Elections, Life and Family

The presidential election is over. I am almost entirely ambivalent about it. In many ways except party catch phrases the 'solutions' being offered were very comparable.

I considered doing some panic buying but things are pretty solid on most fronts. A few more magazines for the .22's will be ordered shortly. After that things will be pretty good here. Also we have other areas where that money would be better spent.

The last couple days have been pretty crazy here. We've got some medical stuff going on. I will probably say more down the road when things are clearer. Something can be nothing or it can be something so I'll be intentionally vague for a bit.

I have been talking with some of our advertisers and there is good stuff coming up. Expect lots of product reviews as well as give away's and contests. This stuff should be fun and interesting for everybody.

Right now I am cooking up some brownies for Wifey and Walker in the Sun Oven. Will post the results and an in progress review later today or tomorrow.

So that is what's going on here.

Voting, 'Statement' Voting and Not Voting

Today is election day. Even though the rise of by mail and early voting has pushed some of it earlier this is still a big day.

I encourage you to get out and vote. We live in a country where we get a voice and should use it. 

If you really do not want either President Obama or Mitt Romney to be our next president then vote for somebody else. There is a whole ballot full of all sorts of interesting folks. You've got the Liberterians, the American Constitution Party, the Greens, and all manner of socialists. We all know that at least in this cycle the President is going to be an R or a D. However it is worth noting that getting 5% of the vote will give a third party access to the same public funds and other advantages that help the R and D folks.

Personally I voted for a third party candidate. You can probably guess which one but I don't want to muddle the waters. This brings us to 'statement' voting. As noted above getting a 3rd party really into the game is a worthwhile goal and as such a vote for them is not wasted. However if one still wants to call 3rd party voting a statement thing I guess that is fine. It is also worth noting that a 3rd party candidate for dog catcher or county sheriff or state senate or even congress may be realistic.

Another consideration is how your state is going to vote. Some states are solid blue or red and as such the odds of a close election where you would be splitting the vote away from the major candidate you dislike less are remote. Depending on how much you like or dislike both major party candidates that might be a consideration.

As to not voting. First and foremost it isn't like you can really opt out of our laws, tax code and such. I didn't vote for him is not a get out of jail free card. The biggest question I would have for these folks is what they plan to accomplish. The answer is usually nothing cohesive and that the system can't be fixed. Historically groups abstaining or in the case of North Ireland electing people who refuse to take their seats have had serious PR and on the ground campaigns to affect something. I do not see this in the American 'I'm not voting because the two party system is evil crowd'.

I would really encourage folks who decide to abstain from voting for a presidential candidate to look at the smaller races. These are the local stuff that actually matters. The Sheriff or the city council who hire a police chief that might or might not SWAT your house. The animal control folks and planning boards that can mess with homesteaders to no end or leave them alone.

As to predictions for today. It has seemed to me that the winds are flowing in the direction of Mitt Romney but it is very close. Today will be an interesting day.

Tab Clearing

Fun with Social Statistics from Oleg Volk

PBS Newsman sees danger in divided nation

Turns out Texas and Iowa aren't such a big fan of foreign election monitors 

JAX TELLER FOR PRESIDENT 2012....after all we can't do worse

Considering the fictional motorcycle club in question sells guns and runs drugs I figure they would legalize a lot of stuff. CSPAN would get a serious jump in viewers after President Teller slammed some dingbat Congressman's head into a wall.

Debate Workout Game

I will be watching the debates because they are sort of interesting. Also the Joe 'Drunken Gaff-master" Biden and Paul Ryan should be funny. Since it is happening at about my usual workout time I am going to turn this into a workout. Sort of like a drinking game except good for you.

The rules:
Basics
-Joe Biden appears obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol: 10 burpies
-Either the President Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney's names are mentioned: 5 pushups
-Obamacare is mentioned: 5 situps
-Social Security, medicare or medicaid are mentioned: 5 burpies
-The word economy is mentioned: 5 incline pushups (feet on coffee table)
- The word Terrorism or a direct reference to 9/11 or the recent attacks in Libya are mentioned: 10 situps

Person specific:
-Paul Ryan mentions Ronald Regan: 5 wide arm pushups
-Paul Ryan mentions balancing the budget: 5 leg lifts

-Joe Biden rambles incoherently: 5 close hand pushups
-Joe Biden talks about how Republicans hate seniors and plan to kill them off: 5 (4 count) fluter kicks

This should make for a decent muscular endurance/ core session.

Edited to include: Immediate realizations.

Will not 'owe' exercises so if I am still doing one and another is mentioned it will not count.

Obvious additions: 5 pushups for OBL, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Interesting News

Israel shoots down a drone suspected to belong to Hezbollah.

Mitt Romney is ahead in the polls by 4 points after the first debate.

