daffy for president

were you expecting another long election post? meh...i'm not gonna bend your ears anymore. happy election day. now go vote!! =) **but check out this clip first...** 

Let’s clear something up…

Before you close this window, I want to point out that if you’re voting, this info is important. I know, it gets a little boring with all these election related posts these days, but I want to clarify something about Proposition 30 (tax increase for education funding) from a budget point of view. Now, I’m not coming out in support of, or against, this measure. I just want to clarify the concept behind it.

Ok, here goes: there is no guarantee that this tax will mean more money for education.

I know, on the measure it says that the money goes to fund education. Technically, yes. Let me illustrate (fictional numbers):

Basically, education is funded by a few different areas, including the General Fund of the California budget. In this example, assuming Prop 30 revenues of $50m, it will go to education, as it is earmarked for education, but that doesn't mean education spending will go up by $50m. All it means is that that particular $50m will go to education. General Funds can go to anything, so it opens up the $50m from the General Fund to go somewhere else. So, while on the face of it, Prop 30 may help increase much needed education funding, it might not actually do that. No guarantees.

Does that mean we should all come out against Prop 30? Well, not necessarily. That’s a decision you’re going to have to make on your own. Would California be better off getting more tax revenue to fund spending or would it be better off trimming here and there to get in line with spending? That’s a call you, as the voter, gets to make. I just want to clarify the budget murkiness surrounding this measure.

full faith and credit...

Howdy. Let's talk about marriage. Why? Marriage is an important topic for people these days. I don't think I've talked about or heard about marriage as much as I have over the course of this past year. But this post isn't about my friends getting married or my parents giving me crap about getting married. This post is about the future of marriage; but before we can go there, we should at least explain what marriage is. While I'm sure I could cobble together something that describes marriage, I'd rather defer to the following for a definition:

Haven’t you read...that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (Matthew 19:4-6)

Since 2008's firestorm over California's Proposition 8, an argument in which many lawn-signs were created, and in which many fights (verbal and physical) have broken out, there has been a debate in this country over how marriage should be defined. Some argue that it's not up to government to legislate marriage, that it's a religious matter. Some argue that you can't tell people who they can and cannot marry. And yet others argue that such a measure is an assault on the institution of marriage.

While this is measure isn't on the ballot in California come November 6th, it will be making an appearance in some shape or form in the states of Maryland, Washington, Maine, and Minnesota. Historically, every time this topic shows up for vote via a popular referendum, it has met with defeat. Currently, six states and the district of columbia permit same-sex-marriage (via legislature or court judgments); however this measure has never had success at the hands of the popular vote. Political pundits and polls reveal that this year, for the first time, a referendum on this topic may pass a majority vote. This, would of course have an impact on the entire country. Why? Art.IV sec.1 of the constitution: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. In other words, if you're married in Maine, it must be recognized in California.

This brings me to a question of: what happens when my faith and society differ on how marriage is defined? While a passing referendum won't change my definition of marriage, it represents a shift in how society views something as fundamental as marriage. Take the case of the state of Maine. This isn't the first time this state is voting on same-sex-marriages. As a matter of fact, voters in Maine rejected the same referendum in 2009. In three years, polls have shown that the opinions of the state has shifted on this topic. In three years!! Society (in the case of Maine) has shifted in it's view on marriage in three years! While society and public opinion changes with the seasons, I think this serves as a reminder that our faith needs to be anchored in what God says:

Haven’t you read...that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (Matthew 19:4-6)


**I do have to point out that it feels very odd for me to post about marriage without discussing love - I sometimes have a hard time putting in words a good definition of love, but I think John Steinbeck puts it quite nicely**

cute fuzzy animals, pt. 2 - the perfect storm

***If you read the last post, you should have learned your lesson by now. If you're still reading this, I'm assuming you know what you're getting yourself into...***

So Romney and Obama are currently hotly contesting the last remaining 10 battleground states of Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. With 538 total electoral votes at stake, one must reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes to take the election. Of course, political analyst all over are pouring over the various permutations of states that could decide the election.

Assuming each win the ones they're already projected to win, there is one interesting permutation out there that makes things very interesting. If Obama wins Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and Romney wins the rest of the battleground states, electoral math would give us a tie vote at 269 each.

Assuming no elector goes rogue and throws the election, this gives a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the Presidential election go to the House of Representatives (the current session) for a vote; however, it's not just a regular vote. This is a special vote in which each delegation (state) gets one vote. Currently there are 33 republican controlled states in the House, which means Romney will emerge the likely victor.

The Vice Presidential seat isn't determined by this vote, as the VP is also the President of the Senate, so in the event of a electoral gridlock, the Senate (current) gets to elect the next VP. The Senate is currently controlled by the Democrats, so Biden will likely emerge as the VP, giving us the first P/VP combo from opposing parties since the 1796 election (Adams/Jefferson). Now wouldn't that be a hoot?

cute fuzzy animals

courtesy of derek tam

Let’s talk about cute fuzzy animals. I know on this blog I’ve covered the cuteness factor before. Evidently, in the scientific community, there is a correlation between appeal/overall attractiveness of the species and the degree of focus it receives from scientific studies. Essentially, there is a large number of endangered species condemned to extinction partly due to the fact that they’re ugly. I’m fairly certain this correlation extends to other avenues of life as well. In the workplace for example, your cuteness/attractiveness could potentially advance your career as people could subconsciously (or consciously) enjoy working with you more.

