Last Week's Jobs Posting

It might not seem like it, but today's newly released job numbers are actually really bad news for Obama.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released today news that the unemployment rate had dropped from 8.1% in August to 7.8% in September. Awesome, right?

Maybe not.

Let's analyze: the report says that according to the Payroll Survey, we gained only 114,000 jobs in September. Also the labor force participation rate has held flat at 63.6%. Then, later in the report we are told that the labor force grew by 873,000 new jobs according to the Household Survey.

Anyone else confused? How did unemployment fall to under 8% for the first time since 2009 if labor participation rate is unchanged? And how do we have such radically different job counts in the same report?

The reasons are why Obama may be in for some bad news if people latch on to these numbers too much.

The Household Survey and the Payroll Survey are two different surveys that attempt to analyze the same data from different perspectives. The Household Survey contacts approximately 60,000 households as to their current employment status and includes the declared self-employed, family workers, agriculture jobs, receiving any money for any work, and those who are absent from their jobs without pay. The Payroll Survey is of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and includes none of the "jobs" I just listed.

Though they often track well together, you can probably see why results from one can dramatically differ from the other. Beyond the sample size differences, the way the data is reported in the Household Survey can skew wildly depending on a number of factors. In fact, the Household Survey is fairly volatile, leaving lots of outliers in the tracing of employment trends.

My intuition is that this month was an outlier. Either the respondents to the survey over-reported jobs or the smaller sample size skewed the results.

If this month's number is relied on by the Obama administration to prove a recovery and it is belied by next month's numbers, It could end up costing Obama the election.

From the Atlantic

This morning I found a great follow up to my recent series of posts. I'd encourage you to read the entire post by Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic.com on "Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama." It's insightful and actually lays out some of the exact reasons I expounded on in my essays.

For those who don't have time, here are a few choice quotes:


"Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in."


"I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it."


"But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?

How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes."

Voting Philosophy: Part 4

In my opinion, then, there are several problems with our system. Those problems rest  with the presidency itself, the two party system, and, finally, the significance with which our votes have been imbued. 

The Problem with the Presidency

Over the past two decades the office of the president has assumed a much more prominent and visible role in our government and in civic life in general. Rather than just the executive of the government, the commander in chief, and the occasional symbol of its people, the president has come to be a very active and prominent part in all aspects of legislation, adjudication, and moral standards for our nation.

I don't think this is a good thing either for the kinds of people who are drawn to office or for the people who look to the president to solve all their problems. Those who believe the president can pay their mortgage, put gas in their cars, send them to college, and save their souls are more likely to accept a lot of the allowances that presidents have granted themselves in the name of the greater good.

The thing is, almost everyone who runs for office goes into it with the best of intentions. They want to change the world, make it better, fix problems and help people. They go into office thinking that they now have the keys to a social change machine. If they push the right buttons and pull the right levers, then they can make a difference. They can fix what came before.

The problem is, government doesn't work that way. The president can't single-handedly save the economy or control gas prices or save us all from evil corporations. If he could, then he would also have the power and authority to act in ways with which we disagree. He could impose martial law, disband companies he dislikes, lock away his enemies, and take anyone else's earnings and give them to those he deemed more worthy. 

Both of our most recent presidents have suffered and thrived under this set of expectations. They have enlarged their power to respond to serious issues and as a result they have had even more expectations laid at their feet. 

Now, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to make the world a better place. But who really knows what is best for your life? For mine? For the millionaire or for the destitute? Who knows how best to address the ins and outs of each and every American's life and would make the exact right decisions that would benefit even most of them? And what do you say to those harmed by your policies? Altruism is a good thing, but what do you do when it starts to impeded on the freedom of the people. Freedom means not just the freedom to make good choices but to make one's own bad choices as well. Freedom also means being able to deal with the consequences of those decisions. 

Am I saying that there shouldn't be a safety net to help catch those who have been screwed by the system? No. I believe in a minimal safety net. But a net that captures all is not one for safety but for fishing.

The other danger in altruistic presidents comes when they start believe the ends justify the means. That the rules are in place for other people, but that because their mission is so important, they can bend the rules and it will be okay. It's how we get the NDAA, Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes, the PATRIOT Act, extra judicial detention, executive orders, outrageous congressional compensation, and more.

Will our economy survive another Obama presidency? Probably. Will the integrity of the Constitution? Less likely. Will Romney be able to reverse the tide of social change when it comes to the major issues today? Probably not. Will he likely continue eroding the freedoms our nation was founded to protect? Almost assuredly.

The Problem with the Two Party System

The second problem is with the two party system. I can't tell you who will win in November, but I can tell you it will be a Republican or a Democrat. A Republican or a Democrat will also win in 2016. And probably in 2020. We have been limited to only two options for the entire history of the United States, and while they weren't always Republican or Democrat, they did divide along roughly similar ideological lines: conservative and progressive. 

Therefore it's easy to draw lines in the sand. 

"You're either with us or against us." 

"You should vote against the other guy. At least our guy isn't (a homophobe/a socialist/a misogynist/a communist/out-of-touch/a Nazi/out to destroy America/etc)."

"A vote for a third party is a vote for the other guy."

"A vote for a third party is just wasting your vote."

Often that last one is actually true. Usually there's no other viable choice. Any third party offerings are usually so radical that they could never appeal to the mainstream, middle-of-the-road American. They offer things up as single issues, trying to sway the two parties to support as part of their platform some new idea that they feel passionately about.

This year is a bit different. The Libertarian Party has offered up a legitimate candidate who has experience on the national stage, who has worked across both party lines, and who has an actually decent set of policy positions. In fact, I might agree with almost everything he supports. 

I could go on at length about why I'm voting for him specifically, but you've read almost enough already. If you want more, go read what my friend Jacob had to say about the Johnson/Gray ticket. Also, I've met Judge Gray a handful of times, and if any man deserves your respect, it's Jim Gray. 

