chicus.com

Seating the Senate    Jan 05, 2009
Tomorrow (Tuesday) could be interesting in seating the senate as it seems two people may not be seated. Al Franken, who appears to have won the seat in Minnesota, and Roland Burris in Illinois, the pick of the castigated Gov of Illinois. Oy vey, what is the Midwest doing?!

I don't have a lot of new ground to cover on either of these but there is one aspect of the Burris appointment which I find interesting but have not heard mentioned. I will interrupt myself to say that regardless of that innocent until proven guilty wording in our laws, I think it has to be assumed Blagojevich is guilty, the tape is too hard to ignore.

Anyhow, Burris is by all accounts a stand up guy and it is worth noting he is a solid African American appointee filling the shoes vacated by another African American. It is a point I don't think was lost on Blag...he's sleazy but he's smart. So it will be difficult for them not to seat him and really test the legality of what they are doing. They certainly can't make the case he is unfit.

But the part I think is most interesting was the beginning of the press conference when Blag explained why he is making a pick. "The people of Illinois are entitled to have two United States senators represent them in Washington DC. As governor I am required to make this appointment. If I don't make this appointment then the people of Illinois will be deprived of their appropriate voice and vote in the United States Senate. Therefore I am here to announce my intention to appoint an individual..."

Frankly, he is doing what he is required to do. What caught me though is that the residents of Washington DC have to be more than slightly irked by these proceedings. A soon-to-be criminal is making the appointment of a representative for his constituents when the people of Washington do not have that representation.

It's all by the book, I am not saying it's shady or illegal. But how pissed must the people of DC be to pay the same taxes as residents of Illinois but not have any seats in the senate and hear this smug, crooked, a-hole give the finger to his detractors and make an appointment and then say he is being 'lynched' on the way out the door. I just find it interesting.

Obama Wins    Nov 05, 2008
I'm wired. How do you write the sound of a satisfied sigh? You can't see the smile on my face or the calm of my gait. But that is what I have. It's 12:31 AM on November 5 and Obama has just finished his acceptance speech. I have so many conflicting emotions, so bear with me as I try to allow you to ride that roller coaster with me.

First off, let there be no doubt that I wanted Obama to win. I was more critical of him than many of the supporters I talked to and it may have come across as questioning if he was the candidate I supported, but that was not it at all. I just wanted to alleviate the concerns I have for him. It didn't completely happen but I can't deny the joy I felt as the results started rolling in.

In the days leading up to the election I flipped on the Yes We Can video with some frequency, just to serve as a reminder of the hope which I believe Obama holds. It's hard to feel the same vigor when listening to speeches about policy and the slander which came from both each campaign so I turned to the one thing I could consistently believe in...that Obama intends to bring about positive change. As with any candidate we can only take such promises at face value but in listening to the speeches which made up that music video I felt he deserved my trust.

Yet the realist and cynic in me has not died. It is quite possible that a Dem pres with a Dem Senate and House could do harm (not to mention swinging the tide of power in the Supreme Court, which is also likely). There is a reason for the checks and balances in our system of government and while I generally believe Dems will support my belief more closely than Republicans, they could run amok with power just as easily. It is entirely possible that our nation, in their frustration with the current administration, have driven themselves to the polar opposite. Time will tell and obviously I do not wish that upon us.

Because I was somewhat conflicted I was surprised at the exhilaration I felt while biking home from the little election party at Wardman. It was 10:00 and things were looking good but nobody in the media was calling the race. Certainly alcohol helped enhance my mood, as did the pleasantly crisp November air. But booze and weather alone could not explain my mood. There was the moment as I was cruising down South Huntington where I first heard an NPR reporter refer to him as the next president and it didn't seem like a pundit calling out his favorite, it was based on the facts as they were unfolding. It still gives me chills.

As I said, I am cautiously optimistic. There is no way to know the struggles ahead in the next 4 years or how the decisions our government makes will affect those struggles. But for tonight I will sleep in peace believing our nation got past any past reservations they had about race to elect the man most likely to bring us back from the hole the previous administration dug, both at home and abroad.

Did you hear that one last contented sigh? :)

The Other Vote    Nov 03, 2008
I guess there is some election tomorrow that has all kinds of people in a tizzy. They're calling for huge turnout, even in places where votes don't count, like here in MA.

I'm trying to figure out when I should vote. The easiest would be to get there when the polls open at 7:00. However, I'm pretty certain I am not the only one to have that idea. So that has me thinking I should try to head home for an early (or late) lunch, a 40 minute round trip ride, assuming the trains are running regularly. Or maybe I just get in to work early and get back to Brookline by around 4:30. Eh, whatever, it will work out.

