Short: The sequester quantified

I'm not a complete nerd, but I long ago decided not to be scared of numbers, so I looked at the 394-page sequester report. The report is actually pretty simple-- it lists federal agencies and how much their budgets are going to be cut, like this:

The cut levels are 2% for some special favored programs (like Medicare), 7.6%, 8.2%, and 9.4% (mostly for defense programs). Some lucky programs have no cuts, like Social Security and Medicaid. The overall savings from these cuts are just $1.2 trillion over 10 years, that is only $120 billion a year or one-tenth of our current deficit.

The cuts and the which functions would be affected were determined by the debt ceiling deal that passed over a year ago. The Congress people who passed this legislation probably know what they voted for, and could probably put together this report, but they hoped to embarrass Obama and pin the cuts on him. That's a pretty weak ploy. Personally, I'm glad the debt ceiling deal had teeth. Finally a bit of fiscal sanity.

Anyone complaining about this had better make a damned good argument against these cuts and offer a better alternative.

One additional reflection: It takes 220 pages to list all the federal agencies and bureaus, though I fear that maybe even this listing isn't all the federal bureaus. This makes me wonder if the federal government is trying to do too much. However, I didn't see obviously ludicrous agencies. Maybe ending non-ludicrous agencies is part of budget sanity too.

Last outpost of crazy: Feuding Amish

This could also be filed under Absurd Religious Follies. The horrible crime of beard-shearing occurred due to a years-old dispute about a bishop's right to order shunning.

For me, this story is pretty much from another planet because I don't believe in:

• Pronouncements from bishops.
• Shunning.
• Beard-cutting as a grievous retribution on the unholy.
• The God of all things would worry about ordering us to grow just our chin hairs to ridiculous lengths.

Image: newsnet5.com

Top gaffes of the Democratic convention

For Democrats, it was a pretty well organized convention without too many socialistic promises made. So it was an improvement on the last big platform event, the State of the Union speech. The Dems embarrassed themselves in small ways, but not in big ways. (Much better than Obama's last big speech, the SOTU.)

• The "Government is the only thing we all belong too" video. This isn't a good sentiment when trust in government is low, as it is now. Obama campaign is distancing itself. See good critiques at HotAir and Reason.
• Nixing the stadium. This looks like over-reach, trying to fill a stadium again, and then canceling it for weather concerns. This is a problem with its roots in his 2008 acceptance speech. Just as well to bite the bullet this time and go back to a normal venue. No campaign should repeat the stadium thing.
• Floor vote for putting God and Jerusalem back in the platform. Poor optics on the part of the platform committee, poorly handled on the convention floor. They didn't send out enough memos or email, obviously, so the voice vote didn't go as it should. Many pundits/blogs thought this was the worst gaffe of the convention, but I don't think there will be much mileage out of a perfunctory mention of God and Jerusalem. They're just not the major issues in the campaign or important wedge issues. (By the way, what are the wedge issues?)
• Bill Clinton gave a great speech, but did you know he's a serial rapist? I'm seeing this charge frequently just in time for the DNC. (However, Ann Coulter was years ahead of the meme.) I'm following this rule for political decisions -- no disqualifications due to sexual misdeeds. The moral outrage is never applied consistently. People excuse and forgive on their side, but try to run those on other side out of government and out of town. I'm tired of the hypocrisy, and I don't want to narrow the choice of candidates to only those who are strictly faithful in their marriage vows. This pass doesn't extend to harassing or fooling around with minors. That's still verboten.
• I guess Biden disappointed those counting on him to gaffe.
• The Blaze found a delegate who said "Romney will destroy this country completely." If she were to meet him, she wants to kill him. Substitute 'Obama' for 'Romney' and you have a typical Tea Party interview or right-wing comment on a news blog. Yawn. Does this register on anyone's outrage meter anymore?
• Breitbart.com's pick for best and worst.

The Dems didn't even come close to crippling themselves, so this counts as a good convention. The Dems still have plenty of time to screw up, and the GOP often counts on this happening. By staying on message, the Dems are making the GOP work for a win this time instead of just handing it to them.

 Dem equivalent of Tea Party crazy

Image: theblaze.com

Short: Latinos' message to the Dems

The GOP tried to make an appeal to Latino voters at their convention, but it was definitively too little to make up for the years of immigrant-bashing and the months of one-upmanship on how to protect the border (the electrified fence, moat, and alligators).

That doesn't mean that the Democrats have Latino votes sewn up. Latinos vote at lower rates than other groups, and they are more socially conservative than other Dem-leaning groups. However, the Democrats have a lot of positions that Latinos strongly support, like allowing children who came into the country illegally to stay legally, work, and get educated. There's also support for college education such as scholarship aid. After reading a list of Democratic positions and programs that benefit Latinos, it's hard to think that many will vote Republican. Maybe not, but Jorge Ramos doesn't want Dems to take Latinos for granted. That should be a no-brainer for any politician--you don't want to ignore demographics.