The Problem with the Vote

Finally, I think there is a huge problem with the significance of the vote, at least as they have been reflected in analysis and research and the media. 

Every time a candidate is elected of late, they are said to have a mandate from the people to act on the platform on which they campaigned. If they campaigned on lower taxes, decreased regulations, clean energy, and no marriage equality, once elected they believe that they are supported in all of their platform because they have the people's mandate. Nevermind that the majority of people voted only for the first three reasons and abhorred the fourth. It was part of his platform and therefore he will see through "the will of the people."

Or the other guy who runs on a platform of ending the war, improving infrastructure, abolishing the 14% sales tax, and instituting a 90% tax on anyone making over $100,000 a year. Every time he will push through that 90% tax on the "rich" because he now has the people's mandate. Nevermind the fact that the people just really hated that 14% sales tax and wanted the potholes on Main Street fixed up.

Every time we vote for the bastards in office, they are imbued with more power to keep doing what they're doing--the good and the bad. Every time we elect someone new with a message full of vim and vigor, we get the vim along with the vigor.

I know a lot of you are voting for Obama because you support his social message. You believe that Romney will roll back the progress we've made in vital areas and that his influence as president will threaten many of our dearly held social causes. Nevermind what Obama will do with the capital gains tax or the rights of terrorists; more important things are at stake.

I know a lot of you who are voting for Romney are terrified about what Obama will do with health care, with the economy, and maybe with foreign policy. You fear that Obama will bury innovation in regulations, that his pursuit of clean energy will make gas and cars even less affordable, and that his healthcare policies will leave us all as wards of the state. Never mind what Romney does to gays in the military or how much he opens our government to corporate and money influences; more important things are at stake.

Yet a vote for either one of these guys for the reasons you want him is (in our current system) a vote for the reasons you don't. I can't support either of their policies with any conscience because the things that I don't agree with them on are that much worse.

So I will be placing my vote and my voice and my small shred of electoral power in someone who supports the things that I do, that recognizes and regularly vocalizes his understanding of the limitations of government, and who isn't beholden to the moneyed power behind the throne that is the two party system.

I'm voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray in November, because it's a vote I can stand behind.

Voting Philosophy: Part 3

This Election Season

Now I’m faced with what seems to be the same choice all over again: elect the lesser of two evils. To everyone else, it seems, one is far worse than the other. To me, it's not so clear.

Consider our options:

On the one side we have a challenger who was brought to the fore by a reactionary and emotionally vocal group of grassroots individuals. 

Romney is wildly out of touch with the American public and seems to only find his justification from polling and then pandering to the Tea Party activists. He chokes on his silver spoon every couple of days and then spends his time defending ridiculously stupid statements when he should be using that time to present an actual plan for our economy. He's against the Affordable Care Act, but he doesn't seem to have anything to offer to a medical insurance and health care industry that is collapsing on top of its patients.

He does seem to appreciate the role of entrepreneurs in stabilizing our economy and the fact that government too often gets in the way of innovation. But he doesn't seem prepared to recognize the dangerous role that large and wealthy companies play in setting policies in this country, policies that protect their own interest while hindering the development of overall well-being. He does want to lower the tax burdens on small businesses and the middle class, but he wants to do so by supporting those huge donors and companies that support his campaign. 

He also truly seems to not care about huge swaths of the American population. His 47% statement has been taken out of context a lot recently, but even in context, he admits that he isn't really interested in addressing the concerns of those who would never vote for him. He truly does not care about gay marriage, but he's willing to pander to the bigots who do care if it gets him elected. I don't think he cares either way about women's rights or the right to choice, but if it will get him elected, he'll cut right through the issues. (And I'm not talking about the issue of government funding abortion on demand, so don't try and color the argument that way. Women's health issues are dramatically being cut by insurance companies with no claim to religious freedom or government funding. That's another post, though.)

Romney is a politician--nothing more and nothing less. He will treat power much the same as any other that has been elected in recent years. A vote for Romney, though, will be seen as an endorsement of everything he stands for. Even if someone votes for him because they support his economic policies, their vote will be seen as an implicit endorsement or at least acceptance of his stand on social issues as well.

So let's consider his opponent.

President Obama rode into office on a riptide of enthusiasm. His message of hope and change was exactly what a worried and depressed nation needed. We had great hopes for him and his presidency. He was going to change things, right?

Well let's look at the record.

Gay marriage? Finally! We have a president who supports marriage equality. Granted, it took him until this year to actually come forward and say so. And even then, he refused to go further than to say that he personally supported marriage equality. He still holds the official position that it is an issue for the states to decide. So... a qualified success?

Healthcare? Managed to pass a huge bill that has made absolutely no one happy. The process it followed to get passed was all but completely illegal, it may actually increase the cost of healthcare for almost everyone involved, and it served as the ultimate gadfly to coalesce an unhappy right into a powerful voting bloc.

International relations? Strained at best. Obama skips out on meetings with world leaders and allies to appear on Jimmy Kimmel and the View. At times he seems to care more about posturing and electioneering than attending to the duties demanded of him as a world leader. It's not to say he doesn't care about riots in Libya or Syria, but when he calls casualties "road bumps" he comes across that way.

Increased transparency?  Obama has dramatically failed on his promises for increased transparency while claiming the mantle of the most transparent administration in history. He has actively prosecuted whistle blowers, failed to provide open documents on many issues even when ordered to do so by Congress, and he has invoked executive privilege in 4 years as much as Bush did in 8 years. Freedom of Information Act filings are routinely ignored or supplied with heavily blacked out reports that obscure the intent of the law.

No bid contracts? Actually up in the past 4 years. Guantanamo Bay? Still open for business. Regulations? Increased. Government spending? Dramatically up. The deficit? Growing at a record rate. The economy? Still tanking.

