You Should Be Allowed to Vote

You got 15/15 questions correct. Generally speaking, you’re very well informed. If you vote this election, you’ll know exactly who (and what) you’ll be voting for. You’re likely to have strong opinions, and you have the facts to back them up.

(but luckily, there isn’t an offline test…as being able to push the backpage button and change answers helped. I was SURE Condoleeza Rice was Vice President.)

Everythings gonna be all right!
Everythings gonna be all right!
Everythings gonna be all right!
Everythings gonna be all right!

Sorry – Thought I was Bob Marley for a second. Had some issues with the blog for the past couple days. I think they’re fixed. Let me know if you don’t think so.

My various Google PageRanks

My page on Twitter: 3
Genealogy Blog: 3
*Transylvaniandutch dot com: 3
*Gavroche dot org4
Victor Hugo Central: 5

This Blog – Not Available (or, in other words, 0)

That’s depressing and weird, as my personal blog has scored a 3 in the past – though that was before I moved it to this address. But I am very happy about VHC, as that’s an increase of 1 since the last time I checked. I recently received an email from someone who wanted to advertise on the site.

* If you follow the links you’ll see it’s the same page, though they get different pageranks depending upon the URL you use.

You preferred Obama’s statements 100% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Obama Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now!

There are probably questions that could be asked that could bring the percentage down to double digits, but they weren’t asked.

Hat Tip to the Blog on the Edge of Forever

I disagree with Louise:this is the Second Best YouTube Video Ever

Right behind this one:

(Though it’s basically just a personal preference of one song choice over the other.)

(It seems the Obama Campaign likes the musical Les Miserables. As if I needed another reason.)

Some other Political/Les Mis Videos

And to be fair, one pro-McCain one.

V. Lance Tarrance, Jr. the pollster for George Deukmejian in 1982 when Deukmejian
faced Bradley insists the so-called Bradley Effect never happened.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com analyzed the results of the Democratic Primaries and showed that in some states there was a bump in favor of Clinton from polls to results. However, in other states there was a bump in favor of Obama. Suggesting what some have termed a “Reverse Bradley Effect”

Since the split seemed to be geographically almost predictable, if the effect exists, I argue for a redefinition to cover both cases.

____ Effect: When voters perceive the candidate they support is not the “socially acceptable” candidate for their community, they lie to the pollster.

There is no reason to base the definition on race. Race is one factor that might lead to this result, but there are other factors that could as well. Since race is removed from the definition, and since there is some argument over whether or not the effect happened in 1982 in California, let’s come up with a new name for it.

Suggestions?

(Poem written tonight – and then revised – feedback welcomed – changes indicated to illustrate revision process)

Fellow Prisoners

If we assigned
one dollar to every star
we would need two or three
milky way galaxies
to foot the 700 billion bailout
and while I can buy
one milky way for fifty centsone dollar
from the snack machine at work
that’s not the same thing.
Those are made out of chocolate
and not the hot air
of our nation’s politicians.
it isn’t composed
of hydrogen, helium,
or a whole lot of hot air
like our nation’s politicians.

I know my solution is likely unworkable, but as Connecticut has now become their third state to allow same sex marriages, and the religious groups against same are likely to become more and more vocal as they see their position weakening, here’s a compromise which I think *could* make everyone happy over the long term, though it is a somewhat radical change from current nomenclature.

I say the term “Marriage” should be limited only to religious marriages. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Omnisexual, or Asexual — it would be up to any individual religion what they would allow. The First Amendment protections would guarantee no government interference in what a specific religion allowed.

All civil unions would be civil unions. The term ‘marriage’ wouldn’t apply. (All current “civil unions” that had been called ‘marriages’ would either be renamed, or grandfathered, there would likely be argument over which, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter.) Homosexual, Heterosexual, Omnisexual or Asexual – there would be no discrimination with respect to who could have a “civil union.” (I’d throw in polygamy, but I suspect that could be hotly contested, so maybe it would be best to leave that out for now.)

Legally, civil unions and marriages would have the same benefits. (That’s why in the end, it wouldn’t really matter whether current ‘marriages’ get renamed as ‘civil unions’. It’s just nomenclature.)