There is also evidence that attractiveness helps a person’s political career as well. The classic example is Nixon vs. JFK in the 1960 election. Nixon refused to wear makeup for the first televised debate ever, JFK looked way better than him, and Nixon lost the election. At this point I’d like to make a confession (spoiler alert). I’m actually using cute fuzzy animals as a sneaky way (=/ I’m sorry) to introduce the topic of what Romney needs to do to win this election. I apologize for the deception, but do you realize how hard it is to get someone to read a post about republican campaign strategy?? On the other hand, everybody loves cute fuzzy animals. They’re cute, fuzzy, what’s not to like?

So last night, Romney and President Obama debated for the last time, supposedly on foreign policy. These two do not really differ much on foreign policy, so the debate quickly turned to domestic fiscal policy. Long story short, Romney didn’t look so hot yesterday. To many voters, he looks like a decent option, but he doesn’t give off that presidential vibe that Obama does. In essence, he doesn’t look as attractive as a potential president, as the current president. And his chances (according to statistical data Sean forwarded) dropped overnight. He is currently projected to rack up 247 electoral votes, 23 short of the requisite 270. So, how does Romney make up that deficit and become more attractive to voters? In other words, how does he make himself into cute fuzzy animal?

My crackpot theory, is basically to cater to both young voters, and also Asian voters. I know, a lot of focus is on African American, Jewish, and Latino voters (in terms of minority groups), but not much effort seems to be aimed at courting the young (18+) and the Asians. Rock the Vote has been around for a while, but that doesn’t seem to do much in mobilizing the young voters. As far as Asian voters, there aren’t that many Asian folks in higher government offices (our people seem to focus on the sciences), so there isn’t as much of a voice for the typical Asian American voter. If Romney came out and courted both of these interest groups, it could fire up the electorate and get a lot of these young or Asian voters on his side (and ciphon Asian votes from the democrats).

Great, so how does he do that?? How does he make himself more attractive practically? There are so many options, speak at colleges, meet with youth groups, meet with Asian American associations in major cities, kiss Asian babies, even dance gangnam style onstage after the debate. He could be doing so much more to get their vote. I’m thinking courting the 18+ and Asian votes could potentially open up California for contest (right now it’s squarely blue) and possibly even New York. That puts 84 electoral votes (CA – 55, NY – 29) in play. All Romney needs to do is raise his profile with these two groups, look more like the cute fuzzy animal instead of the unattractive and soon to be politically endangered candidate.

today is anything but super.

Looking ahead at today's tsunami of delegates (410 to be exact) that will be mopped up by the top republican candidates, I can't help but feel sad at what the near future of the republican party holds. If the only options for the republican presidential nominee are the current panel of candidates, I believe the GOP is facing certain doom in the fall.

As Super Tuesday voting starts today in ten states, I reflect back on the panel of candidates we have for the republican primary. I can't see one particular candidate as being very presidential, which, I will admit, is a trait that everyone has to define in their own minds. Someone being presidential in one person's mind doesn't mean that person is presidential in another's. I view it as the undefined characteristic. There is no measuring stick or barometer for how "presidential" a person is. It's one of those things, I suppose you'll know it when you see it. It's essentially what the Romans called gravitas. It encompasses a certain feeling that you sense from a person, a seriousness and sense of dignity. I suppose it's what I would define as "presidential", and I don't see that gravitas in any of the current candidates.

Which is why, part of me hopes that the race will be close all the way to the convention, and that a "dark horse" emerges, much like Polk, Harding, or Lincoln, and picks up the votes. The only person I can think of, the only person, that can enter the game this late, still pick up the republican nomination, and have a shot against the democrats in the fall, is Colin Powell. He would not only energize the party, but running him against President Obama will actually take race out of the picture for either side, leaving them to focus more on the issues itself. Of course, he has said repeatedly that he's not interested in pursuing that.

Now, I know I may offend certain people here with a politically-charged post, but hear me out. I'm not saying I'm unhappy with Obama, or that he needs to step down, but I simply agree with the republicans more on issues. In the interest of full-disclosure, I have to admit that I have been a republican for most of my life. I would characterize myself as a moderate, not because I tend to steer myself away from activism and controversy, but because I am swayed by the merits of individual issues, sometimes falling on the right, and sometimes falling on the left. I view myself as a conservative on most issues, and progressive on a few.

Right now, there doesn't seem to be much to be excited about for Super Tuesday. It seems like we're just picking the guy we dislike the least. I wish there were a better option, or one that speaks to my issues more, but there isn't one. All of these guys have the right qualifications, but none have that presidential feel, that gravitas. For now I'll just watch and see what happens, hopefully someone will step out of the shadows and lead.

and the plot thickens...

Just when I thought the 2012 presidential race couldn't get any more interesting, it happened. Roseanne Barr jumped into the race. She filed with the Federal Elections Commission in the beginning of Feb as a candidate for the Green Party nomination. I guess since Stephen Colbert dropped out of the GOP race, someone had to pick up the comedic slack. Man, this is one election I totally wish I could vote in. Can you imagine what would happen if there was a three way presidential debate between Obama, Gingrich, and Roseanne? Or if she taps John Goodman to be running mate?? wow...imagine the possibilities...