Swing State Voter

Keep Discrimination Out of the Boy Scouts

2013-05-05T22:22:00.000-04:00

Last week I read something so prejudiced, so full of self-righteous bias that it made me sad for hours. I had to stop reading it and walk away. For hours the thought haunted me that someone could be so blinded by their uneducated, prejudiced beliefs, as to proudly put it in print, and think that others would agree and sympathize with them. They probably even think that God will bless them for being so much more righteous than the rest of us. It depressed me for hours that this person is out there representing my religion and all that I hold dear. I knew I had to say something, I had to put my thoughts into print, and make it public, that such discrimination does not represent me, or the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The words left on www.ldsmag.com, in response to the official Church statement on the decision of the Boy Scouts of America to not discriminate or exclude gay young men from the program, were simply, “I’m so glad my boys are out of Scouts now. I would not want my little boy in the same troop as a gay 10 year old boy.” (The comment was moderated and deleted.)
To this person, and anyone else who has criticized the Church’s position, I ask you this- Why would the Church not support the BSA decision to allow gay young men in the program? After all, the Church allows gay young men to be members of the Church! A young man can be gay and pass the sacrament, so why should his sexual orientation keep him from obtaining a merit badge?
How Does the Church View Homosexuality?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that same-sex attraction is a sensitive issue which requires kindness, compassion, and understanding… Not exclusion and discrimination.
The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down. (https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng)
In short, the Church firmly believes that all people are equally beloved children of God and deserve to be treated with love and respect. Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stated, “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”
Let’s repeat that last line. “Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin, Know the Difference
Maybe it needs to be re-stated and explained in a more direct format for those who cannot separate down the difference between opposing gay marriage and a gay 10 year old boy.
The Church opposes gay marriage.
The Church does not oppose gays, regardless of age.
The Church does not oppose 10 year old boys, regardless of sexual persuasion.
The Church opposes pedophilia, sexual harassment, and discrimination.
Pedophilia, sexual molestation, and sexual harassment are crimes.
Homosexuality is not a crime.
Acts of discrimination are crimes.
Not all gays are men.
Not all pedophiles and sexual predators are gay. Many are straight.
Not all gays are pedophiles or sexual predators. In fact, most are not.
A ten year old boy is unlikely to act on feelings of attraction, whether straight or gay. Any ten year old boy who makes inappropriate sexual advances on another boy or a girl, needs emotional counseling and assistance. This is a child that needs help, not hate.
A young boy will not “turn gay” or suffer from any sort of malady by sitting next to a gay young man at a troop meeting. He is, however, likely to learn discrimination, bias, and prejudices from his parents.
Not all gay individuals are out to convert you. They will not all be attracted to you. They are not attracted to every member of the same sex in the same way that you are not automatically attracted to ever single member of the opposite sex. To assume that a gay young child will "hit on" or "try to convince" your child of the same sex is not only naive but delusional.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, “You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings.”
To those individuals who feel that the second a man looks at another man “in a gay way,” and thinks that just the natural feeling of attraction is a sin, might I remind you of Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Do you intend to hold yourself, and all other straight individuals, to that same standard? Are you without sin? Can you cast that first stone?
President Boyd K. Packer made the point equally clear when speaking to Church members with same-gender attraction. “‘We do not reject you…We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’”
With the Church’s position so openly and obviously clear, why would anyone doubt the continuing alliance with the Boy Scouts?

Help! There’s a Gay Child in the Scout Troop!
If you are uncomfortable with your child being in the same troop (or classroom, car, or at a birthday party) with another child (for whatever reason- whether it be sexual orientation, behavior, language, etc.), you are always welcome and able to sit in and watch or supervise the proceedings. Watch and see if your concerns about the other child are warranted. I have never found or heard of a troop or classroom that had too much parental involvement.
Parents, what will you tell your son when you pull him out of Boy Scouts? “I’m sorry, but there may be a gay little boy in your troop someday, so we can no longer support this organization. Don’t listen to anything the prophet and apostles have said about not rejecting others with same gender attraction, or whether or not it is a sin. I know better.”
Or will you teach your son that we, like Christ, choose to love all of God’s children? And that you hope he will join his voice “with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.”
Will you remind your son that in this Church we believe that regardless of sexual orientation, “any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel?”
I can only sympathize with and pray for parents of a gay little boy (or girl). It must be hard to know that your son or daughter will grow up in a world full of prejudices against them, even within the Church. How hard must it be for a loving parent to hear ward members or neighbors say that they would rather remove their children from the Scouting program, than let them socialize with a gay child. My heart breaks for the parent of the gay child.
In my personal experience, a ten year old boy, eight year old, or even twelve year old boy, is highly unlikely to express preferences of sexual attraction, even if he has already experienced them. Ten year old boys are highly unlikely to share deep feelings about anything at all! Ten year old boys are more likely to avoid contact with girls, let alone talk to them, or about them. Ten year old boys are just not known for sitting around and talking about what kind of girl they are hoping to spend some alone time with. A ten year old boy with an attraction to other boys is just as likely, if not more likely, to avoid discussing his feelings. He knows that others view such feelings with prejudice, and will not share them openly. How sad that such a young boy must already know prejudice and that adults don’t like him, just because he exists.
Considering the lack of emoting and sexual activity of most young boys, the BSA decision is irrelevant to the regular operations of the Scouts. But it must bring some comfort to parents to know that their son will not be kicked out or left out, if he has indeed expressed a sexual identity at such a young age.
Again, with the Church’s position so openly and obviously clear, why would anyone doubt their alliance with the Boy Scouts?
“We do not reject you…We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng
“Ye Are the Temple of God,” Liahona, Jan. 2001, 87.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

California Passes Law to Allow Non-Citizens to Serve on Juries

2013-04-26T13:08:00.000-04:00

In italics: the Associated Press report.

In normal font: my [incredulous] thoughts

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

What the heck?? WHY???

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

Does not change other criteria? It change the most important and significant criteria!!! YOU HAVE TO BE AN AMERICAN!!

From the California Courts official website: (written prior to the new law being passed)

California law says you are qualified to be a juror if you:

Are a U.S. citizen

Are at least 18 years old

Can understand English enough to understand and discuss the case

Are a resident of the county that sent you the jury summons

Have not served on a jury in the last 12 months

Are not currently on a grand jury or on another trial jury

Are not under a conservatorship

Have had your civil rights restored if you were convicted of a felony or malfeasance while holding public office

No one is exempt because of his or her job, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or economic status. If you are qualified, please follow the directions on your summons and call in or report as instructed. You will receive additional information when you report for service. Even if you are qualified to be a juror, you might still have what is called an "undue hardship." An undue hardship is a difficult situation that prevents you from being able to serve. If you face an undue hardship, you may be able to be excused from jury service or postpone service.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat - Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced - voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

No correlation between being a citizen or a juror? Jury duty has always been considered a patriotic duty!!!

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."

Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.

Note to the AP: those two paragraphs would have made more sense in reverse order.

But I digress.

"high rates of non-participation"

So launch a freaking marketing campaign encouraging patriotism, civic duty, and the importance of a fair and just trial!!

It will be a lot cheaper than the lawsuits you are going to get down the road when people start appealing that their jury was not American or their peers!

A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.

It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.

Sigh.

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."

Keeping women (or any minority race for that matter) off of juries was about discrimination and unequal rights. Not including non-Americans on juries is not discrimination! We're talking about a court system designed to uphold the Constitution!

I will be reasonable here and try to see the other side of this argument. If it is an area that is heavy on immigrants, and the basis for our jury system is a trial of our peers, I can almost see the argument for it. And although the AP says nothing of it, I will assume the law made a point to allow LEGAL immigrants. (I'm sure a few people will read it and jump to illegal immigrants, just like I did, out of habit.)