I know a lot of these issues he has little to no control over. So let's look at some things he does have control over.

Extrajudicial detention? Obama has argued consistently for the National Defense Authorization Act which allows him to ignore things like the 4th and 5th amendments. Habeas Corpus has been suspended for countless combatants and even American citizens. Indefinite detention is now a power that the president can unilaterally employ.

Extrajudicial executions? The president has authorized and defended the use of drone strikes against enemy combatants and American citizens alike. The Defense Department has defended the use of drones saying that there is no geographic limitation on the use of drones and that "US citizens do not enjoy immunity" from targeting. They argue that such executions are not illegal because they are used in self defense. Considering these practices have been used against mourners at funerals and killing rescuers for injured on the ground, one must question their reasoning and a president that would support and condone these practices. The existence of a "hit list" is likewise terrifying to me. 

Respect for States Rights? Well he says he wants to leave marriage equality to the states, right? But when he's confronted with an actual issue of states rights, Obama and his administration have failed miserably. Several states have approved medical marijuana and have licensed select dispensaries and clinics to provide the substance to those with a prescription. In response, Obama has specially ordered his ATF, DEA, IRS, and DOJ to raid these clinics and arrest anyone operating there. They confiscate goods, money, and property through asset forfeiture, costing legal business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars. All of this is done though they the dispensary operators are working legally under state law, his administration has said that federal drug law trumps the issue.

These are serious violations of civil and human rights on display. Couple these policies with Obama's financial policies, and there's almost no way I can vote for him in good conscience.

Voting Philosophy: Part 2

A New Approach to My Vote

I swore to myself that I would not give my voice to another candidate I could not support. In 2004 I voted not for Bush, because I was already disappointed in his performance. I voted against Kerry.

That was a mistake.

I felt partially responsible for the illegal, unethical, or sometimes just philosophically unwise decisions that Bush made in the next four years. Though intellectually and academically I disagree with the political philosophy that says that elected representatives are the tools of the electorate (because they clearly are their own operatives and have extreme distances between the voters and their actions), I still felt responsible. Because of the way I voted combined the way millions of others voted, Bush believed he had a moral mandate from the people to act in the same way he had been for the previous four years.

I vowed in the next election to vote only for someone I could believe in and throw my true support behind them. I wouldn’t be someone who voted against the other guy or who voted for the lesser evil. I would only give my voice, my support, my piece of power to someone who would exercise it in a way I could condone.

That didn’t mean I expected someone to come along who would never make mistakes. Every candidate becomes someone else when they get into office. They have to make hard decisions and compromise many of their ideals to get the job done.

But I wanted to vote for someone who would put the right ideals forth, who would act in the interest of all instead of in the interest of a few, who would rightly understand the role of government and not overreach into the bedroom, into personal conversations, into the private realms of citizens. I wanted a candidate I could at least believe in and who would respect what our nation was founded on. I wanted a candidate I could vote for and not be ashamed of two years into his or her presidency.

That candidate did not come.

2008 Election

In 2008, the atmosphere around the election was intense and even more partisan than I remember the 2004 election being. People who had never cared about politics before were ready to get involved. Friends volunteered for campaigns, donated their time and money, and got truly involved in political life.

As a graduate student at the University of Virginia studying political theory and focusing, in part, on the isolation of modern America and the increasing effects of individualism on political involvement, I was ecstatic! As a member of the voting public, I was disappointed.

Don’t get me wrong, I got swept up a bit in the fervor of Obama’s presidency. He held such promise, and he supported overturning many of the policies I hated from the Bush presidency. He swore to increase transparency in the federal government, opening up the secrecy and rooting out corruption with just the light of exposure. He said that there would be no more “no-bid” contracts for federal projects, ensuring that spending would come down and flunkies would stop being rewarded. He was going to shut down Guantanamo bay and end the detainment of anyone without habeas corpus. He was going to expand the role of science and diminish the role of favors in government decision making, address global warming, clear red tape for small business owners, and use independent watchdog groups to address political corruption!

Yet still Obama’s campaign, though dazzling in its enthusiasm and its historic significance for race relations, fell flat for me in a number of ways. There was so much talk of Hope and Change, talk of moving forward in such a momentous way, and the idea of a fresh new day for our country, that I grew nervous. Obama had no experience on the national stage, and was certainly unprepared for international relations. We had already seen what a candidate with no world experience could do in the aftermath of 9-11, that I was worried someone who ran on a purely reactionary foreign policy platform would do to already unstable relations around the world.

On top of that, the economy was already in the worst downturn most people alive had ever seen. Several industries were hemorrhaging jobs at a terrifying rate, and Congress had decided earlier that year that the best decision was to bail out every business that was “too big to fail.” My free market economic background and my (admittedly limited) understanding of the limitations of fiscal stimulus and government spending made me question a candidate who could base so much of his response to this crisis on more bailouts, stimulus, and government spending. I didn’t believe that Obama would do what was right for our country when it came to either our foreign or our domestic policy.

Granted, McCain would probably do no better. He had experience, sure, but my God did he run a terrible campaign. Sarah Palin was a mistake. Posturing over how concerned he was for our economy and then failing to show up for key votes in the senate was a mistake. His statements on immigration reform were mistakes. His inability to stay consistent with his message was a huge mistake.

Sure, he had the experience, and his foreign policy credentials were among the best of any potential candidates. Yet, the issues of the day were the economy, jobs, and the bailouts. He couldn’t stay on message and assure the people that he would be a strong leader, and he didn’t give much hope to voters desperate for just that.

The fact that Sarah Palin overshadowed him at every turn made it even worse.

I couldn’t vote for McCain, and I couldn’t vote for Obama. Whoever won I knew that I would be burned again. Neither of these men would represent me the way I wanted to be represented. They both would act in ways that I would be ashamed to admit that I had voted for them.