There are three referendum votes in MA. Question 1 would cut the income tax rate by 1/2 in 2009 and eliminate it in 2010. I plan to vote no. As much as I like the thought of lower taxes, I think the premise is flawed. Generally, it is that the state wastes X% of its income and the the state income tax brings in X+1% of the state revenue. So we could eliminate the income tax and still have the 1% surplus and encourage fiscal responsibility. Like I said, I like the premise, I just don't think it works. To say you will eliminate wasteful spending by reducing the revenue is to completely neglect what is going on in our society right now. People have less disposable income and are cutting back on wasteful spending but they are also cutting back on 'essentials' to allow for some of their wasteful habits to continue. I believe the government would do the same.

Or, in another way, I think it is like a person who buys a treadmill before they are running because it will serve as motivation to run. Occasionally this strategy does work. However, the treadmill is much more effective if you are already in the mindset to go out and run.

Question 2 would decriminalize the possession of up to 1 oz of marijuana. I plan to vote yes. I'm not a pot-head by any means, I've used it once in the last five years so I don't really expect this to affect my life in any way. Basically, I think marijuana affects society in a way more similar to tobacco and alcohol than heroin, cocaine, etc. It can be abused and therefore has the potential to have a negative effect on society. However, I am continually surprised to hear how many of my coworkers (and not just those in my age group!) enjoy sitting back with a little weed on occasion. These are stand-up respectable citizens who enjoy a little smoke in the same way many of us enjoy a beer or glass of wine when unwinding after a long day. They aren't criminals, they aren't deadbeats, they are productive as you and I. There should be laws similar to alcohol use, like smoking and driving, but there is no reason to punish them for small amounts to be used in the privacy of their own homes.

Question 3 is a proposal to ban dog racing. This is the one I am debating more than the others, though I believe I have decided to vote against the ban. The case in favor is that the dogs are mistreated, basically to the point of abuse. They cite small cages and injuries as the major problems. However, as Justin noted this evening, the kennels he has for his dogs are barely large enough for them to turn around and his dogs love them. He also noted that one of his dogs broke a leg while running and a third dog died as a result of a virus it caught while in Wisconsin (proponents also cite a virus which killed many racing dogs while kenneled). Anyhow, in no way do I see Justin as an abuser of his dogs and therefore it is hard to see the lifestyle of racing dogs as abusive. Furthermore, both sides of the argument agree that dog racing is a dying sport so I don't see a reason to prematurely put those who are employed in the industry out of work with this terrible economy. They would end racing on 1/1/2010 but the 'experts' I have heard don't seem optimistic the economy will be back on track by then.

So if you haven't already, go online to see a sample ballot for your precinct. Get out and vote and don't forget about all the candidates you haven't heard of or issues on the back page of the ballot. It's going to be a wild night and I just hope we have a president by Wednesday morning.

Sox/Rays Game 5    Oct 17, 2008
As I'm flying out to Chicago at the crack of dawn tomorrow I thought it was a good night to come home from work, pack, and watch the game while writing you.

So Curt Schilling threw out the first pitch, which was kind of cool. At least until he bounced it to the plate. I guess it has been a year since he has thrown so we will cut him some slack. Maybe the Sox can carry some of his grit into the game tonight. (Crossing fingers.)

Upton connects on a drive onto the monster, 2-0. It's the third time in as many games that the Rays struck first and have quickly quieted the crowd. There have been a lot of complaints about the fans being too quiet, even Varitek mentioned that fans need to wake up. But on cold nights when you are shocked to see the reigning world champions getting out-pitched, outhit, and outmanaged by a team that has to this point been a perennial cellar-dweller I can't blame a fan for being silent. I think Cubs fans could relate this year.

Ortiz Ks in the first. After his triple on Tuesday I really thought he was ready to break out for the rest of the series. It still could happen but it isn't looking promising.

I sincerely cannot get a read on Daisuke. For the longest time I thought he was the most overrated 18 game winner in the majors. He's gone to a full count on four of the first eight batters.

Foly huck. I'm upstairs now, listening on the radio. The Sox just tied it up 7-7 in the bottom of the 8th. I was feeling positive even going into the bottom of the 6th when the Sox were down 5-0. However, when Pedroia allowed two inherited runners to score and the Rays went up 7-0 in the 7th I considered it over. However, the good guys were able to string together a few hits and Ortiz did come through, knocking 3 run dinger, bringing it to 7-4. Then in the bottom of the 8th Drew smacked another homer, scoring Bay, and a Coco hit tied it up, though he was subsequently thrown out trying to stretch a double.

I went downstairs to watch the game to begin the bottom of the 8th but after the first out decided it would be a jinx to do so and moved back up here. Yeah, you can doubt me. But they tied it up because I listened to the game from my bedroom. :P

Holy balls. Sox win. Two down in the 9th, Youk gets an infield hit and goes to second on the throw. Bay walks, which is smart, he was 2 for 5 with RISP, I think. Drew comes up and from what I can tell hit one over Gross's head, who must have been playing in? Again, I was stuck listening.

