Forgive me if you've seen this before, but since I'm on a little civil rights tangent today, here is some of the Tao of BB King:

"Water from the white fountain didn't taste any better than from the black fountain."

How good is that? Not only is this quote one of my all-time favorites, but it's also--for better or worse--more or less a perfect simplification of how I approach life. So what if someone feels like he is better than you? So what if you're getting a bit of a raw deal? Are things ok? If so, what else really matters?
If you need $10 and by chance you find two $10 bills on the sidewalk, then some jackass comes by almost instantly and steals one of them from you, hey, great, you've got the $10 you needed now. And that's enough. $20 might be better but come on, now you've got what you needed.
You give me water and I will drink it. If you are doing it hatefully or ignorantly to try to make a point, well too bad for you that's your problem not mine. Maybe it's weak or nonconfrontational but it is what it is and I'm not losing sleep over it. I know I'm the better man and I don't have to prove it to you. So good luck with those ignorant presumptions of yours.

Enough with the Ignorance Already, People

I've been inadvertently reading a lot of political election-related content online the last couple days. It's pretty easy to ride the wave of web info in this particular subject, and I've got to say I haven't stopped myself. Something that caught my attention was California's Proposition 8. It's a proposed ban on gay marriage in the state, something doubly important because California is one of only three(1) states that actually currently recognizes gay couples.
Many states have put gay marriage bans to a vote in the last few elections, so that on its own is not noteworthy. But the current polling on the issue that calls the proposal's chances a toss-up is, especially when you consider that California has the fifth-highest percentage of same-sex households in the nation, as well as the ninth-highest score on a liberal-conservative Likert scale (meaning it's the ninth-most liberal). So what we have is quite clearly a very liberal state, and beyond that, in fact a very progressive state, which has been traditionally gay-friendly so that it's population is made up of a high number of gays, but that is still about a 50-50 shot to outright ban gay marriage in less than two weeks.
I find this slightly amazing. But I find the culture that allows Prop 8 to be a toss-up and not a clear failure endlessly more amazing.
What is a gay person? What is so fundamentally different about a gay person that should disqualify him or her from being married? What is it inside a seemingly rational person that prompts him from deciding that a gay person is so different that he should be disqualified from marriage?
A gay person is not an animal. He is not a monster or a devil. He is not an infidel worthy of assassination.
I try pretty hard to understand both sides of any issue. I mean I can empathize very well and I try always to give the benefit of the doubt. But the continued prejudice against homosexuals in this country--LEGAL prejudice--is just embarrassing. There is no argument, there is no appropriate opposing viewpoint. If you oppose gay rights today it is just like if you had favored slavery in 1850. People who oppose gay rights have to know that they are on the wrong side of history, that opposition to equal rights has, in the long run, been defeated every single time in the history of this country. You can fight it all you want today--and you might be able to prey on certain fears or ignorances--but you will lose in the end. I guarantee you will lose because you have nothing to stand on but hate. Were the US a fascist country, then the ultimate resolution of this issue might be in doubt, but fortunately for us, it is not.
I don't know how many times I can say this or how many times I can be utterly disappointed in the American people and especially those in power who allow these things to happen. There is simply no excuse.

I understand now of course that banning gay marriage is a more specific issue than general gay rights, that there are narrow factors at play, that it can be more of a political issue than a civil one.(2) But I know that this is about more than specific laws or political procedures. It's about fairness and the freedom to live in this country as a human being. It took a war, but eventually no one worried about whether or not it was prudent before ratifying the 13th amendment to the constitution (3), they just did it because it was right. It's a shame we had to effect such a serious course of action as a constitutional amendment, but that speaks more to the sorry state of a large minority of the American population at the time that was ,as we all know, on the wrong side of history.
Unfortunately since close to half of the people in the largest and usually one of the most progressive states in the country still seems to oppose equality for homosexuals, maybe we'll eventually need to draft another amendment.
I'd rather that we as Americans woke up and stopped being so goddamned ignorant.


