Archive for category Breaking News

The State of Disappointment

Today, California decided that Proposition 8 – which restricted marriage to same-sex marriages only – was a valid democratic action, did not overstep any civil liberties, but could not nullify the near 18,000 same-sex marriages that were carried out before the proposition was passed. One for three. Too bad this isn’t baseball.

When two people swear – before themselves and before others, (and before God, or whatever religious deities they believe in – or none at all if they’re atheist, because atheists are also perfectly allowed to marry) to affirm their love in mind and heart – that is marriage, regardless of what the state recognizes.

The state of California has neither the right nor the ability to change that.

When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, did slaves suddenly turn from property into people? No – of course not. They were always people, regardless of the legal system’s inability to classify them as such. Their current legal status had no bearing on what they are, or what they were. And in reality, even the legal recognition didn’t lead to equality – and even the beginnings of that dreamed-of condition would not seriously appear for another one hundred years.

And even then, the greatest leader of that movement was murdered.

YouTube Preview Image

I will never know what it feels like to be told that my love cannot result in a marriage. I don’t like living in a state – or a country – where others are not so fortunate, for reasons they cannot control.

Tags: , , , , , ,

That Rogue State

Big news today, and big news expected tomorrow. Maybe I’ll finally get into the swing of updating again.

First of all, big news today. On the bad side, a notoriously uncooperative nation has successfully (fully) detonated an atomic weapon. On the good side, it didn’t happen on my birthday this time.

Overall, not a good thing. That nation is unstable – some say that the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il has already died. North Korea has been astonishingly aggressive lately, although this could simply be an attempt to bolster the diplomatic strength of the state – a bargaining chip. Still, this is a serious problem on several levels.

The obvious problem is another nuclear state. Personally, I’m not comfortable with anyone having the capability to level entire cities. And honestly, I’m not comfortable with any nation – even my own – having the capability to destroy the entire planet. It’s just one of those things I would rather not have in anyone’s hands, you know?

Of course, I doubt North Korea would be stupid enough to actually use any. If nuclear missiles start flying into Seoul, we’ll kind of know who did it. Ever since this has started, I’d be simply flabbergasted if the US hasn’t kept at least a couple Trident submarines stationed around North Korea. I’m no expert on this, but I’d expect that it would take less than one hour for the United States alone to obliterate every single square inch of North Korea into a barren wasteland so completely annihilated that the moon would be teeming with life in comparison.

So that brings us to the second problem: North Korea selling the warheads. They’d certainly have motivation to do so. They could blame any other nation – for instance, Iran – for the deal. They are in desperate need of money and food. Actually, they’re in desperate need of pretty much everything, including (and especially) leadership.

Maybe things would be better if they didn’t insist on a proportionally insane military to threaten a country that was more than 30 times as wealthy as itself. These dictatorships just never seem to be able to create any economic success – at least, not for anyone other than the dictator and his favored elite. Enter irrelevant yet fascinating discussion about whether or not wealth is a requirement for democracy, a la Przeworski.

There also is a sinister tinfoil-hat third problem: while an ambitious North Korea could blame other countries for any suddenly-nuclear terrorist factions, this uncertainty works both ways. Any other nuclear-capable nation could use North Korea as a scapegoat for their own horrific actions. If a nuke goes off in China, some faction in Tibet must have done it through North Korea. If something explodes in Pakistan, it must be Al-Qaeda via North Korea.

Of course, the chance that US Intelligence (read: our spies and assassins) are working their best to sabotage North Korea hovers around 100%, and I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a quick bombing run on any nuclear reactors. North Korea must know that it would woefully lose any attempt to invade South Korea – the real question is, would they try regardless?

Up for discussion tomorrow: the Proposition 8 appeal results in California. Also, the budgetary problems in California on Thursday.

California’s Economic Troubles

Looks like I left California just in time.

This post is just a long, rambling entree on the current political situation in California. It’s something like what I would normally have here – and thus follows my normal writing style: Sarcastic, vulgar, and bitterly irreverent. If a bit of language and cynicism doesn’t bother you, continue reading!

Read the rest of this entry »

The Pirate Bay

Most of you may not know about it, but there is a massive court case ongoing in Sweden concerning a torrent hosting website, the Pirate Bay. I’ll spare you the technical details – most of which would be in a foreign language to those who aren’t tech-savy – but suffice to say that it is a website that allows users to download basically any files, from music and movies to books and other assorted media.

Because it allows people to download copyrighted music, movies, and TV shows for free, it has been sued by almost every record label on the planet. However, the technical way that torrent files work means that The Pirate Bay never actually sends file information to users.

Today, on the second day of the court case, half of the charges against the Pirate Bay have been dismissed (withdrawn) by the prosecution. This is a tremendous and unexpected victory for the defense.

While I certainly don’t condone some of the uses of The Pirate Bay, the site itself is simply an open forum for sharing anything – and has been instrumental in the past in helping distribute important files, even politically important files that were previously unavailable. The record labels, on the other hand, are extremely well known for desperately clinging to an outdated business model; with the Internet (and sites like The Pirate Bay), their distribution monopolies are simply unnecessary.

It’s an oversimplification to say, but I am on The Pirate Bay’s side. I’m glad they’re doing so well and I’m not surprised that the music industry has already shown huge blunders and misunderstandings of how the technology of today operates.

I might eventually put up a much longer technical discussion of exactly what is involved, and why I believe what I do – but that would be boring and unnecessary right now, as I have homework to do!

Congrats, TPB! And good luck in the rest of the case. As the Italians say, “In bocca al lupo!”