So I abstained.

I filled out my ballot for every other office on the ticket, but I left the office of president blank.

((But what about Bob Barr? I hear you ask. He’s libertarian and surely would give you at least someone to vote for.

I’ve met Bob Barr. Bob Barr has eaten at a restaurant I worked at as a teenager and failed to leave any tip, even after he was rude and demanding and a real ass to eighteen-year-old me. That alone would convince me not to vote for him.

However, he’s also an insufferable ass as a politician. Though he recognized what the Republican Party had become back in about 2003 and became a vocal critic of policies like the PATRIOT Act and the dangerous and politically backward policies in the Drug War, he approached them in a way I found ideologically appealing but interpersonally erratic. He relied on a number of attacks and contrary approaches to politics and has behaved in a number of political arenas as one of those crazy libertarians. I do not believe he has the temperament or composure to represent our country as President.

That and he stiffed my table 11 years ago.))

Voting Philosophy: Part 1

(In order to avoid inflicting a huge ridiculous post that no one will read in its entirety explaining my voting philosophy, I'm going to be posting over a few days exactly why I vote the way I do and why I will not be voting for Obama or Romney in the next election. If you just want the outright explanation, wait another day or so. I'll get there. I promise.)

A good friend of mine who works for the Tax Foundation and whom I met through a summer internship in Washington posted something political on his wall. He explained why he would be voting for the libertarian ticket in November, and why he thinks other people should as well. Seeing as the fellowship we both attended was sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies and is an organization dedicated to the spread of free market ideas, libertarian philosophy, and principles of classical liberal thought, this was unsurprising. Seeing as I (occasionally) write in a blog called "The Sane Libertarian," it was unsurprising that I would share such views and plan to vote for Gary Johnson and Jim Gray.

However, I have gotten a good deal of response to that posting, both on my Facebook wall, through messages from friends, and even from some family members. Several of them wonder how I could, in this MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL ELECTIONS (at least that is the consensus), vote for anyone but their favored candidate. It is utterly unconscionable to many that I could "waste" my vote and support someone who will obviously not win this election. What is worse, though, is the idea that I could not use my vote to help stop the evil of whatever party they are opposed to.

Since I get this argument from both sides, and friends on both sides have asked why I am voting the way I am, I have decided to lay out some of my voting philosophy here. I will also explain why I will vote for neither Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, nor any other candidates the Democrats or Republicans nominate any time soon.

My First Presidential Election

I turned 18 in 2001 and just missed taking part in the epic, game-changing election of 2000. It was the first year I became truly aware of politics, and it couldn't have been a more exciting time. Book after book analyzing the election where Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in a court case convinced me how important every vote truly is. If an election can turn on a single state and come down to a handful of votes in a single county, and then those votes can be accepted or rejected by the highest courts, then truly it matters whether every person votes.

In 2004, then, i was ready. I was in my final year of college having majored in government and philosophy, so I was more well-read on the subject. I knew the ins and outs of the electoral college, and I knew the importance of researching my candidates. I read everything I could get my hands on to learn what Bush and Kerry were all about.

I read Bush's biography and thought he sounded like a decent person in a tough job. I thought Kerry was a bit out of touch with the everyman, but that his intelligence would serve him well. I hated many of the policies Bush had pursued in the aftermath of his wars, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the compromises that had been made when it came to our civil liberties. But then, I thought Kerry would do no better. Foreign policy was the topic du jour, and I truly believed that Kerry couldn't handle the job.

So I voted to reelect President Bush.

(Cue the shaming now.)

For the next four years, I had to live with that decision. Every time President Bush passed another policy that abrogated human rights, every time he gaffed it up and diminished our international reputation, every time he backed legislation like No Child Left Behind, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, I cringed. But I also felt responsible. I had placed my name, my vote, my integrity behind this man. I had been one of the millions who gave him the power to do these things. All because I believed Kerry would have been worse.

I still believe that to be true. As painful as parts of Bush's presidency were, I truly believe that a Kerry/Edwards administration would have been besieged by worse decisions, scandals, and corruption.

But I had to admit to voting to keep in power someone I did not believe in. I voted for a man who was willing to compromise on the integrity of our Constitution in the name of Homeland Security. I voted for a man who expanded the power and spending of the federal government, even as he called himself a compassionate conservative. I voted for someone I was already disappointed in just to keep someone else out of office.

And I regretted that vote.

Women and Politics

Recent antics and debates from Rush Limbaugh and Congress have centered much of the recent nationwide political discussion on the issues of contraception, reproductive freedom, and women's rights. Their discussion has focused on the absurd and patently insulting comments by Rush Limbaugh about a single woman, Sandra Fluke, who testified that the government should force her Catholic law school to pay for her contraception. Putting aside the merits of Fluke's advocacy and the constitutionalism of a government mandate on educational, religious, or commercial entities having to pay for health care of any form, let alone enacting policies that violate their beliefs, this debate is sickening.

The debate is sickening because it has only served to focus the nation's attentions on a childish incident of name-calling. It is sickening because one side insists that government should force others to invest, pay for, or otherwise provide goods and services of any kind. It is sickening because it distracts from the very real and very terrifying escalating assault on women in this country.

A recent Facebook debate amongst my friends discussed a YouTube video that decried the "disposability" of males in our society and especially among feminist thinkers and activists. I read the whole debate and while some very interesting and worthwhile points were brought up, the whole debate began to piss me off. Basically the argument said that because men are asked to give up their seats on the lifeboat, to put women's lives above their own due to evolutionary patterns of behavior, because mothers value their sons' emotions less than their daughters' (all points that can be heavily called into question in today's world), that somehow men are shortchanged. The video whined (in pretentious academese) that men are somehow disposable.

And yet, there are those in American society that truly do believe that women are disposable.