1. I'm counting Connecticut even though it hasn't taken effect there yet.
2. So let's talk about them briefly. You could argue that gay marriage should be banned because god wants marriage to be one man and one woman. Fine. Make it a church issue. Let dumbfuck preachers decide who they want to join in holy matrimony. But then you'd have to eliminate the tax breaks for married couples cause that would be 1) unfair and obviously discriminatory, and 2) a clear violation of the constitution's separation of church and state. If you get rid of the federal tax breaks and simply make marriage a religious ceremony (as it should be), then I think over time, the idea of "marriage" would rightfully lose some of its perceived luster, as more and more people in this country seem to be making the inevitable drift away from organized religion. Back to the point though. Putting the power in the hands of the churches would clearly have the effect of legalizing gay marriage because the whole reason these ballot initiatives are always for a BAN on gay marriage is that some churches have already stepped up and begun marrying homosexuals in some states. And as much as I like to find flaws with religion in general, it's adherents are not all bad of course, and their overall mission is to spread good, so definitely some preachers and churches actually support equality and happiness and love for all. Good for them. Welcome to modern civilization. Or to the ideals of their friend Jesus.
3. Abolition of slavery, of course.

1. I feel like shit. I'm sick of getting sick at the same time every year. Whoever heard of seasonal allergies unrelated to pollen? Bullshit. Worst part is, this was the year that I finally resolved to get my first-ever flu shot. Then, about two weeks ago, I got an email from the HR director at work announcing free flu shots given right here at my office--in three weeks, or next Friday. So I first thought, gee that's kinda late for a flu shot. Then I thought, yeah but it's free. So I saved myself maybe $20 and here I am sick. I know it's after the fact, but I don't know what's more pathetic: that I'm so cheap that I refused to spend $20 on something like this, or that I'm so cheap that even now I actually think that not spending the $20 was the right call. At least I'm leaving work early today. Going to go home at taking a fucking nap. On a Friday evening. Middle-age here I come.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.

Yes, There Are Other Options

Let's stay mostly topical today. Politics. Elections. Votes. If you know me, maybe you know that after the 2004 election I enacted a boycott against both of the two major parties in the US, vowing never to vote for a member of either one again.(1) The reasons for this boycott, or more specifically for this extreme distaste for the major parties that precipitated their boycott, are somewhat lengthy and complex, such that I'd rather not partake in the argument now. Another time, I promise. Suffice to say that I'd much prefer a political environment where many different ideas or platforms have room to be taken seriously, and where people don't have to compromise their beliefs in order to fit into one party or the other.
Of course what I'm talking about is being elected, since any person can support any other person or belief, but it's a very different thing to have actually hope that their candidate has a chance to get elected. A member of a third party could never get elected to national office in this country as it's currently operated. The two major parties are simply too rich and powerful, suffocating any possibility for another voice. The only option is to change the election system.
The US currently uses a plurality voting system(2), which just means that the most votes win, no many how small a percentage that person has. I encourage you to read up on it yourself, but trust me that this system inevitably leads to the two-party system. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this problem: negative votes. It's called a balanced plurality system and it's actively and thoughtfully proposed by someone named Donald Kronos.(3)
If we can vote for someone, why can't we vote against someone? It's so simple and obvious. More importantly, it much more accurately reflects a voter's intent, which is really the whole point of getting off your ass and voting in the first place.
Take 2004 for instance. Many people did not like George Bush. Many. Many people also did not like John Kerry, but were forced to vote for him as their only chance to speak their opinion about Mr Bush. So in this particular election, you could say that a lot of independent voters cast votes for the Democrat when really they were just voting against the Republican. After time this dissatisfaction would manifest itself in more varied parties winning more and more votes, until ideally anyone would have a chance.(4)
A side thought on this: imagine the possible effects of negative voting if it were enacted for the first time in 2004. Presumably Bush would have had almost as many negative votes as positive--totaling millions of each--while Kerry would have likely garnered slightly more positive than negative, though with ridiculously fewer votes in both column. Let's play with this example:
In 2004, a total of 121,069,054 votes were cast for either Bush or Kerry, 62,040,610 for Bush, 59,028,444. Let's assume that of Bush's 62M, 38M were actually "pro" votes, while 12M were "anti" -Kerry votes, with 12M belonging to independent or 3rd-party sympathizers drawn in by the close race. Similarly, we'll assume that of Kerry's 59M, 9M were pro votes while 40M were anti-Bush, with 10M others. This is very rough, but it covers the national consensus somewhat at least. What we're left with is Bush at -2,000,000, Kerry at -3,000,000, and 22,000,000 votes that would have been spread around amongst the smaller party candidates. The highest-polling of these was Ralph Nader at close to half a million votes. But that's positive votes, so theoretically he would be our winner, depending on how those 22,000,000 people decided to cast their ballots. Amazing.
This is no personal reflection on everyone's favorite consumer advocate(5), but that result sounds better to me.


