2%. In other words, the margin of error is essentially the same, but the likely voter interview is more likely to predict the outcome of the election.

Another reason to believe that the inclusive polling (i.e. with Obama, McCain, Nader, and Barr) is accurate is that it has followed the same pattern as the McCain v. Obama polling, yet only slightly delayed (because there are simply fewer inclusive polls).

The explanation that I find most credible is that Nader voters are simply people who might not otherwise vote this year. Obama’s numbers are essentially the same across the two polling methods (49.0% average in the inclusive polling versus 50.1% in non-inclusive). In fact, if you add up Obama’s and McCain’s numbers in the non-inclusive polling, there’s a missing 6.7% (presumably, “undecideds”). Given that Obama’s numbers stay the same across the polling data, yet his lead only grows when Nader and Barr are included, my hypothesis is this: while some McCain voters are willing to bite and vote for Bob Barr (either because they don’t like McCain’s social conservativism are are, in fact, libertarians, or because they don’t think he’s socially conservative enough and are simply fans of Bob Barr), Obama voters are committed to their candidate. This argument is justified by polling data which indicates that Democrats are far more excited about Obama than Republicans are about McCain. At the same time, the 6.7% of unlikely voters will split between Nader and Obama for two reasons. First, because CBS polling indicates that undecideds and independents favor Obama by wide margins. Second, because many Nader supporters have said that they simply wouldn’t vote if he weren’t on the ticket.

Leave a comment »

« Previous entries
Next Page »