(I'm not laying claim to any moral superiority of the following claims, but I do believe that there is a very real human rights issue emerging here. It is completely focused on women biologically and socially, and it has me furious and terrified at the same time.)

You want examples?

How about HB 954, which seeks to redefine abortion after 20 weeks as feticide and make any woman who seeks to terminate her pregnancy after that point as a murderer? It goes further as to make it a criminal act to remove an already deceased fetus from the woman by artificial means. That means a woman who miscarried but whose body did not expel the dead tissue would be forced to carry that with her until her body naturally discarded it or until she and her doctor could prove that it represented an imminent threat to her life or substantial health.

This bill has already passed the Georgia State House by a vote of 102-65 and is currently be heard by the State Senate. That fact alone is infuriating, but it is compounded by the testimony that actually helped convince my representative and many others to vote on it.

Terry England is a representative from Auburn, GA and is one of the sponsors of this bill and he testified in favor of the changes to the law. In his testimony (and I am actually shaking with anger to write this), he compared the experience that women would go through due to this bill--the experience they would have as they miscarried and were forced to hold on to the remains in their own bodies, the experience of being denied access to their own bodies, the experience of being denied the chance to make painful but necessary decisions regarding their own health and well being-- as sad, natural, and equivalent to his own experiences delivering stillborn calves on his farm.

I am not joking.

He didn't stop with that comparison. He goes on to tell of a "salt of the earth" man who says he will gladly give up cockfighting "when those folks down there quit killing babies." As a way to put it in perspective. To frame the debate. Because a "salt of the earth people" will give up killing chickens if the state government will take control of women's bodies.

I am. NOT. Joking.

I'm also not done.

There is an amendment being proposed, also here in Georgia, that will declare that from the moment of conception, from the exact moment of fertilization, an egg is a full human being. This so-called Personhood Amendment would affect the Georgia State Constitution and is being championed by Reps Rick Crawford and Barry Loudermilk. This bill will prohibit any form of abortion, any type of contraception that can interfere with "proper implantation" of a fertilized egg (which includes almost all forms of oral contraceptive, spermicide, and more), and would eliminate in vitro fertilization.

This amendment has been polled across Georgia and has incredibly widespread support.

So far, the proponents insist that women will not be prosecuted for miscarriages, but the very fact that has to be CLARIFIED is a HUGE HUGE HUGE warning sign. They have to explain that "doctors won't be prosecuted for ectopic pregnancies." SERIOUSLY?! As a woman who very much wants to have children in the next year or so, who has known women very close to me who have suffered the unexplainable pain of miscarriage, who have struggled to conceive their own children and had to question the guilt that came with being unable to carry to term, we have a government that is about to tell us that "Yes, it really is your fault when not every fertilized egg in existence comes full term to bring life into the world."

You think I'm kidding?

Consider this case:

In Indiana, a woman is currently being held for attempted feticide and murder. What really happened? Bei Bei Shuai tried to kill herself when her fiance and the baby's father, who also happened to be her business partner in the restaurant they owned and ran together, explained to her that he was married to someone else and was leaving her. He told her this just before Christmas and eight months into her pregnancy. She was devastated and attempted to kill herself by swallowing rat poison bought at her local hardware store.

She survived and gave birth a little more than a week later. Her daughter, however, suffered seizures as a either a result of the rat poison or the treatment her mother received. The child died within a few days. Bei Bei suffered another breakdown and spent a month in a psychiatric ward.

One month later, she was arrested for murder of her child.

The implications for this are staggering, especially when you consider similar cases have moved forward in five other states in this country. As Bei Bei's attorney says, “These laws say there’s one law for pregnant women and another for everyone else,” says Linda Pence, the energetic Indiana lawyer representing Shuai. “For everyone else suicide is a mental health issue. For a pregnant woman, it’s a crime."

If you want to talk about the disposability of individuals, then this is where you start. When there is a separate law for women, when we are compared to farm animals, when our lives stop being our own and our rights cease the moment an egg in our bodies is fertilized, when our right to control our own health and bodies is abrogated by those who have never miscarried or carried a child to term nor will ever understand what that means, when our lives are valued as less, then that is the moment we become disposable.

Privileges versus Rights

There was a very interesting and thought-provoking article published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal by Lawrence Lindsey. As the former director of the National Economic Council, Lindsey's an experienced and credentialed economist, and he uses many numbers and economic debates to make his points, but at the heart of this article Lindsey tackles a question of political philosophy. Specifically, he discusses the difference between privileges and rights, and the trouble our government seems to be having distinguishing between the two.

Note: I don't agree with everything said in the article. Lindsey seems to get hung up on a few GOP talking points (the percentage of Americans that don't pay income taxes, rebuttal= even though they pay a greater percentage of their income in other taxes; the fact that the rich pay more in income taxes than ever before, rebuttal= even though in truth the rich receive far less of their wealth from income and more from capital gains and other forms of interest and speculation which are taxed far less than ever before). I'm going to concentrate on the question of privileges versus rights, here.

Lindsey begins with Geithner's implication that being an American and living in this country as a free citizen is not a right but rather a privilege. Such thinking is incredibly scary to those who defend freedom and the basic civil rights of life, liberty, and property. (Jefferson deliberately misquoted Locke so as not to inflame the already touchy subject of slave-holding in the Declaration of Independence; it would go on to be debated and included in the Constitution.) To Geithner, Lindsey argues, being an American, owning property, and earning an income are all privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent government. We must pay for that privilege, and the rich should of course pay more.

Being an American and having the ability to earn a living in a free society, where we are protected by the rule of Law is a right, not a privilege. These rights, as understood by our Founding Fathers and defended with the blood and lives of men and women over the past two and a half centuries, are not gifts from government. We retain them as living human beings and citizens of this nation. We are "endowed by our Creator" with these "inalienable" rights, and we give to government certain limited and just powers to secure our liberty, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility.