(1) Technically, this boycott was broken when I voted for the "Republican" Michael Bloomberg for mayor of New York in 2005. Mr Bloomberg switching to Independent in 2007 merely made official what was quite obvious for the duration of his public life as a "Republican." I say I keep my honor.
(2) Go ahead and wikipedia that, I did when I was curious about different electoral processes. You would be amazed at how many different ways there are to choose a government. Not just half-baked systems either, as many countries (democracies of course, big ones too--Germany) use completely different systems than we do.
(3) See his full blog for multiple variations on the balanced plurality theme. He has a three-step proposal: negative votes, multi-stage voting, and split votes, but I prefer the first and simplest of those described on its own here.
(4) Lookup "feedback" to understand this differently. Basically, the results of one election will directly influence the voting behavior in the next, and so on. This results in the consolidation of power in two major parties. It's why the Democrats, and not some third party, are now in power after general dissatisfaction with the Republicans the last few years, and why the Republicans took power in 1994 after the Democrats were turned out, and on and on through history.
(5) Sometimes you just have to love the guy though: when asked about possibly spoiling a Democratic victory in 2008: "Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form." Couldn't agree more.

Once more into the breach

But now with trepidation.
Ok so I thinking of falling off the wagon again. Or falling on or whatever. I participated in an NFL picks minipool with a couple friends two weeks ago and did fairly well. So well that I'm rueing not having made actual online wagers on the games. So well that I'm wanting to open up an account and have a go at online gambling again. Actually, if you know me even a tiny bit, you know that it doesn't take much to effect these desires.
As I am a few years older and some dollars lighter thanks to my last foray into online gambling, I approach this attempt more conservatively and certainly more analytically (or at least I'm going to give the impression of the latter). In this vein, I've decided to pick every game both on point spreads and over/unders, in order to get a true feel for my prognosticating powers. Picking every game is key because when gambling online for real I will usually only select 5-6 wagers per week, the ones I'm presumably most confident in, while the others I'll leave for the suckers to pick. The problem is that unless you are truly excellent are picking games, your judgement on what's most certain will be just as random as your overall picks. The other reason for selecting every game is to expand the sample size and to eliminate having the memory of only a couple nice victories overshadow several losses. This selective memory I believe is my achilles heel as a sports gambler, and truly the mark of a potentially dangerous gambler. So I'm approaching this from a hopefully humble and pragmatic fashion. (Also, for my own curiosity and vanity, I'm going to specially designate 6 games each week as confident picks, to simulate games that I would actually bet on were the exercise done for real. This will allow me to track my overall acumen while getting a feel for whether or not my confidence is lucky or actually a product of some positive trend.
Results so far:
Week5:
14-8 overall (2 pushes)
5-5 Against the spread
9-3 over/unders
Week 6:
16-12 overall
10-4 ATS
6-8 O/U
5-1 in Special Picks

So we've got a bit to work with so far. 30-20 overall, 15-9 ATS, 15-11 O/U. Assuming a standard $22 bet on each wager gives me a +$160 overall, split into +$102 for ATS and +$58 O/U. My 5-1 special picks from Week 6 would have netted me $78 in profit.
These obviously are good results overall, but still erratic when you notice my strong suit switched from ATS wagers one week to O/Us the next. And of course the 83% success rate on special picks far outpaces my 60% mark overall, meaning that it real terms I would have won lots of money this week but would surely have to expect to come back to earth some in the coming weeks. The big positive news is that, for now, "back to earth" is still a 60% success rate.
It should be noted that given the standard vig ($22 bet only wins you $20 profit on a win, whereas a $22 bet loses you the full $22 on a loss), you must win at least 52.38% of the time to break even. So if I'm not doing at least that well, I shouldn't be playing.
I'll be checking back in periodically with updates on my performance. I promise it will be cleaner and more concise. Not like anyone cares. Well, after I start winning big and turning into a big shot and picking up bar tabs, then some sonsabitches will care.

*To look at my Week 6 results even closer, my ATS bets won by a total of 122 pts for an average victory margin of +8.7. My 10 wins were by an average +15.6 pts, while my 4 losses were by an average -8.5 pts. This is good and indicates that my wins weren't simply due to luck or close calls.