Image: dailykos.com

Extras: Latinos could turn Texas Democratic by 2030, if (big if) current trends hold. My own thought--could Latinos make the Democratic party more centrist? I'm always hoping for that, so of course they can.

Oust Nancy Pelosi

I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi. This is what I've said before:

Her hand in the creation process of the stimulus and reviled health reform bills costs the Democratics a great deal of support ... [H]er egotism keeps her from stepping aside and giving the leadership to someone who could help Democrats rather than further blacken them.

Thinking about her, I realized something ironic. The GOP smears Obama with lies (he's radical, marxist, etc.), but Nancy Pelosi provides them with more than enough completely factual mud that they don't have to invent garbage to throw at her. Look at these headlines:

Republicans are the E. coli club.  (but she has a good point there)

Republican Jews are being exploited.

Todd Akin's views are doggie doo on GOP shoe.

Pelosi: I could have arrested Karl Rove, but we didn't.

Pass Health Reform so you can find out what's in it.

It's a terrible reflection on the House Dems that she is still their leader. Are the House Dems largely hacks? According to this Politico article, Pelosi draws substantial support from: California Dems, the progressive caucus, and women representatives.

She also has two other big advantages: she knows how to work the liberal money machine, and she's merciless to those who cross her. Fear and/or loyalty keep the House Dems in line and keep Pelosi in her leadership role.

So the House Dems won't depose her, nor is she moving on for the good of the party. This is another sign that Democrats can be the party of stupid. The most successful Democrat in the past 20 years, Bill Clinton, isn't the example Dems follow. Instead, it's Nancy Pelosi.

I hope the Dems don't regain the House, in this election or in any other election until they learn what it takes to become the majority and keep it. In other words, until they win on their merits. The last time they won, it was after 6 years of George Bush and his endless, expensive wars. If that's what it takes for Dems to win, I hope they keep losing. By the way, I feel differently about the Senate and the presidency, since there seem to be fewer hackish senators and candidates for president.

Pelosi with pearls and her biggest sponsor

Image: blogs.southflorida.com

My solemn vow: Next week, the Dems get it

I've been blasting the GOP pretty hard this week, though I did have a few complimentary words. I also found the worst troll, and he's a Hillary Democrat! Next week I hope to devote to silly Democratic foibles. Please check in.

Image: amazon.com

The myth of Obama switchers

Supposedly there are a lot of Obama voters who are going to vote for Romney this time. I'm dubious, so I researched. I found one piece of evidence supporting this meme, and much more contradicting it. It's actually been a fun search.

• Gallup did a poll and found 9% are switching from Obama to Romney. If the number is that high, why am I not seeing more signs of it? Maybe it's more of a swing state phenomenon, and I'm far from the swingset.

• In the Atlantic, people are faking being Obama switchers: Joseph (here), Annabellep and others are pretending to be Obama-switchers. Annabellep: "that's... why this independent will be voting for Mitt Romney, and supporting him with with every ounce of my lily-white being." Sorry, I just don't find that credible. Also this commenter left all of one message on the thread. I think she's a plant, and I'm not the only one with that suspicion.

• A dating site has the question "How many registered Democrats voted for Obama, but won't this election?" 2 switchers. Lots of snark. "You weren't even 18." "I did it in my mind."

• This Jewish Democrat won't be voting for Obama again. Supposedly there are more like him, but none of them left comments. Jewish Democratic switchers must be either apathetic or terribly private. The site is linked to Jewish Republican site that plans to contact Jews.

• Facebook. I will not vote for Obama in 2012: 7215 likes. I'm sorry I voted for Obama: 33 likes. I'm voting for Obama in 2012: 400K likes.

• Sodahead asks about Obama switchers. 1 out 6 is a switcher, which is a tiny sample, not an outpouring. "i'd rather vote for the devil himself...no wait he got elected didn't he." --probably not a switcher.

• A model asks other models if they intend to make the same mistake. She's sorry she made that mistake. Most say that Romney is worse, so yes, they'll be voting for Obama again. A couple say that they didn't vote for him in the first place. The best quote: "You need to write some new material... You've been saying the same thing now since January, 2009...  Just sayin'."  Maybe that convert didn't actually vote for Obama in 2008.

• One from the left. "So my fellow Progressives, my fellow Civil Libertarians and fellow Social Liberals, don’t preach to me about how Obama protects labor, women’s rights or isn’t ‘as bad’ as the alternative."

In case you think I cherry-picked my research, let me disclose that all of these references came from page 1 or 2 of a Google search. They were the most promising sites for finding switchers.

I think that a fair amount of the enthusiasm for Obama is gone, so there will be shorter lines at the polls. Some of those voters will stay home, a very few will vote for Romney, and some will say they're switching to cash in and appear in ads for Romney-associated superPACs. Cynical - yes. Scientific - not at all, unless Google searches are more scientific than I give them credit for.

"Currently there are no reviews for this product." 

Image: zazzle.com

Update 9/30/12. Check out all seven switchers at this well-funded site. Note the production values and the explanations for the switch. By the way, I found this site through paid advertisement on youtube. All that money, and just seven switchers--not exactly big results.