When government exceeds those powers and begins to think of itself as an all-powerful entity that bestows upon us "privileges" of freedom and liberty, of keeping what we earn, of live our lives the way we choose instead of the way we are told, then government has lost its legitimacy.

UPDATE: So, after I wrote this but before I posted it, I came across the fact that Geithner's quote may have been taken out of context. That takes little away from the points I've made above, though. Even if Geithner's words were not exact, the meaning and belief that being an American is a privilege rather than a right is still present in our present government's actions.

BOA Irony

I think this is what we call sweet, delicious irony.

Bank Of America Plaza Auctioned Off For Missing Mortgage Payments

Bank of America Plaza, the tallest building in Atlanta, went on the auction block today, in a perfect example of things that go around you know, coming around. How does that medicine taste now, Bank of America? Your landlords missed mortgage mortgage payments and now they have to sell. We're sure that must be soo hard.

....

While the skyscraper isn't owned by Bank of America — nor is BofA the building's main tenant — but we like to think that having your name attached to a huge building in foreclosure must rankle BofA just a teeny bit. In the words of our tipster Jeff, "Is this not sweet justice?"

Not the best PR move. But it certainly is suitable.

Endorsements

Donald Trump announced today to anxiously waiting and speculating media and crowds that he would be endorsing Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for President of the United States. Newt Gingrich, who was so sure he would get the endorsement, pouted and said that he had received signs that Trump was going to endorse him before Mitt changed his mind. Now everyone is breathlessly waiting to see who Sarah Palin will endorse.

Can someone please tell me why we give a damn?

Seriously, these endorsements from marginal, crazy people are just desperate cries for attention from both the candidates themselves and the people making the endorsement. Trump and Palin never shy away from making absolute spectacles of themselves, and the media shamelessly fawns after them, waiting to see what they're going to say.

And why do we care who Trump is going to vote for? Who cares who Sarah Palin thinks will be a good president? These people are political hacks who failed at their own bids for power.

And yet, Palin is called a "leader of the Tea Party." The candidate I worked for even sought her attention and her endorsement, knowing that simply by having her mention his name or put him up on her website would bring thousands of dollars to his campaign.

WHY?!

The only thing that should be informing our votes is what sort of role these candidates would play if elected into office. What policies will they pursue? What legislation will they veto? How will they conduct themselves in foreign affairs? Will they lead our country with good conscience or will they sell us out to the highest bidders? Will they embarrass on the global stage or will they be leaders we can look back and be proud of? What are their beliefs? Will they address our deficit? Will they limit civil rights? What kind of justice will they nominate for the Supreme Court when Ginsburg retires? What will our country look like under their leadership?

Not, "Who does Sarah Palin or Donald Trump like the best?"!!!

Education in the SOTU

So we've covered energy in the SOTU, the one area that got the largest response from my group of friends. ("Say the N-word! Say NUCLEAR! Dammit. He didn't say it.") Another one that got a huge response was when Obama spoke on his plans for education.

So let's jump right into that.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning – the first time that’s happened in a generation.

This sounds, disturbingly like what Bush administration did with No Child Left Behind. They across the board raised standards for performance on standardized tests and graduation rates, because that's one of the only ways to set and measure federal standards of achievement. That program has been almost universally panned as ineffective and actually incredibly detrimental to real learning in the classroom. Teachers have to teach to the test and pass students who have not mastered any basic skills such as reading or arithmetic or the school loses funding. Students learn nothing more than how to answer questions on a specific test, and we end up with graduates who can only read at a 3rd grade reading level if they can read at all.

Obama's plan, the Race to the Top plan, is basically NCLB with some extra wiggle room. Teachers are made accountable in a different way. Instead of simply evaluating their effectiveness through student performance on standardized tests, they are going to be evaluated through a combination of student performance (45%), teacher observations (40%), and parents and peer feedback (10%). This is how teachers can stop "teaching to the test" as Obama put it, and keep their jobs even when faced with failing classrooms.

His claim that this is the first time this has happened in a generation is, as usual, disingenuous. NCLB tried to accomplish the exact same things with the same top-down ideas. Education needs a lot more flexibility than a program of federal standards can allow.

Obama is right to praise the teachers in this country. It's truly a noble profession mentoring and guiding the young. (I have loved every experience I've had teaching I've taught summer classes of 6-12 year olds, tutored in high school, mentored writing and communications in college, and TAed in graduate school. I've also just signed up to mentor middle school students in developing their writing skills over the next two months. So I've been there!) And over the past few years our teachers have made countless sacrifices from using their own money to supply their classrooms with vital supplies, giving up their free time to mentor struggling students, and many have even still been fired for lack of funds.

And yet, more money is being spent on education every year. Education spending has more than doubled since 1996, from $420.7 billion to $864 billion in 2009. And yet most teacher's salaries have not. (If you think that number is inflated by an increase in the number of students: the expenditures per student have increased 32 from 1994-2008.) According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, teacher's salaries have only increased by about 3% since 1990. So where is all of the money going?

There may naturally be more teachers teaching fewer numbers of students. The student-teacher ratio is credited with improving overall performance of the students (though many have contended that point and many studies exist to prove both sides of the issue, the idea has an intuitive appeal). There's also the point that non-instruction related expenditures are beginning to make up a bigger portion of education expenditures.

According to census.gov, non-instruction related expenditures currently make up about 40% of the total costs of educational spending. Instruction spending is broken up into salaries and wages of current teachers ($209 billion) and benefits, including pensions for retired teachers ($109 billion). The rest is divided in support services. If teacher salaries have only increased by 3%, I imagine this is where we'll find the greater increase in spending.