Legal, long-term immigrants, are (if they choose to be) very much a part of the community, and in most cases "peers." Especially in states like California.

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.

Some details on immigrant numbers in the U.S. and California.
"The number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000." (Source: Center for Immigration Studies)
"We estimate that 28 percent of all immigrants are in the country illegally. Roughly half of Mexican and Central American and one-third of South American immigrants are here illegally." (SOURCE: CIS)

Source: http://cis.org/sites/default/files/2012-profile-t1.jpg)

California had 227,876 immigrants become LEGAL permanent residents in 2009. (Source: California Watch)

I can almost talk myself into this idea that legal immigrants, especially if they are long-term permanent residents, should be on a jury. (Note use of terminology here. I said SHOULD, not could. I am sure many could, in the sense that they have the requisite familiarity of the laws.)

But then I think of Amanda Knox and her trial in Italy.
What if Italy's laws allowed for non-Italians to serve on juries? Her whole family, plus you and me, could all move there, become permanent residents, make sure we live in the right jurisdiction, and hope to be put on her jury! All just to make sure she gets off!
The thought is preposterous, right? Americans serving on Italian juries? Even if a long-term, legal resident there, we don't expect it to happen.

Okay, so maybe that's not the most applicable example.

Here is a more realistic one-
Illegal immigrants in certain neighborhoods commit a lot of certain types of crimes. (Don't try and argue that I'm being racist or biased here. We all know that crime is much higher among illegals.) In fact, in a small neighborhood in Southern California, it is not completely out of the realm of realistic possibility that the criminal court docket will have a large number of cases involving young, illegal immigrants.
What if a very large group of sympathetic legal immigrants made it a point to live in that same area?
Oh wait, they probably already do.
But here's the thing, now they have motivation for doing so. And not just local Californians, but anywhere across the U.S. If you want to really make a difference in culture and laws, the court system is the way to do it. So why not start suddenly congregating large groups in an area where they can make a difference on juries?
And I'm not trying to imply that all immigrants will be naturally sympathetic to illegal immigrants. (In fact, I think they may have more reason to be biased against each other than other demographics.)
Not all immigrants are from the same country. Legal immigrants come from all over the world all the time. And I welcome that! I am fine with that! (All thoughts of the Boston Bomb Brothers aside.)
But! Can immigrants on a jury uphold the U.S. Constitution and not hold a defendant to the standards of "the old country?" This is my sticking point, right here. Can immigrants, who may or may not be interested in becoming citizens (it is a long process and many legal residents may be interested in becoming citizens and just are not there yet), be expected to not allow for prejudices from previous cultures to influence their decisions?
I realize it is biased to say that they cannot. But! I really have to believe that. How can they look at someone from their own country, on trial in a different country, and not give some allowances for previous culture, while enforcing the current one?
I am a die-hard, red-blooded, patriotic American and defender of the Constitution. I just cannot stomach or accept the idea that a non-American has the right to judge me in a court of law. The court system is based on an American document. It should be defended by actual Americans!
Is this just a case where we need to open our minds to the idea of change? Would it be so bad if immigrant (legal or illegal) defendants had someone on the jury from a different country (their own or otherwise)? Does it make it a more legitimate jury of peers?
But I can't help but come back to the reverse thought- would I expect foreigners to serve on juries in other countries?
I feel that there are 2 sides to my response. The one that sounds a little prejudiced and biased against immigrants, although I truly do not mean to be so. I have no problem with foreign born residents! I welcome it! I love diversity! But am I biased in thinking that their previous culture will color their ability to serve on a jury? Am I wrong to think so?
I really have to keep thinking on that. Because I do feel that maybe there is some unjust discrimination in that way of thinking.
(It hearkens to the old idea that women were not capable of serving on juries because of their natures.)
But I absolutely cannot let go of the idea of anyone but an American serving on an American jury! It just doesn't work! I can't accept it. If I am to be held accountable to the laws of this country, I expect to be judged by the citizens of this country.
The end.

I can't back the "gendered marriage" fight.

2013-03-26T14:14:00.000-04:00

At this exact moment as I sit here typing, the US Supreme Court is debating gay marriage. The Court will weigh 2 different cases this week. Today it is the appeal of California Proposition 8 (Prop 8), which banned gay marriage. The second case will be heard tomorrow regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

I am personally somewhat torn on the issue(s). I'm a conservative [mostly] Republican, as such, one might expect I would be completely in favor of "defending" marriage, and opposing gay marriage.

However, I do not. I was opposed at some point in the past, when all things gay were distasteful to me. I have changed and matured, and realized that was a petty, ignorant, and small-minded way to think. I do not in any way, shape, or form, hold bias against, or discriminate against my homosexual fellow humans.
The official position of my church is "We firmly support the divinely appointed definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman because it is the single most important institution for strengthening children, families, and society." And as such, I choose to stand on the side of my church.
However, I do not agree with anyone who uses the well-being or protection of children as their reason for fighting gay marriage. If your reason for opposing gay marriage is based in religion and the belief that marriage is "divinely appointed... between a man and a woman" then say so. That I can support. That I believe in.
But I cannot support the Religious Right, (RR), or "defenders of marriage," that have this strange desire to legislate the world into what they want it to be, where every child has a mother and a father, and lives in the suburbs, with a dog and a cat. That is not what the real world really looks like. I don't condone them for wanting it to look like that, but it isn't realistic, and it doesn't actually help anyone.

Let me explain.

Most families will never fit the RR's vision for what a family looks like or should be. Of couples that marry, not all will produce biological children. Not all couples will stay married. Most homes do not fit the "traditional" mold.

And yet, all of the RR arguments are to encourage that mold.

This is small-minded thinking. you cannot legislate to make everyone look or act like you. To think that blocking gay marriage will create these perfect families is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube- it just won't work. Most homes are already divorced, or single parented, or adopted, or fostered. They are not perfectly little Cleaver Clans. We cannot legislate with the idea and goal that we all want or have that. It's great that that is what they want (to be the Cleavers), but most households don't, and won't, ever look like that.
So instead of blocking gay marriage, and pretending this somehow is better for children, I choose to not take side. I choose to focus on charitable activities and actual legislation that really would help less fortunate children. (You want to make a difference? Donate $18 to RiverKids, and feed a child in Cambodia for 2 months, and help protect the child from the very real possibility of sex trafficking.)

The following article was printed in a conservative publication. I choose to not cite it or link to it, because I don't want to send traffic to it, or attract the attention of the writers to my own blog. It is a perfect example of using emotional rhetoric and claims with no basis in reality or facts. One major reason I cannot support the RR fight is their lack of credible, scientific facts and claims.

The following article ran with the title "The Inequalities of "Equal" Marriage." I have inserted by retorts and rebuffs in red. The largest failure of this article is to make any mention of adopted children, step-children, children of divorce, abandoned children, foster children, etc.

Click here for the rest of the story

Draft Romney to Rescue Detroit!

2013-03-05T18:59:00.001-05:00

You know what is wrong with this- Let's Draft Romney to Rescue Detroit (Fox News)

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

In fact, every single word of it makes sense!

"... Detroit is effectively bankrupt and the governor of Michigan is about to appoint a receiver to try to save the city..."

"I’m betting Romney will turn the Detroit economy around, just like he turned a failing, bankrupt Salt Lake City Olympics into one of the great successes in Olympic history. And we already have a precedent -- Ronald Reagan turned around Jimmy Carter's malaise, misery and 21.5% interest rates in record time. He turned an economic disaster into the greatest economic expansion in history (adding 20 million jobs)."