Voter ID Laws: A Poll Tax? Got To Be Kidding Me

This is completely ridiculous. You need a valid state issued ID to do all manner of things from buying a 6 pack of beer to using a debit card. Calling the requirement for Voters to have ID a poll tax is a cheap shot designed to smeer conservatives who tend to be white as racists.

Voters Don't Like Anyone

Rapidly Becoming Apathetic

I was filling out one of those online things and it asked what my political preference was. Not sure why but I gave it more consideration than necessary. I realized that things are kind of sucky and I just don't care. Seriously I don't see any of them making things better. The R's and D's have both had a shot recently and just done a bang up job. I am not sure our system will leave anybody willing to deal with our issues (mainly massive unfunded entitlements) because to do so would be political suicide. Getting any politician to do that is unlikely, let alone a majority.

I bet some folks on one side are getting a good chuckle at folks on the other who thought the cozy government + business relationship would change. They both take money from the same big corporations that like pet legislature as well as capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down.

Some folks think maybe the Libertarians will save us but I am not so sure. It is pretty easy to be noble when nobody is offering you anything. It is equally easy to offer outside of the box solutions when you aren't responsible for anything and can just Monday morning quarterback it. Also as far as I know the Libertarians have never gotten anybody elected to anything more than (if even that?) county dog catcher. Even if they got ANYBODY elected to a meaningful position I don't think that would change anything. I love Dr. No (Ron Paul) as much as anybody could but aside from voting no on everything and proposing bills that doesn't every go anywhere what has he done?

Seriously on the national or likely even state level I am not so sure I see anything good coming. On the local level more grass roots stuff involving real people has some promise but I move around a lot now so don't really care about that.

I make predictions of what is coming here or there, no need to rehash.  I think I've given up caring until something worth caring about starts to happen. I am not holding my breath.

quote of the day

"2010 is an election year. We should have ONE GOAL, and one goal only, to expel as many of the leftists out of office as possible. Strategic politics is what we need gents, not some wishful thinking about mythical third parties. Strategic voting that will remove the left's entire power base and lead to Conservatives regaining power in 2012. If we do not do this and bicker about the opposing side not being conservative enough we will be stuck with what we have for another four."
-Gabe Suarez

Interesting Links I've Stumbled Onto.

Cyberwar Guide For Iranian Election.

Black Cross Health. I probably disagree with these folks on just about every political issue. Odds are we would not like each other very much, in fact we might even fight. In any case their analysis of pepper spray, CS gas and the like is interesting to read. From my experience with CS gas what they say seems to be accurate. Please note that I am not a doctor, EMT or Nurse and have in no way attempted to vouch for this information so you will have to use your own judgment.

Right, Wrong, and the Law

This last week I did some work for a judge on a rape case. Specifically, a motion to suppress some physical evidence, DNA, and some statements. I had some conflicts. The basic legal arguments were fairly simple, and it was fairly clear that the evidence should be excluded (there was only really one argument which might have worked, and it was weak). The other part of it which was very clear is that this guy did it. There is little to no denying it. Basically this means that the motion to suppress determines what he pleads to... But it got me thinking, what if the suppression of the evidence is what put this guy out on the streets.

This question strikes at the core of legal debate; she the law be result or process oriented? I am all about process, but there is a cost to it. People who should be in jail are let out. Legal technicalities are all over the place, which offend most peoples' basic ideas of justice. That, however, is the cost of having an fair system. Process can be manipulated, but when a system is result based, manipulation is not required, the state just does what ever it wants. In my view, forcing people to at least go through the motions is better than not forcing them to.

One other issue I found troubling was the weak argument. Hear was the issue: the judge I was working for had been the center of a public controversy, regarding what many people regarded as a light sentence in a similar case (not a rape, but same basic players). It is also an election year for him. What does he do: use the weak argument to make the legally wrong, but popular choice, or make the correct, but unpopular choice? He went with the unpopular choice, which I think is the right way to go. First, I am not sure about electing judges. On one hand, it is designed to ensure that they are accountable to the public. On the other, I don't think judges should be accountable to the public. It is not the legal system's job to do the will of the public. Second, the public is not who you want selecting judges. Who would you rather have as a judge: Benjamin N. Cardozo, William Blackstone, or Nicholas Hyde? Most people have no idea who any of these people are(Cardozo was one of America's great judges, basically creating foreseeability analysis in cases of negligence. Blackstone wrote the Blackstone Commentaries, regarded by most as the first collection of English Common Law. Hyde game King Charles I the power to imprison members of parliament without cause or trial.). Rather than hold elections, I think a better system would be have judges appointed by the states Supreme Court. To allow some control, I would possibly require that appointments are ratified by either the state legislature, or by the people directly. The key point is to remove the politics from judicial decision making, like they have done at the federal level.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day.