As it's Friday night and I haven't eaten dinner yet, I don't have the mind to continue breaking this down. Besides, I feel I've gotten a bit carried away with the research without making enough of a point. My point, I think, was that our government is spending more and more and instituting more top-down standards, and yet it doesn't seem that educational achievement is improving all that much. Certainly, it hasn't progressed as much as our spending has. We may have hit a bit of a margin with regards to government spending and what impact it actually has these days on our students' education.

I'll return possibly tomorrow, but maybe not until Monday, to evaluate more of Obama's points on education. For now, have a great weekend!

SOTU and Scientific Funding

My friend Ross posted the following on my brief and immediate response to the State of the Union.

At one point during the speech, he was making some comments regarding government funded basic research. You had run out of the room for most of it, but caught the end of it and made a face of disgust. I don't personally see private organizations funding labs nearly as much as they did in the days of Bell Labs or Xerox PARC. I suppose that 3M, Honda, Google, and Siemens still have separate research labs. However, even with collaborations with universities, most of that research is tied to applications. I'm curious if you have an argument against the funding of national labs or even NSF grants.

What Ross is referring to is the following. I ran out of the room for a quick bathroom break, came back and asked what I missed. I was told that Obama claimed the only way we will ever have clean energy is through government funding. I think the line referred to was this one:

"It was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."

I think the summary I was given was an exaggeration of what was said, but I think my reaction may still hold.

The government and Obama's administration in particular have been pushing more and more spending on clean energy. While I am for the expansion of clean or alternative energy sources (again, can we say nuclear?), the ways in which government has chosen to subsidize this goal has been both ineffective and may have actually hurt many paths for alternative sources of energy.

Investments the federal government has made in the past few years in solar and wind have an incredibly bad track record with several of those companies filing for bankruptcy and taking millions of federal dollars with them (forgive the over-using of Reason.com there; I can find more sources if anyone would like them). Yet, at the same time, Obama wants to take credit for the successes private natural oil and gas companies have eked out DESPITE incredible opposition from the federal government.

The technology that has made it possible for oil and gas companies to extract natural gas from shale rock is the vilified hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses pressurized liquid chemcials to break up rock and enable horizontal drilling into shale oil fields. This practice has been criticized for introducing possibly debilitating chemicals into the environment and into our drinking water.

How to manage this new technology may actually lead to very legitimate regulations as they create a serious problem of negative externalities. (I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, so I do believe in government existing for a lot of very good reasons. However, when government expands far beyond these select reasons, I believe, is where it loses its moral and political legitimacy.)

Obama cannot have his cake and eat it, too. His actual investments and support of energy have generated little or failed all together, while the ones he has attempted to shut down or restrict have flourished. He wants to explain away the first while taking credit for the later, which I find disingenuous. Nothing I wouldn't expect in a SOTU address in an election year, naturally, but still something I'll grimace at.

As for general NSF grants and funding of national labs, I actually can find justifications for a lot of them, even in an libertarian context. However, the ways in which many grants are decided (Solyndra's lead investor was an Obama fundraiser, Feinstein's investment in Amyris, Gore's car company, and several dozen more are covered in this article) gives me a great deal of pause when it comes to the Loan Guarantee Program from the Departmetn of Energy. There are no "comprehensive performance goals" when evaluating applications, which leads to many bad investments, and opens itself to corrupt political influence. With $77 billion at stake, I think it's a good idea to be incredibly skeptical when any government official takes credit for their investments in alternative energy.

Thankfully, the NSF has largely avoided such corruption, and I do support many of their initiatives. However, as a libertarian, I do question the political validity of many of their grants, I would not advocate dismantling the program over a few bad grants. I like to take a reasoned and sane approach to the issue. :)

Drunk Blogging the State of the Union

I have a tradition. Whenever the State of the Union is on, I like to get together with friends, devise a drinking game around expected topics or phrases, and comment on whatever the President has to say this year. The phrases are mutually agreed upon and change from year to year and president to president.

For instance, with Bush, popular phrases included 9/11, nucular (nuclear mis-pronounced *shudder*), terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden. With Obama, the phrases "Let me be clear," "Make no mistake," and "Put America back to work" are all reliable go tos.

Hence I was disappointed this year when Obama said very few of his stock phrases, and my friends and I were forced to drink to whatever we felt deserved it. The tally this year is three beers for me, seven friends, and about five shushes to quiet the commentary from the peanut gallery.

I may decide to do a more in depth analysis of the speech later, but I'm starting to doubt that. This year's speech was fairly chock full of empty platitudes and little offered in the way of real substance. But I did take notes on my reactions to the speech in real time, and if I can read my own handwriting, I should be able to share some. So here we go, my slightly tipsy recollection from scribbled notes:

First impressions: Michelle Obama looks AMAZING! Blue is absolutely her color. She can sometimes over do the structural design of her dresses for big occasions, but this one had a nice twisted structure to it around the waist that made her look just incredible. I may disagree with a lot of what she has to say, but she looks great saying it!

Plus, Obama himself looks better than he has in the past while. He doesn't look as grey and haggard as he has, but that may be because of the more closely cropped do and a lot of makeup. I worry for the people he's hugging! He might smudge.

The speech itself: Platitudes, platitudes, obligatory salute the troops remarks.

Ooh, I'm pretty sure that "safer and more respected" remark was in direct response to the recent incident with marines peeing on the Taliban. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, but all of us here did a little "Oooh" moment.

He says it's the "First time in 9 years" that we have no troops fighting in Iraq. Hmm, maybe we're not actively engaged in attacks, but we're still stationed there, helping the Iraqi government find stability, fending off attacks, and doing more than maybe we should have to. Rhetorical tricks won't get by us, here, Mr. President.

Yay to Osama Bin Laden no longer being a threat!

And then he goes into how America should be more like the military? What, with more top-down hierarchy and military tribunals? Oh, wait. Yeah, that's exactly what he means. With the recent changes to the NDAA we should have that in no time.

Good praise for WWII, greatest generation, GI Bill, etc. Ah, nostalgia, you wonderful speech mainstay.