Governor Snyder, are you listening?

Where's the petition? I want to sign!

3 Different Stores, 3 Different Experiences

2013-01-28T22:33:00.001-05:00

Tonight played out in some very unexpected ways for me. I had to go to 3 different stores- Cracker Barrel, Walmart, and Stein Mart. Three very different stores, in three very different parts of town, with three very different clientele.

My first stop was Cracker Barrel, right off the highway, on the far end of town from where I live. I had to return a book on CD I had "rented" from their library. (It's a fabulous service and I highly recommend it.) If you have ever been in a Cracker Barrel you know that the store patrons and restaurant patrons all pay at the same check out counter. I got in line behind one older gentleman. A line formed to the side of the man by people coming out of the restaurant. I was in no rush and let 3 people go ahead of me, even though I was there first. They never even noticed I was standing there. Another older gentleman did see me and saw how many people I allowed to go past me. He insisted I go next, even though, quite frankly, I really didn't care. My business was transacted quickly and easily and I left.

My next stop was Walmart. We have 2 of these behemoths in our town. One is brand spanking new and is right by my house. That was where I had purchased the items I was returning today. It's clean, bright, and rather nice. When I shop there I expect to run into people I know. I also expect courteous treatment. Don't get me wrong, there's still the "people of Walmart" crowd, but for the most part, it's not a bad shopping experience.

And then there is the other Walmart in town- the one in the ghetto. Except it isn't in a ghetto, it's just closer to the ghetto than the other store. This Walmart is actually right next to the "nice" mall, Target, Best Buy, and all of the other big stores in town. It's smack dab in the middle of everything. And yet most people avoid it like the plague (I wish I had). It's dingy, dark, and full of the scariest, nastiest people you have ever seen.

A few days ago I went to the Good Walmart to return some items. I walked straight in, went to customer service, got helped immediately, and left. I got home and realized I forgot the second bag of items, and needed to go back and return them. Because I had to drive to the far end of the galaxy to go to Cracker Barrel, I stopped at Ghetto Walmart.

Click here for the rest of the story

Firearms, Gun Control, and the Second Amendment

2013-01-06T11:35:00.001-05:00

My first real job out of college was for a homeless shelter for teens in Houston, Texas. At that point in time my professional ambition was to plan fancy fundraising events for the most deserving of charities. I worked there just short of one year before I moved back to my home state of Virginia. It was then and there that I got a job interview through a recruiter with "one of the oldest and biggest non-profits" in the U.S. I was shocked to find out that non-profit was the National Rifle Association. The job description sounded good, the company's location was ideal, and I had nothing against the NRA, so I went to the interview.

I wasn't a fit for the position in their charitable wing, but was referred upstairs to a different "event planning" position. I got the job- a trade show and special events planning position in the membership division. It was a fateful turn in my career path- one that would almost always include guns.

At the time I was hired I had never held a real gun before. I had held a few BB guns, and shot them at tin cans on a fence in a field in Mississippi. But I had never seen a gun range, let alone fired a real weapon. I was a Republican with a Southern upbringing, and that was enough to convince me (and the people that hired me) that I was in favor of the Second Amendment. But to be honest, I had never really thought much about it.

I didn't work at the NRA for long before someone took me down to the range, enrolled me in the range and firearms safety class, put a .22 pistol in my hand, and taught me how to shoot. "Punching holes in paper." It didn't take long for me to discover two things- I was a natural shot, and I really liked when things go bang.

I've never had an inclination to go hunting, nor do I expect I ever will. (Although I wouldn't mind removing one or two raccoons from the population behind my house.) But the range has always held a certain appeal for me. It takes skill, discipline, and focus to get a bull's eye. Just like an NBA player isn't guaranteed every free throw, or Tiger Woods a hole in one, shooting at a target doesn't always mean a perfect shot.

I left the NRA after a while and moved on to other (event planning) jobs, just to end up working at Beretta USA a few years later. Beretta is one of the largest firearms manufacturers in the world. I worked in the law enforcement and defense division, where we sold large numbers of firearms and parts to police and military.

While I worked at both organizations I dreaded telling new acquaintances, or even strangers, where I worked. Rarely was my employer's name met with neutrality; it was always met with a heavily biased response, whether positive or negative. I was called a "babykiller" more times than I can count. If the new person was pro-firearms, I was almost always asked what kind of guns I owned. Or I was subjected to the person's testimony of the Second Amendment, and a list of their favorite weapons.

Click here for the rest of the story

"But I voted for Obama!"

2012-12-04T23:46:00.000-05:00

A few houses down from mine there's a sweet old man who lives with his son and daughter-in-law. Every day I walk my dog past his house and he comes out and talks to me. I'm pretty sure he has no idea what my name is. The truth is, I have no clue what his name is either. I just refer to him as the old man.
In spite of our lack of familiarity, we have a nice chat every morning. His son (who is closer to my father in age than he is to me) and I like to chat about politics regularly. He and I are both Romney fans. The old man voted for Obama.
On occasion the old man will ask me for help with something if no one else is at home with him. A few days ago he came out of the house in a huff, holding a letter. His son was getting in the car to leave and warned me his dad was in a mood because he just got a letter about his Social Security. After the son left, the old man and I had a chat.

Click here for the rest of the story

Va Governor's Race Just Got Interesting

2012-11-29T10:09:00.000-05:00

IN:

OUT:

Virginia state politics just got interesting.
Actually, the commonwealth's governor race was already pretty interesting. (Read why here.) But this week Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling dropped out of the 2013 Republican race, giving current Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli a wide open path to securing that nomination.
Bolling announced his decision via email on Wednesday morning. Not surprisingly he cited the switch from a statewide primary to an “exclusive” party convention as one of the reasons. Ever since the switch in June, state party members have openly discussed how the switch favored Cuccinelli and would hurt Bolling.

Click here for the rest of the story

Don't believe everything you read on Facebook

2012-11-20T09:35:00.001-05:00

Another great reason to not believe most internet/Facebook memes!
This meme is making the rounds on Facebook today courtesy of a Facebook page called "We Survived Bush. You will survive Obama."
It makes some big claims that seem pretty outrageous, even if you do buy into the idea that all CEOs are evil and greedy.
So I did my own research.

Here are the facts (and unbiased facts at that. I don't like Twinkies or Wonder Bread. But I do love Hohos.)-
1. Yes, in January of 2012, several of the execs asked for pay raises, including then CEO Brian Driscoll, who asked for a $1.5 million raise.
2. The motion (to the board) DID NOT PASS.
3. Brian Driscoll left the company in March.
4. The current CEO is Greg Rayburn. He makes $100,000/month.
5. In September, during the bankruptcy proceedings, the Teamsters agreed to major concessions, including cuts in wages and company contributions to health care. As part of the deal, all of the company’s unions were to receive a 25 percent share of the company’s stock and a $100 million claim in bankruptcy.

Click here for the rest of the story

Will the energy sector improve in Obama's second term?

2012-11-14T15:33:00.002-05:00

Will the Energy Sector Improve in Obama's Second Term? - My column for the Motley Fool.

Benghazi-Petraeus-Broadwell-Allen-Kelley Scandal

2012-11-13T23:04:00.001-05:00

With the elections over it almost seemed like I was going to run out of material for this blog. But that is not the case! This Benghazi-Petraeus-Broadwell-Allen-Kelley scandal is too crazy to not talk about.

Let's do a really simple recap of what promises to quickly not be a simple situation.

General David Petraeus-
Former top dog in Afghanistan
Former General
Was the CIA director until a few days ago
Knows a lot of dirt on Benghazi
Had an affair with Paula Broadwell (his biographer)
Married

Click here for the rest of the story

Did Romney and Republicans Go Wrong?