It was a ridiculous win. Like I said, I had lost hope and I am OK with admitting that. Game 6 will be tough. I'm concerned about Beckett, I think he may be more hurt than he is letting on. Luckily there is a day off so our pen can rest (theirs too, I suppose). I'm cautiously optimistic our hitting will be there too. Crisp was solid at lead-off and Papi, while not hitting for average, had another hit. (Knocking on wood.) I think this will go to 7 games. Gwen and Vince, I apologize in advance, my attention will be split for the beginning of your reception. Though the game has been pushed back so I won't miss dinner. :)

The Final Debate    Oct 16, 2008
OK, so what follows below are some thoughts I had while watching the final debate. Complete it is not. I was pretty well focused for the first half but was then distracted by making lunch for tomorrow (remaining cheap!) and then a friend alerted me that Bon Iver was coming back to Boston so I had to search for tix. I know, it is a quick process but Bon Iver's personal site had links to a broker or something that wanted 10x the face value but by going to ticketmaster I was able to get them at face value. Anyhow, it took a bit longer than I expected and I was so excited I wasn't paying attention to the debate, despite a question about education, which is something I strongly believe in, not just because it pays my bills.

So below are my original thoughts and because my typing is not as fast as their speaking, I definitely missed parts. I'll try to expand right now as I see fit but it is 11:30 so I can't take a ton of time.

i like the sit down, ask their own follow-up format, at least in theory.

Why is your economic plan better than your opponent's plan?
M: buy mortgages, put people back in their homes.
O: jobs (stop shipping overseas), tax cut...200k, lower than previous 250k?
M: strong use of someone who had met Obama, joe the plumber, moving him into a higher tax bracket.
O: redirect to McCain lowering taxes for big businesses.

I like the theory behind buying mortgages rather than securities but frankly, it is over my head. It's all theory to me and as I generally trust Obama more, I trust his theories over McCain. It was interesting that Obama had previously said tax breaks would begin at $250,000 but it seems to have been revised down to $200,000. I support this, again in theory, only because I don't think it makes sense to say we can cut a ton of taxes after this bailout and the national debt hitting $10 trillion. So my question is that if Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of people, will the remaining 5% make up the difference?

Also, this was a great example of no specifics from McCain. The whole conversation was about Obama's plan. No mention or specifics of McCain's. That is what gets me. It seems to happen with some frequency. It is very clear what McCain opposes, but what does he support?

What are specifics on what will be cut back to minimize 450k deficit next year?
O: Cut programs, but no specifics. Invest in preventative medicine, alternative energy, education. (I support all this but don't doesn't answer short-term problems.)
M: "I want to get back to home ownership." Spending freeze, hatchet then scalpel. Marketing assistance program, subsidies for ethanol. (FINALLY specifics and while from Iowa and farmers in my family I think subsidies for ethanol are bad, support revamping it and setting a minimum guaranteed price but as I understand it now, farmers still get corn subsidies even at record high prices...though it is at least in part do to other agriculture interests.) Line item veto...don't support that, removes checks and balances.
O:
M: asked if he can balance the budget. "sure I can" and redirects that Obama should have run 4 years ago against bush, the way he references Bush's policies.
O: History of reaching across the aisle on smaller things...clean coal, tort reform, performance-based teacher raises...because he is generally aligned on other items

Negative tone of the campaigns:
M: Makes himself sound like the victim when his VP candidate is making personal attacks. I agree that Obama should decry the comments of others but he has no room to speak when his VP says Obama is making friends with terrorists.
O: CNN shows 'uncommitted Ohio voters' feelings towards comments. Peaked when he said they deserve to hear specifics of plans, not attacks, but dropped when he said "but John McCain...".

At this point I just felt Obama just had a generally calming presence. McCain sounds/looks like he is on the attack and uncomfortable. However, when Obama gets the big smile, borderline laughs, like with ACORN, it is disconcerting. Why does ACORN/Ayers bring a different reaction than any other personal attack? MOST attacks he just ignores and downplays. But to laugh about it, TO ME, makes him seems excessively dismissive and it doesn't sit well.

O: To his credit, Obama didn't interrupt with clarification of the supposed launch of his political life at Ayers' home and let it go to the next question

Why is your running mate better than your opponent's?
Sorry, I misheard this at first and went to make my lunch for tomorrow, missed the rest and most of energy independence.

Health Care
More of the same. Though I am curious what line Obama draws between small and large business. McCain, I just think Obama has poked holes in his plan. Average spent on medical bills is $5800, that means some people will do VERY well, some will be in really, really, really bad shape. I think of a friend whose son has diabetes and what he spends is well above 5k for his family. Also, I had an MRI last year which was charged at $2k. If my tax break as an individual is $2500, where does that leave me for normal checkups, eye, dental, and mental health?