Great lead in to discussion of preserving the American Promise. He wants for every American a "fair shot," for people to pay their "fair share," and for everyone to play by the same rules. Um, well, yeah. Isn't that what everyone wants? Equal opportunity, equal treatment under the law, etc? I think we're still in the feel good time of the speech.

Ooh, guess that's over. Time for discussion of the economy... technology making jobs obsolete, millions of Americans out of work, outsourcing, etc. He's sure to point out that the collapse happened in 2008. I don't quibble, just pointing out the framing. :)

Blaming the banks, and decrying the lack of "authority to stop it." I get that the Glass-Steagall repeal was a HUGE contributing factor, but he's completely leaving out the huge rolls that government agencies also played in the situation. No Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? I understand the desire to point fingers away from one's self, but a large part of the problem was the intimate relationship between government and the financial institutions. Not to mention the number of government stewards or legislators who were in tight with the banks and mortgage companies that helped make this possible. If you want to impose regulations, maybe start with regulating the power of congressmen and women to make deals and hide evidence? Where's the transparency we were promised?

He points out that in the 6 months before he took office America lost 4 million jobs. And in the 22 months since he has taken office, we have created 3 million! USA! US-- wait.... In almost four times the amount of time we have not quite caught up to the rate of loss in six months? Wow. That sucks! Why would you share that?? We can do math, you know...

The State of the Union is getting stronger. Oh, I damn well hope so.

Ooh, and then he gets all angry. You tell them, Mr. President. No more obstruction! NO more games! Wait, aren't both sides responsible for that? Careful, your mote is showing.

Huh, I didn't know that GM was the world's number 1 auto maker. And my friends all confirm it. Yay. Chevy Volts didn't pull them down!

Outsourcing time.. and he wants to impose a tax on all companies that operate multinationally? I do not see this going over well, nor do I see it EVER passing Congress.

Education time: training of 2 million Americans in job relevant skills. I like that, but wonder and worry about how the federal government intends to do it. I suppose subsidies for community colleges? Weren't we just talking about how tuition is getting too high and no one can pay for schools? Do we expect giving schools more money will make things cheaper? How has that worked in the past? Oh, he says he wants to keep those costs down by denying subsidies to colleges that raise tuition. Rent control on education... Something to ponder and maybe discuss later.

Ooh, and he wants states to enact strict truancy laws for high school students? Technically they're already mostly on the books, but I really worry about enforcement.

Immigration: stronger border control AND amnesty for hard-working young immigrants. Really trying to hit the Democrats and the Republicans on this one. I think the only ones who are going to be truly happy about both suggestions are the libertarians and the sane in both parties, so just a few of us. :)

Equal pay for women! Easy win.

Energy: Opening up offshore drilling. Many of my friends groaned at this one, but I like that it will open up jobs and with all of the new safety measures and new financial penalties for accidents or spills, we may have safer and more environmentally friendly drilling offshore than ever before. God knows we'll be more conscientious about it than OPEC or China.

Hehe, and all of my friends are waiting for one particular energy strategy. "Say the N-word! Say the N-word!!" Apparently, we're all fans of nuclear energy here.

And we jump to the conclusion that the only way to have clean energy is to have government fund it?? How did this happen? I admit, I ran for a bathroom break, but I can't imagine any flow of logic that lends itself to such conclusions.

Ooh, and the Department of Defense is going to dedicate itself to developing clean energy on public lands. Enough to power a quarter of a million homes... That's not even enough to power a small subsection of my suburb of Atlanta...

Good line; "No bailouts, no handouts, no copouts." Wish it meant something.

Aww, Obama made a joke! He's so cute when he's all proud of himself like that.

And it almost distracted from his reference to Cordray, the recess appointment Obama made when Congress wasn't at recess. I think I hear booing.

I like that he's going to open up investigations into the Wall Street debacles, but I wonder if they will extend to the implications with members of Congress.

Finally!! I've been waiting for a Warren Buffet reference to drink on. And raising taxes on Congress. I'm fine with that. If they want to raise them on others, then they should raise them on themselves. Though this video makes me think the whole thing is a bit disingenuous.

Back to criticizing Washington. I feel sometimes that he is ready to scold because he thinks his own actions are above what he sees in others, even as he engages in the same things. Frustrates me.

Now, close with something you're good on: foreign policy again. "Look at Iran. Now look at me. Now look at Iran." --quote from my friend Karen.

And then he closes out with some more platitudes and troop flattering.

A fairly long speech, and a relatively long response on my part. Forgiveness. I did cut out a good deal. I may come back to some of these issues in the next few days, but we'll see.

The Sane Libertarian

So what is a sane libertarian?

Well, I imagine a sane libertarian has much in common with a sane Democrat or a sane Republican, a sane liberal or a sane conservative.

That is, he or she has arrived at a set of core political beliefs after careful and reasoned consideration of the available facts. His or her philosophy is built on a foundation of principles and values that the sane person thinks are worth protecting or striving toward both as an individual and as a member of society. His or her positions on politics and policy are the result of debate and research, rather than emotion or loyalty to a party.

I have spent the majority of my life dedicated to the study and understanding of political actions and beliefs. I have a graduate degree in political theory and American politics. I have worked in political jobs in the nonprofit sector, the public sector, and the political sector. I analyzed health care and social security solvency and attended hearings at the Capitol. I have worked as a public servant investigating identity theft and fraud. I ran a campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

None of that really matters though, because trust me, there are plenty of insane people in all of those jobs.

There are people who have never considered their positions, never questioned their core beliefs. There are plenty of people who have no idea that many partisan political positions are based on fundamental conceptions of human nature and human society, so they’ve never asked where their views come from. There are even more that just “know what they know” and vote the party line without questioning what people stand for and why they behave the way that they do.

That to me is insane.