2012-11-11T21:21:00.001-05:00

I’m just starting to come out of my cocoon of disavowal of Tuesday’s outcomes. I’m still a little behind and don’t know full facts and figures. (And I continue to like it that way.) But these two articles got me to thinking-

Why Romney was surprised to lose
Inside Orca: How the Romney Campaign Suppressed Its Own Vote

I admit there is a part of me that is still a little bitter over Team Orca. I was a part of it. I spent 13 hours working at the polls (freezing my butt off) on Tuesday. I had a small glitch around noon, and a longer glitch around 6 pm. I had no trouble calling into the national number and getting assistance.

If the campaign knew full well that their system wasn’t working, why did they allow thousands of workers to stand out there and work? I worked for 13 hours and they weren’t getting any data from me? If the system wasn’t working and they had all those boots on the ground, why didn’t they call us in to the field offices to work the phones? Does any of that make sense to you that they would mismanage the usefulness of nearly 30,000 active volunteers? Something just doesn’t add up there.

Not to mention how it just doesn’t add up that Romney would have allowed something so crucial as this web app to not get beta tested and proven first. I’m the last person ever to become a conspiracy theorist, but this really just doesn’t add up for me. None of it does.

Why would a campaign in the final minutes not throw a hail mary, redirect 20-30,000 volunteers, and do something?? If the app suddenly failed and you have all those dedicated volunteers, why didn't they correct course or change directions? Even if the command didn't come down from the headquarters, why didn't thousands of field offices (who supposedly may have known the apps were failing) not make the call?

Supposedly fewer people came out to vote for Romney than voted for McCain. How is that possible? I am very confused over this. Again, I’m not a conspiracy type, but it just doesn’t add up. It either means the numbers just have to be wrong, or there are a lot of people who really didn’t want to vote for the Mormon. They didn’t want to vote for Obama, but in the end they just couldn’t vote for the Mormon? Or that many people came out specifically to vote against Romney? Honestly, that feeling sickens me to the point of not knowing which one I would rather it not be- a rigged election or that much bigotry?

I am admittedly not a die-hard Republican. I’m far too libertarian on foreign policies. And I have wanted to see a stronger third party emerge for a while. I think the Tea Party ruined the GOP, and forced it to go too conservative. I also think the primaries are too focused on social issues, driven by the evangelical vote that is not effective in the national elections.

I want to see the party get divided. I want to see a liberal party, a moderate party, and the freak show conservative Tea Party. And I will admittedly be right in the middle of the moderates. I don’t like extremism either way and I believe in compromise, and neither party offers that. I really, really want social issues to get kicked to the states, and left out of the federal government. I think a third party could sell that better than the Republicans have so far. And I think a third more central party could bring a better sense of compromise to energy issues.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

I Will Keep the Faith. I Still Believe.

2012-11-07T10:21:00.001-05:00

In my column for Meridian Magazine yesterday (Elections, Facebook, and the Throne of Thoughtless Stupor) I quoted Elder Neal A. Maxwell. (For my non-Mormon friends, he was a much beloved leader in the Mormon Church who was known for not only his incredible knowledge and understanding of the scriptures, but his beautiful way with words. Check out this YouTube clip of him talking about Jesus Christ and the Universe. It's wonderful.)

“The same God that placed that star in a precise orbit millennia before it appeared over Bethlehem in celebration of the birth of the Babe has given at least equal attention to placement of each of us in precise human orbits so that we may, if we will, illuminate the landscape of our individual lives, so that our light may not only lead others but warm them as well.”

I have often turned to this quote when I question what is the point of my life and why I have had to suffer through two bad economies and long periods of under/unemployment (the first after 2001 and again now). I said yesterday in my column, and I will try to say it again in my heart again today, that if the Lord can place a star over a stable, and that the placement of my life in this humanly orbit is no mistake, then I have no choice but to believe that something and someone as important as the President of the United States is not just the will of the people (because I must believe that all those people are here at this time and place as purposefully as my existence is), but who the POTUS is is the will of the Lord as well.

And so even though I am heartbroken and sad, and felt that much of my personal opportunities and happiness were tied up in the results of this election, I will accept the results and move on. And I will not cave in to the tendencies of so many to become a “doomsday prepper,” or moan and groan about what might happen next. I will wake up each day and remind myself that this is what the Lord has allowed, and continue on with the belief that He will never leave me without opportunities and choice.

There is a common belief in the firearms industry that firearms sell better under a democrat president. When people are afraid of losing their guns, they buy more of them. And you know what? Maybe the same holds true about many things in life. If people are afraid of where our country will go under this president, maybe they will fight harder to prevent those things from happening? Would they fight as hard under a Romney presidency? (Probably not.) Heed the battle call and join the fight. After all, it is no mistake that you were placed here in this orbit now.

It is my job to be happy and keep the faith no matter my circumstance. And if there is anything I have worked hard on these last 3 years it is finding joy in spite of difficulties. I will soldier on in God’s Army and choose to find joy, no matter what, and keep up my faith that the Lord will provide.

Live Blogging Election Returns

2012-11-06T21:03:00.002-05:00

(I'm adding thoughts at the bottom this time, instead of the top)

9 pm
After a very long day of volunteering as a poll watcher I am almost too exhausted to blog tonight. And yet I am so overly revved up that there is no way I can relax either. I'm close to spontaneous self-combustion.
I think the reality of a Mormon being in the White House has just hit me. It's here. It is finally happening. I can only imagine this is how African Americans felt 4 years ago.

9:05-
I really want Virginia to go to Romney. Waiting on my own home state is going to kill me!!!
The first SWING STATE is in! Michigan goes to Obama. A bit disappointing, and not what I had predicted, but alas, it is done.

9:10
The House goes GOP majority.
I have some rude in your face things in my head that I will not vocalize to Nancy Pelosi right now.

9:18
Crap Pennsylvania looks like it is going to Obama. That's not good.

9:24
Senate is sitting at 41/41
The nightmare scenario where the electoral ties, and it goes to the house and senate, is actually feeling REAL.

9:30
Anyone else think it is hilarious that they haven't just called Utah for Romney already?

9:59
I'm going to freaking lose my mind. This is too much pressure and stress for someone so exhausted!!!!!!

10:04pET Romney 158 vs. Obama 147

10:08
John King is teasing a GOP surprise in Wisconsin!
Part of me is so sure it will be Romney. And yet... I just don't know. It's coming down to VA, NC, FL, OH. And apparently Wisconsin.
It's a good thing no one is here to see me singing "On Wisconsin" all by myself.

10:14
AAAH!!!
And now CNN is starting to say that without some huge surprises, they don't see how Romney can win. But "the Romney strategy to 270 is still in play."
This is KILLING ME.

10:21
My gut says VA goes to Romney. Why? Because 8 of 11 House races have gone to the Republican so far. The Senate race is holding strong at 50/50 (between 2 former governors). Romney has a tiny lead, but my gut says he holds on to it.

10:33
I'm starting to take it personally that CNN (and no one on twitter) hasn't commented on Team Orca and Romney turn out in swing states. But I can promise you it was Team Orca making the difference in Wisconsin!!

11:06
Crap. Kaine beat Allen.

11:10
Crap, Iowa goes to Obama.
It's starting to look like 4 more years of Obama.
To someone underemployed and at times unemployed as I am, this is incredibly depressing. There is no hope.

Completely and in every way depressing.
I don't see how the economy ever recovers. And I don't see how I ever get real employment again. I really don't.

It looks like this will probably come down to 10-20 electoral votes difference. There's some degree of hope in knowing that a few states could be contested, but not a lot of it. Oh well. What can you do?