Supreme Court Judges and Roe v. Wade
M: Judged on merits, not ideology. (Great in theory but I am unable to say he supports that in practice.
O: "Good people on both sides can disagree on ___." (Good diplomatic answer which I missed the end of.) Constitution states a right to privacy that states should not be allowed to overrule. (I am pretty certain I agree with this but will have to reread the context to be sure.)
M: Obama voted as "present" 130 times. (I'm trying to work that one out myself. I mean, neither Obama or McCain are doing the duty they are paid to do right now but it certainly gives the appearance that Obama is working to not take a stance on controversial issues. Again, maybe more research is necessary.

Anyhow, those were my notes. In a continued attempt to be objective would say Obama won this one primarily because McCain seemed to have that exasperated look on his face much more often, as well as seemed to try to interrupt frequently. I think Obama handled himself well and with the exception of that smirk that bothered me, seemed in control. I also feel that McCain spent more time arguing Obama's points than stating his own. I just can't get behind someone whose policies I don't know.

Another Debate    Oct 07, 2008
Another presidential debate. But wait, who are these people? Where's the woman? That black guy wasn't there last week, did he just enter the race? Seriously, it was kind of amazing how little hype there was for this debate compared to the VP debate.

They were both kind of nasty tonight, definitely more barbs than the previous debate. Frankly, I don't give credit to either of them for that.

I was generally unimpressed with the debate. I felt like they just restated things we had heard before. There was nothing that caught my ear, nothing grabbed me. They answered some questions, avoided others. Both went over time frequently, though it appeared McCain tried a bit harder as the night wore on to end promptly.

Generally, I think McCain had a better showing. I'm speaking as a decided voter and speaking as though my audience has decided as well. I don't think either candidate gave a reason for a decided voter to change their mind or question the beliefs of the candidate they support. However, I give McCain the nod because he seemed more comfortable. Obama wasn't as crisp and articulate as normal, he fumbled a bit more and had to think on his feet a bit more and he just didn't look at ease. That being said, it felt that McCain did make more jabs at Obama than the other way and you already know how I feel about that.

You'll notice I am not citing any details or quotes in this review. I had a few I wanted to add originally but the omission is a reflection of not catching anything new from either candidate (though I guess NPR said McCain unveiled something new...I didn't catch it however).

The Veep Debate    Oct 02, 2008
OK, so I can't write about the debate objectively. Or at least it doesn't feel objective. Maybe I am objective and when the Mr. Smartypants pundits tell us how we should feel about the debate they will all agree with me. Either way, I was pleasantly unimpressed by Sarah Palin. I guess I gave the Republican party too much credit...

The only time she seemed comfortable is when she was being snarky and passive-aggressive. She did that very well. Otherwise I feel like she relied too heavily on her notes and strayed from the point too much. Did I say stray? That makes it sound very gradual and unintentional but it was not.

Both candidates were clearly prepared and relied upon notes, that is no surprise. However, she was often reading, not referring to, and often before questions it felt like she was cramming to prepare for her answer. In all fairness Biden had a few of those moments himself and I wasn't a fan of him doing it either. However, it was nearly every question for her.

A nice combination of the cutting remark she seemed comfortable with and dodging a question was her response to Biden's comment that he didn't hear an answer to the question posed. To paraphrase, "I may not answer the questions you want me to because I am speaking to the American people." Is this a debate or a stump speech? Isn't the point to answer questions? Flaunting that she was going to ignore the format didn't seem respectful of the intent of a debate. To me it read as her wanting to stick to her prepared points and avoiding anything she was not thoroughly prepped for. Again, I know deviation from the question is natural and Biden did it as well. But at least he addressed the questions briefly before redirecting.

She offered a 'shout out' to her brother's school?!? What the frick? Is this a presidential debate or TRL?

I don't think anything really changed because of this debate. Obama/Biden 'won' each debate but nobody made a fool of themselves. Does that seem contrary to what I have said throughout this post? I don't know how it played out to undecideds. I think there is plenty for her detractors to grab on to but her supporters can also say she didn't screw up (nor did Biden, as could have easily happened). Personally, I see a small bump for Obama based on the debate but I don't see Republicans jumping ship because she screwed McCain's chances.

Anyhow, I am sure I am missing something. I caught 5 'maverick' references but I believe there were 1-2 more near the end. 'Hockey mom' was only once but she did introduce 'joe sixpack' to her vocabulary.

OK, to bed for me. I was going to stay up for the end of the Cubs game but at 7-0 I think it is best that I just sleep. Cubs fans, remember 2004 when the Sox were down 3-0. It's still possible, though I admit winning 2 in LA is a tall order.