Get Real: Two Points on Election 2008

Gee, this is two straight posts about politics. You'd think there was an election going on or something.
1. As it seems more likely that Obama will win (see #2), it's interesting to view his candidacy and campaign and compare it to the past couple elections. Please now note the seeming superficial absurdity of comparing GWBush to Obama, with all the attendant automatic shock involved therein.
- Democrats now hate that part of why Bush beat Gore in 2000 was the simple and irresponsible fact that many people voted for him based on the fact that he seemed like a more personable guy (The infamous "who would you rather have a beer with" approach to voting, which seemed like a benign enough idea in fall 2000 as both the economy and the twin towers were still riding fairly high).
So, how is election 2008 going? Not like I am a perfect national bellweather, but it seems pretty obvious that a large chunk of Obama's advantage right now could be attributed to the fact that most of America finds him to simply be more personable and generally attractive.
The most instructive way to react to this analysis is not to revel in the hypocrisy of any Obama-supporting Democrat who complains about how dumb Americans vote not on issues but on superficialities, but instead to realize simply that most presidential elections are won by the more attractive candidate, and to accept that in the current climate that's just the way it is (not that that makes it right).
- Probably the other major reason Obama is ahead at the moment is due to his huge financial advantage. It's almost a waste of time to mention that the oil-rich Bush family and the well-known Republican money machine contributed mightily to GW's two victories.
I'd like to think that with the almost infinite expansiveness of media lately, this $=win effect has become more and more important. Elections have always been about money, but naturally as the amount of money required simply to compete increases exponentially, so too does it's importance as a single end-all issue.

2. Using info I've absorbed partially through the excellent site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (warning: the editorial content is admittedly slanted), I can't help but see how this election could more and more likely turn into an electoral college rout, even though such a result would seem impossible given the tightness of recent presidential elections. I'm not saying now that McCain has no chance, but that if Obama wins as is currently expected, it could end up a much wider margin than expected.
Let's break it down a little:
Obama looks very safe in 16 states worth a total of 197 EC votes (the Northeast: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Marland, Deleware, and DC; the Pacific: California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii; plus his home state of Illinois and the corn capital of Iowa (McCain is strangely stubborn against biofuels)).
McCain is very safe in 16 states worth a total of 134 EC votes (the South: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma; and the Great Plains: Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming; plus his home state of Arizona and Palin's home state of Alaska).
197 - 134 doesn't look terribly bad but to that we can add all the 10 states that are clearly favoring Obama right now (New Hampshire 4, plus the Big Ten: Pennsylvania 21, Michigan 17, Wisconsin 10, and Minnesota 10; plus "battleground" states of Florida 27, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, New Mexico 5, and Nevada 5). This adds a huge 121 EC votes to make it 318-134. Note that this also puts Obama well over the 270 needed to win, and we've only included states where he is currently in very good shape; there are still 86 votes unaccounted for.
If we give McCain three states he clearly leads in (Montana 3, North Dakota 3, and South Dakota 3), that only moves it to 318-143, with only six states left (Ohio 20, Indiana 11, North Carolina 15, Missouri 11, West Virginia 5, and Georgia 15).
For the purposes of this exercise, and because it's still almost four weeks to go, we are going to take some liberties. But if you look at the polls and give Obama wins in all the states we've already given him, then it becomes very easy to give Obama Ohio and Indiana. It's also not hard at all to assume that if he maintains a strong lead into November, that McCain's status will have deteriorated in many of these tight states, so that we can go ahead and turn current close Obama leads in Missouri and North Carolina into wins. It might end up closer than currently but go ahead and let McCain keep West Virginia.
This changes the total to 375-148, with only Georgia not counted. I think you would agree that 375-148 would be considered a pretty big victory, important insomuch that it would allow Obama and the Democrats to actually declare something close to an actual mandate, which is usually not much more than posturing but would have some credence considering a black man had won such support and in the process knocked off many states that had been recently locked in as Republican.
Let's turn for a second finally to Georgia. Georgia is a Deep South state. It would be big big news for a Democrat to win there, not to mention a black Democrat. But if Obama's national numbers mostly hold til election day, it's a real possibility.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html
This is a good and interesting synopsis. He might need to gain a point or two generally but support of blacks and a higher-than-usual turnout (indicative of his superior organization possible through his vast budget) could actually push him over the top. It's something worth watching as a barometer for how some extremely important beneath-the-surface issues will play out all around the country.
Unless something big happens to change the course of the election, I think everything is going to start cascading for Obama and lead him to a huge victory. The likability factor will keep him ahead in the polls and his massive funding advantage will turn all these little things in his favor. In the end, he probably won't even need both advantage, just one or the other would suffice.