11:34
Just some thoughts/facts-

Bush won with 47.9% of popular vote- 50,456,002
Gore lost with 48.4%, or 50,999,897
Or a 543, 895 votes.

12:20
Some thoughts from a sad loser-
I'm looking over the results state by state. I'm noticing an interesting trend. But first, let me say, I'm a fan of the electoral college. I like the weighted state system because it speaks to the original intent of the country- a union of states or colonies. We were meant to be individual units, that united together, but operated independently. And so the weighted electoral system made sense.
But take a look at these figures- (note I did not include VA, FL, OH, HI, and AK in these numbers)

Romney wins 23 states, and of those 23, he won 10 with a lead of 21% or higher. He only has 2 states in the single digits. In other words, when he won, HE WON.
Georgia 8%
Kentucky 23%
Indiana 9%
South Carolina 14%
North Carolina 2%
West Virginia 27%
Alabama 22%
Missouri 11%
Tennessee 29%
Mississippi 13%
Oklahoma 24%
Arkansas 23%
Arizona 13%
Kansas 20%
Nebraska 23%
South Dakota 20%
Louisiana 20%
North Dakota 20%
Texas 18%
Wyoming 40%
Montana 10%
Utah 45%
Idaho 43%

Obama won 20 states. And of those he has 6 states with less than a 10% lead. In other words, he didn't have overwhelming wins (except in DC and Vermont).

Vermont 36%
Delaware 18%
Maine 20%
Massachussetts 20%
New Jersey 17%
Pennsylvania 6%
Connecticut 12%
DC 84%
Illinois 17%
Maryland 23%
New Hampshire 6%
Rhode Island 27%
Colorado 3%
Minnesota 3%
New Mexico 9%
Michigan 6%
New York 20%
Wisconsin 14%
California 14%
Oregon 9%

As of right now (12:45 am), Romney still has the lead in the popular vote, albeit, a razor thin lead.

I still believe in the electoral system because I am definitely pro-state. I believe in the state system. However, I am definitely more in favor of a proportional electoral college. We have a few states going to that method this year. And I do think we will see more states go to it by the next presidential campaign. Why? Well, look at these numbers.

NOTE: I'm doing this math completely exhausted and without a calculator at 1 am. It is very rough math, but I have applied it equally. And I always rounded up.
(NOTE: by the time I started these numbers there were a few more results in from VA, OH, FL)

Romney
Georgia 8% R8, O8
Kentucky 23% R5, O3
Indiana 9% R6, O5
South Carolina 14% R5, O4
North Carolina 2% R8, O7
West Virginia 27% R3, O2
Alabama 22% R6, O3
Missouri 11% R6, O4
Tennessee 29% R7, O4
Mississippi 13% R4, O2
Oklahoma 24% R4, O3
Arkansas 23% R4, O2
Arizona 13% R6, O5
Kansas 20% R4, O2
Nebraska 23% R3, O2
South Dakota 20% R2, O1
Louisiana 20% R5, O3
North Dakota 20% R2, O1
Texas 18% R22, O16
Wyoming 40% R2, O1
Montana 10% R2, O1
Utah 45% R4, O2
Idaho 43% R3, O1
TOTAL= 121 Romney
82 Obama

Obama
Vermont 36% O2, R1
Delaware 18% O2, R1
Maine 20% O3, R1
Massachussetts 20% O6, R5
New Jersey 17% O8, R6
Pennsylvania 6% O11, R10
Connecticut 12% O4, R3
DC 84% O3
Illinois 17% O11, R9
Maryland 23% O6, R4
New Hampshire 6% O2, R2
Rhode Island 27% o3, R1
Colorado 3% O5, R4
Minnesota 3% O5, R5
New Mexico 9% O3, R2
Michigan 6% o8, R8
New York 20% o20, R9
Wisconsin 6% O5, R5
California 14% O23, R22
Hawaii
Oregon 9% O4, R3
Washington 13% O7, R5
Virginia 1% O7, R6
Ohio 1% O9, R9

Subtotal
Obama 157
Romney 121

Total
Obama 229
Romney 242

Florida still outstanding, but will be about 49% for both people, bringing results to –
Obama 233
Romney 256

Alaska and Hawaii still outstanding for 7 electoral votes. Even if all 7 go to Obama, he still can't catch up.

As I finish typing this, and get ready to finally fall asleep after a very long day, President Obama has taken the lead in the popular vote by a scant margin (400,000 votes). My guess is that number will easily change again and go back in favor of Romney. After all, there's nearly 8 million people in Florida alone who aren't included in that number.

But let's say Obama takes the popular vote, it will only be by 1 or 2%, just like Romney's current (or was current) lead. This is the beauty of the electoral college- the states still have weight.
Like I said, I do believe in the idea of weighted states. But I like it because I like power belonging to the states and operating individually from each other. And even with a proportional electoral college, the states still have the power. The voice of the people is better heard, and the states are still strong.
Again, if my math is completely crazy, I blame the late hour and exhaustion. But I doubt it is too far off. I'm am sure it is slightly off though.
Just a few things to think about.
And maybe someday, when I have free time again, and I'm all caught up on sleep, I'll write out a little discourse on the call for smaller states, or mandated state sizes. And at the same time, give a compelling reason for Puerto Rico and DC statehood, and a very good argument against it (the answer to all of the above: natural resources). But there is something to be said for 90% of FL being forced to follow the political ideals of one metropolis. Same with California. Oh but see, this will bring me right back around to a proportional electoral college.
And yes, before you go there, I do realize that a proportional college would also require changing the 270 requirement.

Election Day is finally here!

2012-11-06T01:30:00.000-05:00

Go vote!
Good luck!
And may all Americans win!

I'll be out with "Team Orca" starting at 5:30 am! Gotta go do my duty!

49/49 Polls, polls and more polls

2012-11-04T22:18:00.001-05:00

A last minute look at the polls released today-

CNN/ORC International poll shows a dead heat in the race for the White House, but also on almost every major indicator of President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney that was tested in the poll. That's HUGE. Not that a 49/49 result is what anyone wants...

A new Michigan poll shows Romney eeking ahead 46.86% to President Obama's 46.24%. That would swing Michigan (which in the map I posted yesterday had MI in blue) pink, with its 16 EVs.

A new Rasmussen poll released Sunday also shows the 49/49 split. The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections now show the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 206. Eight states with 95 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio,Virginia and Wisconsin. Note that they did not pull MI out of the O column. I'm going to take MI out of Obama's number and stick it in toss-up, giving us Obama 221, Romney 206, with 111 toss-ups.

And now there's 49 percent support for Obama among likely voters, 48 percent for Romney in the latest ABC News/Washington Post daily tracking poll.

And last but not least, USA Today is also showing a 48/48. Unreal.

Using the latest RCP polls, I filled out the CNN do it yourself map. I kept with the RCP numbers except on Michigan, where I used the latest polls that only came out a few hours ago.

That gives us 274 Obama, 264 Romney.

You know what I think? I think it is impossible to call. Except I think Team Orca just might make the difference in the too close to call states.

What's Team Orca? We'll discuss that on Tuesday.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Possible Election Outcomes and What Happens if there is a Tie??

2012-11-03T01:43:00.002-04:00

Tuesday is coming! Tuesday is coming!

And finally all of the political ads and polling calls will end!! YEAH!!!

Real Clear Politics (and several other outlets) have some useful tools for creating your own electoral results map. My best guess for the electoral college is below.I scrolled my page so that I couldn't see the electoral count total at the top, so I wouldn't be tempted to swing a state one way or the other to make my candidate win. I was very surprised by the total number in the end. I didn't realize a tie was a possibility in the electoral college!