More often than not, I hear the argument from the Religious Right that the issue is one of nomenclature. That they feel the word ‘marriage’ should not apply to homosexual marriages. Their argument is religious in nature. And I agree that the government shouldn’t meddle in religious affairs. So let’s accept their argument at face value, and make the word “marriage” really be *just* a religious term.

There would be religious marriages of homosexual couples. The religious right have to be prepared for that. With the Universal Life Church (ulc.org) willing to make anyone a Reverend in exchange for their email address – and sufficient numbers of Liberal churches and synagogues in America – it won’t be difficult for a homosexual couple to find someone to marry them. But one church shouldn’t care what another church does.

This solution, I think, adequately makes all couples equal under the law despite sexual preference, and provides religious groups the protections they require to act in the way they see fit.

Couples who want to get “married”, but don’t want to get married under the auspices of a religion aren’t going to be thrilled with this solution, at first, but once they realize it’s just words without meaning, they ought to be satisfied. And if not, it’ll be easy enough for them to find a friend/relative willing to become a Reverend-by-email.

Does anyone see a problem with this solution?

I know my solution is likely unworkable, but as Connecticut has now become their third state to allow same sex marriages, and the religious groups against same are likely to become more and more vocal as they see their position weakening, here’s a compromise which I think *could* make everyone happy over the long term, though it is a somewhat radical change from current nomenclature.

I say the term “Marriage” should be limited only to religious marriages. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Omnisexual, or Asexual — it would be up to any individual religion what they would allow. The First Amendment protections would guarantee no government interference in what a specific religion allowed.

All civil unions would be civil unions. The term ‘marriage’ wouldn’t apply. (All current “civil unions” that had been called ‘marriages’ would either be renamed, or grandfathered, there would likely be argument over which, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter.) Homosexual, Heterosexual, Omnisexual or Asexual – there would be no discrimination with respect to who could have a “civil union.” (I’d throw in polygamy, but I suspect that could be hotly contested, so maybe it would be best to leave that out for now.)

Legally, civil unions and marriages would have the same benefits. (That’s why in the end, it wouldn’t really matter whether current ‘marriages’ get renamed as ‘civil unions’. It’s just nomenclature.)

More often than not, I hear the argument from the Religious Right that the issue is one of nomenclature. That they feel the word ‘marriage’ should not apply to homosexual marriages. Their argument is religious in nature. And I agree that the government shouldn’t meddle in religious affairs. So let’s accept their argument at face value, and make the word “marriage” really be *just* a religious term.

There would be religious marriages of homosexual couples. The religious right have to be prepared for that. With the Universal Life Church (ulc.org) willing to make anyone a Reverend in exchange for their email address – and sufficient numbers of Liberal churches and synagogues in America – it won’t be difficult for a homosexual couple to find someone to marry them. But one church shouldn’t care what another church does.

This solution, I think, adequately makes all couples equal under the law despite sexual preference, and provides religious groups the protections they require to act in the way they see fit.

Couples who want to get “married”, but don’t want to get married under the auspices of a religion aren’t going to be thrilled with this solution, at first, but once they realize it’s just words without meaning, they ought to be satisfied. And if not, it’ll be easy enough for them to find a friend/relative willing to become a Reverend-by-email.

Does anyone see a problem with this solution?

In 1998, when I was working at AG Edwards, in their operations division doing a combination of clerical and customer service work, I was offered a chance to be taught COBOL by the company’s IT Department, and have an IT job within 6 months. [I had taken a few computer language courses in college, and passed an aptitude test, it wasn't like they offered it to everybody.] I took the offer. There was this thing called a Y2K project that probably inspired this drive for new employees. Another project I worked on in the following four years was something I’ll call the 10,000 project. It was a markedly easier project because expanding the number of digits for a field from 4 to 5 isn’t difficult, it just had to be done, because the market was on the rise.

Well, in 2002 I was laid off. And I’ve been begging for money for the past 5 years (Friends insist I’m not a schnorrer. I’m a grant writer. They assure me there’s a difference, because I’m begging for money to benefit other people, not myself. But I do benefit. I get paid to do this. Arguably, not a lot, but I do get paid. So I guess I’m a *professional* schnorrer.) And now, the market’s back below 10,000. And AG Edwards no longer exists, as it was bought out by Wachovia…which no longer exists. Wheeeee.

Oh yeah…and it seems that the programmers for the National Debt Clock have had some problems I’m familiar with.