Tags: , ,

Rock the Boat: The Swing States

If the Democratic party were to follow an Authoritarian system of nomination, where the official candidate were simply the one that is most likely to win in the election, the red states would not have delegates. They would be irrelevant. And in today’s system of the electoral college, the democratic voters in those states really don’t matter – they won’t contribute anything to the candidate. Of course, it is not such a system; votes are cast by all members of the party without discrimination based on the demographic of the state they live in.

But realistically speaking, it does matter. With increasing phrases of “I’m the better candidate” being tossed around, how does the Red-state democrat vote impact the nomination?

To win the election, in normal circumstances the democratic candidate will take the blue states and have to be popular in the swing states. Now that most primaries are over, it is possible to see how the delegates stand.

Of course, these delegates are not the best way to count support. Adding up the numbers doesn’t always work; I’ll add more analysis in coming posts. One such problem with simple delegate counting: If Obama were to win two states by a small margin over Clinton, but lose one state by a large margin, he wouldn’t have as many delegates from these states as Clinton would have. But in a general election, there’s a chance that he will win those two closely-divided states where Clinton would not, garnishing more electoral votes than Clinton would muster. Again, I will add more in-depth analysis in further posts – but feel free to comment on this below.

I calculated the number of pledged delegates each candidate has received from what are considered the “blue” states, as well as the swing states – those contested states that could go either way. The results were surprising. Data is as follows:

 

The Blue States

New York

  • Clinton 139
  • Obama 93

California

  • Clinton 203
  • Obama 167

Washington

  • Clinton 25
  • Obama 53

Oregon

  • Clinton 31
  • Obama 21

Minnesota

  • Clinton 24
  • Obama 48

Illinois

  • Clinton 49
  • Obama 104

Maryland

  • Clinton 28
  • Obama 42

Delaware

  • Clinton 6
  • Obama 9

New Jersey

  • Clinton 59
  • Obama 48

Massachusetts

  • Clinton 55
  • Obama 38

Rhode Island

  • Clinton 13
  • Obama 8

Connecticut

  • Clinton 22
  • Obama 26

Vermont

  • Clinton 6
  • Obama 9

Maine

  • Clinton 15
  • Obama 9

 

Blue State Totals:

  • Clinton: 675
  • Obama: 675

Holy crap, a tie! Obama and Clinton have both received the exact same number of delegates from the blue states! This is a less important number than the swing states, because either nominee is almost guaranteed to win these states – and their electoral votes in the general election. But by delegate count, there is no strong preference (or even a preference at all) between the candidates in the strongly blue states. This indicates several things: Clinton and Obama have very closely divided the party in their support, and no candidate has an overwhelming support in the strong democratic base of the blue states.

 
Now, on to the swing states!

Michigan

  • Clinton 69 (HALF VOTE)
  • Obama 59 (HALF VOTE)

Florida

  • Clinton 105 (HALF VOTE)
  • Obama 67 (HALF VOTE)

New Hampshire

  • Clinton 9
  • Obama 12

Pennsylvania

  • Clinton 85
  • Obama 73

Arkansas

  • Clinton 27
  • Obama 8

West Virginia

  • Clinton 20
  • Obama 8

Virginia

  • Clinton 29
  • Obama 54

Iowa

  • Clinton 14
  • Obama 27

Missouri

  • Clinton 36
  • Obama 36

Ohio

  • Clinton 75
  • Obama 66

Wisconsin

  • Clinton 32
  • Obama 42

Colorado

  • Clinton 19
  • Obama 36

Nevada

  • Clinton 11
  • Obama 14

New Mexico

  • Clinton 14
  • Obama 12

 

Totals (Pre-Michigan and Florida)

  • Clinton: 371
  • Obama: 388 (+17)

Totals (Agreed Michigan and Florida Rules)

  • Clinton 458 (+7)
  • Obama 451
Totals (Full Michigan and Florida – more comparable to General Election)
  • Clinton: 545 (+31)
  • Obama: 514

As of today, these numbers indicate that Clinton has stronger support in the swing states. This means that Obama has received disproportionately strong support in the ‘red states’ – delegates whose voice will not alter the electoral result in a general election.

This, of course, seems inappropriate; surely, in a democratic system, it is a critical assumption that all votes will be counted. After all, ignoring any votes on a technicality isn’t very democratic – right?

Go talk to Florida and Michigan about that one…

 

Totals: Swing States + Blue States, Michigan and Florida Compromise

  • Clinton: 1133
  • Obama: 1126

Totals: Swing States + Blue States, Michigan and Florida Full Count

  • Clinton: 1220
  • Obama: 1189

Anyway, the conclusion of this number – based solely on the number, and not individual states – is that Hillary Clinton is a more strongly-supported candidate in the swing states. Obama’s support is strong from red states, which will not contribute to a democrat in the White House.

There are plenty of problems with this assumption – method is just one complaint. Obama is a strongly supported candidate in many states, and he is leading in almost all national polls. These numbers do raise questions about him though – similar to the issue described in the beginning of this post.

If Obama had received every delegate from all of the red states, and only lost many other states by a small margin, he would have an overwhelming majority of pledged delegates – but be an incredibly poor choice for a nominee, unlikely to win in a general election. Of course, there are provisions against such a thing happening to the Democratic party: superdelegates. They are free from public opinion for a reason – to counter just such a happening.

I know this post is coming across as heavily pro-Clinton, and I will admit – I support her over Obama. But the current (and badly wanting in future analysis) statistics indicate that Clinton may well be a stronger candidate in the general election.

Comments are welcome!

Numbers pulled from CNN. Please tell me if any values are incorrect; I’m human.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,