(I created my own electoral map on Real Clear Politics.)
Any time there was a 2 or 3 point spread, I gave it to the higher party. If there was only a 0-2 point spread I gave it to the underdog, IF and only if the chart shows an upward trend in recent weeks for the underdog. The only 2 states I really don't think anyone can call are Virginia and Colorado. I gave both to Romney using my underdog trending upward theory. And because you don't see a lot of Obama supporters in my town. I also called Nevada for Romney based on the fact that in the past it has gone Republican, except in 2008.

So what happens if there is a tie at the electoral college? Some fascinating stuff I tell you. And a strong scenario for a Romney-Biden administration.
Say what?
Oh yes.
Time for a lesson on the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Electoral College, and the calendar that will blow your mind.
We vote on November 6.
Sometime between Nov 6 and Dec 11 the electoral representatives gather with their states to formally declare that their state will be voting a certain way.
(Ahem, people are already raising the Ron Paul disruption flag here. I have no desire to address that right now. Maybe I will if and when there really is a tie.)
The electoral college will be held on December 17th. The votes are cast, but not counted.
The votes are formally counted on January 6.
NOTE- The new 113th Congress will swear-in on January 3rd!
Therefore it is the NEW House of Representatives that counts the votes for president. The new Senate counts the votes for VP. If there is a tie, the 12th Amendment declares that the House then gets to vote and decide who will be the president. And the Senate will vote on who gets the VP seat.
SIGNIFICANT DETAIL- The new House is expected to go overwhelmingly GOP. But the Senate is still a toss up!
And because our Founding Fathers never really cared for a majority of the popular vote of anything, the winner must win with a 2/3rds majority! And the Senate will most likely be 50/50!
Who casts the deciding vote when the Senate is all tied up?
The vice president!
You know, VP Biden.
Yes, it is possible that he would then have to cast the deciding vote for the VP. Does he vote for himself or Paul Ryan in that scenario??
Another interesting conundrum- if you are the newly elected congressperson, and you are a Republican, but your district voted for Obama for president, who do you vote for in your first ever chance to vote in the House? Your party or your people???

(Source: An Electoral College Tie Would Be an Hilarious Disaster, Huffington Post)

Now, another suggestion from my polluted late-night mind-

Sadly, we all know that New York has been suffered a lot of devastation from Hurricane Sandy. Much of the 5 boroughs are still under water and without electricity. This is likely to effect voter turnout. They are already talking about consolidating precincts (and when people don't know where to go vote they don't turn out), and how many precincts have no power.
New York is firmly in the blue right now. Obama has a 26% lead over Romney.
BUT! If voter turnout is low in the boroughs, could the rest of the state sway the overall vote?
Take a look at these older maps-

The top map is Bush/Kerry, the bottom is Obama/McCain. Both times the state went for the Democrat. But look at how much of the state is actually red! Personally I feel that the Bush/Kerry models are more accurate than the Obama/McCain models because McCain never had the support that Romney does now.
In my humble opinion, without the boroughs New York is in play. The overall vote is more important than the county results. And if few people turn out to vote in the boroughs, that can really sway things.

FACT CHECK- I am fairly certain that I am right about overall vote versus county results. I have heard that this is not the case in all states. I can't find any information to indicate I am wrong about New York.

If you pull New York out of the "strong Obama" category and move it to "leaning Romney" you really have a toss up scenario.

One more detail to note- New York has a little known law that allows them to hold a second voting day in case of a natural disaster!

(In all fairness, I applied this same logic to New Jersey which was also hard hit by the storm. However, the state overall is fairly split blue and red, but no one side of the state is more red or blue.)

Here are a few more maps and the way these major publications are calling it-

CNN electoral map with toss-ups Obama 237, Romney 206.

NY Times with toss-ups., Obama 243, Romney 206. The major difference between NYT and CNN is NYT is calling Nevada for Obama.

Real Clear Politics with no toss-ups. Obama 290, Romney 248.

All 3 publications are calling Nevada for Obama. I personally think this is a mistake. Nevada is currently Obama 50, Romney 47.3. Romney has never had the lead in Nevada, but he is on an upward trend there. I think that is a good sign he could catch up and win. And I have a hard time believing that in the end the Mormons won't come out and really win it for him. That is the only state I truly disagree with the polls on. I really do thing the rest of the toss up states are unpredictable at this point.

And more than anything, I think there is little to no chance of this election actually getting settled and answered on Tuesday night.

Are We Controlled by History and Weather?

2012-10-30T14:32:00.000-04:00

Are we a country trapped and held back by its own history?

Be patient with me as I work my thoughts out here. I'm learning as I type.

The most powerful and largest cities in the world are also some of the oldest. The worldwide centers of power continue to reside in their historic birthplaces. And as I look over pictures of of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in Washington, DC and New York City, I can't help but wonder if it is unwise for such important businesses and agencies to be housed in geographically precipitous areas?

Centers of power are located not in the area most protected or beneficial. They are located where history grew them- which means they are centered around archaic trade routes, usually based on ocean or maritime trade. (New York, London, Hong Kong, Chicago, etc.) Most major cities were built around rivers and wind trade routes. As the major ports of commerce, it made sense back then. No major cities were built in their locations because they were centrally located to the nation, in a well-protected (easy to defend) spot, or in an "elementally" wise area (unlikely to be hit by hurricanes, earthquakes, and crippling snowstorms). In fact, most major cities, because of their maritime roots, were built in the worst locations possible for weather problems.

Why haven't any major countries moved their center of power to a more modern, wiser location? I realize it would require a massive and costly change of infrastructure, not to mention overcoming public sentiment and attachment. But with all of our modern technologies and abilities it seems strange to me we have not relocated seats of government and centers of economic strength to more prudent location.

The New York Stock Exchange has been closed for two days. Think about the fiscal impact that has around the world. Weather is controlling the economy. Wouldn't it be smarter to locate such an important financial institution in a more habitable clime?

To me it seems strange that since we have the ability to relocate the most important parts of our infrastructure to more reasonable, safer locations, that we have not yet begun to do so.

Not to mention the national security factors! Wouldn't the seat of government be safer not on a seaboard and instead in the center of the country? Or shouldn't the government and financial headquarters be in areas less likely to be affected by severe weather?

We have NORAD, and most data happens online, and is (in theory) appropriately backed up so as to prevent irreversible losses. But it still just seems to me that it would be wise to move power centers to more modern and technologically wise locations that aren't historically rooted in maritime trade.

As I think it through though, I'm not even really sure where in the U.S. more prudent locations would be. The center of the country- St Louis, Kansas City - comes to mind, but they are very prone to severe weather. San Diego and Phoenix seem to be two of the least weather affected locations in the U.S.. But then, San Diego is also a beneficiary of maritime winds and trade. (Ooh, but more food for thought- how different would the war on drugs be if the government were located that close to the border??) Also, it isn't central enough or secure enough (earthquakes). The more I think about it there is only one state that really comes to mind for not having severe weather. It isn't incredibly central, but it is landlocked, and would have good natural defenses for security purposes. I've never heard of major snowstorms, earthquakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes affecting this region. It has no existing infrastructure though.

So my question to you is this- if you were given the terra firma of the United States, with natural resources intact, as a blank slate to build from the ground up, where would you put your government, military, and financial seats of power?

(I'll put my spots in the comments below.)

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Fiscal Cliff Future Fallouts

2012-10-28T23:56:00.002-04:00

The election is finally less than two weeks away. The “fiscal cliff” is only about two months away. The federal fiscal year has just begun, and many companies and agencies are feeling good. The jobs report next month will look great with many companies getting in some quick hiring now that the federal fiscal year has turned over and new budgets are out.
But will it all hold up? Will the presidential election change things? And how will the fiscal cliff impact you and your portfolio?
Here’s some food for thought: Democrats like to create jobs within the federal government. Republicans like to create jobs with military spending (the jobs come both within the military and in civilian contracts with the military). There is a well defined line between federal and military jobs. The biggest difference is that federal jobs don’t directly help the overall economy (but they do help the government and community), and it only creates a finite number of jobs.
Military sector jobs not only help the military, they help foster research, inventions, development, and improvements from the commercial sector, and help the economy. Not all military spending goes to bullets and bombs. Much of it goes to create new technology that starts out as a need for the military, and gets adapted for civilian use. Case in point- the internet (regardless of what Al Gore may have told you), microwaves, cargo pants, and duct tape. U.S. defense contractors are concerned about future and on-going operations due to uncertainty over military budget cuts promised by President Obama in his campaign, and federal spending cuts under the sequestration (“fiscal cliff”).
The largest defense contractor is Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT). The company researches, designs, develops, manufactures, integrates, operates and sustains advanced technology systems, products and services. It serves customers in domestic and international defense and civil markets. Lockheed will be vulnerable to cuts because of its role in large projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter. The company employs over 100,000 people worldwide.
Lockheed’s CEO, Bob Stevens, said in a call with reporters about the company’s third quarter earnings that the Pentagon had indicated no impact on contracts was expected on Jan. 2 when the cuts would come into force, unless Congress drops the move during its lame duck session. The government advises that contracts would likely not be affected for at least three months (or one fiscal quarter) after that.
Joining the club of CEO’s concerned about sequestration is W. James McNerney of Boeing (NYSE: BA). In September he said that the threat of tax increases and spending cuts “throw cold water on long term planning.” Considering the contractor employs more than 150,000 people across the United States and in 70 countries, it is not good news to hear it is hesitant to hire.
Like all other CEO’s, Northrop Grumman’s Wes Bush is against sequestration. However, on an earnings call in July he told investors, “I want to be clear that we will be ready to address the environment should [sequestration cuts] occur ... we’re going to be ready.”

Active duty military personnel will be exempt from many of the budget cuts, and the Department of Defense will be able to move funds in order to keep critical readiness activities running. However, the cuts do not exempt new equipment and facilities, such as the ones contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman provide. Sequestration would mean the layoff of more than 100,000 Defense employees. The Pentagon’s ability to award new contracts will also be seriously limited and reduced, which will effect contractors down the road (3-4 years).

The fiscal cliff would hurt many businesses and put thousands of people out of work. Can the upcoming elections prevent this disaster?
Here are some scenarios-
First, Congress has to be able to work together, and much of the Congress will be “lame duck.” Motivation should be high regardless of re-election, one would hope, but even the most motivated of employees and/or elected officials have trouble with productivity around the holidays. And much of the required work will happen around the holidays.
If President Obama is re-elected, he will have to contend with re-elected Republicans who will be out to make a very strong point. The possibility of unity and cooperation will be a pipe dream, as Republicans set out to send a clear message to the president.
If President Obama is not re-elected the situation is still muddy and complicated. First, a lame duck administration has nothing to lose. Historically, previous administrations have included the incoming administration on important events. This administration has yet to show a penchant for following previous examples. Will a lame duck administration and a lame duck Congress pull together? Or leave the mess for the new party to deal with?
If the fiscal cliff is not averted and President Obama is re-elected, there will be massive cutbacks, layoffs, and much higher taxes. And all the money men on Wall Street will see it coming, and pull back their money in advance, leading us down the path to a massive crash. And that's before the crushing taxes hit! This is the “taxmageddon” scenario so many people have feared. (My recommendation- withdraw all your savings, move to a tropical island, and live off of $3 a day. It may be your only hope.) Also say goodbye to dividend stocks in the defense industry for several years.
The Washington, DC area will specifically be very hard hit with no turnover in political jobs, while thousands in the defense sector become unemployed. Expect the DC area housing market to take a very hard hit.
If the fiscal cliff is not averted and Governor Romney is elected, there is slightly more hope. There will still be higher taxes, cutbacks, and layoffs due to sequestration. However, Romney promises to make several changes on “Day One” that would alleviate tax burdens on many individuals. The defense sector will also be able to breathe easier, knowing that Romney intends to increase spending, and not make cutbacks on them.
The Washington, DC area will see the typical election turnover in political jobs, and under Romney, not as many defense employees will face long-term unemployment.
If sequestration is avoided and Romney is elected, the defense sector can throw a party. More spending, more jobs, and more contracts mean better stocks. And Washington, DC will suddenly be a great place to find a job with lowered taxes, more spending, and less fear of layoffs.
There is one positive note if sequestration occurs- federal income taxes will likely get delayed a few weeks as the IRS and lawmakers work to quickly rewrite and disseminate the changes to the tax code.

Ruminations on the FINAL Presidential Debate (can I get an amen?)!

2012-10-23T01:33:00.000-04:00

I love the body language and presence in this picture!

Here's a little secret for you-

When it comes to foreign policy, I am not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat. My personal foreign policies have never found a good political home and probably never will, unless Mother Theresa and General Schwartzkopf ever decide to form a party together.

I'm sure you want to know what my foreign policies are, so I'm going to tell you, in my roundabout sort of way. Have you ever read the book, The Ugly American? Well, to put it mildly, this 1960's novel had a profound effect on my political views. But it wasn't just the novel, it was traveling and volunteering in places like Haiti, Romania, and Cambodia and seeing scenes from the book play out in real life.

My political views on international affairs begin with humanitarian aid, and education. I give just as much weight and importance to issues such as sex trafficking and education in low-income countries as I do to sanctions against Iran. Educate and feed the poverty stricken countries now, and you'll improve the world economy and have more peaceful allies in the future. Putting a higher emphasis on bringing clean water and education to countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, and large portions of Africa, can help prevent regimes like Gaddafi's in the future.

Want to create more American jobs? Send Americans overseas to work in third world countries!

Now, back to the debates-

One man had a record to prove and defend; the other had an opinion to defend. And the one with the opinion often had no choice but to give his opinion to journalists before he ever had all of the facts. Of course I say this assuming that a sitting president has far more intel and details about world affairs than a former governor who until recently got his information from the media.

In short, the debate could be summed up as such- Governor Mitt Romney wants the U.S. to play a stronger role in international and peacekeeping conflicts, and would spend more money on the military. President Barack Obama believes the U.S. plays a strong role in the world theater, and tried to show that his leadership is working, and that Romney’s ideas would not work. The problem is that the two men want the same outcome, but their plans to get there are barely different from the other’s.

Shh! I can hear all of you Romney supporters screaming at me from here! I know you hate to hear anyone suggest such a thing, but it’s the truth. Romney and Obama are not that different when it comes to foreign policy. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I kind of missed Ron Paul tonight. He would have at least brought some color and a different opinion to the table.

Both candidates are firmly against Iran getting a nuclear weapon. (But then, is there any candidate, other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants Iran to have an nuke?) Both favor sanctions against Iran, and want to form better allies in the fight against Iran. Romney tried to set himself apart by saying he would take a harder line than Obama, and would indict Iran’s president for inciting “genocide.” Whether or not that is actually a feasible or possible plan, I do not know. It sounds exciting and strong, but may not actually play out well at the United Nations.

The facts of the matter are that we only have so many options in dealing with Iran- turn a blind eye and hope for the best, or military actions, sanctions, and strategic alliances. To the best of my knowledge only Ron Paul favors the blind eye approach.

On the subject of Libya, President Obama said he has taken a leadership role in the changing Middle East, including the ousting of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power.
"I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to—without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq—liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans," he said. (And English teachers everywhere cringed.)

For some reason Romney didn’t take that opportunity to attack the President on the Benghazi assassination. He has not been shy about criticizing Obama on the issue in recent weeks. It was surprising that he didn’t do it in this debate. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.

The one place the two candidates differ significantly is on defense spending, and these differences aren’t just their differences, they are deep down to the core party differences. Democrats don’t like to put money into the military, Republicans do. It is that simple.

Here’s some food for thought: Democrats like to “create jobs” within the federal government. Republicans like to create jobs with military spending (the jobs come both within the military and in civilian contracts with the military). There is a well defined line between federal and military jobs. The biggest difference is that federal jobs don’t help the overall economy, they help the government. And it creates a finite number of jobs. Military sector jobs not only help the military, they help foster research, inventions, development, and improvements from the commercial sector, and help the economy. Not all military spending goes to bullets and bombs. Much of it goes to create new technology that starts out as a need for the military, and gets adapted for civilian use. Case in point- the internet (regardless of what Al Gore may have told you), microwaves, cargo pants, and duct tape.

Both men declared their support for Israel when asked what the U.S. should do if Israel were attacked by Iran. Obama said, “I will stand with Israel if Israel is attacked.” Moments later Romney declared, “If Israel is attacked, we have their back.” But again I ask, is there anyone who plans to turn their back on Israel?

Both candidates also oppose U.S. military involvement in Syria. Obama did try and make some points on his leadership efforts in Syria. However, most of these points failed to hit home, and will not resonate with anyone. The U.S. population overall has remained disconnected to the Syrian conflict, with most of the major news outlets (excluding CNN) largely ignoring it.

A CNN poll released right after the debate showed no clear “winner” for the night. An MSNBC poll showed 59% of viewers were more likely to vote for Obama after the debate (no surprise there). The ABC poll showed the candidates in a virtual tie on international affairs. And a CBS poll showed 53% of the people feeling Obama “won” the debate, 23% felt Romney won, and 25% felt it was a tie. As of midnight, there was not a Fox News report on who “won” the night. But I'm pretty sure we can all predict what their poll will inevitably say.

It is unfortunate that international affairs and foreign policy will continue to stay the American people’s shortcoming. Equal or adequate time is rarely given in classrooms or the media when it comes to the subjects. There are enough domestic issues to fill newspapers and news reports, without needing to invest much in conflicts and stories in faraway lands. And so we are often misinformed and under-informed. We are naively guided by biases, rumors, and third hand ideas, rather than facts and figures. We build opinions on what another country needs having never been to that country, met someone from that country, or listened to the voice of the people in that country. All too often we assume that what they need is a little dose of our American medicine and trample our military in to give it to them. I am happy that both presidential candidates shy away from this approach, and instead lean to negotiations and sanctions first.

All this talk about Iran has me thinking of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live digital shorts-

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

President Obama at the Al Smith Dinner (or Obama Embraced by Catholics/Romney Dines with Rich People)

2012-10-21T22:13:00.001-04:00

President Obama had a few good jokes at the Al Smith dinner too. But only a few, not a lot. His delivery wasn't quite as good as Romney's, and he joked about himself a little too much. But, to be fair, he was funny too.

Mitt Romney Jokes at Al Smith dinner with President Barack Obama

2012-10-18T23:14:00.001-04:00

My only regret is that we can't see the President's reactions!

This is one time where real life actually did it better than the "West Wing."

Thoughts on the Second Presidential Debate

2012-10-17T20:03:00.001-04:00

First, I think President Obama decided to listen during his debate prep sessions finally. He must have figured out that "hope" isn't an actual debate strategy.

That's not to see Governor Romney didn't bring is A game. I believe he did. But the match was more evenly balanced this time.

The big hot topics that emerged from the debate-

1. "Binders full of women."
I admit I did not hear this line the first time around. I was listening as I drove in the car, and missed this entire segment. I was surprised when I got online later that this statement, "binders full of women," was such a big deal. I was very curious what it could be about, because all I could find were people mocking the phrase, but no one saying what it meant, or what was wrong with it. I imagined it to be some horrible thing. I was actually incredibly disappointed to find what a benign statement it really was.

To be honest, it was awkward phrasing, but really, what was so wrong with it?? I don't get it.

2. Libya
Oy vey.
I never have liked Candy Crowley, in spite of my love for CNN. She just really likes to tell people they are wrong and to be critical. I honestly don't think she is more Obama than Romney. She just really likes to correct people, and in this case, she picked poorly. But I actually put the blame for this little moment of confusion on Romney for not fully explaining things. "Act of terror." He should have better explained that calling it an "act of terror," and yet, not terrorism, were not the same thing. But shame on Candy Crowley for not being a better moderator and asking him to explain himself, rather than cutting things off. Even Obama looks a little confused as to what went down.

And the correction admission

3. President Obama's speaking style.
IT HURTS MY EARS.
I bet everyone else with ADD like me is incapable of listening to him for more than a minute. There's so much dead air I lose focus and move on to shiny objects reflecting off the stage lights or counting freckles on the back of my hand. For the love, Mr. President, SPIT IT OUT!
You may want to complain that Obama got 3 more minutes of time than Romney did. But really, he just took up time. It wasn't speaking time. He likes to (pause) speak in (pause) short (pause) staccato (pause) phrases followed by a quick jumbled line altogether when he (pause) doesn't (pause) have a teleprompter to keep him together. (Pause..........................)

Voting with my lady parts?

2012-10-10T00:59:00.001-04:00

President Obama (and others) have encouraged women to "vote with their lady parts."
Yes, I get the point. He wants women to vote for him, the candidate, who has more open and liberal women's rights pertaining to contraception and "women's health.*"
But here's the thing, when did thinking with a sex organ ever lead to a smart choice?
Oh, that's right.
Never.
In fact, don't we actually spend a lot of time trying to convince our friends not to think down south and use their heads instead??
And why would anyone want to ever vote one-note? One cause voting? It's the liberal equivalent of voting strictly on gun rights! Can you even imagine the outcry if the other candidate launched a campaign that said, "vote with your trigger finger?"
You also want to know why "voting with your lady parts" is just plain stupid? The POTUS has very little influence over such things. Congress, the Supreme Court, and state legislators have a lot more influence. Oh and so do doctors. If you are concerned about your lady parts, see a doctor, not a politician.

*I hate the term "women's health." No one is against women having good health. Just like no one is against men's health. This is one of the stupidest terms in recent history. How about we call it what it really is? Reproductive and sexual health would be a better term for it.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Debates- do they matter?

2012-10-02T21:59:00.000-04:00

Debates- do they matter?

I live in a swing state (obviously). I like politics (obviously). I can't go 30 minutes without somehow being bombarded by a political ad (TV, radio, internet, road signs, and/or phone calls). So I admit it is hard for me to fathom that there are undecided voters out there. How can anyone not know at this point?!

The "presidential debates" will start tomorrow night. President Barack Obama versus Former Governor Mitt Romney.

Is there possibly even one thing that could happen in these debates that could sway a voter? Is it wrong of me to assume that the undecideds are also the uninformed? And are they the type likely to watch a debate?

I can't say I don't want to see the two candidates pitted against each other. But only because I want to see my candidate win. It isn't because I want to be taught. Don't get me wrong, there is that tiny modicum of a possibility that maybe President Obama could do something so outrageously unexpected (for instance, admit he sucks at the economy and is a crappy leader) that could make me like him (not the same as sway my vote). Really, I only watch these things in hopes of another Newt Gingrich, "No I would not!" moment.

Which brings me back to my question.

Debates- do they matter?

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!